|
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.
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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)
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@...
|
|
|
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)
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@...
|
|
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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@...
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 requests, 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.
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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.
On Jun 7, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Dan Kohn < dan@...> wrote:
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
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.
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.
--
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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...
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.
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
|
|
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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...
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.
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
|
|
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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...
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.
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
|
|
|
Costa
The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor
Netdata. Had a sponsor stepped forward, Netdata would have been
invited to initiate the DD process for incubation, with Github issue
creation etc. Note that the project was too mature for sandbox.
After DD there would have been a vote. If this was not communicated
to you, then I apologise.
alexis
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 7:01 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
Alexis, thank you for the information.
So, you say that TOC members discussed about Netdata and decided it is not cloud native and should not be invited to CNCF.
Are there any meeting minutes about this?
Which TOC members were present?
Was this decision unanimous?
Is the standard procedure to silently make such decisions without letting the founders know and giving them the option to provide additional information that may help in the decision?
To my understanding Netdata is the definition of "Cloud Native". It is the only monitoring solution that does not require any centralization of metrics, provides 1s granularity as standard, supports unlimited metrics per node, provides meaningful presentation and visualization for all metrics, comes pre-configured with alarms that are attached automatically to all metrics and can be used immediately after installation with zero configuration on most setups. So, I am very curious to see a list of Cloud Native criteria Netdata did not meet.
Thank you!
|
|
|
+1, the TOC felt the same way when the voting happened. On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:18 PM Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...> wrote:
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 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
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
|
|
|
Matt,
Yes, indeed, we do have the Definition. The TOC worked on this along
with the layered stack (architecture) and landscape (which fits into
the stack). You are 100% right that there should be greater clarity
and consistency. Without this we get confusion and worse. So, the
CNCF TOC should regularly review *all* core technical content with
those criteria in mind. There was an Architecture WG for this, which
could be revived in some form. I think this could help in lots of
ways, including the arduous job of marketing CNCF.
alexis
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:59 PM Matthew 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
|
|
|
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...
On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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.
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
|
|
|
Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
No, my point is that what makes something sufficiently cloud-native to be on the landscape may not be totally obvious.
Roger are you saying this applies to Netdata too?
Because Netdata is not a virtual appliance...
|
|
|
Costa Tsaousis
Roger are you saying this applies to Netdata too?
Because Netdata is not a virtual appliance...
|
|
|
