Date   

Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)

Daniel Bryant
 

+1 (non-binding)

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:08 AM, Vipin Chamakkala <vipin@...> wrote:
+1 (non binding)

--
w o r k — b e n c h

Vipin Chamakkala
Principal



Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials

alexis richardson
 

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

alexis richardson
 

Bob

Thanks for this.

There is a consistent theme that we heard at the F2F in Austin and
again since, that was addressed on the last TOC call and obviously
needs more discussion.

Consider this sequence:
- small project is at super early stage
- joins CNCF with inception status || maintainers form a company
- is deluged with press & VC money
- everyone else is disgruntled, jointly and severally

Is this always an anti-pattern?

a

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Bob Wise <bob@...> wrote:
Since the moment is opening up for debate, I will make a stand (again) that
we should require cross-org maintainership.
I believe this might help with some of Jesse Frazelle's commentary recently
as well, although only she could say. :-)

Generally this is a way to not only ensure that the projects are really of
sufficient interest to users, but also to contributors.
We acknowledge this in what it takes to graduate, anyway.

We do not require it at the outset, while at the same time a small company
might be getting funded or gaining market share based on getting to one of
these states.
Since projects are getting so much press at the first stage of acceptance,
they are getting a lot of the value without returning that value to the
community in the form of shared control.

It's not too much to ask (and we should ask) that to receive the CNCF
endorsement that real dedication (not just future expectation) to multi-org
maintainership is required at all phases.

-Bob


On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:20 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: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"

Brian Grant
 

Another take:

Cloud-Native technologies are designed to operate with high velocity at scale in dynamic and distributed environments, such as public clouds and software-defined data centers. Such Cloud-Native applications, services, platforms, and infrastructure are engineered to provide and/or enable self service and high levels of automation through techniques such as abstraction, operability, observability, resilience, agility, elasticity, and loose coupling. They utilize approaches such as declarative APIs and microservices, and include mechanisms such as application containers and service meshes.

The mission of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation is to advance the state of the art and drive adoption of Cloud-Native technologies by fostering an ecosystem of open-source projects that are portable, vendor-neutral, and interoperable through well defined interfaces.

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
Another go:

The mission of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation is to drive the adoption of technologies designed for modern dynamic, distributed environments, such as public clouds and private data centers. Cloud-native applications, services, platforms, and infrastructure are engineered to provide and/or enable operability, observability, elasticity, resilience, and agility. The Foundation seeks to foster an ecosystem interoperable Cloud-Native technologies and to advance the state of the art by fostering open-source projects that embody and/or support these attributes:


  • Operability: Expose control of application/system lifecycle.

  • Observability: Provide meaningful signals for observing state, health, and performance.

  • Elasticity: Grow and shrink to fit in available resources and to meet fluctuating demand.

  • Resilience: Fast automatic recovery from failures.

  • Agility: Fast deployment, iteration, and reconfiguration.


Example technologies and patterns that can be used to implement the above attributes, such as declarative configuration, APIs, application containers, and service meshes, are discussed in more detail in Schedule A, below.




On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:
Do you mind if we incorporate some/all of them?

​Not at all. Please do! I shared them​
 
​so they could be incorporated​

I prefer the engineered attributes:
  • Operable
  • Observable
  • Elastic
  • Resilient
  • Agile
Over the end goals:
  • Scalable
  • Durable
  • Continuous
I agree. Many things can claim to be "scalable" but every design decision has trade-offs. How you get to scalability is what matters most to differentiate cloud native from other approaches. Some of the words might be interpreted as an end goal instead of an attribute (e.g. agile) so it may be hard to make a clear distinction. Deciding on specific attributes will be the hard part.

Maybe we can find more specific and descriptive German words since it has a word for pretty much everything (j/k)


--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...ncf.io> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...> wrote:

I’m also more aligned with Justin’s definition, the way I usually describe Cloud-Native architecture in my posts is that it provides:

 

  • Durability — services must sustain component failures
  • Elasticity — services and resources grow or shrink to meet demand
  • Continuity — versions are upgraded while the service is running

 

I think declarative may be the way to achieve those, but can be added explicitly

Containers, unikernels, serverless, foo… are ways to implement this


As much as I'm a strong proponent of declarative configuration and APIs (and declarative APIs :-)), I agree that they are implementation techniques. I think we should provides examples of such techniques, but probably not in the mission statement.
 

 

Yaron

iguazio, CTO

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 at 8:30
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"

 

 

Wow, I really like Justin's (and Kris's) definitions.  As I read Brian's proposed attributes, it occurred to me how much software we have that is indisputably cloud native and yet doesn't exhibit the attributes as described.  I think part of the problem is that it's too focused on artifact attributes and not on the principles behind those attributes.  Justin's definitions are more expansive in that regard and (from my perspective, anyway), a better fit for us...

 

        - Bryan

 

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...> wrote:

This is just my opinion. Feedback is encouraged. I did a lot of thinking about definitions when writing Cloud Native Infrastructure with Kris Nova last year.

 

In the book I define cloud native infrastructure as

 

Cloud native infrastructure is infrastructure that is hidden behind useful abstractions, controlled by APIs, managed by software, and has the purpose of running applications.

 

​The definitions for the CNCF are not just about running infrastructure and also impact how applications are designed and managed.

 

I defined cloud native applications as

 

A cloud native application is engineered to run on a platform and is designed for resiliency, agility, operability, and observability. Resiliency embraces failures instead of trying to prevent them; it takes advantage of the dynamic nature of running on a platform. Agility allows for fast deployments and quick iterations. Operability

​ ​

adds control of application life cycles from inside the application instead of relying on external processes and monitors. Observability provides information to answer questions about application state.

 

A possible elevator pitch could be something like.

 

Declarative, dynamic, resilient, and scalable.​

 

For me these expand to mean

 

Declarative APIs backed by infrastructure as software (not static code) that converge on a desired state. This applies to infrastructure, policy, application deployments, everything!

Dynamic because of the high rate of change and making frequent deployments (applications and infrastructure). This also can be used to describe service discovery as well as testing patterns and service mesh style routing.

Resilient to changes and discovery of environments. Microservices is one pattern for this but it also can include other options. Resiliency enables reliability which is the single most important factor of complex systems (or so I've read from numerous sources)

Scalable means applications need to be packaged in a way to scale horizontally instead of vertically. Ideally this would be containers but it can also be what I'd call "accidental containers" for things like lambda, app engine, or any PaaS where you don't explicitly package your code into an executable unit.


 

--
Justin Garrison
justingarrison.com

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...ncf.io> wrote:

Good point. I'll think about that (and am open to suggestions). "Automation" is a bit too terse, and not differentiated from the numerous automation systems of the past.

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Bob Wise <bob@...> wrote:

Although the new definition is deeper and more inclusive, I think it is much less approachable especially to an less technical audience.

 

The "container packaged, dynamically managed, micro service oriented" was (and is) a great elevator pitch. It's simple, and has really helped give

those in organizations trying to sell upward on transformation paths great clear air cover. I think we would all agree that containers incorporate

many of the approaches indicated in the bits below. 

 

If we are going to replace those points (rather than enhance them) can we work on three simple bullets, or something that helps the entry?

 

-Bob

 

 

 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...ncf.io> wrote:

The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows. 

 

Existing charter text:

 

The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes.

Cloud native systems will have the following properties:

(a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications.

(b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations.

(c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces.

Proposed text:

 

The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous.

 

The following are some attributes of Cloud Native:

  • Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity.
  • Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments.
  • Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use.
  • Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.

 

Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include:

  • Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale.
  • Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management.
  • Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations.
  • Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability.
  • Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state.
  • Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.

 

As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.

 

 

 

 

 






Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials

Luis Pab?n
 

I think that is a great idea. +1

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
The way that Apache separates out its "incubator" projects from full projects is that incubation projects are not listed in the main list of Apache projects, but rather on the incubator.apache.org subsite. It might be worth examining an approach like that to make clear the distinction.

C

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:06 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

Luis Pab?n
 

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)

Vipin Chamakkala <vipin@...>
 

+1 (non binding)

--
w o r k — b e n c h

Vipin Chamakkala
Principal


110 Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10011
work-bench.com


Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)

djones@...
 

+1 (non-binding)


Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials

Bob Wise
 

Since the moment is opening up for debate, I will make a stand (again) that we should require cross-org maintainership.
I believe this might help with some of Jesse Frazelle's commentary recently as well, although only she could say. :-)

Generally this is a way to not only ensure that the projects are really of sufficient interest to users, but also to contributors.
We acknowledge this in what it takes to graduate, anyway.

We do not require it at the outset, while at the same time a small company might be getting funded or gaining market share based on getting to one of these states.
Since projects are getting so much press at the first stage of acceptance, they are getting a lot of the value without returning that value to the community in the form of shared control.

It's not too much to ask (and we should ask) that to receive the CNCF endorsement that real dedication (not just future expectation) to multi-org maintainership is required at all phases.

-Bob


On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:20 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: Agenda for TOC tomorrow

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 

With my apologies, I am in Korea this week and won't be able to attend -- though if I find myself awake at that hour, I reserve the right to dial in. ;)

        - Bryan


On Feb 6, 2018 12:25 AM, "alexis richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
Draft slides

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jRS8QTalE6ct-yShLS9h3d6qDRQj16YjS04No9b3-XE/edit?ts=5a783a4d#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0





On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:17 PM, John Belamaric <jbelamaric@...> wrote:
> Thanks. I have a couple slides in the deck already, I may update them a bit
> before the meeting.
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2018, at 9:16 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> John, yes, we can definitely cover that.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:11 PM, John Belamaric <jbelamaric@...>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexis,
>
> We planned to have the annual inception review for CoreDNS at the Feb 6
> meeting. Is there still space on the agenda for that?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:53 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Thank-you for a very well attended and productive TOC call on Jan
> 16th.  The next call is on Feb 6th, in eight days time.  This is a
> call for Agenda items from the TOC community.  I propose the following
> rough draft agenda for Feb - shown below.  If someone proposes
> something more important or pressing, that will get tabled.
>
> alexis
>
>
>
> Feb 6
>
> Theme: Project Status
>
> Tiering:
> * Graduation reviews: timeline to completion
> * Inception to Incubation reviews: ditto
> * Discuss project tiers:
> - do we want to tweak criteria for entry / promotion
>   Inception > Incubation > Graduation
>   Attic
> - Mature/Stable, slower moving projects
>   CNCF Github Org?
> - do we need a Sandbox?
>   idea here is for all CNCF projects to share one sandbox
>   for super-early stage experiments that otherwise have
>   gone into K8s incubator
> - Sandbox == Inception?
> - Sandbox is a CNCF Github Org?
>
> Health:
> * Reviews & healthchecks
> what / when / how?
> * Service desk
> what else is needed here?
> * Project TLC WG?
> RFC / Volunteers
>
> Feb 20
>
> Theme: Working Groups
>
> * Purpose
> * Scope / Authority
> * Status / Progress
> * Exit Criteria
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials

alexis richardson
 

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
 

Camille, I agree, indeed we may wish to be more definitive even

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
The way that Apache separates out its "incubator" projects from full
projects is that incubation projects are not listed in the main list of
Apache projects, but rather on the incubator.apache.org subsite. It might be
worth examining an approach like that to make clear the distinction.

C

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:06 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

Camille Fournier
 

The way that Apache separates out its "incubator" projects from full projects is that incubation projects are not listed in the main list of Apache projects, but rather on the incubator.apache.org subsite. It might be worth examining an approach like that to make clear the distinction.

C

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:06 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
 

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
 

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/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

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...> wrote:
Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the 300k?

Yes, platinum members are the ones backing CNCF at the highest level. Our membership fees: https://www.cncf.io/about/join/
 
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 :)

Nope, there's no such contract. However, this is intended to be a one-slide summary of CNCF, it's projects and it's main backers. When I meet with prospective end users, members, project contributors, developers, etc. those are regularly their first questions.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io


Re: [RESULT] Vitess project proposal ACCEPTED (incubation)

alexis richardson
 

Can I have Camille's second vote?

+1 binding


On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Vitess has been accepted into CNCF
as an INCUBATION level project (sponsored by Brian Grant):
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/57

+1 TOC binding votes (8 / 9):
- Sam Lambert: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1488
- Ben Hindman: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1491
- Camille Fournier: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1512
- Brian Grant: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1517
- Bryan Cantrill: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1523
- Ken Owens: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1535
- Jon Boulle: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1549
- Camille Fournier: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1558

+1 non-binding community votes:
- Richard Li: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1487
- Nick Chase: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1489
- Bassam Tabbara: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1490
- Jitendra Vaidya: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1493
- Hedieh Yaghami: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1494
- Guido Iaquinti: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1495
- Deepak Vij: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1496
- Sugu Sougoumarane: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1497
- Robert Navarro: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1498
- Anthony Yeh: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1499
- Bryan Beaudreault: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1500
- Amit Khare: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1501
- Michael Demmer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1502
- acharis@...: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1503
- jscheinblum@...: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1504
- Ameet Kotian: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1505
- Rafael Chacon: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1506
- Derek Perkins: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1507
- hmcgonigal@...: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1508
- Maggie Zhou: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1509
- Jon Tirsen: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1510
- Ashudeep Sharma: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1511
- Tony Shu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1513
- Michael Pawliszyn : https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1514
- Nathan Xu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1515
- Chakri Nelluri: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1518
- Xie Jinke: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1519
- Shlomi Noach: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1520
- Quinton Hoole: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1531
- Mark Peek: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1550
- JungHyun Kim: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1551
- Joseph Jacks: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1572

We'll be working with the Vitess community over the next few weeks to
welcome them to the CNCF project family and move over to
https://github.com/vitessio

Thanks again to everyone who voted and participated in the due diligence
process:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/due-diligence-guidelines.md

Finally, please welcome the Vitess community!

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


Re: [RESULT] Vitess project proposal ACCEPTED (incubation)

alexis richardson
 

Can I have Camille's second vote?

+1 binding


On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Vitess has been accepted into CNCF
as an INCUBATION level project (sponsored by Brian Grant):
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/57

+1 TOC binding votes (8 / 9):
- Sam Lambert: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1488
- Ben Hindman: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1491
- Camille Fournier: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1512
- Brian Grant: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1517
- Bryan Cantrill: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1523
- Ken Owens: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1535
- Jon Boulle: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1549
- Camille Fournier: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1558

+1 non-binding community votes:
- Richard Li: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1487
- Nick Chase: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1489
- Bassam Tabbara: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1490
- Jitendra Vaidya: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1493
- Hedieh Yaghami: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1494
- Guido Iaquinti: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1495
- Deepak Vij: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1496
- Sugu Sougoumarane: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1497
- Robert Navarro: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1498
- Anthony Yeh: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1499
- Bryan Beaudreault: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1500
- Amit Khare: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1501
- Michael Demmer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1502
- acharis@...: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1503
- jscheinblum@...: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1504
- Ameet Kotian: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1505
- Rafael Chacon: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1506
- Derek Perkins: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1507
- hmcgonigal@...: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1508
- Maggie Zhou: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1509
- Jon Tirsen: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1510
- Ashudeep Sharma: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1511
- Tony Shu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1513
- Michael Pawliszyn : https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1514
- Nathan Xu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1515
- Chakri Nelluri: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1518
- Xie Jinke: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1519
- Shlomi Noach: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1520
- Quinton Hoole: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1531
- Mark Peek: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1550
- JungHyun Kim: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1551
- Joseph Jacks: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1572

We'll be working with the Vitess community over the next few weeks to
welcome them to the CNCF project family and move over to
https://github.com/vitessio

Thanks again to everyone who voted and participated in the due diligence
process:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/due-diligence-guidelines.md

Finally, please welcome the Vitess community!

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


[RESULT] Vitess project proposal ACCEPTED (incubation)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Vitess has been accepted into CNCF as an INCUBATION level project (sponsored by Brian Grant): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/57

+1 TOC binding votes (8 / 9):

+1 non-binding community votes:
- Richard Li: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1487
- Nick Chase: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1489
- Bassam Tabbara: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1490
- Jitendra Vaidya: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1493
- Hedieh Yaghami: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1494
- Guido Iaquinti: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1495
- Deepak Vij: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1496
- Sugu Sougoumarane: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1497
- Robert Navarro: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1498
- Anthony Yeh: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1499
- Bryan Beaudreault: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1500
- Amit Khare: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1501
- Michael Demmer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1502
- acharis@...: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1503
- jscheinblum@...: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1504
- Ameet Kotian: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1505
- Rafael Chacon: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1506
- Derek Perkins: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1507
- hmcgonigal@...: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1508
- Maggie Zhou: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1509
- Jon Tirsen: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1510
- Ashudeep Sharma: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1511
- Tony Shu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1513
- Michael Pawliszyn : https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1514
- Nathan Xu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1515
- Chakri Nelluri: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1518
- Xie Jinke: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1519
- Shlomi Noach: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1520
- Quinton Hoole: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1531
- Mark Peek: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1550
- JungHyun Kim: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1551
- Joseph Jacks: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1572

We'll be working with the Vitess community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF project family and move over to https://github.com/vitessio

Thanks again to everyone who voted and participated in the due diligence process: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/due-diligence-guidelines.md

Finally, please welcome the Vitess community!

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

5521 - 5540 of 7186