Date   

Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

alexis richardson
 

+1 binding

After some thought.

I believe linkerd has met the incubation criteria.  That is not hard to see.

I am concerned that linkerd needs more momentum to sustain high quality development both from the buoyant folks and from the community.  I don't think that overlap with envoy is the primary concern here.  My main worry is with the overall roadmap and plan - long term what problems linkerd needs to solve well and under what assumptions.

I'm voting +1 because I believe William, Oliver and co understand this is an issue and will work on it as they continue with Conduit in parallel.

Let's see how things go!


On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 00:36 Jonathan Boulle, <jon@...> wrote:
+1 binding 

Camille Fournier <skamille@...> schrieb am Di., 3. Apr. 2018, 23:06:
+1 binding

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:47 AM Ken Owens <kenchristineowens@...> wrote:
+1 Binding

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM, William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
I assume the maintainers govern all linkerd repositories, since other repositories do not contain MAINTAINERS.md files.
 
Yes.

I see (super-)maintainers can be added via nomination and vote. It may be useful to develop a particular contribution bar for (super-)maintainers, such as number of commits or duration on the project or number of subsystems they have worked on, so contributors know roughly what to strive for and existing (super-)maintainers have guidelines for nominating new members of those groups.

Great suggestion. With the current model we aimed for the simplest, most basic structure that still captured what we thought was important (some maintainers are experts in a subsystem; some maintainers are experts in the overall workings). But we'll almost definitely need to refine this over time.

Thinking about this further, it would've been really useful to have a library of vetted / "good" governance models to read through when we were doing this. Perhaps this is something the CNCF could provide as a resource for projects?

Clearly we do care about contributor diversity, so that's something we should explore whether/how CNCF could help improve that in the future.

This is also very much in my interest and I'd love any help, though I'm not sure what the CNCF would be able to do about this in practice. In Linkerd's case, at least, contributorship only really happened after there was significant adoption.




--
Benjamin Hindman
Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us Twitter LinkedIn Facebook YouTube
 



Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Jonathan Boulle <jon@...>
 

+1 binding 

Camille Fournier <skamille@...> schrieb am Di., 3. Apr. 2018, 23:06:

+1 binding

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:47 AM Ken Owens <kenchristineowens@...> wrote:
+1 Binding

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM, William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
I assume the maintainers govern all linkerd repositories, since other repositories do not contain MAINTAINERS.md files.
 
Yes.

I see (super-)maintainers can be added via nomination and vote. It may be useful to develop a particular contribution bar for (super-)maintainers, such as number of commits or duration on the project or number of subsystems they have worked on, so contributors know roughly what to strive for and existing (super-)maintainers have guidelines for nominating new members of those groups.

Great suggestion. With the current model we aimed for the simplest, most basic structure that still captured what we thought was important (some maintainers are experts in a subsystem; some maintainers are experts in the overall workings). But we'll almost definitely need to refine this over time.

Thinking about this further, it would've been really useful to have a library of vetted / "good" governance models to read through when we were doing this. Perhaps this is something the CNCF could provide as a resource for projects?

Clearly we do care about contributor diversity, so that's something we should explore whether/how CNCF could help improve that in the future.

This is also very much in my interest and I'd love any help, though I'm not sure what the CNCF would be able to do about this in practice. In Linkerd's case, at least, contributorship only really happened after there was significant adoption.




--
Benjamin Hindman
Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us Twitter LinkedIn Facebook YouTube
 



Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Camille Fournier
 

+1 binding

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:47 AM Ken Owens <kenchristineowens@...> wrote:
+1 Binding

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM, William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
I assume the maintainers govern all linkerd repositories, since other repositories do not contain MAINTAINERS.md files.
 
Yes.

I see (super-)maintainers can be added via nomination and vote. It may be useful to develop a particular contribution bar for (super-)maintainers, such as number of commits or duration on the project or number of subsystems they have worked on, so contributors know roughly what to strive for and existing (super-)maintainers have guidelines for nominating new members of those groups.

Great suggestion. With the current model we aimed for the simplest, most basic structure that still captured what we thought was important (some maintainers are experts in a subsystem; some maintainers are experts in the overall workings). But we'll almost definitely need to refine this over time.

Thinking about this further, it would've been really useful to have a library of vetted / "good" governance models to read through when we were doing this. Perhaps this is something the CNCF could provide as a resource for projects?

Clearly we do care about contributor diversity, so that's something we should explore whether/how CNCF could help improve that in the future.

This is also very much in my interest and I'd love any help, though I'm not sure what the CNCF would be able to do about this in practice. In Linkerd's case, at least, contributorship only really happened after there was significant adoption.




--
Benjamin Hindman
Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us Twitter LinkedIn Facebook YouTube
 



Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Benjamin Hindman
 

+1 binding


On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:47 AM Ken Owens <kenchristineowens@...> wrote:
+1 Binding

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM, William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
I assume the maintainers govern all linkerd repositories, since other repositories do not contain MAINTAINERS.md files.
 
Yes.

I see (super-)maintainers can be added via nomination and vote. It may be useful to develop a particular contribution bar for (super-)maintainers, such as number of commits or duration on the project or number of subsystems they have worked on, so contributors know roughly what to strive for and existing (super-)maintainers have guidelines for nominating new members of those groups.

Great suggestion. With the current model we aimed for the simplest, most basic structure that still captured what we thought was important (some maintainers are experts in a subsystem; some maintainers are experts in the overall workings). But we'll almost definitely need to refine this over time.

Thinking about this further, it would've been really useful to have a library of vetted / "good" governance models to read through when we were doing this. Perhaps this is something the CNCF could provide as a resource for projects?

Clearly we do care about contributor diversity, so that's something we should explore whether/how CNCF could help improve that in the future.

This is also very much in my interest and I'd love any help, though I'm not sure what the CNCF would be able to do about this in practice. In Linkerd's case, at least, contributorship only really happened after there was significant adoption.




--
Benjamin Hindman
Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us Twitter LinkedIn Facebook YouTube
 


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

Ken Owens
 

+1 Binding

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:56 AM, William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...ncf.io> wrote:
I assume the maintainers govern all linkerd repositories, since other repositories do not contain MAINTAINERS.md files.
 
Yes.

I see (super-)maintainers can be added via nomination and vote. It may be useful to develop a particular contribution bar for (super-)maintainers, such as number of commits or duration on the project or number of subsystems they have worked on, so contributors know roughly what to strive for and existing (super-)maintainers have guidelines for nominating new members of those groups.

Great suggestion. With the current model we aimed for the simplest, most basic structure that still captured what we thought was important (some maintainers are experts in a subsystem; some maintainers are experts in the overall workings). But we'll almost definitely need to refine this over time.

Thinking about this further, it would've been really useful to have a library of vetted / "good" governance models to read through when we were doing this. Perhaps this is something the CNCF could provide as a resource for projects?

Clearly we do care about contributor diversity, so that's something we should explore whether/how CNCF could help improve that in the future.

This is also very much in my interest and I'd love any help, though I'm not sure what the CNCF would be able to do about this in practice. In Linkerd's case, at least, contributorship only really happened after there was significant adoption.





Re: TOC Agenda for 4/3/2018

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 


The stars seem to be aligning in exactly the wrong way, but I am also unavailable tomorrow morning...

        - Bryan


On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...> wrote:
Unfortunately I am also unable to attend.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Here's the agenda for tomorrow's TOC meeting: https://goo.gl/FnpaEA

We will discuss the status of the TOC-selected spots election, working group process and we will feature an update from the CNCF CI WG on cncf.ci + other cross cloud efforts.

See everyone tomorrow!

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

--
Benjamin Hindman
Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us Twitter LinkedIn Facebook YouTube
 



Re: TOC Agenda for 4/3/2018

Benjamin Hindman
 

Unfortunately I am also unable to attend.


On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:17 PM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the agenda for tomorrow's TOC meeting: https://goo.gl/FnpaEA

We will discuss the status of the TOC-selected spots election, working group process and we will feature an update from the CNCF CI WG on cncf.ci + other cross cloud efforts.

See everyone tomorrow!

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

--
Benjamin Hindman
Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us Twitter LinkedIn Facebook YouTube
 


Re: TOC Agenda for 4/3/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

No worries, safe travels, I can run the meeting in your absence.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Apologies, I shall miss tomorrow's meeting due to travel

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, 19:17 Chris Aniszczyk, <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Here's the agenda for tomorrow's TOC meeting: https://goo.gl/FnpaEA

We will discuss the status of the TOC-selected spots election, working group process and we will feature an update from the CNCF CI WG on cncf.ci + other cross cloud efforts.

See everyone tomorrow!

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




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


Re: TOC Agenda for 4/3/2018

alexis richardson
 

Apologies, I shall miss tomorrow's meeting due to travel


On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, 19:17 Chris Aniszczyk, <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Here's the agenda for tomorrow's TOC meeting: https://goo.gl/FnpaEA

We will discuss the status of the TOC-selected spots election, working group process and we will feature an update from the CNCF CI WG on cncf.ci + other cross cloud efforts.

See everyone tomorrow!

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


TOC Agenda for 4/3/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

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

We will discuss the status of the TOC-selected spots election, working group process and we will feature an update from the CNCF CI WG on cncf.ci + other cross cloud efforts.

See everyone tomorrow!

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


Re: [RESULT] SPIFFE project proposal ACCEPTED (sandbox)

alexis richardson
 

Excellent!  This is a project that will help a lot of our use cases 


On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, 17:28 Patrick Chanezon via Lists.Cncf.Io, <patrick.chanezon=docker.com@...> wrote:
Excellent news!
Welcome to CNCF SPIFFE community!

P@

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 8:32 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, we are happy to announce that SPIFFE project has been accepted into CNCF as a SANDBOX level project (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) sponsored by Brian Grant, Sam Lambert and Ken Owens: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/68

We'll be working with the SPIFFE community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF project family. 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 SPIFFE community!

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


Re: [RESULT] OPA project proposal ACCEPTED (sandbox)

alexis richardson
 

Welcome!


On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, 17:29 Patrick Chanezon via Lists.Cncf.Io, <patrick.chanezon=docker.com@...> wrote:
Very promising project!
Welcome to CNCF OPA community!

P@

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 8:32 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, we are happy to announce that OPA project has been accepted into CNCF as a SANDBOX level project (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) sponsored by Brian Grant and Ken Owens: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/71

We'll be working with the OPA community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF project family. 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 OPA community!

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


Re: [RESULT] OPA project proposal ACCEPTED (sandbox)

Patrick Chanezon <patrick.chanezon@...>
 

Very promising project!
Welcome to CNCF OPA community!

P@


On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 8:32 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, we are happy to announce that OPA project has been accepted into CNCF as a SANDBOX level project (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) sponsored by Brian Grant and Ken Owens: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/71

We'll be working with the OPA community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF project family. 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 OPA community!

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


Re: [RESULT] SPIFFE project proposal ACCEPTED (sandbox)

Patrick Chanezon <patrick.chanezon@...>
 

Excellent news!
Welcome to CNCF SPIFFE community!

P@


On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 8:32 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, we are happy to announce that SPIFFE project has been accepted into CNCF as a SANDBOX level project (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) sponsored by Brian Grant, Sam Lambert and Ken Owens: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/68

We'll be working with the SPIFFE community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF project family. 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 SPIFFE community!

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


Re: [RESULT] SPIFFE project proposal ACCEPTED (sandbox)

Lee Calcote
 

Awesome! Welcome SPIFFE community!

- Lee

On Mar 29, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Hey everyone, we are happy to announce that SPIFFE project has been accepted into CNCF as a SANDBOX level project (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) sponsored by Brian Grant, Sam Lambert and Ken Owens: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/68

We'll be working with the SPIFFE community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF project family. 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 SPIFFE community!

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


Re: [RESULT] OPA project proposal ACCEPTED (sandbox)

Lee Calcote
 

Spectacular! Much value to be found in OPA.

- Lee

On Mar 29, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Hey everyone, we are happy to announce that OPA project has been accepted into CNCF as a SANDBOX level project (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) sponsored by Brian Grant and Ken Owens: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/71

We'll be working with the OPA community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF project family. 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 OPA community!

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


[RESULT] OPA project proposal ACCEPTED (sandbox)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey everyone, we are happy to announce that OPA project has been accepted into CNCF as a SANDBOX level project (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) sponsored by Brian Grant and Ken Owens: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/71

We'll be working with the OPA community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF project family. 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 OPA community!

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


[RESULT] SPIFFE project proposal ACCEPTED (sandbox)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey everyone, we are happy to announce that SPIFFE project has been accepted into CNCF as a SANDBOX level project (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) sponsored by Brian Grant, Sam Lambert and Ken Owens: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/68

We'll be working with the SPIFFE community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF project family. 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 SPIFFE community!

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


Re: TOC Contributions

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The place we usually ask for help is in reviewing upcoming project proposals:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pulls

A current place we could use help is in driving an update to the reference architecture that Ken Owens is leading, you can touch base with him to get involved:

We have four working groups which meet at different times, depending on what you enjoy, you can dive in:

The serverless one is fairly actively. It would also be great to get more eyes on the CNCF CI WG's work on cncf.ci and the cross cloud work:

Anyways, hope that helps and points you to the right direction, but just being on the TOC call and being active on that is appreciated.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Dave Zolotusky via Lists.Cncf.Io <dzolo=spotify.com@...> wrote:
Hi TOC,
   I just signed up to be a TOC Contributor, and am trying to understand what sort of contributions would be the most valuable to the TOC. I'd like to understand what the TOC's biggest problems are at the moment and how I can help with them as a TOC Contributor.

Alexis recommended asking this list and suggested a few areas like technical writing for explaining
cloud native to the wider community, joining a WG and helping move it forward, and DD for projects.

Can some of the others on this list help me understand the current state our writing, WGs, and DD so that I can find areas where investing some of my time would be the most impactful?

thanks,
~Dave




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


Re: [VOTE] linkerd moving to incubation

William Morgan
 

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...ncf.io> wrote:
I assume the maintainers govern all linkerd repositories, since other repositories do not contain MAINTAINERS.md files.
 
Yes.

I see (super-)maintainers can be added via nomination and vote. It may be useful to develop a particular contribution bar for (super-)maintainers, such as number of commits or duration on the project or number of subsystems they have worked on, so contributors know roughly what to strive for and existing (super-)maintainers have guidelines for nominating new members of those groups.

Great suggestion. With the current model we aimed for the simplest, most basic structure that still captured what we thought was important (some maintainers are experts in a subsystem; some maintainers are experts in the overall workings). But we'll almost definitely need to refine this over time.

Thinking about this further, it would've been really useful to have a library of vetted / "good" governance models to read through when we were doing this. Perhaps this is something the CNCF could provide as a resource for projects?

Clearly we do care about contributor diversity, so that's something we should explore whether/how CNCF could help improve that in the future.

This is also very much in my interest and I'd love any help, though I'm not sure what the CNCF would be able to do about this in practice. In Linkerd's case, at least, contributorship only really happened after there was significant adoption.



5781 - 5800 of 7730