|
Re: an interesting read, about "Cloud Native"
Lee Calcote
I agree that the mission section contains mechanics. It does contain a mission statement. Perhaps, mechanics are best separated. A separate “Cloud Native Qualities” section could include not only these mechanics, but softer properties of values held dear by the foundation (e.g. immutable infra, automatic discovery, self-healing, etc.).
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
While I don’t disagree with Brian’s point that VMs are currently not explicitly included, they are not implicitly excluded either. With the vast amount of work, energy, effort it takes the foundation to track and steward the container ecosystem, I question whether this group (the foundation) will be successful if it tries to explicitly include consideration for VMs within the scope charter as well. Albeit not focused on microservices architectures, other foundations (even within the Linux Foundation like the OVA) are saddled with VM-specific charters. Understanding many organizations will run CNCF container projects within or pointed at VMs, is the lack of explicit inclusion ok or do people feel like there needs to be a specific statement here? With respect to the list of developer responsibilities, I’ll tack-on security as another responsibility. - Lee
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: Doodle Poll: TOC F2F Meeting- June
"iv. Transparency. TOC meetings, mailing list, minutes, etc should be open." we could invite a limited number of folks depending on the space, we should definitely publish any minutes from this meeting
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: Doodle Poll: TOC F2F Meeting- June
alexis richardson
Chris On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:52 PM Sarah Novotny via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Can you let us know what the Charter requires in this regard please? a
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: Doodle Poll: TOC F2F Meeting- June
Sarah Novotny <sarahnovotny@...>
would this be a public or closed door meeting?
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Sarah Saul via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: Mozilla Open Source Support (MOSS): Now Open To All Projects | The Mozilla Blog
alexis richardson
That's right. One day, companies who sponsor CNCF might see fit to publish "RFPs" and "RFQs" for extension points of OSS in CNCF. These could operate on a bounty-type system.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Doodle Poll: TOC F2F Meeting- June
Sarah Saul <ssaul@...>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: Mozilla Open Source Support (MOSS): Now Open To All Projects | The Mozilla Blog
Brian Grant
It looks like a grant program?
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mozilla Open Source Support (MOSS): Now Open To All Projects | The Mozilla Blog
alexis richardson
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
apache foundation security
Camille Fournier
http://www.apache.org/security/ An example model for having foundation support for vulnerability management and mitigation
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: Slides for TOC Call: 5/11/16
alexis richardson
In particular, note that I linked to some slides on the "how CNCF adds value to projects" topic
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Sarah Saul via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Slides for TOC Call: 5/11/16
Sarah Saul <ssaul@...>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
subscribe
Sengor Kusturica <sengork@...>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Call tomorrow
Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: VOTE "incubation principle"
Elissa Murphy <elissam@...>
+1
Thx,
e
From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> Date: Monday, May 9, 2016 at 1:02 PM To: Sarah Saul <ssaul@...> Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] VOTE "incubation principle" oh well in that case:
YES
now we are six.
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Sarah Saul
<ssaul@...> wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: VOTE "incubation principle"
alexis richardson
Matt, On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Matt T. Proud ⚔ <matt.proud@...> wrote:
Thanks.
We are still working on these things. FWIW, I don't think it will be possible to presuppose a single duration. I would hope we can avoid the antipattern where a project get stuck in perpetual incubation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: VOTE "incubation principle"
Matt T. Proud
This is sensible as a safety mechanism. I appreciate the consideration. Apologies if it has been defined elsewhere, but has a standard period/duration been prescribed for the incubation period, or is the promotion to be proposed on an ad hoc basis? Also: what is the notice period between proposal of promotion and its effectuation, if at all?
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:02 PM Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: VOTE "incubation principle"
alexis richardson
oh well in that case: YES now we are six.
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Sarah Saul <ssaul@...> wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: VOTE "incubation principle"
Sarah Saul <ssaul@...>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: VOTE "incubation principle"
alexis richardson
Sarah Please could you summarise the votes to date. a
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Sarah Saul via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Re: VOTE "incubation principle"
Sarah Saul <ssaul@...>
|
|||
|
|