Date   

Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018

Brian Grant
 

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
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

In general, I'd like to link to devstats dashboards in these types of reviews, so we can see the trajectory. For example:

 
* 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.

Why are we doing this in 2 steps? This is just a "yes, we want to keep the project" decision?
 

Thanks!

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



Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018

Brian Grant
 

Different projects make different design tradeoffs.

Also, these 2 projects aren't directly comparable.

This article explains the difference pretty well:


On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
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:
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@...g>
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




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



Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

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:
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@linuxfoundation.org>
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




--
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

Chris Aniszczyk
 

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:
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:
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:
It's on queue to discuss at the next TOC meeting in terms of how we are going to handle the process.

We also have some project proposals in flight that we are tackling.

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Eduardo Silva via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello everyone, 

is there any update about when graduation reviews will happen ?

best, 

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
thanks Chris for the update. 

As usual please let us know if TOC requires any additional info

best

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey Eduardo, the current feeling within the TOC was that everyone was slammed with the conference coming up next week to do formal reviews.

We plan to discuss the graduation review process at the TOC F2F next week and make a decision.

Thanks.

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Eduardo Silva via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello TOC!, 

Fluentd team have sent a PR with the required information for the graduation review of the project, would you please take a look at it and share some feedback ? 

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/69

thanks, 

--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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



--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 



--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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:
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:
It's on queue to discuss at the next TOC meeting in terms of how we are going to handle the process.

We also have some project proposals in flight that we are tackling.

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Eduardo Silva via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello everyone, 

is there any update about when graduation reviews will happen ?

best, 

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
thanks Chris for the update. 

As usual please let us know if TOC requires any additional info

best

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
Hey Eduardo, the current feeling within the TOC was that everyone was slammed with the conference coming up next week to do formal reviews.

We plan to discuss the graduation review process at the TOC F2F next week and make a decision.

Thanks.

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Eduardo Silva via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello TOC!, 

Fluentd team have sent a PR with the required information for the graduation review of the project, would you please take a look at it and share some feedback ? 

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/69

thanks, 

--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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



--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 



--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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:
It's on queue to discuss at the next TOC meeting in terms of how we are going to handle the process.

We also have some project proposals in flight that we are tackling.

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Eduardo Silva via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello everyone, 

is there any update about when graduation reviews will happen ?

best, 

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
thanks Chris for the update. 

As usual please let us know if TOC requires any additional info

best

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
Hey Eduardo, the current feeling within the TOC was that everyone was slammed with the conference coming up next week to do formal reviews.

We plan to discuss the graduation review process at the TOC F2F next week and make a decision.

Thanks.

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Eduardo Silva via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello TOC!, 

Fluentd team have sent a PR with the required information for the graduation review of the project, would you please take a look at it and share some feedback ? 

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/69

thanks, 

--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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



--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 



--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



TOC Agenda for Jan 16th 2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

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:
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,

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




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



Re: light-4j project proposal

Chris Aniszczyk
 

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,

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




--
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:
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:
  • Categorize NATS integrations
  • Link to an architectural overview
  • Provide additional benchmarks (if this is still applicable).
===

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@linuxfoundation.org>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

maybe, nonetheless we are using a g/doc currently



On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
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@...g>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>

Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

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:
Hi Alexis

I don’t see a PR for the NATS proposal?  Is there one?

Thanks

Q

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...o> 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@...g>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

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
in a week, on Jan 16th and we'll resume our usual schedule of meetings the
1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month.

We have some projects in the proposal stage seeking community due diligence
that we started late last year:


Thanks to everyone who has already put the time in reviewing the proposals.
We expect to vote on projects proposals in the coming weeks.

See everyone next Tuesday!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list




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:
  • Categorize NATS integrations
  • Link to an architectural overview
  • Provide additional benchmarks (if this is still applicable).
===

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

maybe, nonetheless we are using a g/doc currently



On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
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@linuxfoundation.org>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>

Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

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:
Hi Alexis

I don’t see a PR for the NATS proposal?  Is there one?

Thanks

Q

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@....io> 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@linuxfoundation.org>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

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
in a week, on Jan 16th and we'll resume our usual schedule of meetings the
1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month.

We have some projects in the proposal stage seeking community due diligence
that we started late last year:


Thanks to everyone who has already put the time in reviewing the proposals.
We expect to vote on projects proposals in the coming weeks.

See everyone next Tuesday!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list



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:

Please remove me from this list

 

Paul Kochanski

Director of Business Development

978-430-9159

 

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@....io> on behalf of Quinton Hoole via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 1:57 PM
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

 

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@linuxfoundation.org>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

 

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:

Hi Alexis

 

I don’t see a PR for the NATS proposal?  Is there one?

 

Thanks

 

Q

 

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@....io> 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@linuxfoundation.org>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

 

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

in a week, on Jan 16th and we'll resume our usual schedule of meetings the

1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month.

 

We have some projects in the proposal stage seeking community due diligence

that we started late last year:

 

 

Thanks to everyone who has already put the time in reviewing the proposals.

We expect to vote on projects proposals in the coming weeks.

 

See everyone next Tuesday!

 

--

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

 

_______________________________________________

cncf-toc mailing list

 

_______________________________________________

cncf-toc mailing list

 



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:
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@linuxfoundation.org>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>

Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

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:
Hi Alexis

I don’t see a PR for the NATS proposal?  Is there one?

Thanks

Q

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@....io> 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@linuxfoundation.org>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

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
in a week, on Jan 16th and we'll resume our usual schedule of meetings the
1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month.

We have some projects in the proposal stage seeking community due diligence
that we started late last year:


Thanks to everyone who has already put the time in reviewing the proposals.
We expect to vote on projects proposals in the coming weeks.

See everyone next Tuesday!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list



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

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:
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

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
in a week, on Jan 16th and we'll resume our usual schedule of meetings the
1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month.

We have some projects in the proposal stage seeking community due diligence
that we started late last year:


Thanks to everyone who has already put the time in reviewing the proposals.
We expect to vote on projects proposals in the coming weeks.

See everyone next Tuesday!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list


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:
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

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
in a week, on Jan 16th and we'll resume our usual schedule of meetings the
1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month.

We have some projects in the proposal stage seeking community due diligence
that we started late last year:


Thanks to everyone who has already put the time in reviewing the proposals.
We expect to vote on projects proposals in the coming weeks.

See everyone next Tuesday!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list


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

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
in a week, on Jan 16th and we'll resume our usual schedule of meetings the
1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month.

We have some projects in the proposal stage seeking community due diligence
that we started late last year:


Thanks to everyone who has already put the time in reviewing the proposals.
We expect to vote on projects proposals in the coming weeks.

See everyone next Tuesday!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list


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
in a week, on Jan 16th and we'll resume our usual schedule of meetings the
1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month.

We have some projects in the proposal stage seeking community due diligence
that we started late last year:

OPA: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/71
Rook: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/57
SPIFFE: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/68
Vitess: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Thanks to everyone who has already put the time in reviewing the proposals.
We expect to vote on projects proposals in the coming weeks.

See everyone next Tuesday!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

5761 - 5780 of 7197