Date   

TOC call: this week & next week

alexis richardson
 

Hi all,

I am going to be on a plane during next week's TOC call.  Please could a TOC member volunteer to chair the call next week?

Thank-you all for the call yesterday.  I wanted to say that I'm really pleased with how we are interacting as a group.  Yes, we have already found some things to disagree about!  But we are still getting to know each other and figuring out assumptions and expectations.  That will take a little time.  For me, what is more important is that we seem to have consensus on the priority of establishing a base of *good open source software projects*.  Perhaps I am stating the obvious there.  Yet we could so easily have picked a different battle to fight first -- something at one remove from focus on the projects. 

To make sure that CNCF attracts such projects, I'd really like us to focus on the question "How can we help?"

Would it be possible to start the ball rolling on this next week?  

We can return to other topics later, those being: discussion of assumptions around interoperability and 'what can be a project', plus working groups and so on.  

alexis









Discuss/Vote: CNCF Working Groups

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the proposal PR for WGs in CNCF:

The actual simple process:

The first proposed WG around the Service Broker is a WIP, waiting for our finalization of the process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JnjndNwBB9mct91MLofzNrJwew_MJgwPXlULzrKx14Q/edit#heading=h.32tcpqhictr1

Please comment/vote as I'd love to get something moving:
https://github.com/cncf/toc#voting

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


CNI discussion - actions

alexis richardson
 

All,

Issues I heard today:

1. would be good to talk about some fundamental assumptions about what we think about standards (which is part of the OCI mandate) - suggest we involve the GB in this.  also: there are related topics - service broker, volumes... E.g.: the TOC needs to decide if a project can be "just a spec", or does it need to be "mainly code that just happens to have a spec".

2. invite some CNI stakeholders, not on TOC, to give us the "project point of view" -- eg metaswitch, redhat?

3. perception, brand and timing are issues; would be good to get some more projects on board that aren't 'glue' or 'interface' type things.


Summary:

So let's separate the discussion:  

A) type of acceptable work/projects in CNCF 
vs  
B) is CNI a good fit.   

We need to resolve A independently of B, and can get going first on A.   But, eg in parallel, I think it would be fair to hear from a CNI lead (or two) who is not on TOC.

alexis



FW: [oci-members] Reminder: Submit a talk for ContainerCon/ContainerCon Japan!

Kenneth Owens (kenowens) <kenowens@...>
 

Team,

 

I would like to submit a panel proposal to Containercon on What is the CNCF and What we plan to accomplish.

 

Anyone interested in being on the Panel?

 

Kenneth Owens
CTO
Cisco Intercloud Services
kenowens@...
Phone: +1 408 424 0872
Mobile: +1 314 591 5708


Cisco.com

   

 

Think before you print. Think before you print.

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

 

 

From: Sarah Saul [mailto:ssaul@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 8:53 AM
To: oci-members@...
Subject: [oci-members] Reminder: Submit a talk for ContainerCon/ContainerCon Japan!

 

Hello All,

 

Just a reminder that the CFP for ContainerCon North America will close on April 26. 

 

 

Get in your talks while there is still time!

 

ContainerCon Japan is also open for papers as well. Deadline to submit is May 5th.

 

Submit here: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/containercon-japan/program/cfp

Any questions, reach out directly.

 

Best,

Sarah

 

Sarah Saul

Client Services Manager

The Linux Foundation

Skype: srsaul

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OCI Members" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oci-members+unsubscribe@....


draft slides for TOC meeting tomorrow

alexis richardson
 


Prometheus proposal for CNCF

alexis richardson
 

All,

I am delighted to sponsor the Prometheus project for adoption in CNCF.


TOC,

Please take a look at the doc, and expect a presentation on Wednesday April 20th 2016.

alexis


Re: prometheus

Camille Fournier
 

+1

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
TOC,

I'd love to see Prometheus present soon, so please LMK if that is a good or bad thing.

alexis


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



Re: prometheus

alexis richardson
 

Great point - worth pursuing on the Incubation thread.


On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:38 Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
RE: process & incubation.

Sorry to come in late.  My experience is that community may consider graduation from incubation as assured.  I agree that it's intended to be a "maybe" but that can be hard to control once the message gets out and expectations are set.


On 04/14/2016 09:11 AM, John Lawler via cncf-toc wrote:
-1 

Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other project, but rather about the willy nilly process. I really thing that there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.

John

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
To: Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] prometheus

+1

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Jonathan Boulle via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
+1

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
TOC,

I'd love to see Prometheus present soon, so please LMK if that is a good or bad thing.

alexis


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




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

-- 
  

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO, Founder

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt 
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: prometheus

Rob Hirschfeld
 

RE: process & incubation.

Sorry to come in late.? My experience is that community may consider graduation from incubation as assured.? I agree that it's intended to be a "maybe" but that can be hard to control once the message gets out and expectations are set.

On 04/14/2016 09:11 AM, John Lawler via cncf-toc wrote:
-1?

Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other project, but rather about the willy nilly process. I really thing that there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.

John

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
To: Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] prometheus

+1

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Jonathan Boulle via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
+1

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
TOC,

I'd love to see Prometheus present soon, so please LMK if that is a good or bad thing.

alexis


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




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

-- 
  

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO, Founder

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt 


Re: prometheus

Chris Wright
 

* Brian Grant via cncf-toc (cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io) wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:11 AM, John Lawler via cncf-toc <
cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> wrote:

-1

Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out
there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same
ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other
project, but rather about the willy nilly process. I really thing that
there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.
If we're going to figure out the proposal process, we need a proposal to
start with, IMO.

This thread is merely an expression of interest in a proposal. We don't
know whether the project is interested.

sysdig is great. And complementary to prometheus. Besides, we've previously
agreed that we could accept overlapping projects.

Maybe this was the reasoning by work groups: to gather a group of people to
look for candidate projects within a particular subdomain, with a goal of
producing a proposal (or multiple proposals) at the end.
yes


Re: prometheus

Brian Grant
 

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:11 AM, John Lawler via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
-1 

Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other project, but rather about the willy nilly process. I really thing that there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.

If we're going to figure out the proposal process, we need a proposal to start with, IMO. 

This thread is merely an expression of interest in a proposal. We don't know whether the project is interested.

sysdig is great. And complementary to prometheus. Besides, we've previously agreed that we could accept overlapping projects. 

Maybe this was the reasoning by work groups: to gather a group of people to look for candidate projects within a particular subdomain, with a goal of producing a proposal (or multiple proposals) at the end.
 

John

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
To: Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] prometheus

+1

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Jonathan Boulle via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
+1

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
TOC,

I'd love to see Prometheus present soon, so please LMK if that is a good or bad thing.

alexis


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



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



Re: prometheus

John Lawler <jlawler@...>
 

-1 

Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other project, but rather about the willy nilly process. I really thing that there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.

John

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
To: Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] prometheus

+1

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Jonathan Boulle via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
+1

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
TOC,

I'd love to see Prometheus present soon, so please LMK if that is a good or bad thing.

alexis


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



Re: prometheus

Solomon Hykes
 

+1


On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Jonathan Boulle via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
+1

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
TOC,

I'd love to see Prometheus present soon, so please LMK if that is a good or bad thing.

alexis


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



Re: Incubation discussion

alexis richardson
 



On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:18 Brian Grant, <briangrant@...> wrote:
One thing that occurred to me: CNCF may invest significant resources in a project while it is in incubation. Are we ok with projects walking away after such investment?

That would be a bad outcome that should act as an incentive to exit Incubation positively. 

Factors like this mitigate in favour of keeping things simple. Eg we could set ourselves a goal of getting projects out of Incubation within N months.

Also once we have developed our approach in more detail then we could have a slightly different Incubation model. I think this safety valve is most useful while we are all figuring out the approach. 




On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Mark

Yes that would be implied: so full transfer isn't obligatory on entering Incubation. At least for now.

In my view no project would exit Incubation if the project leads were opposed to continuing. So this rule is arguably an explicit version of a hidden assumption.

A


On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:22 Mark Peek, <markpeek@...> wrote:
One thing this implies to me is we will not be transferring any project assets to the CNCF until the project exits incubation. Otherwise it would be harder to disentangle the project should either side decide not to join. Is this the right assumption? If so, are we ok with having incubation projects in the CNCF but without asset ownership?

Mark

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Robert Lalonde via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Robert Lalonde <rlalonde@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 12:00 PM
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Incubation discussion

seems very reasonable.

R


On Apr 13, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Today we had some verbal +1s for the following suggestion:

1. The time when becoming a CNCF Project is irrevocable is when a project is promoted from Incubation 
2. Prior to this a project may choose to leave, or be asked to leave.

The TOC might change this rule in the future but for now it has a clear rationale: it enables new projects to have a safety valve.  Before the TOC has finalised its modus operandi and how we help CNCF projects, we want projects to join CNCF and help us shape our model. So we are asking projects to join despite this uncertainty. In return we provide a safety valve. 

In effect we are saying to projects "tell us when you are ready to leave Incubation".

Comments please. Feel free to rewrite this. Indication of support will not be taken as a formal vote.  This email thread is for discussion only & towards creating language that we can put to a vote in the future. 




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


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



Re: Incubation discussion

Solomon Hykes
 

I agree with the rationale and you captured it very accurately, thank you.


On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Today we had some verbal +1s for the following suggestion:

1. The time when becoming a CNCF Project is irrevocable is when a project is promoted from Incubation 
2. Prior to this a project may choose to leave, or be asked to leave.

The TOC might change this rule in the future but for now it has a clear rationale: it enables new projects to have a safety valve.  Before the TOC has finalised its modus operandi and how we help CNCF projects, we want projects to join CNCF and help us shape our model. So we are asking projects to join despite this uncertainty. In return we provide a safety valve. 

In effect we are saying to projects "tell us when you are ready to leave Incubation".

Comments please. Feel free to rewrite this. Indication of support will not be taken as a formal vote.  This email thread is for discussion only & towards creating language that we can put to a vote in the future. 





Re: Incubation discussion

Brian Grant
 

One thing that occurred to me: CNCF may invest significant resources in a project while it is in incubation. Are we ok with projects walking away after such investment?

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Mark

Yes that would be implied: so full transfer isn't obligatory on entering Incubation. At least for now.

In my view no project would exit Incubation if the project leads were opposed to continuing. So this rule is arguably an explicit version of a hidden assumption.

A


On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:22 Mark Peek, <markpeek@...> wrote:
One thing this implies to me is we will not be transferring any project assets to the CNCF until the project exits incubation. Otherwise it would be harder to disentangle the project should either side decide not to join. Is this the right assumption? If so, are we ok with having incubation projects in the CNCF but without asset ownership?

Mark

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Robert Lalonde via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Robert Lalonde <rlalonde@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 12:00 PM
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Incubation discussion

seems very reasonable.

R


On Apr 13, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Today we had some verbal +1s for the following suggestion:

1. The time when becoming a CNCF Project is irrevocable is when a project is promoted from Incubation 
2. Prior to this a project may choose to leave, or be asked to leave.

The TOC might change this rule in the future but for now it has a clear rationale: it enables new projects to have a safety valve.  Before the TOC has finalised its modus operandi and how we help CNCF projects, we want projects to join CNCF and help us shape our model. So we are asking projects to join despite this uncertainty. In return we provide a safety valve. 

In effect we are saying to projects "tell us when you are ready to leave Incubation".

Comments please. Feel free to rewrite this. Indication of support will not be taken as a formal vote.  This email thread is for discussion only & towards creating language that we can put to a vote in the future. 




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


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



Re: prometheus

Brian Grant
 

From the discussion, it sounded like we should add a couple items to the proposal template:

1. A discussion of how the project would complement / integrate with / overlap with other CNCF projects and perhaps the scope of CNCF's mission more generally.

2. A tentative list of the project's needs/asks from CNCF. Especially important if we do make incubation graduation a mutual decision.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Unless anyone makes a strong case for holding off on this by Friday pm, I'll get a draft proposal shared here on the weekend



On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:16 Brian Grant, <briangrant@...> wrote:
+1.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I think it's a solid choice. Would be a win for CNCF to have a second very credible project on board.


On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
TOC,

I'd love to see Prometheus present soon, so please LMK if that is a good or bad thing.

alexis


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



Re: prometheus

Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
 

+1

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
TOC,

I'd love to see Prometheus present soon, so please LMK if that is a good or bad thing.

alexis


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



Re: Incubation discussion

Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
 

This proposal is fine in itself, but just to round out the other points made in the discussion: it doesn't quite address the issue of how projects might deal with decisions made by the TOC post-incubation. Something maybe to table now but discuss in future as it becomes clearer what a project being in CNCF means and as the first projects look to leave incubation.

+1 on 1) and 2), anyway.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Today we had some verbal +1s for the following suggestion:

1. The time when becoming a CNCF Project is irrevocable is when a project is promoted from Incubation 
2. Prior to this a project may choose to leave, or be asked to leave.

The TOC might change this rule in the future but for now it has a clear rationale: it enables new projects to have a safety valve.  Before the TOC has finalised its modus operandi and how we help CNCF projects, we want projects to join CNCF and help us shape our model. So we are asking projects to join despite this uncertainty. In return we provide a safety valve. 

In effect we are saying to projects "tell us when you are ready to leave Incubation".

Comments please. Feel free to rewrite this. Indication of support will not be taken as a formal vote.  This email thread is for discussion only & towards creating language that we can put to a vote in the future. 





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



Re: Incubation discussion

alexis richardson
 

Mark

Yes that would be implied: so full transfer isn't obligatory on entering Incubation. At least for now.

In my view no project would exit Incubation if the project leads were opposed to continuing. So this rule is arguably an explicit version of a hidden assumption.

A


On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:22 Mark Peek, <markpeek@...> wrote:
One thing this implies to me is we will not be transferring any project assets to the CNCF until the project exits incubation. Otherwise it would be harder to disentangle the project should either side decide not to join. Is this the right assumption? If so, are we ok with having incubation projects in the CNCF but without asset ownership?

Mark

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Robert Lalonde via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Robert Lalonde <rlalonde@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 12:00 PM
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Incubation discussion

seems very reasonable.

R


On Apr 13, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Today we had some verbal +1s for the following suggestion:

1. The time when becoming a CNCF Project is irrevocable is when a project is promoted from Incubation 
2. Prior to this a project may choose to leave, or be asked to leave.

The TOC might change this rule in the future but for now it has a clear rationale: it enables new projects to have a safety valve.  Before the TOC has finalised its modus operandi and how we help CNCF projects, we want projects to join CNCF and help us shape our model. So we are asking projects to join despite this uncertainty. In return we provide a safety valve. 

In effect we are saying to projects "tell us when you are ready to leave Incubation".

Comments please. Feel free to rewrite this. Indication of support will not be taken as a formal vote.  This email thread is for discussion only & towards creating language that we can put to a vote in the future. 




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

6161 - 6180 of 6315