|
Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 1:03 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation
Liz Rice
+1 nb
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:21 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
--
Liz Rice @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation
Doug Davis <dug@...>
+1 non-binding containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165 The containerd community believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria: - Have a healthy number of committers and at least two from different organizations: Containerd has had a variety of maintainers and reviewers since its inception, and currently have 12 committers representing Docker, NTT, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Tesla, and Cruise Automation. They also have reviewers representing Alibaba, ZTE, Huawei, Docker, Microsoft and an independent developer. - Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users: Containerd began life prior to its CNCF as a lower-layer runtime manager for the Docker engine. Continuing today, containerd has widest usage and adoption as the layer between the Docker engine and the OCI runc executor. However, as containerd and its CRI plugin project have merged in January 2018, the combined use of containerd and the CRI plugin has grown to include several public cloud providers, as well as several projects who are attracted to the simplicity of the Go client API library for embedding container runtime capabilities. IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service (IKS) IBM Cloud Private (ICP) Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine (GKE) [offers containerd in "alpha clusters"] Cloud Foundry Alibaba's PouchContainer Rancher's Rio project Eliot Balena LinuxKit BuildKit AWS Firecracker Kata containers Docker engine - Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/graphs/contributors + https://containerd.devstats.cncf.io + https://all.devstats.cncf.io/d/54/project-health?orgId=1&var-repogroup_name=containerd - Have achieved a CII badge: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1271 - Define a governance model: https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165 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] containerd moving to graduation
Justin Cormack
+1 (non binding)
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 4:59 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation
+1 (non-binding)
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks, - Phil Chris Aniszczyk wrote on 2/18/19 11:59 AM:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation
Richard Hartmann
+1 nb Sent by mobile; please excuse my brevity.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 17:59 Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@... wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] containerd moving to graduation
Ihor Dvoretskyi
+1 (non-binding).
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:59 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
[VOTE] containerd moving to graduation
containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165 The containerd community believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria: - Have a healthy number of committers and at least two from different organizations: Containerd has had a variety of maintainers and reviewers since its inception, and currently have 12 committers representing Docker, NTT, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Tesla, and Cruise Automation. They also have reviewers representing Alibaba, ZTE, Huawei, Docker, Microsoft and an independent developer. - Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users: Containerd began life prior to its CNCF as a lower-layer runtime manager for the Docker engine. Continuing today, containerd has widest usage and adoption as the layer between the Docker engine and the OCI runc executor. However, as containerd and its CRI plugin project have merged in January 2018, the combined use of containerd and the CRI plugin has grown to include several public cloud providers, as well as several projects who are attracted to the simplicity of the Go client API library for embedding container runtime capabilities. IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service (IKS) IBM Cloud Private (ICP) Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine (GKE) [offers containerd in "alpha clusters"] Cloud Foundry Alibaba's PouchContainer Rancher's Rio project Eliot Balena LinuxKit BuildKit AWS Firecracker Kata containers Docker engine - Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/graphs/contributors + https://containerd.devstats.cncf.io + https://all.devstats.cncf.io/d/54/project-health?orgId=1&var-repogroup_name=containerd - Have achieved a CII badge: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/1271 - Define a governance model: https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/165 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: Final RFC: containerd graduation
+1 for kicking the vote :-)
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Final RFC: containerd graduation
Final reminder here on any reviews/comments, I plan on kicking the vote early next week.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:54 PM Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
RFC: CII + Graduation Criteria
On the last TOC call there was a call to look at updating the graduation requirements and also to look at the various CII levels: One idea was to potentially have the incubating level require the "silver" level for CII and graduated require the "gold" level: https://github.com/coreinfrastructure/best-practices-badge/blob/master/doc/other.md#silver-passing1-criteria https://github.com/coreinfrastructure/best-practices-badge/blob/master/doc/other.md#gold-passing2-criteria On the next TOC call, we will have one of the main CII authors to go over the levels and answer any questions from the community. This should be a useful exercise to see if we can leverage the hard work that has been done in CII along with giving them feedback on the criteria they have developed. Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal
Quinton Hoole
Hi TOC
The document has been moved to a PR: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/194
Chris, it looks like we need to do a few updates on our GitHub repo to reflect the new TOC members – the list is out of date.
Approval
required by 1 of:
- benh
- bgrant0607
- jonboulle
- kenowens12
- monadic
- skamille
Also, my GitHub user name changed to quinton-hoole-2
Thanks
Q
From: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 09:45 To: "\"Li" Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal
|
|
|
|
Re: Final RFC: containerd graduation
Brian Grant
Thanks. I posted a link to the review presentation and project health dashboard to the PR. A link to the CII badge status details is also in the PR. TOC members: PTAL and ask questions if there is essential information you think is missing.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:35 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Final RFC: containerd graduation
Chris Aniszczyk
+1
--
|
|
|
|
Re: Final RFC: containerd graduation
Brian Grant
Could we please push that out a week? A week isn't a sufficient amount of time for any serious diligence.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:58 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Final RFC: containerd graduation
Hey all, now that we have a newly formed TOC, we are back to tackling backlog of project/graduation requests. At the TOC call today, we discussed that containerd will be next and offer a week of commentary from the wider community: We will then kick off a formal vote next week on graduation. Thanks! Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal
Quinton Hoole
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of <Li>
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 09:28 To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIGs Proposal
Quinton> Yes, that’s the intention, primarily so that there is clear responsibility (for example for project health checks) and communication channels.
Quinton> In theory a project could independently prepare and submit a proposal to the TOC, but a specified SIG would perform the bulk of the due diligence on the project, so it would be in the project’s interest to have the SIG
help them to prepare the proposal. If a project objects to some aspect of the SIG involvement (for example claiming SIG bias against their project), then they should escalate to the TOC as required.
Quinton> I think we need to be careful about foisting unwanted guidance or control over projects by SIG’s. I would prefer to frame that as something like “projects should request assistance from their assigned SIG ….”. We already
have wording around how projects request help from the CNCF, and will amend that to make it clear that this includes help from SIGs.
As the proposal mentions SIG retirement, shall we also mention the split/merge of SIGs? For example, the core and applied architecture SIG is kind of a umbrella SIG, especially the applied architecture part. I can image that the ML/big data area might need its own SIG as it grows. Quinton> Yes, agreed. I will add wording to this effect.
|
|
|
|
Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal
alexis richardson
Xiang, Below: On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:28 PM "Li, Xiang <x.li@...> wrote: Thanks for putting this together! I have a few questions and comments on the proposal. I don't think that's a "MUST HAVE", but it would be Nice. 2. Does every candidate project proposal need to be prepared with a SIG? Well, one aim of all this is that SIGs help to identify project gaps for CNCF, and some of the pre-solicitation and investigation. It would be great if a CICD SIG could come to the TOC with 2-3 well written decks & docs from the group of projects in that space, f.ex
If that is not listed, I agree it would be helpful. Overall project Help, Health and Planning is super important at all levels of the CNCF and needs champions in the TOC, SIGs, and TOC Contributors. For example, each sandbox project get assigned one or two mentors from the SIG. The SIG tech lead helps on the roadmap and governance structure for sandbox projects. I'd like to see the CNCF budget provide explicit resources to help here. We need to be careful to not over-commit voluntary resources. Experience has taught us that this can be unfruitful.
+1
|
|
|
|
Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal
Li, Xiang
Thanks for putting this together! I have a few questions and comments on the proposal.
Questions: 1. Does every existing CNCF project need to be assigned to a SIG? 2. Does every candidate project proposal need to be prepared with a SIG? Comments: I would like to see the SIG responsibilities explicitly include helping young projects to grow and thrive (sandbox and early incubation projects). For example, each sandbox project get assigned one or two mentors from the SIG. The SIG tech lead helps on the roadmap and governance structure for sandbox projects. As the proposal mentions SIG retirement, shall we also mention the split/merge of SIGs? For example, the core and applied architecture SIG is kind of a umbrella SIG, especially the applied architecture part. I can image that the ML/big data area might need its own SIG as it grows.
|
|
|
|
Re: CNCF SIGs Proposal
Li, Xiang
Right. Operator is a concept, better to be put in the Area column. Operator framework is a generic framework project, which can be a potential project in the generic app dev, ops, testing SIG. For specific operators, they will fall into different SIGs depending on their functionality.
|
|
|
"Chris Aniszczyk" ---02/18/2019 11:59:29 AM---containerd has requested to move to the graduation maturity level: