|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Brian Grant
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
In general, I'd like to link to devstats dashboards in these types of reviews, so we can see the trajectory. For example:
Why are we doing this in 2 steps? This is just a "yes, we want to keep the project" decision?
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Brian Grant
Different projects make different design tradeoffs. Also, these 2 projects aren't directly comparable.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
CNCF allows for competing projects, see our TOC principles for more information on this: 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:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Santosa, Andy
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
|
|
|
|
[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
|
|
|
|
Re: Project metadata & calendar
Brian Grant
Good idea
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018, 5:59 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Project metadata & calendar
alexis richardson
Chris, Dan, To Brian's comment - "I think there's an opportunity for help from TOC contributors with these types of reviews, to pre-review the information provided, ask questions about project health and adoption, whether the projects are getting what they need from CNCF, and whatever else we feel is important." I'm thinking that if we want Contributors to help then we could inform them of a project's status and upcoming 'events' via the CNCF website. For example: - fluentd - incubation - graduation review Jan 2018 - last health check [date] - service desk / status [link] a
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Graduation review for Fluentd
Brian Grant
The application specifically addressed the graduation criteria, which was helpful. I posted some links to some stats relating to project health and contributor diversity. The incubation criteria also apply at graduation: I think there's an opportunity for help from TOC contributors with these types of reviews, to pre-review the information provided, ask questions about project health and adoption, whether the projects are getting what they need from CNCF, and whatever else we feel is important.
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
TOC Agenda for Jan 16th 2018
First off, happy 2018! Second, here's the deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/5wBe3d We plan to cover the existing project proposals + deciding on calling for a vote for the ones that have received enough due diligence. We also will have the linkerd project present a brief year in review which is required on an annual basis for all inception level projects. A vote will then be held by the TOC to decide whether linkerd will move up to incubating or continue operating at inception. See everyone tomorrow! Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
Re: light-4j project proposal
stevehu@...
Thanks Chris for the quick reply. I have booked 30 minutes next Friday morning at 10 am and will have the github issue ready before then.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:24 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: light-4j project proposal
Hey Steve, you can book a time with me to chat here about the project proposal process: calendly.com/caniszczyk I also recommend filing a GitHub issue about your project with more information: https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:12 PM, <stevehu@...> wrote: Hi, --
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
light-4j project proposal
stevehu@...
Hi,
I am the author of light-4j which is a fast, lightweight and cloud native microservices framework built on top of Java 8 SE. I am considering to join CNCF and wondering if someone can be a sponsor to help with the process. Thanks, Steve https://github.com/networknt https://doc.networknt.com
|
|
|
|
Re: RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
alexis richardson
here is the doc I would be grateful if people from this list could now consider it open for feedback, especially with a view to answering edge questions like those in the list below, and more broadly to *splaining messaging
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
Quinton Hoole
In the last message on the email thread on this in November it was mentioned that there were still some outstanding todo’s before the doc could be considered ready of due diligence review. Some of them still appear to be missing:
===
Remaining TODOs:
===
Should we consider the document complete and ready for due diligence review, or still work in progress?
Q
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 10:56 To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> Cc: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
|
|
|
|
Re: RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
alexis richardson
no, you have to remove yourself.
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Paul Kochanski <paul.kochanski@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
alexis richardson
maybe, nonetheless we are using a g/doc currently
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
Quinton Hoole
Wouldn’t it be preferable to do the preparation of the proposal in a Google Doc, and then commence the actual due diligence exercise with a PR (the way most of the other proposals have worked)? That way it would be clear when exactly the proposal is submitted,
and the proper record of due diligence comments/feedback would be available in GitHub for all to see.
As opposed to in this case where the document has been through various revisions in multiple documents, and it’s not been clear when the transition from document preparation to technical due diligence occurred?
Q
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: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 10:09 To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> Cc: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
|
|
|
|
Re: RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
alexis richardson
It's all in a Google Doc, we haven't made a pr yet. All, please email me for access
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, 18:04 Quinton Hoole, <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
Quinton Hoole
Hi Alexis
I don’t see a PR for the NATS proposal? Is there one?
Thanks
Q
From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 07:04 To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...> Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
|
|
|
|
Re: RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog
alexis richardson
To add:
Nats DD is going well, I now need a few more existing or new people who can help review the DD material please. On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Hey all, hope everyone is having a great 2018! The next TOC meeting will be
|
|
|
