|
Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Stephen Watt
+1. I think the term "sandbox" is great.
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
data on OCI contributors
Rob Lalonde
Hey Chris.
You can ignore my Slack message. Have you seen any contributor stackalytics for the OCI project or do you have anything similar? I see data for K8s and Helm. Thanks! Rob
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Doug Davis <dug@...>
As a dog owner (see my sig), I love it! As a dog owner, I object to that. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
thanks -Doug _______________________________________________________ STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@... The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog  "Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in additionFrom: "Bryan Cantrill" <bryan@...> To: cncf-toc@... Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Date: 02/08/2018 05:24 AM Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION Sent by: cncf-toc@... I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop. Much, much better than "inception"! - Bryan On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about market perception & confusion. It is most likely that Inception will be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier. Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and associated changes and clarifications. This will include much of the discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call. This draft is under active editing now: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend voting on Inception projects. I apologise for any delays that are caused by this. For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC call. alexis
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) >
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
alexis richardson
As a dog owner, I object to that.
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Doug Davis <dug@...>
Can we get the phrase "cat poop" added to the formal CNCF definition of Sandbox? That would make our governance docs much more interesting to read. I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop. Much, much better than "inception"! - Bryan On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about market perception & confusion. It is most likely that Inception will be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier. Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and associated changes and clarifications. This will include much of the discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call. This draft is under active editing now: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend voting on Inception projects. I apologise for any delays that are caused by this. For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC call. alexis
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) >
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
alexis richardson
Hurrah
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, 10:24 Bryan Cantrill, <bryan@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop. Much, much better than "inception"! - Bryan
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Hi all
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)
alexis richardson
Please note that as of 0945 UK time on 8 Feb 2018, voting is paused.
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io <yangguan=google.com@...> wrote: +1 (non-binding)
|
|
|
|
[VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
alexis richardson
Hi all
In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about market perception & confusion. It is most likely that Inception will be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier. Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and associated changes and clarifications. This will include much of the discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call. This draft is under active editing now: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend voting on Inception projects. I apologise for any delays that are caused by this. For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC call. alexis On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io <yangguan=google.com@...> wrote: +1 (non-binding)
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)
Yang Guan
+1 (non-binding)
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)
Egor Guz <egor.guz@...>
+1 (non-binding)
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials
alexis richardson
Erin
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Let's sort out inception/sandbox and then we'll see. For the record, I think "community support" is not an objective metric. alexis
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
Alexis,
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials
Erin Boyd
Alexis, I guess it depends on what we plan to do with inception in terms of acceptance, dd, marketing, etc..Does this better clarify my concerns to you? Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Erin
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials
alexis richardson
Alex Thanks for your patience in this. Showing a mature and objective face to users is so important and I know you have been overwhelmed and doggedly doing the right thing. In terms of handling the issues below, the written proposal is the next step for all of us. It may be efficient to liaise with Dan directly. Your early feedback could help us avoid some iterations later. A
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, 16:08 Alex Chircop, <alex.chircop@...> wrote: Following up on this thread and the discussion on the TOC call yesterday, I'd like to see better clarity overall in the marketing of how inception and incubation projects are differentiated.
|
|
|
|
Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials
Following up on this thread and the discussion on the TOC call yesterday, I'd like to see better clarity overall in the marketing of how inception and incubation projects are differentiated.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The changes to the website, the text to the press releases, and the landscape are all good first steps, however I worry that it does not achieve the goal of clearly differentiating the projects for end users. Camille's comment about how the Apache foundation differentiates incubation projects (https://incubator.apache.org/) would be an option/example doing this better. Some simple examples of how the confusion is being perpetuated right now: * On https://www.cncf.io/projects/, the inception and incubation projects are listed together under different headings, but with nothing to indicate that they have different criteria. End users are very unlikely to make the effort to read and digest the graduation criteria, so any way of simply explaining the difference on the projects page would be helpful. * The press releases for both Rook (inception) and Vitess (incubator) both start with the tagline "Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) voted to accept xx as the yyth hosted project, alongside Kubernetes, Prometheus, ....". Although there was text in the release about inception projects and graduation criteria, the bulk of the blogs and follow-on articles latched onto the first sentence and ran with that. The tag line is that the projects are in the same box as Kubernetes or Prometheus. From an end user point of view there is very little to determine difference in project maturity, size or adoption. Anecdotally, I've personally spent a lot of effort answering questions in emails, slack & meetups over the last few days and can confirm that the confusion is real :-) I believe that all work on cloud native projects benefits the community and the adoption of cloud native technologies in general, and inception projects supported by a foundation like the CNCF is useful - however getting the terminology right and following on through in all aspects of marketing is critical to ensure end users are getting the right information. This is especially important in the "Cloud Native" world where there is certain amount of flux and constant change. Thanks, Alex On 06/02/2018, 07:52, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote: Luis The CNCF does and should endorse cross-org maintainership. It has to be realistic though. Many projects have a very healthy lifecycle with just one group backing them, even when that group coincides with a single legal entity. a
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Luis Pab?n <luis@...> wrote:
> Hi Alexis, > I think it is more about having a healthy open community with multiple > consistent maintainers and contributors. Multiple backgrounds and agendas > increase the amount of innovation in the project, but projects with a single > company/maintainer might lack that drive. > > - Luis > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> > wrote: >> >> Erin >> >> Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or >> Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not >> promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If >> people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a >> sponsor do so on their behalf. >> >> alexis >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote: >> > Hi Alexis, >> > It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see >> > on >> > many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is >> > the >> > community support beyond company A", etc. >> > >> > So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open >> > Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems >> > counter-intuitive >> > to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong >> > community support. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > Erin >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Erin >> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> What is your question about community support? >> >> >> >> Alexis >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Alexis/Dan et all, >> >>> I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it >> >>> lands >> >>> in a healthy place, it's no small feat! >> >>> >> >>> With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge >> >>> success factor. >> >>> >> >>> And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide >> >>> better >> >>> understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the >> >>> community are >> >>> concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I >> >>> am a >> >>> potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed >> >>> (with a >> >>> bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website >> >>> probably >> >>> instills a certain amount of confidence in the project. >> >>> >> >>> The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and >> >>> understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure. >> >>> Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support >> >>> is >> >>> not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict >> >>> requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source >> >>> community >> >>> see this as criteria zero. >> >>> >> >>> Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought >> >>> forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and >> >>> publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what >> >>> the plan >> >>> is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people >> >>> are >> >>> trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day >> >>> jobs, so >> >>> things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well >> >>> defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a >> >>> broken >> >>> record here). >> >>> >> >>> Would love to hear other's thoughts around this. >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Erin >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Jess >> >>>> >> >>>> That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the >> >>>> process >> >>>> of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all >> >>>> comments >> >>>> good & timely, anywhere. >> >>>> >> >>>> a >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> > Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid >> >>>> > the >> >>>> > 300k? >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? >> >>>> > Is >> >>>> > that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy >> >>>> > to >> >>>> > ask this on the call :) >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson >> >>>> > <alexis@...> wrote: >> >>>> >> thanks Dan & team >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> @all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on >> >>>> >> tomorrow's TOC call >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> >> >>>> >> wrote: >> >>>> >>> We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just >> >>>> >>> a >> >>>> >>> quick >> >>>> >>> note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing >> >>>> >>> materials >> >>>> >>> to >> >>>> >>> clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects: >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/ >> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/projects/ >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0 >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon >> >>>> >>> as >> >>>> >>> the >> >>>> >>> first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry >> >>>> >>> over >> >>>> >>> to our >> >>>> >>> marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon. >> >>>> >>> -- >> >>>> >>> Dan Kohn <dan@...> >> >>>> >>> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation >> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io >> >>>> >>> +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > -- >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Jessie Frazelle >> >>>> > 4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3 >> >>>> > pgp.mit.edu >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)
Quinton Hoole
+1 (non-binding)
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: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Date: Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 07:44 To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)
Aabhas Sharma <aabhas@...>
+1 non-binding - Aabhas
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)
Christian Posta
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)
Ben Schmoker
+1 non-binding
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:08 AM, Vipin Chamakkala <vipin@...> wrote:
|
|
|
"alexis richardson" ---02/08/2018 07:44:37 AM---As a dog owner, I object to that. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <
"Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition
"Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition