Re: [VOTE] rook project proposal (inception)
Jonathan Boulle <jon@...>
|
|
Re: [VOTE] rook project proposal (inception)
Joseph Jacks <jacks.joe@...>
Non-binding +1
|
|
RFC: NATS project proposal due diligence
The NATS community has posted their project proposal on GitHub: It would be great if the TOC and wider community would perform any due diligence and make any comments on GitHub: Thanks! Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Brandon DuRette
+1 non binding
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 12:12 AM Shannon Williams <shannon@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Shannon Williams
From: cncf-toc@... [mailto:cncf-toc@...]
On Behalf Of Erin Boyd
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:00 PM To: cncf-toc@... Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018  +1 non-binding for me, with +1 to Brian Grant on process  On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
|
|
[VOTE] rook project proposal (inception)
The TOC has decided to invite rook (https://github.com/rook/rook) as an INCEPTION level CNCF project, sponsored by Ben Hindman from the TOC. Rook is an open source orchestrator for distributed storage systems running in cloud native environments:Â https://rook.io Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/57 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
|
|
FYI: TOC Project Voting Queue
At the TOC meeting earlier this week, the TOC has decided to invite 4 projects for voting after a lengthy community due diligence period: vitess:Â https://github.com/ spiffe:Â https://github.com/cncf/ We will commence voting on these projects in the order they sent in their proposal pull requests with a bit of spacing in between of about a week or so. I will be sending out the rook proposal vote shortly. Thanks! Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Erin Boyd
+1 non-binding for me, with +1 to Brian Grant on process
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Brian Grant
+1 from me, as well, but we need to talk about the desired process going forward
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:55 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Here is myÂ
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Sam Lambert <samlambert@...>
Apologies, my vote is binding.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Sam Lambert <samlambert@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Sam Lambert <samlambert@...>
+1 non-binding.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:55 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Here is myÂ
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
alexis richardson
Here is myÂ
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
+1 VoteÂ
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Brian Grant
Contributor diversity is not an explicit criterion at the incubation stage:
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Doug Davis <dug@...>
+1 to keeping it - non-binding I think the biggest concern is that Buoyant continues to dominate development given that other companies are generally making small patches rather than becoming major contributors. Chart: https://linkerd.devstats.cncf.io/dashboard/db/companies-velocity?orgId=1 Please note that non-binding votes are encouraged. -- Dan Kohn <dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Duncan Johnston-Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@...> wrote:
Best Duncan
On 17 January 2018 at 20:59, Brandon Dimcheff via Lists.Cncf.Io <brandon=olark.com@...> wrote: I don't have a vote, but I'd love to see linkerd remain a CNCF project. - brandon On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:20 PM William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
-William On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote: Different projects make different design tradeoffs. Also, these 2 projects aren't directly comparable. This article explains the difference pretty well: https://blog.envoyproxy.io/service-mesh-data-plane-vs-control-plane-2774e720f7fc On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/PRINCIPLES.md#no-kingmakers--one-size-does-not-fit-all Istio currently isn't an official CNCF project but has been invited to formalize a project proposal. For the merits of one project over another, I'd advise you to speak to the respective project communities for that information. On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Santosa, Andy <asantosa@...> wrote: Hi Chris, Personally, I would like to get clarification of competing component: linkerd vs istio. I learnt for example one company I met in KubeCon converting from linkerd to istio. Regards, -Andy From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 8:38 AM To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018 Hey TOC and community, we are requesting a vote to keep linkerd (https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd) as an inception project for another year based on their presentation yesterday. Here are some stats shared yesterday from the linkerd community: * 60+ contributors; 50+ releases (2--4 week cadence); 3400+ GH stars * 1.5m+ Docker Hub pulls; 5--10 billion requests a day * 1400+ Slack members * 40+ companies using Linkerd in production. Public ones include Monzo, CreditKarma, Salesforce, Expedia, BigCommerce, NCBI, PayPal, Taboola, FOX, and AOL * Powers the Human Genome Project! Please vote +1/-1 (remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support). Also note that every inception project has to be reviewed on an annual basis to decide whether it will continue to be a CNCF project or potentially graduate to another level. We will have another discussion in the near future about moving/graduating linkerd to another level, along with other CNCF projects. Thanks! -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
-- Duncan Johnston-Watt Founder & Chair, Advisory Board Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
I think the biggest concern is that Buoyant continues to dominate development given that other companies are generally making small patches rather than becoming major contributors. Chart: Please note that non-binding votes are encouraged. -- Dan Kohn <dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Duncan Johnston-Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Duncan Johnston-Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@...>
I don't have a binding vote either but I am curious given linkerd's impressive stats why it isn't being promoted? Best Duncan
On 17 January 2018 at 20:59, Brandon Dimcheff via Lists.Cncf.Io <brandon=olark.com@...> wrote:
--
Duncan Johnston-Watt Founder & Chair, Advisory Board Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
brandon@...
I don't have a vote, but I'd love to see linkerd remain a CNCF project. - brandon
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:20 PM William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
William Morgan
FWIW that article is not 100% correct. Linkerd ships with a control plane (Namerd). This is how these companies are controlling routing policy across Linkerd instances. -William
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Yes, this is simply "let's keep this project going" decision. It's in two steps because I'd like to queue up multiple projects to be reviewed to graduate/move to the next level in one TOC call. I'd also like linkerd to follow the process we've been experimenting with fluentd (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/69) and coredns (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66). That's all.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:14 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: "Why are we doing this in 2 steps? This is just a "yes, we want to --
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
alexis richardson
"Why are we doing this in 2 steps? This is just a "yes, we want to
keep the project" decision?" agreed, Chris, what's your thinking here? On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote: On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Chris Aniszczyk
|
|