Date   

Re: TOC Contributions

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The place we usually ask for help is in reviewing upcoming project proposals:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pulls

A current place we could use help is in driving an update to the reference architecture that Ken Owens is leading, you can touch base with him to get involved:

We have four working groups which meet at different times, depending on what you enjoy, you can dive in:

The serverless one is fairly actively. It would also be great to get more eyes on the CNCF CI WG's work on cncf.ci and the cross cloud work:

Anyways, hope that helps and points you to the right direction, but just being on the TOC call and being active on that is appreciated.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Dave Zolotusky via Lists.Cncf.Io <dzolo=spotify.com@...> wrote:
Hi TOC,
   I just signed up to be a TOC Contributor, and am trying to understand what sort of contributions would be the most valuable to the TOC. I'd like to understand what the TOC's biggest problems are at the moment and how I can help with them as a TOC Contributor.

Alexis recommended asking this list and suggested a few areas like technical writing for explaining
cloud native to the wider community, joining a WG and helping move it forward, and DD for projects.

Can some of the others on this list help me understand the current state our writing, WGs, and DD so that I can find areas where investing some of my time would be the most impactful?

thanks,
~Dave




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


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

William Morgan
 

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...ncf.io> wrote:
I assume the maintainers govern all linkerd repositories, since other repositories do not contain MAINTAINERS.md files.
 
Yes.

I see (super-)maintainers can be added via nomination and vote. It may be useful to develop a particular contribution bar for (super-)maintainers, such as number of commits or duration on the project or number of subsystems they have worked on, so contributors know roughly what to strive for and existing (super-)maintainers have guidelines for nominating new members of those groups.

Great suggestion. With the current model we aimed for the simplest, most basic structure that still captured what we thought was important (some maintainers are experts in a subsystem; some maintainers are experts in the overall workings). But we'll almost definitely need to refine this over time.

Thinking about this further, it would've been really useful to have a library of vetted / "good" governance models to read through when we were doing this. Perhaps this is something the CNCF could provide as a resource for projects?

Clearly we do care about contributor diversity, so that's something we should explore whether/how CNCF could help improve that in the future.

This is also very much in my interest and I'd love any help, though I'm not sure what the CNCF would be able to do about this in practice. In Linkerd's case, at least, contributorship only really happened after there was significant adoption.




TOC Contributions

Dave Zolotusky
 

Hi TOC,
   I just signed up to be a TOC Contributor, and am trying to understand what sort of contributions would be the most valuable to the TOC. I'd like to understand what the TOC's biggest problems are at the moment and how I can help with them as a TOC Contributor.

Alexis recommended asking this list and suggested a few areas like technical writing for explaining
cloud native to the wider community, joining a WG and helping move it forward, and DD for projects.

Can some of the others on this list help me understand the current state our writing, WGs, and DD so that I can find areas where investing some of my time would be the most impactful?

thanks,
~Dave


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Brian Grant
 

I assume the maintainers govern all linkerd repositories, since other repositories do not contain MAINTAINERS.md files.

I see (super-)maintainers can be added via nomination and vote. It may be useful to develop a particular contribution bar for (super-)maintainers, such as number of commits or duration on the project or number of subsystems they have worked on, so contributors know roughly what to strive for and existing (super-)maintainers have guidelines for nominating new members of those groups.

Given that the PR backlog doesn't seem to be growing, I assume that the current number of super-maintainers is sufficient to keep up with the current review/approval load.

Something we (CNCF) need to think about that isn't specific to Linkerd is what activity level(s) we expect, since some projects are naturally larger and/or more active than others.

Clearly we do care about contributor diversity, so that's something we should explore whether/how CNCF could help improve that in the future.

Though there is more work to do, I believe that linkerd meets the bar for incubation.

+1 binding

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 8:11 AM William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
Whoops, thanks for pointing that out. I count 3 PRs out of the last 18 or so that violated the governance rules about requiring a super-maintainer review, all minor. We're still adjusting to some of these changes... this will improve.

-William

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Justin Cormack via Lists.Cncf.Io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...> wrote:
0 (non binding)

The governance seems confused and I am not sure it technically meets the criteria of number of committers.
The governance doc[1] states "All PRs must receive approval from at least one super maintainer before merge",
so as there are only two super maintainers only two people are "someone who can accept contributions to
some or all of the project".

In practise this is ignored, and there are additional people with Github commit access, not listed as maintainers
who are merging many of the PRs, often without super maintainer approval. I know the CNCF does not require
full governance at this stage but the fact that the newly added governance seems to be ignored is a concern,
as external contributors are being treated differently.



On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The linkerd team has requested a move to the incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86 

You can see the project statistics here: https://linkerd.devstats.cncf.io/ and the linkerd project believes they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md
- Have a healthy number of committers: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/releases and https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/graphs/contributors

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86

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] linkerd moving to incubation

William Morgan
 

Whoops, thanks for pointing that out. I count 3 PRs out of the last 18 or so that violated the governance rules about requiring a super-maintainer review, all minor. We're still adjusting to some of these changes... this will improve.

-William

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Justin Cormack via Lists.Cncf.Io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...> wrote:
0 (non binding)

The governance seems confused and I am not sure it technically meets the criteria of number of committers.
The governance doc[1] states "All PRs must receive approval from at least one super maintainer before merge",
so as there are only two super maintainers only two people are "someone who can accept contributions to
some or all of the project".

In practise this is ignored, and there are additional people with Github commit access, not listed as maintainers
who are merging many of the PRs, often without super maintainer approval. I know the CNCF does not require
full governance at this stage but the fact that the newly added governance seems to be ignored is a concern,
as external contributors are being treated differently.



On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
The linkerd team has requested a move to the incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86 

You can see the project statistics here: https://linkerd.devstats.cncf.io/ and the linkerd project believes they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md
- Have a healthy number of committers: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/releases and https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/graphs/contributors

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86

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] linkerd moving to incubation

Justin Cormack
 

0 (non binding)

The governance seems confused and I am not sure it technically meets the criteria of number of committers.
The governance doc[1] states "All PRs must receive approval from at least one super maintainer before merge",
so as there are only two super maintainers only two people are "someone who can accept contributions to
some or all of the project".

In practise this is ignored, and there are additional people with Github commit access, not listed as maintainers
who are merging many of the PRs, often without super maintainer approval. I know the CNCF does not require
full governance at this stage but the fact that the newly added governance seems to be ignored is a concern,
as external contributors are being treated differently.



On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The linkerd team has requested a move to the incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86 

You can see the project statistics here: https://linkerd.devstats.cncf.io/ and the linkerd project believes they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md
- Have a healthy number of committers: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/releases and https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/graphs/contributors

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86

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] linkerd moving to incubation

William Morgan
 

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
Linkerd doesn't have to run as a host-level proxy, though I don't know how many people deploy it as a sidecar in practice. Host-level proxies also can make sense in some scenarios.

Most that we're aware of run Linkerd per host. There are a couple companies that use it as a sidecar, and don't Linkerd's resource requirements heavyweight relative to the existing footprint of their services.
 
I don't know how much of an issue it is for linkerd users, but, irrespective of features and resource profiles, I could imagine a language preference, for dev and ops teams familiar with Java/Scala, particularly if they are writing plugins.

Absolutely. The JVM platform and the plugin model are huge deal for some very large companies. I'm happy to provide examples off list.
 


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

William Morgan
 

Yes. I can't speak for the other community folks, but Buoyant is planning its Q2 Linkerd roadmap right now. Dark traffic, rate limiting, backup requests, configurable communication policy in namerd, and a couple other big features are all on the docket.

-William

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Hi, William.

Are there any specific large areas of upcoming development in linkerd, which would provide an opportunity for onboarding new contributors? Most post-1.3.0 (reasonably) looks like fixes and minor improvements.


On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 1:28 PM William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
Thanks! And those are just the public ones. :)

Re: code percentages. This is a side-effect of where the project started, but we definitely want to diversify and I expect that it will happen naturally over time. E.g. we've had a couple non-Buoyant folks who have done major bits of work over the past year (and we've been expanding the maintainers list to reflect that).

-William

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
+1 (non binding)

Impressive production adoption!
I notice that 95%+ of code is contributed by current Buoyant employees.  Any plans to diversify that in the future?  To be clear, this is not a pre-requisite for incubation.

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

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


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 10:28
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

The linkerd team has requested a move to the incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86 

You can see the project statistics here: https://linkerd.devstats.cncf.io/ and the linkerd project believes they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md
- Have a healthy number of committers: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/releases and https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/graphs/contributors

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86

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] linkerd moving to incubation

Robert Panzer
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Brian Grant
 

At the moment, it looks like linkerd maybe still has more user mindshare, though envoy has more contributors.


Linkerd doesn't have to run as a host-level proxy, though I don't know how many people deploy it as a sidecar in practice. Host-level proxies also can make sense in some scenarios.

Maybe what you're getting at is what do we see as the driving use cases in the future for linkerd, relative to alternatives such as envoy and conduit? 

The only direct comparison I found in a quick search was in the envoy docs, and looks possibly out of date:

I don't know how much of an issue it is for linkerd users, but, irrespective of features and resource profiles, I could imagine a language preference, for dev and ops teams familiar with Java/Scala, particularly if they are writing plugins.

Since users will ask, it would be useful to provide some information they could use to choose one or the other.

But I don't think that impacts whether linkerd currently meets the bar for incubation or not, and by our "no kingmaking" principle it seems premature for us to choose one now.


On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:02 PM Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
​-1 non-binding

I think linkerd does a great job helping applications gain resilience from the network proxy and it has done an amazing 🙌 job and educating users and gaining production usage. I don't see linkerd as a product having as much traction going forward and have a hard time seeing more development diversity going forward. The resource requirements of it and the pattern of a hostcentric proxy have trade-offs that I don't think reinforce the other patterns and products the CNCF has promoted as cloud native.


--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Joseph Jacks <jacks.joe@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)



Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Brian Grant
 

Hi, William.

Are there any specific large areas of upcoming development in linkerd, which would provide an opportunity for onboarding new contributors? Most post-1.3.0 (reasonably) looks like fixes and minor improvements.


On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 1:28 PM William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
Thanks! And those are just the public ones. :)

Re: code percentages. This is a side-effect of where the project started, but we definitely want to diversify and I expect that it will happen naturally over time. E.g. we've had a couple non-Buoyant folks who have done major bits of work over the past year (and we've been expanding the maintainers list to reflect that).

-William

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
+1 (non binding)

Impressive production adoption!
I notice that 95%+ of code is contributed by current Buoyant employees.  Any plans to diversify that in the future?  To be clear, this is not a pre-requisite for incubation.

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

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


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 10:28
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

The linkerd team has requested a move to the incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86 

You can see the project statistics here: https://linkerd.devstats.cncf.io/ and the linkerd project believes they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md
- Have a healthy number of committers: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/releases and https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/graphs/contributors

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86

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: TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018

Ken Owens
 

I am on vacation this week and will not be dailing in 😀


On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 10:31 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
and some folks have said the google short link isn't working, here's the full link:


On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
oh... and by 3/19/2018 I meant 3/20/2018, the CNCF TOC meeting is tomorrow :)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the draft agenda deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/PpznT7

We'll be welcoming NATS (incubation) to CNCF, along with OPA/SPIFEE and sandbox projects, discussing sandbox guidelines v1.0, working group creation process, update on reference architecture and opening it up to the community for questions as I believe we have a light agenda compared to normal.

Also Alexis sends his regrets.

See everyone tomorrow!

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



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



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


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

cncf.io@...
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Ben Hoyt
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

and some folks have said the google short link isn't working, here's the full link:


On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
oh... and by 3/19/2018 I meant 3/20/2018, the CNCF TOC meeting is tomorrow :)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Here's the draft agenda deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/PpznT7

We'll be welcoming NATS (incubation) to CNCF, along with OPA/SPIFEE and sandbox projects, discussing sandbox guidelines v1.0, working group creation process, update on reference architecture and opening it up to the community for questions as I believe we have a light agenda compared to normal.

Also Alexis sends his regrets.

See everyone tomorrow!

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



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



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


Re: TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

oh... and by 3/19/2018 I meant 3/20/2018, the CNCF TOC meeting is tomorrow :)

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the draft agenda deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/PpznT7

We'll be welcoming NATS (incubation) to CNCF, along with OPA/SPIFEE and sandbox projects, discussing sandbox guidelines v1.0, working group creation process, update on reference architecture and opening it up to the community for questions as I believe we have a light agenda compared to normal.

Also Alexis sends his regrets.

See everyone tomorrow!

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



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


TOC Agenda for 3/19/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the draft agenda deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/PpznT7

We'll be welcoming NATS (incubation) to CNCF, along with OPA/SPIFEE and sandbox projects, discussing sandbox guidelines v1.0, working group creation process, update on reference architecture and opening it up to the community for questions as I believe we have a light agenda compared to normal.

Also Alexis sends his regrets.

See everyone tomorrow!

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


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Richard Hartmann
 

+1 non-binding


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Nikolay Pshenichnyy
 

+1 (non-binding)

Linkerd is an excellent service mesh proxy!


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Daniel Bryant
 

+1 (non-binding)

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The linkerd team has requested a move to the incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86 

You can see the project statistics here: https://linkerd.devstats.cncf.io/ and the linkerd project believes they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/ADOPTERS.md
- Have a healthy number of committers: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/releases and https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd/graphs/contributors

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/86

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


5261 - 5280 of 7192