Date   

CNCF TOC Meeting 7/2/2019 Agenda

Chris Aniszczyk
 

We will be meeting tomorrow:


We will cover an update on CNCF SIGs (app delivery), community/project backlog, meeting schedule updates and go over the archiving rkt proposal.

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Conference Transparency Report: KubeCon + CloudNativeCon EU 2019

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey all, just to let you know we published the conference transparency report for Barcelona: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/07/01/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe-2019-conference-transparency-report-another-record-breaking-cncf-event/

We will be doing the same for Shanghai within a month or so.

Anyways, we hope to see many of you in San Diego in November, the CFP closes July 12th: https://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/kubecon-cloudnativecon-north-america-2019/cfp/

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: new SIG

Frederick Kautz
 

I was a bit confused over all these different types of groups. We have special interest groups, work groups, user groups, technical steering committees, technical oversight committees, not to mention all of the projects within the CNCF and sister organization’s structure brought in through the LFN, LF, Edge, Automotive. While I am not new to the Open Source community, I am new to the CNCF’s organizational structure and find navigating the plethora of group types a bit confusing. 

In short, it would be good to have some description of the groups online that lays all this out declaratively and with minimal toil. :)

My initial thought when I heard this is being formed was that this is a ’telecom industry’ user group, similar to the linux user groups (LUG).

I am a bit surprised that it is defined as an 'end user group', especially when you consider that the TUG is probably 90% vendors at this time. I think this is ok now, as long as the Telecoms are not outshouted by vendors when they describe their needs.

My preference is to maximize collaboration. Let everyone in, let people collaborate, experiment with real code. Together we win because of the diversity of people and talent. The whole community can execute better than any individual company working in isolation.

On Jun 21, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Hi Erin, hi Frederick, 

I hope it goes without saying that I’m all for people coming together to collaborate! And there is precedent - for example the group of folks who got together as SAFE has now evolved into SIG-Security. So I don’t think anyone is against a group of people coming together around a common interest, and that group could certainly put together a proposal for a SIG that meets the general objectives of SIGs. (The initial list of proposed SIGs isn’t supposed to be exhaustive). 

But if this set of people are from the TUG already, I’m unclear what it is that they want to do that they can’t do in the TUG? The TUG is pretty new, so maybe there are some creases that need ironing out if the folks in it don’t feel that it’s currently effective and collaborative. Or is the problem that they want to include vendors in the group as well? Or some other line of communication that isn’t currently open?  

To reiterate, I am completely comfortable with anyone coming forward with a proposal to the TOC - I’d just encourage it to be clear about what problems it’s trying to address. 

Liz
On 21 Jun 2019, 21:39 +0100, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, wrote:
Hi Liz & Cheryl,
I think what we hope to accomplish from a SIG is a more open dialogue for users/developers to really come together and get work done.
I know there is some concerns over past performance but we believe in part that is due to the siloed nature of the industry. Being an advocate and champion of open source and seeing in its very nature to break down these barriers provides a perfect platform where we can make progress. It also gives a chance for more collaboration across groups that might not commonly interact if they are just members of the TUG.
I feel like at the minimum the members of the TUG whom wish to create a SIG at least are able to come forward to the TOC with a proposal. That would allow everyone to respond in the open their concerns & desires.
Fredrick, please respond if I have misinterpreted your wishes here.
Thanks,
Erin




On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 5:10 AM Cheryl Hung <chung@...> wrote:
Hi Frederick,

As Liz said, user groups don't fall under the TOC, and the Telecom and Financial Services groups have grown more or less organically.

Philosophically, end users find it easier to collaborate when discussions aren't open to vendors. This means that the User Groups are not entirely public; the mailing list and meetings are closed, and signing up requires a company email address.

In terms of expectations, the SIGs own specific areas and projects. User groups may produce code, but can also specify requirements which may be implemented in collaboration with different SIGs, projects and domain experts over time. For example, the Financial Services User Group is reaching out to financial regulators and auditors to provide training materials.

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers,
Cheryl



On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:44 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Actually copying Cheryl this time
On 18 Jun 2019, 22:41 +0200, Liz Rice <liz@...>, wrote:
Hi Erin! My first question would be what the group wants to achieve, and what it is about being a SIG that would help them achieve those goals? 

Hello Frederick! I think the main difference is that CNCF SIGs fall under the stewardship of the TOC whereas end user groups are outside of that. There is information about TOC SIGs here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/master/sigs and I’m copying in Cheryl to answer about user groups (on the assumption that end user groups ~= user groups) 

Liz
On 18 Jun 2019, 19:44 +0200, Amye Scavarda <ascavarda@...>, wrote:
Frederick! Nice to see you!
To answer your question, see:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/cncf-sigs.md
This outlines the overall goals. While it doesn't directly address
user groups, it does outline what the responsibility of a special
interest group is.
-- amye


On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 AM Frederick Kautz <frederick@...> wrote:

I'm relatively new to the organizational structure of the CNCF in regards to user groups vs Sig's. Is someone able to point me to some documentation about the difference between a user group and special interest group?

I wasn't able to find documentation on the definition of a user group.

Closest I could find in the definition was this:

https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3193

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 08:42 Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:

Hi TOC,
I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead.
What are everyone's thoughts around this?
Erin


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...





--
Amye Scavarda | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...





--
Director of Ecosystem, Cloud Native Computing Foundation


--
Erin A. Boyd
Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat



Re: new SIG

Liz Rice
 

Hi Erin, hi Frederick, 

I hope it goes without saying that I’m all for people coming together to collaborate! And there is precedent - for example the group of folks who got together as SAFE has now evolved into SIG-Security. So I don’t think anyone is against a group of people coming together around a common interest, and that group could certainly put together a proposal for a SIG that meets the general objectives of SIGs. (The initial list of proposed SIGs isn’t supposed to be exhaustive). 

But if this set of people are from the TUG already, I’m unclear what it is that they want to do that they can’t do in the TUG? The TUG is pretty new, so maybe there are some creases that need ironing out if the folks in it don’t feel that it’s currently effective and collaborative. Or is the problem that they want to include vendors in the group as well? Or some other line of communication that isn’t currently open?  

To reiterate, I am completely comfortable with anyone coming forward with a proposal to the TOC - I’d just encourage it to be clear about what problems it’s trying to address. 

Liz
On 21 Jun 2019, 21:39 +0100, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...>, wrote:

Hi Liz & Cheryl,
I think what we hope to accomplish from a SIG is a more open dialogue for users/developers to really come together and get work done.
I know there is some concerns over past performance but we believe in part that is due to the siloed nature of the industry. Being an advocate and champion of open source and seeing in its very nature to break down these barriers provides a perfect platform where we can make progress. It also gives a chance for more collaboration across groups that might not commonly interact if they are just members of the TUG.
I feel like at the minimum the members of the TUG whom wish to create a SIG at least are able to come forward to the TOC with a proposal. That would allow everyone to respond in the open their concerns & desires.
Fredrick, please respond if I have misinterpreted your wishes here.
Thanks,
Erin




On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 5:10 AM Cheryl Hung <chung@...> wrote:
Hi Frederick,

As Liz said, user groups don't fall under the TOC, and the Telecom and Financial Services groups have grown more or less organically.

Philosophically, end users find it easier to collaborate when discussions aren't open to vendors. This means that the User Groups are not entirely public; the mailing list and meetings are closed, and signing up requires a company email address.

In terms of expectations, the SIGs own specific areas and projects. User groups may produce code, but can also specify requirements which may be implemented in collaboration with different SIGs, projects and domain experts over time. For example, the Financial Services User Group is reaching out to financial regulators and auditors to provide training materials.

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers,
Cheryl



On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:44 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Actually copying Cheryl this time
On 18 Jun 2019, 22:41 +0200, Liz Rice <liz@...>, wrote:
Hi Erin! My first question would be what the group wants to achieve, and what it is about being a SIG that would help them achieve those goals? 

Hello Frederick! I think the main difference is that CNCF SIGs fall under the stewardship of the TOC whereas end user groups are outside of that. There is information about TOC SIGs here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/master/sigs and I’m copying in Cheryl to answer about user groups (on the assumption that end user groups ~= user groups) 

Liz
On 18 Jun 2019, 19:44 +0200, Amye Scavarda <ascavarda@...>, wrote:
Frederick! Nice to see you!
To answer your question, see:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/cncf-sigs.md
This outlines the overall goals. While it doesn't directly address
user groups, it does outline what the responsibility of a special
interest group is.
-- amye


On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 AM Frederick Kautz <frederick@...> wrote:

I'm relatively new to the organizational structure of the CNCF in regards to user groups vs Sig's. Is someone able to point me to some documentation about the difference between a user group and special interest group?

I wasn't able to find documentation on the definition of a user group.

Closest I could find in the definition was this:

https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3193

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 08:42 Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:

Hi TOC,
I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead.
What are everyone's thoughts around this?
Erin


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...





--
Amye Scavarda | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...





--
Director of Ecosystem, Cloud Native Computing Foundation


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   


Re: new SIG

Erin Boyd
 

Hi Liz & Cheryl,
I think what we hope to accomplish from a SIG is a more open dialogue for users/developers to really come together and get work done.
I know there is some concerns over past performance but we believe in part that is due to the siloed nature of the industry. Being an advocate and champion of open source and seeing in its very nature to break down these barriers provides a perfect platform where we can make progress. It also gives a chance for more collaboration across groups that might not commonly interact if they are just members of the TUG.
I feel like at the minimum the members of the TUG whom wish to create a SIG at least are able to come forward to the TOC with a proposal. That would allow everyone to respond in the open their concerns & desires.
Fredrick, please respond if I have misinterpreted your wishes here.
Thanks,
Erin




On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 5:10 AM Cheryl Hung <chung@...> wrote:
Hi Frederick,

As Liz said, user groups don't fall under the TOC, and the Telecom and Financial Services groups have grown more or less organically.

Philosophically, end users find it easier to collaborate when discussions aren't open to vendors. This means that the User Groups are not entirely public; the mailing list and meetings are closed, and signing up requires a company email address.

In terms of expectations, the SIGs own specific areas and projects. User groups may produce code, but can also specify requirements which may be implemented in collaboration with different SIGs, projects and domain experts over time. For example, the Financial Services User Group is reaching out to financial regulators and auditors to provide training materials.

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers,
Cheryl



On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:44 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Actually copying Cheryl this time
On 18 Jun 2019, 22:41 +0200, Liz Rice <liz@...>, wrote:
Hi Erin! My first question would be what the group wants to achieve, and what it is about being a SIG that would help them achieve those goals? 

Hello Frederick! I think the main difference is that CNCF SIGs fall under the stewardship of the TOC whereas end user groups are outside of that. There is information about TOC SIGs here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/master/sigs and I’m copying in Cheryl to answer about user groups (on the assumption that end user groups ~= user groups) 

Liz
On 18 Jun 2019, 19:44 +0200, Amye Scavarda <ascavarda@...>, wrote:
Frederick! Nice to see you!
To answer your question, see:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/cncf-sigs.md
This outlines the overall goals. While it doesn't directly address
user groups, it does outline what the responsibility of a special
interest group is.
-- amye


On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 AM Frederick Kautz <frederick@...> wrote:

I'm relatively new to the organizational structure of the CNCF in regards to user groups vs Sig's. Is someone able to point me to some documentation about the difference between a user group and special interest group?

I wasn't able to find documentation on the definition of a user group.

Closest I could find in the definition was this:

https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3193

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 08:42 Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:

Hi TOC,
I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead.
What are everyone's thoughts around this?
Erin


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...





--
Amye Scavarda | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...





--
Director of Ecosystem, Cloud Native Computing Foundation


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   


Re: new SIG

Cheryl Hung <chung@...>
 

Hi Frederick,

As Liz said, user groups don't fall under the TOC, and the Telecom and Financial Services groups have grown more or less organically.

Philosophically, end users find it easier to collaborate when discussions aren't open to vendors. This means that the User Groups are not entirely public; the mailing list and meetings are closed, and signing up requires a company email address.

In terms of expectations, the SIGs own specific areas and projects. User groups may produce code, but can also specify requirements which may be implemented in collaboration with different SIGs, projects and domain experts over time. For example, the Financial Services User Group is reaching out to financial regulators and auditors to provide training materials.

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers,
Cheryl



On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:44 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Actually copying Cheryl this time
On 18 Jun 2019, 22:41 +0200, Liz Rice <liz@...>, wrote:
Hi Erin! My first question would be what the group wants to achieve, and what it is about being a SIG that would help them achieve those goals? 

Hello Frederick! I think the main difference is that CNCF SIGs fall under the stewardship of the TOC whereas end user groups are outside of that. There is information about TOC SIGs here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/master/sigs and I’m copying in Cheryl to answer about user groups (on the assumption that end user groups ~= user groups) 

Liz
On 18 Jun 2019, 19:44 +0200, Amye Scavarda <ascavarda@...>, wrote:
Frederick! Nice to see you!
To answer your question, see:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/cncf-sigs.md
This outlines the overall goals. While it doesn't directly address
user groups, it does outline what the responsibility of a special
interest group is.
-- amye


On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 AM Frederick Kautz <frederick@...> wrote:

I'm relatively new to the organizational structure of the CNCF in regards to user groups vs Sig's. Is someone able to point me to some documentation about the difference between a user group and special interest group?

I wasn't able to find documentation on the definition of a user group.

Closest I could find in the definition was this:

https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3193

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 08:42 Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:

Hi TOC,
I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead.
What are everyone's thoughts around this?
Erin


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...





--
Amye Scavarda | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...





--
Director of Ecosystem, Cloud Native Computing Foundation


Re: OpenTelemetry contacts

Chris Aniszczyk
 

I'll do it, I've cc'd some of the maintainers here for awareness and will do a separate intro.


On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 3:18 AM Dave Zolotusky via Lists.Cncf.Io <dzolo=spotify.com@...> wrote:
Hi TOC,
   Drew, from our Reliability and Observability team, just reached out to me asking for some contacts on the OpenTelemetry project. He said that they are looking to figure out how we can get more involved in the project, and that they filled out the Get Involved Google Form, but haven't heard back.

Can anyone on this list connect us with someone from OpenTelemetry? I'd like to set up a conversation between our team and someone from that project so that we can find a meaningful way for the team to get involved.

thanks,
~Dave
Spotify - Infrastructure & Operations



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


OpenTelemetry contacts

Dave Zolotusky
 

Hi TOC,
   Drew, from our Reliability and Observability team, just reached out to me asking for some contacts on the OpenTelemetry project. He said that they are looking to figure out how we can get more involved in the project, and that they filled out the Get Involved Google Form, but haven't heard back.

Can anyone on this list connect us with someone from OpenTelemetry? I'd like to set up a conversation between our team and someone from that project so that we can find a meaningful way for the team to get involved.

thanks,
~Dave
Spotify - Infrastructure & Operations


Re: new SIG

Liz Rice
 

Actually copying Cheryl this time
On 18 Jun 2019, 22:41 +0200, Liz Rice <liz@...>, wrote:

Hi Erin! My first question would be what the group wants to achieve, and what it is about being a SIG that would help them achieve those goals? 

Hello Frederick! I think the main difference is that CNCF SIGs fall under the stewardship of the TOC whereas end user groups are outside of that. There is information about TOC SIGs here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/master/sigs and I’m copying in Cheryl to answer about user groups (on the assumption that end user groups ~= user groups) 

Liz
On 18 Jun 2019, 19:44 +0200, Amye Scavarda <ascavarda@...>, wrote:
Frederick! Nice to see you!
To answer your question, see:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/cncf-sigs.md
This outlines the overall goals. While it doesn't directly address
user groups, it does outline what the responsibility of a special
interest group is.
-- amye


On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 AM Frederick Kautz <frederick@...> wrote:

I'm relatively new to the organizational structure of the CNCF in regards to user groups vs Sig's. Is someone able to point me to some documentation about the difference between a user group and special interest group?

I wasn't able to find documentation on the definition of a user group.

Closest I could find in the definition was this:

https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3193

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 08:42 Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:

Hi TOC,
I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead.
What are everyone's thoughts around this?
Erin


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...





--
Amye Scavarda | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...




Re: new SIG

Liz Rice
 

Hi Erin! My first question would be what the group wants to achieve, and what it is about being a SIG that would help them achieve those goals? 

Hello Frederick! I think the main difference is that CNCF SIGs fall under the stewardship of the TOC whereas end user groups are outside of that. There is information about TOC SIGs here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/master/sigs and I’m copying in Cheryl to answer about user groups (on the assumption that end user groups ~= user groups) 

Liz
On 18 Jun 2019, 19:44 +0200, Amye Scavarda <ascavarda@...>, wrote:

Frederick! Nice to see you!
To answer your question, see:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/cncf-sigs.md
This outlines the overall goals. While it doesn't directly address
user groups, it does outline what the responsibility of a special
interest group is.
-- amye


On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 AM Frederick Kautz <frederick@...> wrote:

I'm relatively new to the organizational structure of the CNCF in regards to user groups vs Sig's. Is someone able to point me to some documentation about the difference between a user group and special interest group?

I wasn't able to find documentation on the definition of a user group.

Closest I could find in the definition was this:

https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3193

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 08:42 Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:

Hi TOC,
I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead.
What are everyone's thoughts around this?
Erin


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...





--
Amye Scavarda | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...




Re: new SIG

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Frederick! Nice to see you!
To answer your question, see:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/cncf-sigs.md
This outlines the overall goals. While it doesn't directly address
user groups, it does outline what the responsibility of a special
interest group is.
-- amye

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:32 AM Frederick Kautz <frederick@...> wrote:

I'm relatively new to the organizational structure of the CNCF in regards to user groups vs Sig's. Is someone able to point me to some documentation about the difference between a user group and special interest group?

I wasn't able to find documentation on the definition of a user group.

Closest I could find in the definition was this:

https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3193

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 08:42 Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:

Hi TOC,
I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead.
What are everyone's thoughts around this?
Erin


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...
--
Amye Scavarda | Program Manager, CNCF | amye@...


Re: new SIG

Frederick Kautz
 

I'm relatively new to the organizational structure of the CNCF in regards to user groups vs Sig's. Is someone able to point me to some documentation about the difference between a user group and special interest group?

I wasn't able to find documentation on the definition of a user group.

Closest I could find in the definition was this:


On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 08:42 Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
Hi TOC,
I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead.
What are everyone's thoughts around this?
Erin


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   


new SIG

Erin Boyd
 

Hi TOC,
I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead.
What are everyone's thoughts around this?
Erin


--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   


CNCF Openness Guidelines

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 


CNCF is an open source technical community where technical project collaboration, discussions, and decision-making should be open and transparent. Please see our charter, particularly section 3(b), for more background on CNCF values.

Design, discussions, and decision-making around technical topics of CNCF-hosted projects should occur in public view such as via GitHub issues and pull requ
ests, public Google Docs, public mailing lists, conference calls at which anyone may participate (and which are normally published afterward on YouTube), and in-person meetings at KubeCon + CloudNativeCon and similar events. This includes all SIGs, working groups, and other forums where portions of the community meet.

This is particularly important in light of the Linux Foundation’s (revised) Statement on the Huawei Entity List Ruling. (Note that CNCF is part of the Linux Foundation.) Our technical community operates openly and in public which affords us exceptions to regulations other closed organizations may have to address differently. This open, public technical collaboration is also critical to our community’s success as we navigate competitive and shifting industry dynamics. Openness is particularly important in any discussions involving encryption since encryption technologies can be subject to Export Administration Regulations.

If you have questions or concerns about these guidelines, I encourage you to discuss it with your company’s legal counsel and/or to email me and Chris Aniszczyk at openness@.... Thank you.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com


Agenda for TOC Meeting 6/11/2019

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey all, we have our TOC project presentation meeting tomorrow:


We are scheduled to hear from the Flux community.

Also, Amye will be leading the project presentation call.

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: netdata shitshow

Trilok Geer
 

To be honest, this is a way better informed spam without results.

I do not see an agreement being made on what is being achieved in this discussion. 

What do we want to stop? A gamified starred project?

An abuse of cncf PRs? Where there is no monitoring?

A lawful entity who keeps an watch of such events?

Let me give an example

I build a project, and manage to pay an entity to show dumb activity with stars, how is it possible for any software to determine the purpose or the truthfulness of the activity. 

If someone, apart from me, can pose some real questions, than speculation of mediocrity "I agree", I'd definitely want to build a system, which can prove credibility if someone agrees on a metric of credibility.

To be honest the question of credibility is across foundations, projects, entities and members... 

If someone has given enough thought over this, please share where help is needed, I personally don't feel quite right on this thread for throwing suggestions without understanding the problem in right way. 

Thanks, 
Trilok 

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 7:22 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Dan, thanks for handling this in a polite way.

I’ve witnessed and heard about worse moves than this to promote projects and products. The cloud native space is pretty crowded and people are looking for an edge. Some will try to game the system. Some will push the limit in marketing. At the least, we can be polite and first approach people in a kind manner. I prefer to start from Hanlon’s razor.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Jun 7, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:

Yes, it requires 300 stars to get added, among other criteria. https://github.com/cncf/landscape#new-entries

I'd welcome ideas for additional requirements.

Relatedly, netdata merged my PR: https://github.com/netdata/netdata/pull/6234
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com


On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 7:58 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
I wasn't clear - I was thinking about the criteria the CNCF has for adding projects to the landscape (where one of the criteria is some number of github stars, if I recall correctly).
On 7 Jun 2019, 12:01 +0100, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...>, wrote:
Liz,

Isn't there a challenge that folks who may want to "game" will not use the new system as it does not show the "inflated" numbers that they currently use? 

Thanks,
Dims

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 3:33 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Maybe we (or GitHub) could build some kind of “realstars” count which only counts stars from folks who have also done some number of other activities (raising PRs or issues, making comments, maybe even just filling in their profile...)
On 7 Jun 2019, 01:00 +0100, Shannon Williams <shannon@...>, wrote:

Perfect Dan, thanks.

 

Best Regards,

 

Shannon Williams

Rancher Labs

shannon@...

+1 650-521-6902

 

From: Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 2:46 PM
To: Matthew Farina <matt@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>; Shannon Williams <shannon@...>; david.andrew.mckay@...; Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

I created this PR: https://github.com/netdata/netdata/pull/6234

--

Dan Kohn <dan@...>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io

+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

 
 

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:58 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:

While I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if this violates the trademark rules. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/ states:

 

Do not use a logo of The Linux Foundation on posters, brochures, signs, websites, or other marketing materials to promote your events, products or services without written permission from The Linux Foundation.

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 
 



On Jun 6, 2019, at 4:51 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

 

The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected".  This is an
example of "lying by omission".  It is not OK.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:49 PM Shannon Williams <
shannon@...> wrote:


+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo.  @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?





From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of David McKay via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow



While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.



IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.



A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:



https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304734







On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:

It's technically not wrong I guess....



On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."

https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md






The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


 




--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


Re: netdata shitshow

Costa Tsaousis
 

Alexis, thank you for the insights.

> "Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to see it as cloud native."

> "The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor Netdata. ... Had a sponsor stepped forward, Netdata would have been invited ..."

I understand there was no evaluation based on some criteria.
Netdata simply did not have a "friend" among the TOC members.

> "If this was not communicated to you, then I apologise."

It was not.
I asked about next steps here and got the response that I need to find 2 TOC sponsors, which I never ever tried.

This is exactly what I meant when I said that CNCF did not reject Netdata, but I rejected the CNCF process.

Anyway, there is now a public CNCF thread with subject "netdata shitshow", which I hope you will agree is totally unfair for Netdata and its hard working team.

Thank you.


Re: netdata shitshow

Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
 

+1 non-binding. Our company has deployed harbor in the prod environment, the number of kubernetes nodes is 200+, the number of applications is 400+, the number of the image is 4000+, and the cluster size is growing rapidly.
github.com



Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:48 PM
To: Matt Farina; Roger Klorese
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow
 

Perhaps you’re thinking further kubernetes integrations which was in the slide deck for the TOC presentation. That preso was on 2018-06-19 while the links I provided for an early tagged release showing containerized builds is from 2016-12-06.

 

Mark

 

From: Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:37 PM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>, Mark Peek <markpeek@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

Wasn't Harbor originally delivered ONLY as a virtual appliance, with the containers coming later? The discussion of whether to accept it as a CNCF project received pushback at the time based specifically on that fact.

 

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:18 PM
To: Matt Farina; Roger Klorese
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

Roger,

I get your point but disagree with your example.

 

Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.

 

Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0

 

 

Mark

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@...>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@..." <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Alexis,

 

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

 

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 

 

On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

 

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects.  If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:


When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 


Re: netdata shitshow

Mark Peek
 

Perhaps you’re thinking further kubernetes integrations which was in the slide deck for the TOC presentation. That preso was on 2018-06-19 while the links I provided for an early tagged release showing containerized builds is from 2016-12-06.

 

Mark

 

From: Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:37 PM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>, Mark Peek <markpeek@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

Wasn't Harbor originally delivered ONLY as a virtual appliance, with the containers coming later? The discussion of whether to accept it as a CNCF project received pushback at the time based specifically on that fact.

 

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:18 PM
To: Matt Farina; Roger Klorese
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

Roger,

I get your point but disagree with your example.

 

Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.

 

Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0

 

 

Mark

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@...>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@..." <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Alexis,

 

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

 

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 

 

On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

 

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects.  If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:


When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 


Re: netdata shitshow

Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
 

Wasn't Harbor originally delivered ONLY as a virtual appliance, with the containers coming later? The discussion of whether to accept it as a CNCF project received pushback at the time based specifically on that fact.

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:18 PM
To: Matt Farina; Roger Klorese
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow
 

Roger,

I get your point but disagree with your example.

 

Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.

 

Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0

 

 

Mark

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@...>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@..." <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Alexis,

 

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

 

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 



On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

 

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects.  If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:


When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com