Date   

Re: [VOTE] Kubernetes moving to graduation

Drew Rapenchuk <drapenchuk@...>
 

+1 non-binding


Re: Final RFC: CNCF Sandbox

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Thanks for your feedback here Stephen, a big tenant of CNCF has always been that projects are self governing and can bring their own governance as long as it's transparent + fair (we call this minimum viable governance): https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/PRINCIPLES.md#projects-are-self-governing

Over time (especially these days), I find that successful projects evolve towards more open governance (we've even had this happen in CNCF with containerd moving from bdfl to committee model) due to community/adopter pressure. 

I'll look at seeing how I can codify your point in the sandbox proposal that open governance is important and the earlier the better. I'm looking to finalize the proposal the next day or so before calling for a vote.

Thanks!

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Stephen Watt <swatt@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris. Firstly, I think the way the sandbox doc is articulated in the doc is great. However, I imagine sandbox projects should be aware of the TLP graduation criteria and trying to steer their ship towards those goals, and as such, it prompted a broader meta question that I thought might be better suited to the TOC list, rather than a comment on the doc. 

When I look at the graduation criteria from Sandbox -> Incubation -> Graduated, I see in the criteria for "graduated" that one needs to have committers from at least 2 organizations. This hints at a desire for CNCF projects to have some measure of open governance but stops short of calling it out directly. Why not do so?

I believe I've heard it stated by the TOC before that you don't want to preclude healthy important projects where the vast majority of committers happen to be from one organization. I agree. However, I don't think that is at odds with an open governance model. For example, you could have an open governance model where it just so happened to be, that the participation in the project is all from a single company, however, because of the governance model, should contributors join later from other companies, they would have a path to equal influence in the project decision making and contributions being committed.

Why am I bringing this up? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I believe the advantage of calling open gov out explicitly in the graduation criteria helps avoid a future scenario where a CNCF project is governed by a cabal largely dominated by one company, that has a token committer from outside, that actively or passively ignores contributions from the community (the incentives can differ from project to project). I suspect you have come across github projects with open source licenses that behave this way. Projects like this are bad for the project's and foundation's brand.  The ASF had to deal with this issue a number of times with popular projects in their Big Data stack. It was painful, but they were able to deal with it because they are prescriptive about how ASF projects are to be governed. I realize this can be a slippery slope because the next step would be to become prescriptive about what type(s) of open governance model CNCF projects would deem acceptable. However, perhaps something worth anticipating and discussing.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
At today's TOC call there was consensus on the CNCF Sandbox proposal is close to being ready for a formal vote. We will leave the document open for any community comments for a week and do a formal vote next week: https://goo.gl/gZhBjY

After the vote and assuming the sandbox is approved, we will resume voting on new project proposals (existing inception proposals will be slotted for the sandbox). 

Thanks.

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





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


Re: [VOTE] Kubernetes moving to graduation

John Belamaric
 

+1 non-binding

On Feb 26, 2018, at 11:52 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steering) unanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

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] Kubernetes moving to graduation

Yong Tang <ytang@...>
 

+1 non-binding



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 8:52:35 AM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Kubernetes moving to graduation
 
After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steering) unanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

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] Kubernetes moving to graduation

Bassam Tabbara
 

+1 non-binding

On Feb 26, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steering) unanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

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] Kubernetes moving to graduation

Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
 

+1 non-binding

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Ihor Dvoretskyi <ihor.dvoretskyi@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding.

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steering) unanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

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] Kubernetes moving to graduation

Deepak Vij
 

+1 (non-binding).

 

From: cncf-toc@... [mailto:cncf-toc@...] On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 8:53 AM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Kubernetes moving to graduation

 

After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steering) unanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

 

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)

- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

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] Kubernetes moving to graduation

Ihor Dvoretskyi
 

+1 non-binding.

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steeringunanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

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] Kubernetes moving to graduation

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

+1 non-binding


thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

"Chris Aniszczyk" ---02/26/2018 08:52:47 AM---After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes w

From: "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 02/26/2018 08:52 AM
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Kubernetes moving to graduation
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steering) unanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

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] Kubernetes moving to graduation

Camille Fournier
 

+1 binding

On Feb 26, 2018 11:52 AM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steeringunanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

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] Kubernetes moving to graduation

alexis richardson
 

+1 binding


On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, 16:52 Chris Aniszczyk, <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steering) unanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

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


[VOTE] Kubernetes moving to graduation

Chris Aniszczyk
 

After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steering) unanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

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


[RESULT] CoreDNS moving to incubation (PASSED)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

CoreDNS is now an incubating project at CNCF, here are the results:

+1 binding TOC votes (6/9)

+1 non-binding community votes:
- Kapil Thangavelu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1707

Thank you to everyone who voted.

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


Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Daniel Bryant
 

+1 (non-binding)

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

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] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Mark Peek
 

+1 non-binding

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 8:57 AM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

 

At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

 

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

 

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

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] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Mark Coleman <mark@...>
 

+ 1 non-binding

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:30 PM Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018, Sam Lambert <samlambert@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Jonathan Boulle <jon@...> wrote:
+1 binding 

Am 20.02.2018 23:53 schrieb "Ken Owens" <kenchristineowens@...>:
+1 Binding 

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 10:57 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

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


--
+31 652134960
Marketing Chair www.cncf.io


Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Nick Chase
 

+1 non-binding


On Wednesday, February 21, 2018, Sam Lambert <samlambert@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Jonathan Boulle <jon@...> wrote:
+1 binding 

Am 20.02.2018 23:53 schrieb "Ken Owens" <kenchristineowens@...>:
+1 Binding 

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 10:57 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

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] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Sam Lambert <samlambert@...>
 

+1 binding

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Jonathan Boulle <jon@...> wrote:
+1 binding 

Am 20.02.2018 23:53 schrieb "Ken Owens" <kenchristineowens@...>:
+1 Binding 

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 10:57 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

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: CNCF Sandbox

Stephen Watt
 

Thanks Chris. Firstly, I think the way the sandbox doc is articulated in the doc is great. However, I imagine sandbox projects should be aware of the TLP graduation criteria and trying to steer their ship towards those goals, and as such, it prompted a broader meta question that I thought might be better suited to the TOC list, rather than a comment on the doc. 

When I look at the graduation criteria from Sandbox -> Incubation -> Graduated, I see in the criteria for "graduated" that one needs to have committers from at least 2 organizations. This hints at a desire for CNCF projects to have some measure of open governance but stops short of calling it out directly. Why not do so?

I believe I've heard it stated by the TOC before that you don't want to preclude healthy important projects where the vast majority of committers happen to be from one organization. I agree. However, I don't think that is at odds with an open governance model. For example, you could have an open governance model where it just so happened to be, that the participation in the project is all from a single company, however, because of the governance model, should contributors join later from other companies, they would have a path to equal influence in the project decision making and contributions being committed.

Why am I bringing this up? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I believe the advantage of calling open gov out explicitly in the graduation criteria helps avoid a future scenario where a CNCF project is governed by a cabal largely dominated by one company, that has a token committer from outside, that actively or passively ignores contributions from the community (the incentives can differ from project to project). I suspect you have come across github projects with open source licenses that behave this way. Projects like this are bad for the project's and foundation's brand.  The ASF had to deal with this issue a number of times with popular projects in their Big Data stack. It was painful, but they were able to deal with it because they are prescriptive about how ASF projects are to be governed. I realize this can be a slippery slope because the next step would be to become prescriptive about what type(s) of open governance model CNCF projects would deem acceptable. However, perhaps something worth anticipating and discussing.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
At today's TOC call there was consensus on the CNCF Sandbox proposal is close to being ready for a formal vote. We will leave the document open for any community comments for a week and do a formal vote next week: https://goo.gl/gZhBjY

After the vote and assuming the sandbox is approved, we will resume voting on new project proposals (existing inception proposals will be slotted for the sandbox). 

Thanks.

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



Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Jonathan Boulle <jon@...>
 

+1 binding 

Am 20.02.2018 23:53 schrieb "Ken Owens" <kenchristineowens@...>:

+1 Binding 

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018, 10:57 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

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 6990