Date   

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


Re: Incubation discussion

Mark Peek
 

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


"What are we looking for in a project"?

alexis richardson
 

Hi

This was raised at the end of today's call.

I attempted to provide a qualitative overview of this question in the presentation at the Linux Collaboration Summit. There is a link to the slides in today's TOC minutes.  Obviously that stuff is super high level. But the board did give positive feedback on it at the f2f so let's take it as a starting point.

A set of qualities doesn't suffice. We also need some project categories. Eg "storage apis".

Alexis




Re: Incubation discussion

Rob Lalonde
 

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


Incubation discussion

alexis richardson
 

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: prometheus

alexis richardson
 

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

Brian Grant
 

+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



RFC: Working Group Process v1.0

Chris Aniszczyk
 

From today's TOC call, here's a current draft of how working groups would work.

It would be great if people can comment on it so we can get to consensus by the next meeting, as there's a desire to form working groups around certain topics (e.g., service broker / storage). I think this would be a great avenue to get small groups of people focused on topics, members and non-members alike, with a simple set of rules.

My goal would be to take a vote on this next week so we can get the folks that are interested in forming these to move forward with them. I'll also work on a rough proposal for the first working group so we have something to look at it.

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


Re: prometheus

Solomon Hykes
 

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


Re: prometheus

Chris Aniszczyk
 

For those who aren't familiar with the project: https://prometheus.io/

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:03 AM, 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




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


prometheus

alexis richardson
 

TOC,

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

alexis


Re: this week's agenda

alexis richardson
 

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
I want to add the idea of setting up Working Groups within the TOC:

There was discussion at CollabSummit to have the TOC formalize this so people can collaborate on certain topics (e.g., service broker), I'll stitch up a proposal before we meet and bring it up at the meeting.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all

Please email me if you have items for this week's TOC.

I'm drafting an agenda, which currently will cover some of the following...

1. Quick readout from Tahoe
2. CTA - Project Proposals Please 
    --> we may have a project proposal
3. Collaboration with initial projects "as we work out the rules" 
    --> some issues have arisen here
4. Sales Pitch to new projects
5. People want to help...

a



On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
All,

I just spoke with Chris A and we'd both like to cancel this week's TOC call please.  

Because:

1. Our main task from last week isn't finished yet --- please do VOTE on the project proposal that Jon et al. drafted.  Your +1 (or not) must be on the public CNCF TOC list...
2. I'm travelling during the call, as I return from vacation...

For next week, we need to:

1. Ramp up on "why CNCF?" for propective CNCF projects
2. Ramp up on "development process", with help from joining projects
3. Start on our list of projects...

In the TOC we set up informal working groups for each of these.   One takeaway from last week's meeting in Tahoe was that many CNCF people want to help with 1&2, especially 1. Let's all make sure we are reaching out to them and to contacts in our wider community networks, to that end.

Chris A, Sarah N, Sarah S,

Do you want to share any other takeaways from Tahoe?

alexis





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


Re: this week's agenda

Chris Aniszczyk
 

I want to add the idea of setting up Working Groups within the TOC:

There was discussion at CollabSummit to have the TOC formalize this so people can collaborate on certain topics (e.g., service broker), I'll stitch up a proposal before we meet and bring it up at the meeting.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all

Please email me if you have items for this week's TOC.

I'm drafting an agenda, which currently will cover some of the following...

1. Quick readout from Tahoe
2. CTA - Project Proposals Please 
    --> we may have a project proposal
3. Collaboration with initial projects "as we work out the rules" 
    --> some issues have arisen here
4. Sales Pitch to new projects
5. People want to help...

a



On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
All,

I just spoke with Chris A and we'd both like to cancel this week's TOC call please.  

Because:

1. Our main task from last week isn't finished yet --- please do VOTE on the project proposal that Jon et al. drafted.  Your +1 (or not) must be on the public CNCF TOC list...
2. I'm travelling during the call, as I return from vacation...

For next week, we need to:

1. Ramp up on "why CNCF?" for propective CNCF projects
2. Ramp up on "development process", with help from joining projects
3. Start on our list of projects...

In the TOC we set up informal working groups for each of these.   One takeaway from last week's meeting in Tahoe was that many CNCF people want to help with 1&2, especially 1. Let's all make sure we are reaching out to them and to contacts in our wider community networks, to that end.

Chris A, Sarah N, Sarah S,

Do you want to share any other takeaways from Tahoe?

alexis





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

6241 - 6260 of 6383