Date   

Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Ayrat Khayretdinov <akhayretdinov@...>
 

+1 non-binding


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018, 09:27 Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@... wrote:
The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Sam Lambert <samlambert@...>
 

+1 binding.

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 2:27 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Camille Fournier
 

+1 binding

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 2:27 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Quinton Hoole
 

Perfect!  Thanks Justin.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...>
Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 13:46
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Chris Short <chris@...>, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Thanks Quinton for the suggestion. I added some of my feedback here. https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163#issuecomment-437167354

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:56 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Any and all constructive feedback on project proposals from the community is definitely encouraged.

Justin, may I suggest that you add your specific questions or concerns to the PR at https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163
That way the project team and other users of Harbor can respond to specifics.

Regards

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # C2-27

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Chris Short via Lists.Cncf.Io" <chris=chrisshort.net@...>
Reply-To: "chris@..." <chris@...>
Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 07:28
To: Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

I genuinely appreciate Justin's feedback on these votes. If I'm not intimately familiar with the project/product I often wait for Justin's input prior to voting. I wholeheartedly encourage Justin's input on these votes. They bring up bigger points and provide levity to the process. Any effort to not have this feedback on the record should be discouraged, in my opinion.

Chris Short


On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:37 AM Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
I'm well aware of the adoption and uses of Harbor. My company runs it and my criticisms come from first hand experience as a user and operator of the software.
I'm happy to move my feedback out of this thread so voting can continue without any extra noise.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:27 PM Haining Zhang <hi@...> wrote:


(in reponse to Justin's comment)

Though Harbor may not be the only solution to a private registry, thousands of users choose Harbor to manage container images in their production environments. The user base includes many large internet companies and enterprises in the world. In some environments, Harbor manages tens of thousands of images and supports thousands of container hosts. Typical use cases of Harbor include RBAC on images, image replication across geographically distributed locations, vulnerability scanning etc.

Haining


On 11/7/18 3:21 AM, Justin Garrison wrote:
-1 nb

I understand the need for container registries in a containerized environment, but I'm not sold Harbor being the solution for most people's needs when they need to run their own registry.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:56 AM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...>
 

Thanks Quinton for the suggestion. I added some of my feedback here. https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163#issuecomment-437167354

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:56 AM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Any and all constructive feedback on project proposals from the community is definitely encouraged.

Justin, may I suggest that you add your specific questions or concerns to the PR at https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163
That way the project team and other users of Harbor can respond to specifics.

Regards

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # C2-27

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Chris Short via Lists.Cncf.Io" <chris=chrisshort.net@...>
Reply-To: "chris@..." <chris@...>
Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 07:28
To: Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

I genuinely appreciate Justin's feedback on these votes. If I'm not intimately familiar with the project/product I often wait for Justin's input prior to voting. I wholeheartedly encourage Justin's input on these votes. They bring up bigger points and provide levity to the process. Any effort to not have this feedback on the record should be discouraged, in my opinion.

Chris Short


On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:37 AM Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
I'm well aware of the adoption and uses of Harbor. My company runs it and my criticisms come from first hand experience as a user and operator of the software.
I'm happy to move my feedback out of this thread so voting can continue without any extra noise.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:27 PM Haining Zhang <hi@...> wrote:


(in reponse to Justin's comment)

Though Harbor may not be the only solution to a private registry, thousands of users choose Harbor to manage container images in their production environments. The user base includes many large internet companies and enterprises in the world. In some environments, Harbor manages tens of thousands of images and supports thousands of container hosts. Typical use cases of Harbor include RBAC on images, image replication across geographically distributed locations, vulnerability scanning etc.

Haining


On 11/7/18 3:21 AM, Justin Garrison wrote:
-1 nb

I understand the need for container registries in a containerized environment, but I'm not sold Harbor being the solution for most people's needs when they need to run their own registry.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:56 AM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Quinton Hoole
 

Any and all constructive feedback on project proposals from the community is definitely encouraged.

Justin, may I suggest that you add your specific questions or concerns to the PR at https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163
That way the project team and other users of Harbor can respond to specifics.

Regards

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # C2-27

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Chris Short via Lists.Cncf.Io" <chris=chrisshort.net@...>
Reply-To: "chris@..." <chris@...>
Date: Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 07:28
To: Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

I genuinely appreciate Justin's feedback on these votes. If I'm not intimately familiar with the project/product I often wait for Justin's input prior to voting. I wholeheartedly encourage Justin's input on these votes. They bring up bigger points and provide levity to the process. Any effort to not have this feedback on the record should be discouraged, in my opinion.

Chris Short


On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:37 AM Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
I'm well aware of the adoption and uses of Harbor. My company runs it and my criticisms come from first hand experience as a user and operator of the software.
I'm happy to move my feedback out of this thread so voting can continue without any extra noise.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:27 PM Haining Zhang <hi@...> wrote:


(in reponse to Justin's comment)

Though Harbor may not be the only solution to a private registry, thousands of users choose Harbor to manage container images in their production environments. The user base includes many large internet companies and enterprises in the world. In some environments, Harbor manages tens of thousands of images and supports thousands of container hosts. Typical use cases of Harbor include RBAC on images, image replication across geographically distributed locations, vulnerability scanning etc.

Haining


On 11/7/18 3:21 AM, Justin Garrison wrote:
-1 nb

I understand the need for container registries in a containerized environment, but I'm not sold Harbor being the solution for most people's needs when they need to run their own registry.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:56 AM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Camille Fournier
 

I'm interested in hearing more before I vote.


On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:29 PM Chris Short via Lists.Cncf.Io <chris=chrisshort.net@...> wrote:
I genuinely appreciate Justin's feedback on these votes. If I'm not intimately familiar with the project/product I often wait for Justin's input prior to voting. I wholeheartedly encourage Justin's input on these votes. They bring up bigger points and provide levity to the process. Any effort to not have this feedback on the record should be discouraged, in my opinion.

Chris Short


On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:37 AM Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
I'm well aware of the adoption and uses of Harbor. My company runs it and my criticisms come from first hand experience as a user and operator of the software.
I'm happy to move my feedback out of this thread so voting can continue without any extra noise.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:27 PM Haining Zhang <hi@...> wrote:


(in reponse to Justin's comment)

Though Harbor may not be the only solution to a private registry, thousands of users choose Harbor to manage container images in their production environments. The user base includes many large internet companies and enterprises in the world. In some environments, Harbor manages tens of thousands of images and supports thousands of container hosts. Typical use cases of Harbor include RBAC on images, image replication across geographically distributed locations, vulnerability scanning etc.

Haining


On 11/7/18 3:21 AM, Justin Garrison wrote:
-1 nb

I understand the need for container registries in a containerized environment, but I'm not sold Harbor being the solution for most people's needs when they need to run their own registry.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:56 AM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Chris Short
 

I genuinely appreciate Justin's feedback on these votes. If I'm not intimately familiar with the project/product I often wait for Justin's input prior to voting. I wholeheartedly encourage Justin's input on these votes. They bring up bigger points and provide levity to the process. Any effort to not have this feedback on the record should be discouraged, in my opinion.

Chris Short


On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:37 AM Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
I'm well aware of the adoption and uses of Harbor. My company runs it and my criticisms come from first hand experience as a user and operator of the software.
I'm happy to move my feedback out of this thread so voting can continue without any extra noise.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:27 PM Haining Zhang <hi@...> wrote:


(in reponse to Justin's comment)

Though Harbor may not be the only solution to a private registry, thousands of users choose Harbor to manage container images in their production environments. The user base includes many large internet companies and enterprises in the world. In some environments, Harbor manages tens of thousands of images and supports thousands of container hosts. Typical use cases of Harbor include RBAC on images, image replication across geographically distributed locations, vulnerability scanning etc.

Haining


On 11/7/18 3:21 AM, Justin Garrison wrote:
-1 nb

I understand the need for container registries in a containerized environment, but I'm not sold Harbor being the solution for most people's needs when they need to run their own registry.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:56 AM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Zhang Lei
 

+1 nb


On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:37 AM Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
I'm well aware of the adoption and uses of Harbor. My company runs it and my criticisms come from first hand experience as a user and operator of the software.
I'm happy to move my feedback out of this thread so voting can continue without any extra noise.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:27 PM Haining Zhang <hi@...> wrote:


(in reponse to Justin's comment)

Though Harbor may not be the only solution to a private registry, thousands of users choose Harbor to manage container images in their production environments. The user base includes many large internet companies and enterprises in the world. In some environments, Harbor manages tens of thousands of images and supports thousands of container hosts. Typical use cases of Harbor include RBAC on images, image replication across geographically distributed locations, vulnerability scanning etc.

Haining


On 11/7/18 3:21 AM, Justin Garrison wrote:
-1 nb

I understand the need for container registries in a containerized environment, but I'm not sold Harbor being the solution for most people's needs when they need to run their own registry.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:56 AM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...>
 

I'm well aware of the adoption and uses of Harbor. My company runs it and my criticisms come from first hand experience as a user and operator of the software.
I'm happy to move my feedback out of this thread so voting can continue without any extra noise.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:27 PM Haining Zhang <hi@...> wrote:


(in reponse to Justin's comment)

Though Harbor may not be the only solution to a private registry, thousands of users choose Harbor to manage container images in their production environments. The user base includes many large internet companies and enterprises in the world. In some environments, Harbor manages tens of thousands of images and supports thousands of container hosts. Typical use cases of Harbor include RBAC on images, image replication across geographically distributed locations, vulnerability scanning etc.

Haining


On 11/7/18 3:21 AM, Justin Garrison wrote:
-1 nb

I understand the need for container registries in a containerized environment, but I'm not sold Harbor being the solution for most people's needs when they need to run their own registry.

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:56 AM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Nov 6, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

Chris Short
 

The solution here provenly isn't a time limit but a more rigorous sandbox review process. If it looks apparent that a project will incubate quickly (has the backing of a known member and/or is a strategic priority, for example) it might be best to skip the sandbox and go straight to incubation. Additionally, CNCF should be very diliberate about the sandbox. Whether wanted or not sandbox helps project noterity.

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 03:29 Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
I'm not sure I see why a minimum period of time is necessary. There's a set of criteria that a project need to meet in order to cross into Incubation; if it meets those criteria quickly then why artificially hold it back? 

You could say that the very nature of going to Sandbox gives a project extra exposure, through which it gains more adoption, and therefore makes it easier to meet the criteria - but then isn't that acceleration a good thing? Assuming the TOC is only accepting projects that meet the mission and the criteria of the various stages, why would it be a bad thing to help a good project reach the next level of maturity and readiness?

If there is some sense in which this is giving unfair advantage to Sandbox projects over external projects, why not turn the question around and wonder why a new project wanting to join CNCF would aim straight for Incubation if it's not ready - why not apply for Sandbox stage? 


On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:44 AM Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
If Sandbox is for early-stage projects I find hard that after 3 months is not longer in that stage (maybe that term needs to be corrected?) . If a project joined Sandbox and after 3 months is ready for Incubation, should just go to Incubation from the beginning and not hit Sandbox.

On this diagram would be good to clarify the scope and intention of "annual review": 


I think that a project that joined Sandbox must be there a minimum of time, liked or not, joining Sandbox gets a lot of attention and external marketing (despite CNCF is clear about restricted exposure of Sandbox projects). I don't see the benefit of going from Sandbox to Incubation in a really-short period of time. 

About my previous comment of "difficulty" to get into Incubation, I used the wrong words; the unexpected short period of time gave me the wrong perception.

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 7:43 PM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
I don't think it's a loophole. It appears to be by design. The Sandbox guidelines (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) clearly state that one of the goals of Sandbox is to: 

"Encourage public visibility of experiments or other early work that can add value to the CNCF mission and build the ingredients of a successful Incubation level project."

Additionally the guidelines state that the Sandbox is for early stage projects, defining early stage as:

"Any project that realistically intends to join CNCF Incubation in future and wishes to lay the foundations for that"

Projects entering Sandbox might have different gaps they need to fill before they can move to Incubation. Some might have more gaps, some less, and thus projects will exit at different speeds. 

Michael

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:18 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
Yes, that’s how I read Eduardo’s question as well - one of ensuring a loophole doesn’t exist. 

- Lee

Sent from my mobile

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:44:43 PM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements
 
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:59 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
To add to what Chris said, and responding directly to:

"since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  “

The above is not the intention at all.  Is there any reason you believe that getting to incubation via sandbox is more difficult?  If so, we might need to clarify our communication around that.

I think Eduardo's point is that it looks like getting to incubation through sandbox is easier than just entering directly via incubation.

I don't think that should be the case.
 

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 15:10
To: Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements

We decided not to put any timelines on anything in the beginning as each project is going to be different at its maturity stage. There are projects that may have decent adoption but low maintainer diversity and so on. The maturity levels are outlined pretty well here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/graduation_criteria.adoc

The particular line "since these metrics can vary significantly depending on the type, scope and size of a project, the TOC has final judgement over the level of activity that is adequate to meet these criteria" was put in place to give the TOC some flexibility in decisions making as they are the final arbiter of maturity level decisions.

IMHO I don't think having a minimum time to bake is a bad idea but that is going to be different for each project as some are quicker to mature than others.

You're welcome to propose improvements to the sandbox process and discuss it in a PR: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:25 PM Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
Hi, 

Why Sandbox projects don't have a minimum time of requirement before to try to move to incubation ? I see that Harbor joined as a Sandbox project on July 31 and just after 3 months moving forward to incubation ? 

To be clear, this is not something against Harbor, but I see a potential "gray area" since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  

comments ?

--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 



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



--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 


--


Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

+1 NB
-Doug


cncf-toc@... wrote on 11/07/2018 01:06:21 AM:
> From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk
> <caniszczyk@...>
> Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:27 PM
> To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
> Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

>  
> The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation
> maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://
> github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

>
> They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the
> community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/
> 1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

>  
> Document that it is being used successfully in production by at
> least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are
> of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/
> blob/master/ADOPTERS.md
>
> Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/
> goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md
>
> Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the
> policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/
> goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md
>
> Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:
>
> Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
> Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
> Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
> Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
> CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

>
> Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal
> located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163
>
> Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate
> non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!



Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

Liz Rice
 

I'm not sure I see why a minimum period of time is necessary. There's a set of criteria that a project need to meet in order to cross into Incubation; if it meets those criteria quickly then why artificially hold it back? 

You could say that the very nature of going to Sandbox gives a project extra exposure, through which it gains more adoption, and therefore makes it easier to meet the criteria - but then isn't that acceleration a good thing? Assuming the TOC is only accepting projects that meet the mission and the criteria of the various stages, why would it be a bad thing to help a good project reach the next level of maturity and readiness?

If there is some sense in which this is giving unfair advantage to Sandbox projects over external projects, why not turn the question around and wonder why a new project wanting to join CNCF would aim straight for Incubation if it's not ready - why not apply for Sandbox stage? 


On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:44 AM Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
If Sandbox is for early-stage projects I find hard that after 3 months is not longer in that stage (maybe that term needs to be corrected?) . If a project joined Sandbox and after 3 months is ready for Incubation, should just go to Incubation from the beginning and not hit Sandbox.

On this diagram would be good to clarify the scope and intention of "annual review": 


I think that a project that joined Sandbox must be there a minimum of time, liked or not, joining Sandbox gets a lot of attention and external marketing (despite CNCF is clear about restricted exposure of Sandbox projects). I don't see the benefit of going from Sandbox to Incubation in a really-short period of time. 

About my previous comment of "difficulty" to get into Incubation, I used the wrong words; the unexpected short period of time gave me the wrong perception.

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 7:43 PM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
I don't think it's a loophole. It appears to be by design. The Sandbox guidelines (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) clearly state that one of the goals of Sandbox is to: 

"Encourage public visibility of experiments or other early work that can add value to the CNCF mission and build the ingredients of a successful Incubation level project."

Additionally the guidelines state that the Sandbox is for early stage projects, defining early stage as:

"Any project that realistically intends to join CNCF Incubation in future and wishes to lay the foundations for that"

Projects entering Sandbox might have different gaps they need to fill before they can move to Incubation. Some might have more gaps, some less, and thus projects will exit at different speeds. 

Michael

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:18 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
Yes, that’s how I read Eduardo’s question as well - one of ensuring a loophole doesn’t exist. 

- Lee

Sent from my mobile

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:44:43 PM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements
 
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:59 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
To add to what Chris said, and responding directly to:

"since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  “

The above is not the intention at all.  Is there any reason you believe that getting to incubation via sandbox is more difficult?  If so, we might need to clarify our communication around that.

I think Eduardo's point is that it looks like getting to incubation through sandbox is easier than just entering directly via incubation.

I don't think that should be the case.
 

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 15:10
To: Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements

We decided not to put any timelines on anything in the beginning as each project is going to be different at its maturity stage. There are projects that may have decent adoption but low maintainer diversity and so on. The maturity levels are outlined pretty well here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/graduation_criteria.adoc

The particular line "since these metrics can vary significantly depending on the type, scope and size of a project, the TOC has final judgement over the level of activity that is adequate to meet these criteria" was put in place to give the TOC some flexibility in decisions making as they are the final arbiter of maturity level decisions.

IMHO I don't think having a minimum time to bake is a bad idea but that is going to be different for each project as some are quicker to mature than others.

You're welcome to propose improvements to the sandbox process and discuss it in a PR: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:25 PM Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
Hi, 

Why Sandbox projects don't have a minimum time of requirement before to try to move to incubation ? I see that Harbor joined as a Sandbox project on July 31 and just after 3 months moving forward to incubation ? 

To be clear, this is not something against Harbor, but I see a potential "gray area" since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  

comments ?

--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 



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



--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 



--


Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Mark Peek
 

+1 non-binding

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 3:27 PM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

 

The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163


They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

 

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io


Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!


--

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


Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

Eduardo Silva
 

If Sandbox is for early-stage projects I find hard that after 3 months is not longer in that stage (maybe that term needs to be corrected?) . If a project joined Sandbox and after 3 months is ready for Incubation, should just go to Incubation from the beginning and not hit Sandbox.

On this diagram would be good to clarify the scope and intention of "annual review": 


I think that a project that joined Sandbox must be there a minimum of time, liked or not, joining Sandbox gets a lot of attention and external marketing (despite CNCF is clear about restricted exposure of Sandbox projects). I don't see the benefit of going from Sandbox to Incubation in a really-short period of time. 

About my previous comment of "difficulty" to get into Incubation, I used the wrong words; the unexpected short period of time gave me the wrong perception.


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 7:43 PM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
I don't think it's a loophole. It appears to be by design. The Sandbox guidelines (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) clearly state that one of the goals of Sandbox is to: 

"Encourage public visibility of experiments or other early work that can add value to the CNCF mission and build the ingredients of a successful Incubation level project."

Additionally the guidelines state that the Sandbox is for early stage projects, defining early stage as:

"Any project that realistically intends to join CNCF Incubation in future and wishes to lay the foundations for that"

Projects entering Sandbox might have different gaps they need to fill before they can move to Incubation. Some might have more gaps, some less, and thus projects will exit at different speeds. 

Michael

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:18 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
Yes, that’s how I read Eduardo’s question as well - one of ensuring a loophole doesn’t exist. 

- Lee

Sent from my mobile

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:44:43 PM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements
 
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:59 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
To add to what Chris said, and responding directly to:

"since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  “

The above is not the intention at all.  Is there any reason you believe that getting to incubation via sandbox is more difficult?  If so, we might need to clarify our communication around that.

I think Eduardo's point is that it looks like getting to incubation through sandbox is easier than just entering directly via incubation.

I don't think that should be the case.
 

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 15:10
To: Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements

We decided not to put any timelines on anything in the beginning as each project is going to be different at its maturity stage. There are projects that may have decent adoption but low maintainer diversity and so on. The maturity levels are outlined pretty well here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/graduation_criteria.adoc

The particular line "since these metrics can vary significantly depending on the type, scope and size of a project, the TOC has final judgement over the level of activity that is adequate to meet these criteria" was put in place to give the TOC some flexibility in decisions making as they are the final arbiter of maturity level decisions.

IMHO I don't think having a minimum time to bake is a bad idea but that is going to be different for each project as some are quicker to mature than others.

You're welcome to propose improvements to the sandbox process and discuss it in a PR: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:25 PM Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
Hi, 

Why Sandbox projects don't have a minimum time of requirement before to try to move to incubation ? I see that Harbor joined as a Sandbox project on July 31 and just after 3 months moving forward to incubation ? 

To be clear, this is not something against Harbor, but I see a potential "gray area" since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  

comments ?

--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 



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



--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 


Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

"Alex Zhu
 

+1 nb


Re: [VOTE] Harbor moving to incubation

Anjana Fernando
 

+1 non-binding.

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 7:57 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The Harbor community has requested to move to the incubation maturity level and believes it has fulfilled the criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

They have also created a presentation on top of the proposal for the community: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aBQnE96kKatc1_t3E97lJBwiWvL-3GTitojuv-nWMuo/edit?usp=sharing

Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md

Maintainers of the project are listed in https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/blob/master/OWNERS.md

Maintainers are added and removed from the project as per the policies outlined in the project governance: https://github.com/goharbor/community/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md

Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions:

Releases: 7 major releases - https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases
Roadmap: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/wiki/Harbor-Roadmap
Contributors: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/contributors
Commit activity: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/graphs/commit-activity
CNCF DevStats: https://harbor.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



--
Anjana Fernando
Director
WSO2 Inc. | http://wso2.com
lean . enterprise . middleware


Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

Michael Ducy
 

I don't think it's a loophole. It appears to be by design. The Sandbox guidelines (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) clearly state that one of the goals of Sandbox is to: 

"Encourage public visibility of experiments or other early work that can add value to the CNCF mission and build the ingredients of a successful Incubation level project."

Additionally the guidelines state that the Sandbox is for early stage projects, defining early stage as:

"Any project that realistically intends to join CNCF Incubation in future and wishes to lay the foundations for that"

Projects entering Sandbox might have different gaps they need to fill before they can move to Incubation. Some might have more gaps, some less, and thus projects will exit at different speeds. 

Michael

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:18 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
Yes, that’s how I read Eduardo’s question as well - one of ensuring a loophole doesn’t exist. 

- Lee

Sent from my mobile

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:44:43 PM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements
 
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:59 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
To add to what Chris said, and responding directly to:

"since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  “

The above is not the intention at all.  Is there any reason you believe that getting to incubation via sandbox is more difficult?  If so, we might need to clarify our communication around that.

I think Eduardo's point is that it looks like getting to incubation through sandbox is easier than just entering directly via incubation.

I don't think that should be the case.
 

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 15:10
To: Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements

We decided not to put any timelines on anything in the beginning as each project is going to be different at its maturity stage. There are projects that may have decent adoption but low maintainer diversity and so on. The maturity levels are outlined pretty well here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/graduation_criteria.adoc

The particular line "since these metrics can vary significantly depending on the type, scope and size of a project, the TOC has final judgement over the level of activity that is adequate to meet these criteria" was put in place to give the TOC some flexibility in decisions making as they are the final arbiter of maturity level decisions.

IMHO I don't think having a minimum time to bake is a bad idea but that is going to be different for each project as some are quicker to mature than others.

You're welcome to propose improvements to the sandbox process and discuss it in a PR: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:25 PM Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
Hi, 

Why Sandbox projects don't have a minimum time of requirement before to try to move to incubation ? I see that Harbor joined as a Sandbox project on July 31 and just after 3 months moving forward to incubation ? 

To be clear, this is not something against Harbor, but I see a potential "gray area" since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  

comments ?

--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 



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


Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

Lee Calcote
 

Yes, that’s how I read Eduardo’s question as well - one of ensuring a loophole doesn’t exist. 

- Lee

Sent from my mobile


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:44:43 PM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements
 
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:59 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
To add to what Chris said, and responding directly to:

"since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  “

The above is not the intention at all.  Is there any reason you believe that getting to incubation via sandbox is more difficult?  If so, we might need to clarify our communication around that.

I think Eduardo's point is that it looks like getting to incubation through sandbox is easier than just entering directly via incubation.

I don't think that should be the case.
 

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 15:10
To: Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements

We decided not to put any timelines on anything in the beginning as each project is going to be different at its maturity stage. There are projects that may have decent adoption but low maintainer diversity and so on. The maturity levels are outlined pretty well here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/graduation_criteria.adoc

The particular line "since these metrics can vary significantly depending on the type, scope and size of a project, the TOC has final judgement over the level of activity that is adequate to meet these criteria" was put in place to give the TOC some flexibility in decisions making as they are the final arbiter of maturity level decisions.

IMHO I don't think having a minimum time to bake is a bad idea but that is going to be different for each project as some are quicker to mature than others.

You're welcome to propose improvements to the sandbox process and discuss it in a PR: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:25 PM Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
Hi, 

Why Sandbox projects don't have a minimum time of requirement before to try to move to incubation ? I see that Harbor joined as a Sandbox project on July 31 and just after 3 months moving forward to incubation ? 

To be clear, this is not something against Harbor, but I see a potential "gray area" since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  

comments ?

--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 



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


Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

Brian Grant
 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:59 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
To add to what Chris said, and responding directly to:

"since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  “

The above is not the intention at all.  Is there any reason you believe that getting to incubation via sandbox is more difficult?  If so, we might need to clarify our communication around that.

I think Eduardo's point is that it looks like getting to incubation through sandbox is easier than just entering directly via incubation.

I don't think that should be the case.
 

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 15:10
To: Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements

We decided not to put any timelines on anything in the beginning as each project is going to be different at its maturity stage. There are projects that may have decent adoption but low maintainer diversity and so on. The maturity levels are outlined pretty well here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/graduation_criteria.adoc

The particular line "since these metrics can vary significantly depending on the type, scope and size of a project, the TOC has final judgement over the level of activity that is adequate to meet these criteria" was put in place to give the TOC some flexibility in decisions making as they are the final arbiter of maturity level decisions.

IMHO I don't think having a minimum time to bake is a bad idea but that is going to be different for each project as some are quicker to mature than others.

You're welcome to propose improvements to the sandbox process and discuss it in a PR: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:25 PM Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
Hi, 

Why Sandbox projects don't have a minimum time of requirement before to try to move to incubation ? I see that Harbor joined as a Sandbox project on July 31 and just after 3 months moving forward to incubation ? 

To be clear, this is not something against Harbor, but I see a potential "gray area" since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  

comments ?

--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 



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

4561 - 4580 of 7192