+1 (non-binding)

---

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:56:07 AM
To: CNCF TOC
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Prometheus moving to graduation

 

Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

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

Prometheus (https://prometheus.io) was the second project accepted in CNCF and has sustained an amazing growth of contributors and users since joining CNCF. We are moving forward with the graduation request from the Prometheus team after performing a review of the project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

The Prometheus team believes it has fulfilled all the graduation criteria:

- A well defined governance model: https://prometheus.io/governance

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://prometheus.io (see users end of page)
- Have a healthy number of committers: They have at least 17 committers from 10 different organizations: https://github.com/juliusv/toc/blob/6304e5807537402e5f7fd7a5b86864223cae5e0d/reviews/graduation-prometheus.md#have-committers-from-at-least-two-organizations
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: They have had  850+ unique contributors with a total of 12k+ commits so far: https://prometheus.devstats.cncf.io

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88

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

The agenda is posted for tomorrow's TOC meeting:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VrHKGre5Y8AbmXEOXu4VPfILReoLT38Uw9TMN71u08E/edit#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0

We will be covering the TOC election results, kubecon/cloudnativecon, prometheus graduation vote, safe/security wg proposal and a community presentation from telepresence.

Note: we will also be cancelling the TOC meeting on May 1st and instead hosting office hours for TOC members at the CNCF booth during the conference.

I look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow and in Copenhagen in a couple of weeks!

--

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

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@lists.cncf.io> 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.

 

 

 

 

 

+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

Mesosphere Inc. 

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us

 

 

+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

Mesosphere Inc. 

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us

 

 

+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.

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.

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

Mesosphere Inc. 

Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere

Follow Us

 

 

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

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