|
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:
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Re: prometheus
Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
+1 On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
"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.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
R
|
|
|
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:16 Brian Grant, <briangrant@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
RFC: Working Group Process v1.0
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 <solomon.hykes@...>
I think it's a solid choice. Would be a win for CNCF to have a second very credible project on board.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: prometheus
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:
--
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
Slides for today On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: this week's agenda
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:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 |
|
|
|
this week's agenda
alexis richardson
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:
|
|
|
|
agenda for TOC next week
alexis richardson
all thanks for your patience during the two week "break" due to the Ljnux Summit etc. I'll publish an agenda early next week, so please LMK if you have anything you'd like to table. as a starting point, please see "for next week" below. a On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Reminder: Call cancelled tomorrow
Sarah Saul <ssaul@...>
Just a reminder to folks that tomorrow's TOC call is cancelled. We'll resume again the following week. Best, Sarah Sarah Saul Client Services Manager The Linux Foundation (M) 520-245-5185 Skype: srsaul |
|
|