Date   

Re: Thanos Public Comment Period

Owens, Ken
 

+1 nb

 

Ken Owens

Vice President

Software Development Engineering

 

Mastercard

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Jennifer Strejevitch
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:20 AM
To: Katie Gamanji <gamanjie@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thanos Public Comment Period

 

CAUTION: The message originated from an EXTERNAL SOURCE. Please use caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to this email.

 

+1 nb 

 

On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 at 11:29, Katie Gamanji <gamanjie@...> wrote:

Hello,

 

Thanos project has applied for join as incubation projects (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/342).


I am the TOC sponsor for Thanos (further comments here), and after completing the DD, I am opening the public comment period. 

 

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jJk5seSUcgwybT4nVGOzaRGrugc90uL3WCY0fUgQh1M

The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.

 

Katie Gamanji

 



The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail message and any attachments are only for the use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, distribution or other use of this e-mail message or attachments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please delete and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.


Re: Thanos Public Comment Period

Jennifer Strejevitch <jennifer.strejevitch@...>
 

+1 nb 

On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 at 11:29, Katie Gamanji <gamanjie@...> wrote:
Hello,

Thanos project has applied for join as incubation projects (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/342).

I am the TOC sponsor for Thanos 
(further comments here), and after completing the DD, I am opening the public comment period

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jJk5seSUcgwybT4nVGOzaRGrugc90uL3WCY0fUgQh1M

The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.


Katie Gamanji



The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


Re: Thanos Public Comment Period

Joachim Kraftmayer
 

Another +1 from a happy end user. We replaced your timeseries monitoring setup with Thanos and allowed us to query all our metrics.

--
Beste Grüße, Joachim Kraftmayer
___________________________________

Clyso GmbH

Geschäftsführer Joachim Kraftmayer
Loristraße 8
80335 München


Tel. (Büro): +49 89 21 55 23 91 2
Tel. (Zentrale): +49 89 21 55 23 91 0
Fax.: +49 89 21 55 23 91 9

Email: joachim.kraftmayer@clyso.com
Homepage: https://www.clyso.com

Handelsregister B Augsburg

Registernummer: HRB 25866

USt-IdNr.: DE 275430677


Re: Thanos Public Comment Period

Joseph Irving
 

We've been using thanos in production since version v0.1.0 and it's greatly improved our metrics and monitoring stack, being able to aggregate all our metrics under one endpoint has made it far easier for developers to find the metrics they want, while giving us the stability and flexibility to manage a fleet of per team tailored prometheus instances. We fully support it going to the incubation stage.

--

Joseph Irving

Senior Software Engineer




RVU is a trading name of uSwitch Limited, registered in England and Wales under company number 03612689. 

Registered address: The Cooperage, 5 Copper Row, London SE1 2LH.

 

This email is confidential. Access by anyone other than the addressee is unauthorised. If you've received this email in error, please tell the sender immediately and delete it. If you are not the addressee, you may not disclose, copy or rely on this email (and it might be unlawful if you do).



Re: Thanos Public Comment Period

Federico Hernandez
 

Another +1 from a happy end user. Thanos let’s us enhance our Prometheus setup in a great way. A second +1 goes to the fantastic community.

/Federico


Re: Thanos Public Comment Period

wiard@...
 

+1 from an end user - Thanos solves important issues. Especially in larger environments, it's almost a necessity to use Thanos (or Cortex).  If we then look at the quality and usability, it is incubation worthy. Hopefully I'll be able to share my experiences using Thanos in a large organisation in the near future as I'm waiting approval for that.

Wiard van Rij


Re: [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

Justin Cormack
 

+1 (binding)

Justin


On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:06 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The TiKV project has applied for promotion to "Graduated" (see https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/414).

Saad Ali is the TOC sponsor and has called for the vote at the end of the public comment period. (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4847)

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KCFeOdTIUXEkJJjaBrge8aIdovwdx4W2HngmUm5nfOA/edit#

CNCF SIG Storage has reviewed the proposal, their recommendation can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15TQERAYI-6NWj3eTGZxKJ_g3kBP9E11v1b-Gx8lFpt0/edit#

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...


Re: [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

Jinpeng Zhang
 

+1 NB


Re: [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

liuwenting@...
 

+ 1 NB


Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation

Andy Snowden
 

+1 NB

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Rook has applied for graduation (see https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/366).

Saad Ali is the TOC sponsor for Rook, has completed DD and has called for a vote.  (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4846)

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acp9gJ1D_qflHKJBg4gB-nZwZQs87_Dh9uiH4pITc_U/edit?usp=sharing

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...



--
Andy Snowden
Engineering Manager, DevOps
(917) 423-7045
EquityZen



Please refer to this page for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.


Re: [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

Kiran Mova
 

+1  NB

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 7:43 AM <sunxiaoguang@...> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]

+1 non-binding vote


Re: [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

sunxiaoguang@...
 
Edited

+1 non-binding vote


Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation

Jeff Billimek
 

+1 NB


Re: [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

Wink Yao
 

+1 non-binding


Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

Derek Collison <derek@...>
 

I think as the CNCF was formed its vision was to guide an end user ecosystem and to assist projects to navigate and gain acceptance with the end users.

For the end users, they look to the CNCF for guidance around which projects and technologies they should consider. In my opinion these projects should add value and solve a specific problem, be production proven, be security minded, and should minimize risk to the end user who is adopting. I believe our area of concern on graduating status and this email thread is specific to reducing risk to the end user who is adopting a technology or project. I also believe that the list I presented is in priority order, at least for me, meaning that minimizing risk is important but behind the others.

Even within the risk category, I believe looking at this from an end user perspective the things they probably care about are as follows. 
Note this assumes basic market forces are at play and that a project is popular or applicable to a large enough audience, meaning users are voting with their feet.

End user concerns around risk

1. Can I continue to use the software as I see fit (no license changes).
2. Is the software supported such that issues and/or bugs are addressed by the project.
3. If the project is missing features will the project ecosystem move forward in a way that aligns with my needs as an end user.

We have #1 covered, so I believe the debate is around #2 and #3 and how the CNCF sees projects that it moves to a graduated status. 

This is the main issue of debate. How does the CNCF suggest end users look at #2 and #3. 

Right now the guidance is around a fairly specific project profile that does not take into consideration ISV led projects, and more importantly mature ISV led projects. I believe the CNCF should promote a diverse set of projects, including ones that are led by ISVs.

For certain projects diverse maintainers and multi-vendor participation can help with #2 and #3, but it's not black and white by any stretch, even when the project profile aligns well. The idea of a steering committee was to see if we could help with guidance to the end user community on de-risking #2, but mostly #3 around ISV led projects.

The CNCF should be seen as a good steward of the ecosystem and the things end users and project maintainers should be aware of and prioritize, but it should be careful not to be a gatekeeper.

Speaking from my personal experience with NATS, I would like to see more conversation and debate on ways to support ISV projects and companies trying to make a viable business from OSS as something the CNCF wants to support. This in addition to the large multi-vendor projects like k8s. NATS is older than any other project in the CNCF, it has been downloaded over 120M times, so it has been around and even prospered as an ISV led project (although by 3 different companies now). I believe the project and ecosystem have done a good job at minimizing risk on #2 and #3 over the last decade. 

For #3 we have been engaging with the ecosystem and providing early access to new features through design docs and early tech previews to gain an understanding of what the end user ecosystem is interested in. That ecosystem can include other large vendors and actually does. We feel the steering committee idea could be a path forward to help formalize that part of the governance of the project and be beneficial to the end user ecosystem.

For the NATS project, and for all projects, I think as issues and bugs and new features want to be added, you always want the best folks working on those problems and care should be taken to not have incentives that go against that outcome. Our end users do not want to fix bugs and code new features, they want the maintainers to do so. Note that many times this is the best use of time and financial resources for the end user. If it is not, that usually suggests a project is not being properly maintained. NATS is not open core, and we have a diverse set of contributors across the board, especially for the nearly 40 different client implementations. But we do lead development and new features for the server, but I do not think this is a bad thing and I do not believe anyone wants to game the current system to progress through the CNCF. I think a steering committee can help formalize a process for #3 to make sure that it's aligned with the ecosystem and that end users (including other vendors) are represented.  In the end users will vote with their feet regardless.

My hope is that ISV led projects are an important diversification for the projects that make up the CNCF and that the discussion around how best to support them through the CNCF journey continues.


On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 11:04 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Folks

The issue we are facing here is how to make projects, and hence the cncf, sustainable.  As Quinton pointed out this requires incentives.  Marketing buzz is short lived and sponsors will move on to the next thing, if there isn't an economic system to help the ecosystem. 

We have seen this before in various forms, including asf, esf, and openstack.  Ultimately these foundations need to make it possible for enough actors to make money or it is really hard to keep going.   Openstack made it too hard to differentiate.  Eclipse got bogged down in tools.  Apache is overrun by bureaucracy and placepeople, and is overprotective of its marks in the name of "open source".  

When we formed cncf we wanted something better that learned from all the prior art.  CFF was quite interesting and had created terrific end user interest, but lacked diverse projects. It was basically CF plus libs and addons. 

CNCF is not Kubernetes plus addons.  Yes k8s is our sun.  But many use cases don't use or need it, and this also helps users.  In addition ISVs like Hashicorp can see value for integration of their suite with multiple points in CNCF. 

If you look away from the bright light of k8s, you see a diverse range of projects.  Many come from ISVs, and some from end users.  

Can i suggest that we listen to these ISVs about what works *for them* and without assuming that they want to game the system or corrupt the ideals of this foundation. 

Please. 

Alexis 







On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, 18:48 Jaice Singer DuMars, <jdumars@...> wrote:
As an observer, I think this is a very solid analysis and recommendation. The risk of a "rubber stamp" steering committee is a serious concern, and clearly doesn't resolve the underlying challenge of meaningful corporate diversity among maintainers. 

That said, I do believe a standardized steering committee template has value though, especially for projects reaching the natural governance evolution where one makes sense. It's easy to forget that the Kubernetes steering committee was a response to community distress as documented in the contributor survey at the time. Having a vetted and well thought-out charter to start from can limit the time needed to resolve governance friction.

Is this working group going to suggest an alternative? 

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 9:59 AM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:
As promised, we had an in-depth discussion of the Steering Committee
proposal drafted by Alexis Richardson for the July 7th TOC meeting
during the Governance WG meeting.  Six members were present and
participated in the discussion; notes are available here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSfiN1PRL3dH_ohfAs1lYvNWaBpAdvAI-9OQZYYIx8ahgy6230_oRbqljl6dUiGf5hTVJiferJgBmSX/pub

Assessment:

Regarding the specific proposal of using steering committees (SC) as a
workaround for the requirement to have maintainers from multiple
organizations for projects to move to the Graduated level, the
Governance WG recommends that the TOC not adopt it.

Full explanation:

Steering Committees are frequently important governance tools for large
and distributed projects, and more projects should consider having one
as a channel for end-user, collaborator, and diverse audience
representation.  We valued Alexis’ writeup, and would like to
incorporate it into our handbooks in progress for CNCF projects on how
to develop governance.

Projects that would need the "SC workaround" are projects that have been
unable to attract a single maintainer from outside the original
sponsoring organization, which is usually a sign of serious issues
within the project. The Governance WG feels that the CNCF ecosystem is
ill-served by moving projects with such problems to the Graduated level,
and the proposal will not have the desired outcomes.

Our decision was based on what we view as the inability of a
non-technical Steering Committee to ensure that a project with
maintainers* exclusively employed by the same organization treat
submissions, roadmap items, and maintainer candidates from other
organizations fairly.  Even diligent SC members would find it difficult
to understand enough about technical architecture decisions to
differentiate between bias and legitimate objections in reviews.
Further, unlike code and docs maintainers, it would be challenging for
the TOC to monitor activity and involvement levels of SC members, as
that would not create the same kind of contribution trail.

For this proposal, we considered specifically projects that are having
problems attracting contributors, because only such projects would need
this mechanism. It certainly takes time to bring code reviewers up to
speed, but the current requirement is a low bar; even a single dedicated
documentation leader from an end-user company would technically satisfy it.

While many folks have cited the Kubernetes project as an example,
Kubernetes has a diversity of maintainers all the way down to the SIG
level, so it would qualify for a maintainer multi-org requirement even
without a Steering Committee. At this point, the Governance WG does not
know of a good example of a project that successfully has used an SC to
moderate the influence of development being dominated by a single
company, so doing so would be experimental. As an experiment, we might
adopt it for one specific project, but we'd want to see the outcome of
that before we adopt it as general policy.

Even Alexis’s document suggests that in problem cases it would be up to
the TOC or their delegates to intervene to resolve project problems.
Given this, it’s unclear what advantage having an SC would offer over
Alexis’s original suggestion of having designated TOC monitors.

Overall, our judgement was that adopting the SC workaround would be, in
essence, removing the maintainer multi-organization requirement, and
that it would be better to simply remove the requirement instead if that
is the direction the TOC wishes to go.

Drafted by Governance WG:
Josh Berkus
Dawn Foster
Jennifer Davis
Davinum Srinivas
Paris Pittman

(* by “maintainers” we mean involved, leading contributors with the
authority to merge code, docs, and/or community materials into any of
the key repos belonging to the project.  Such contributors may be called
"maintainers", "committers", or other titles.  It does not refer to the
official CNCF maintainer list for voting purposes, as that list contains
many people who do not have merge authority in their individual projects.)


--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO





Re: Cortex Public Comment Period

Richard Hartmann
 

With my SIG o11y chair hat on: I am 100% endorsing moving Cortex to incubation.


Re: Thanos Public Comment Period

Richard Hartmann
 

With my SIG o11y chair hat on: I am 100% endorsing moving Thanos to incubation.


Re: [VOTE] Tech Lead nomination for SIG Observability: Bartłomiej Płotka

Richard Hartmann
 

+1 NB

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:45 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Matt Young and Richard Hartman of SIG Observability have nominated Bartłomiej Płotka as Tech Lead.
https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4592

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...


Cortex Public Comment Period

Katie Gamanji
 

Hello,

Cortex has applied to move to the suite of incubation projects: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/315.

I am the TOC sponsor for Cortex 
(further comments here), and after completing the DD, I am opening the public comment period


The public comment period is now open for 2 weeks, and all SIGs, end users, TOC members, and community members are welcome to comment by replying to this thread.

Katie Gamanji
Attachments are


Re: [VOTE] Tech Lead nomination for SIG Observability: Bartłomiej Płotka

Nikhita Raghunath
 

Big +1 (NB) from me!

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:15 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Matt Young and Richard Hartman of SIG Observability have nominated Bartłomiej Płotka as Tech Lead.
https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4592

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...

1341 - 1360 of 6315