Date   

[VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Chris Aniszczyk
 

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


TOC Agenda 2/20/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the agenda deck for the TOC meeting tomorrow: https://goo.gl/Z5ytqu

The agenda is primarily focused on finalizing the CNCF Sandbox proposal. We will also hear updates from the CNCF Serverless WG, Reference Arch v2.0 call to action and if there's time, a presentation from the rexray team.

See everyone tomorrow!

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


Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

Stephen Watt
 

+1. I think the term "sandbox" is great. 

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

As a dog owner (see my sig), I love it!

Imagine all of the other easter eggs we could put in our docs.
We could "make governance docs great again!"


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

"alexis richardson" ---02/08/2018 07:44:37 AM---As a dog owner, I object to that. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 02/08/2018 07:44 AM


Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Sent by: cncf-toc@...




As a dog owner, I object to that.

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
    Can we get the phrase "cat poop" added to the formal CNCF definition of Sandbox? That would make our governance docs much more interesting to read.


    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

    "Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition

    From:
    "Bryan Cantrill" <bryan@...>
    To:
    cncf-toc@...
    Cc:
    CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
    Date:
    02/08/2018 05:24 AM
    Subject:
    Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
    Sent by:
    cncf-toc@...






    I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

            - Bryan


    On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
        Hi all

        In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
        Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
        market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
        be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

        Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
        associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
        discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
        under active editing now:
        https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

        Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
        voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
        caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
        be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
        call.

        alexis






        On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
        <yangguan=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
        > +1 (non-binding)
        >











data on OCI contributors

Rob Lalonde
 

Hey Chris.

You can ignore my Slack message.

Have you seen any contributor stackalytics for the OCI project or do you have anything similar?
I see data for K8s and Helm.

Thanks!
Rob


Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

As a dog owner (see my sig), I love it!

Imagine all of the other easter eggs we could put in our docs.
We could "make governance docs great again!"


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

"alexis richardson" ---02/08/2018 07:44:37 AM---As a dog owner, I object to that. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 02/08/2018 07:44 AM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





As a dog owner, I object to that.

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
    Can we get the phrase "cat poop" added to the formal CNCF definition of Sandbox? That would make our governance docs much more interesting to read.


    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

    "Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition

    From:
    "Bryan Cantrill" <bryan@...>
    To:
    cncf-toc@...
    Cc:
    CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
    Date:
    02/08/2018 05:24 AM
    Subject:
    Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
    Sent by:
    cncf-toc@...






    I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

            - Bryan


    On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
        Hi all

        In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
        Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
        market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
        be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

        Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
        associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
        discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
        under active editing now:
        https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

        Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
        voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
        caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
        be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
        call.

        alexis






On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>










Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

alexis richardson
 

As a dog owner, I object to that.

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

Can we get the phrase "cat poop" added to the formal CNCF definition of Sandbox? That would make our governance docs much more interesting to read.


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

"Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition

From: "Bryan Cantrill" <bryan@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 02/08/2018 05:24 AM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Sent by: cncf-toc@...






I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

        - Bryan


On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
    Hi all

    In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
    Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
    market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
    be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

    Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
    associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
    discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
    under active editing now:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

    Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
    voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
    caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
    be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
    call.

    alexis






    On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
    <yangguan=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
    > +1 (non-binding)
    >








Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

Can we get the phrase "cat poop" added to the formal CNCF definition of Sandbox? That would make our governance docs much more interesting to read.


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

"Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition

From: "Bryan Cantrill" <bryan@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 02/08/2018 05:24 AM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Sent by: cncf-toc@...






I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

        - Bryan


On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
    Hi all

    In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
    Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
    market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
    be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

    Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
    associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
    discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
    under active editing now:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

    Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
    voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
    caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
    be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
    call.

    alexis






On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>







Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

alexis richardson
 

Hurrah


On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, 10:24 Bryan Cantrill, <bryan@...> wrote:

I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

        - Bryan

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all

In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
under active editing now:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
call.

alexis






On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>





Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 


I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

        - Bryan


On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all

In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
under active editing now:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
call.

alexis






On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>





Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)

alexis richardson
 

Please note that as of 0945 UK time on 8 Feb 2018, voting is paused.



On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)


[VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

alexis richardson
 

Hi all

In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
market perception & confusion. It is most likely that Inception will
be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
associated changes and clarifications. This will include much of the
discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call. This draft is
under active editing now:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
voting on Inception projects. I apologise for any delays that are
caused by this. For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
call.

alexis






On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)


Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)

Yang Guan
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)

Egor Guz <egor.guz@...>
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials

alexis richardson
 

Erin

Let's sort out inception/sandbox and then we'll see. For the record,
I think "community support" is not an objective metric.

alexis

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
Alexis,
I guess it depends on what we plan to do with inception in terms of
acceptance, dd, marketing, etc..

I absolutely think it's imperative that we have community support at
incubation.

The concerns I am seeing voiced in several PRs during the DD for inception.

Does this better clarify my concerns to you?
Erin




On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:

Erin

Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
sponsor do so on their behalf.

alexis


On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,
It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see
on
many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is
the
community support beyond company A", etc.

So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems
counter-intuitive
to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
community support.

Thoughts?
Erin



On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:

Erin

Thank you.

What is your question about community support?

Alexis


On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:

Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it
lands
in a healthy place, it's no small feat!

With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
success factor.

And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide
better
understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the
community are
concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I
am a
potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed
(with a
bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website
probably
instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.

The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support
is
not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source
community
see this as criteria zero.

Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what
the plan
is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people
are
trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day
jobs, so
things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a
broken
record here).

Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
Thanks,
Erin



On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:

Jess

That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the
process
of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all
comments
good & timely, anywhere.

a



On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
wrote:
Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid
the
300k?

Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects?
Is
that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy
to
ask this on the call :)

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
<alexis@...> wrote:
thanks Dan & team

@all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
tomorrow's TOC call


On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
wrote:
We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just
a
quick
note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing
materials
to
clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:

https://www.cncf.io/
https://www.cncf.io/projects/


https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0

We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon
as
the
first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry
over
to our
marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu





Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials

Erin Boyd
 

Alexis,
I guess it depends on what we plan to do with inception in terms of acceptance, dd, marketing, etc..

I absolutely think it's imperative that we have community support at incubation.

The concerns I am seeing voiced in several PRs during the DD for inception.

Does this better clarify my concerns to you?
Erin




On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Erin

Please could you be specific?  Do you think Inception and/or
Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies?  I am not
promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this.  If
people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
sponsor do so on their behalf.

alexis


On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
> Hi Alexis,
> It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see on
> many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is the
> community support beyond company A", etc.
>
> So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
> Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems counter-intuitive
> to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
> community support.
>
> Thoughts?
> Erin
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Erin
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> What is your question about community support?
>>
>> Alexis
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alexis/Dan et all,
>>> I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands
>>> in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
>>>
>>> With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
>>> success factor.
>>>
>>> And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better
>>> understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are
>>> concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a
>>> potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a
>>> bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably
>>> instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
>>>
>>> The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
>>> understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
>>> Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is
>>> not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
>>> requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community
>>> see this as criteria zero.
>>>
>>> Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
>>> forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
>>> publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan
>>> is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are
>>> trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so
>>> things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
>>> defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken
>>> record here).
>>>
>>> Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Erin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jess
>>>>
>>>> That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the process
>>>> of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 ....  So all comments
>>>> good & timely, anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the
>>>> > 300k?
>>>> >
>>>> > Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? Is
>>>> > that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy to
>>>> > ask this on the call :)
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
>>>> > <alexis@...> wrote:
>>>> >> thanks Dan & team
>>>> >>
>>>> >> @all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
>>>> >> tomorrow's TOC call
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just a
>>>> >>> quick
>>>> >>> note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing materials
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/projects/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon as
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry over
>>>> >>> to our
>>>> >>> marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> Dan Kohn <dan@...>
>>>> >>> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io
>>>> >>> +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Jessie Frazelle
>>>> > 4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
>>>> > pgp.mit.edu
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>





Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials

alexis richardson
 

Alex

Thanks for your patience in this.  Showing a mature and objective face to users is so important and I know you have been overwhelmed and doggedly doing the right thing. 

In terms of handling the issues below, the written proposal is the next step for all of us.  It may be efficient to liaise with Dan directly.  Your early feedback could help us avoid some iterations later.

A


On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, 16:08 Alex Chircop, <alex.chircop@...> wrote:
Following up on this thread and the discussion on the TOC call yesterday, I'd like to see better clarity overall in the marketing of how inception and incubation projects are differentiated.

The changes to the website, the text to the press releases,  and the landscape are all good first steps, however I worry that it does not achieve the goal of clearly differentiating the projects for end users.   Camille's comment about how the Apache foundation differentiates incubation projects (https://incubator.apache.org/) would be an option/example doing this better.

Some simple examples of how the confusion is being perpetuated right now:
*  On https://www.cncf.io/projects/, the inception and incubation projects are listed together under different headings, but with nothing to indicate that they have different criteria.  End users are very unlikely to make the effort to read and digest the graduation criteria, so any way of simply explaining the difference on the projects page would be helpful.
*  The press releases for both Rook (inception) and Vitess (incubator) both start with the tagline "Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) voted to accept xx as the yyth hosted project, alongside Kubernetes, Prometheus, ....".   Although there was text in the release about inception projects and graduation criteria, the bulk of the blogs and follow-on articles latched onto the first sentence and ran with that.   The tag line is that the projects are in the same box as Kubernetes or Prometheus.  From an end user point of view there is very little to determine difference in project maturity, size or adoption.

Anecdotally, I've personally spent a lot of effort answering questions in emails, slack & meetups over the last few days and can confirm that the confusion is real :-)

I believe that all work on cloud native projects benefits the community and the adoption of cloud native technologies in general, and inception projects supported by a foundation like the CNCF is useful - however getting the terminology right and following on through in all aspects of marketing is critical to ensure end users are getting the right information.   This is especially important in the "Cloud Native" world where there is certain amount of flux and constant change.

Thanks,
Alex

On 06/02/2018, 07:52, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:

    Luis

    The CNCF does and should endorse cross-org maintainership.  It has to
    be realistic though.  Many projects have a very healthy lifecycle with
    just one group backing them, even when that group coincides with a
    single legal entity.

    a


    On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Luis Pab?n <luis@...> wrote:
    > Hi Alexis,
    >  I think it is more about having a healthy open community with multiple
    > consistent maintainers and contributors. Multiple backgrounds and agendas
    > increase the amount of innovation in the project, but projects with a single
    > company/maintainer might lack that drive.
    >
    > - Luis
    >
    > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> Erin
    >>
    >> Please could you be specific?  Do you think Inception and/or
    >> Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies?  I am not
    >> promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this.  If
    >> people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
    >> sponsor do so on their behalf.
    >>
    >> alexis
    >>
    >>
    >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
    >> > Hi Alexis,
    >> > It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see
    >> > on
    >> > many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is
    >> > the
    >> > community support beyond company A", etc.
    >> >
    >> > So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
    >> > Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems
    >> > counter-intuitive
    >> > to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
    >> > community support.
    >> >
    >> > Thoughts?
    >> > Erin
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
    >> > wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> Erin
    >> >>
    >> >> Thank you.
    >> >>
    >> >> What is your question about community support?
    >> >>
    >> >> Alexis
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Alexis/Dan et all,
    >> >>> I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it
    >> >>> lands
    >> >>> in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
    >> >>>
    >> >>> With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
    >> >>> success factor.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide
    >> >>> better
    >> >>> understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the
    >> >>> community are
    >> >>> concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I
    >> >>> am a
    >> >>> potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed
    >> >>> (with a
    >> >>> bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website
    >> >>> probably
    >> >>> instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
    >> >>> understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
    >> >>> Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support
    >> >>> is
    >> >>> not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
    >> >>> requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source
    >> >>> community
    >> >>> see this as criteria zero.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
    >> >>> forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
    >> >>> publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what
    >> >>> the plan
    >> >>> is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people
    >> >>> are
    >> >>> trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day
    >> >>> jobs, so
    >> >>> things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
    >> >>> defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a
    >> >>> broken
    >> >>> record here).
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
    >> >>> Thanks,
    >> >>> Erin
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
    >> >>> wrote:
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> Jess
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the
    >> >>>> process
    >> >>>> of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 ....  So all
    >> >>>> comments
    >> >>>> good & timely, anywhere.
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> a
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
    >> >>>> wrote:
    >> >>>> > Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid
    >> >>>> > the
    >> >>>> > 300k?
    >> >>>> >
    >> >>>> > Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects?
    >> >>>> > Is
    >> >>>> > that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy
    >> >>>> > to
    >> >>>> > ask this on the call :)
    >> >>>> >
    >> >>>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
    >> >>>> > <alexis@...> wrote:
    >> >>>> >> thanks Dan & team
    >> >>>> >>
    >> >>>> >> @all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
    >> >>>> >> tomorrow's TOC call
    >> >>>> >>
    >> >>>> >>
    >> >>>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
    >> >>>> >> wrote:
    >> >>>> >>> We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just
    >> >>>> >>> a
    >> >>>> >>> quick
    >> >>>> >>> note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing
    >> >>>> >>> materials
    >> >>>> >>> to
    >> >>>> >>> clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
    >> >>>> >>>
    >> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/
    >> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/projects/
    >> >>>> >>>
    >> >>>> >>>
    >> >>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
    >> >>>> >>>
    >> >>>> >>> We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon
    >> >>>> >>> as
    >> >>>> >>> the
    >> >>>> >>> first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry
    >> >>>> >>> over
    >> >>>> >>> to our
    >> >>>> >>> marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
    >> >>>> >>> --
    >> >>>> >>> Dan Kohn <dan@...>
    >> >>>> >>> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
    >> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io
    >> >>>> >>> +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
    >> >>>> >>>
    >> >>>> >>
    >> >>>> >>
    >> >>>> >>
    >> >>>> >
    >> >>>> >
    >> >>>> >
    >> >>>> > --
    >> >>>> >
    >> >>>> >
    >> >>>> > Jessie Frazelle
    >> >>>> > 4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
    >> >>>> > pgp.mit.edu
    >> >>>> >
    >> >>>> >
    >> >>>> >
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >









Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials

Alex Chircop
 

Following up on this thread and the discussion on the TOC call yesterday, I'd like to see better clarity overall in the marketing of how inception and incubation projects are differentiated.

The changes to the website, the text to the press releases, and the landscape are all good first steps, however I worry that it does not achieve the goal of clearly differentiating the projects for end users. Camille's comment about how the Apache foundation differentiates incubation projects (https://incubator.apache.org/) would be an option/example doing this better.

Some simple examples of how the confusion is being perpetuated right now:
* On https://www.cncf.io/projects/, the inception and incubation projects are listed together under different headings, but with nothing to indicate that they have different criteria. End users are very unlikely to make the effort to read and digest the graduation criteria, so any way of simply explaining the difference on the projects page would be helpful.
* The press releases for both Rook (inception) and Vitess (incubator) both start with the tagline "Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) voted to accept xx as the yyth hosted project, alongside Kubernetes, Prometheus, ....". Although there was text in the release about inception projects and graduation criteria, the bulk of the blogs and follow-on articles latched onto the first sentence and ran with that. The tag line is that the projects are in the same box as Kubernetes or Prometheus. From an end user point of view there is very little to determine difference in project maturity, size or adoption.

Anecdotally, I've personally spent a lot of effort answering questions in emails, slack & meetups over the last few days and can confirm that the confusion is real :-)

I believe that all work on cloud native projects benefits the community and the adoption of cloud native technologies in general, and inception projects supported by a foundation like the CNCF is useful - however getting the terminology right and following on through in all aspects of marketing is critical to ensure end users are getting the right information. This is especially important in the "Cloud Native" world where there is certain amount of flux and constant change.

Thanks,
Alex

On 06/02/2018, 07:52, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:

Luis

The CNCF does and should endorse cross-org maintainership. It has to
be realistic though. Many projects have a very healthy lifecycle with
just one group backing them, even when that group coincides with a
single legal entity.

a

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Luis Pab?n <luis@...> wrote:
> Hi Alexis,
> I think it is more about having a healthy open community with multiple
> consistent maintainers and contributors. Multiple backgrounds and agendas
> increase the amount of innovation in the project, but projects with a single
> company/maintainer might lack that drive.
>
> - Luis
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Erin
>>
>> Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
>> Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
>> promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
>> people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
>> sponsor do so on their behalf.
>>
>> alexis
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
>> > Hi Alexis,
>> > It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see
>> > on
>> > many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is
>> > the
>> > community support beyond company A", etc.
>> >
>> > So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
>> > Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems
>> > counter-intuitive
>> > to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
>> > community support.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> > Erin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Erin
>> >>
>> >> Thank you.
>> >>
>> >> What is your question about community support?
>> >>
>> >> Alexis
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Alexis/Dan et all,
>> >>> I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it
>> >>> lands
>> >>> in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
>> >>>
>> >>> With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
>> >>> success factor.
>> >>>
>> >>> And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide
>> >>> better
>> >>> understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the
>> >>> community are
>> >>> concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I
>> >>> am a
>> >>> potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed
>> >>> (with a
>> >>> bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website
>> >>> probably
>> >>> instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
>> >>>
>> >>> The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
>> >>> understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
>> >>> Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support
>> >>> is
>> >>> not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
>> >>> requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source
>> >>> community
>> >>> see this as criteria zero.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
>> >>> forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
>> >>> publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what
>> >>> the plan
>> >>> is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people
>> >>> are
>> >>> trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day
>> >>> jobs, so
>> >>> things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
>> >>> defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a
>> >>> broken
>> >>> record here).
>> >>>
>> >>> Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Erin
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jess
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the
>> >>>> process
>> >>>> of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all
>> >>>> comments
>> >>>> good & timely, anywhere.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> a
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> > Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid
>> >>>> > the
>> >>>> > 300k?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects?
>> >>>> > Is
>> >>>> > that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy
>> >>>> > to
>> >>>> > ask this on the call :)
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
>> >>>> > <alexis@...> wrote:
>> >>>> >> thanks Dan & team
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> @all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
>> >>>> >> tomorrow's TOC call
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
>> >>>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just
>> >>>> >>> a
>> >>>> >>> quick
>> >>>> >>> note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing
>> >>>> >>> materials
>> >>>> >>> to
>> >>>> >>> clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/
>> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/projects/
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon
>> >>>> >>> as
>> >>>> >>> the
>> >>>> >>> first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry
>> >>>> >>> over
>> >>>> >>> to our
>> >>>> >>> marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
>> >>>> >>> --
>> >>>> >>> Dan Kohn <dan@...>
>> >>>> >>> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
>> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io
>> >>>> >>> +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > --
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Jessie Frazelle
>> >>>> > 4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
>> >>>> > pgp.mit.edu
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>


Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)

Quinton Hoole
 

+1 (non-binding)

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@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 07:44
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)

The TOC has decided to invite SPIFFE (https://github.com/spiffe) as an INCEPTION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.

SPIFFE (Secure Production Identity Framework For Everyone) provides a secure identity, in the form of a specially crafted x509 certificate, to every workload in a modern production environment: https://spiffe.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full project proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/68

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] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)

Aabhas Sharma <aabhas@...>
 

+1 non-binding

--
- Aabhas


Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)

Christian Posta
 

+1 (non-binding)

--
Christian Posta
twitter: @christianposta



5481 - 5500 of 7167