|
Re: [RESULT] Welcome new TOC member: Dave Zolotusky
Cheryl Hung <chung@...>
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 7:30 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin ascavarda@... wrote:
Cheryl Hung <chung@linuxfoundation.org> VP of Ecosystem, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agenda for 10/6's TOC meeting
Amye Scavarda Perrin
Hi all, We'll be meeting tomorrow at 8am Pacific. Agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jpoKT12jf2jTf-2EJSAl4iTdA7Aoj_uiI19qIaECNFc/edit# Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lbqIXzDVB3yLcISk-w8DelqX0IHFWDuQvNxfv5jvm5k/edit#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0 -- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
|
|
|
[RESULT] Welcome new TOC member: Dave Zolotusky
Amye Scavarda Perrin
The End User community has chosen Dave Zolotusky to be seated on the
Technical Oversight Committee, welcome to Dave! Thanks to all who participated in this special election. -- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
|
|
|
|
|
FYI: CNCF code search via SourceGraph
In case you want to search across all the CNCF projects code base: We'd like to thank our friends at SourceGraph for spinning this up, you can comment on this feature here: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/issues/113#issuecomment-703710232 Thanks! Chris Aniszczyk (@cra)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Steering committee" discussion
Reitbauer, Alois
I was listening in to this for a while and wanted to share my observations:
// Alois
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "alexis richardson via lists.cncf.io" <alexis=weave.works@...>
I think it's important to listen to people who actually produce the software here. It is really really hard to sustain quality. Adding demands just hurts, doesn't help. That's why we are looking at broader options.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020, 19:56 Stefano Maffulli, <stefano.maffulli@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Steering committee" discussion
alexis richardson
I think it's important to listen to people who actually produce the software here. It is really really hard to sustain quality. Adding demands just hurts, doesn't help. That's why we are looking at broader options.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020, 19:56 Stefano Maffulli, <stefano.maffulli@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Steering committee" discussion
Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli@...>
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 11:17 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Graduation is not meant to be some kind of super impossible bar. My argument is that it shouldn't be intended as a final destination.
How can you not? The power balance is shifted towards those who produce the software. The ones who make the software are natural monopolists, and generally they operate in winner-take-all markets. It's one of the fundamentals of open source to rebalance that power between those who produce and those who consume, by enabling the consumer to be a producer, breaking that barrier. I know that for some software the collaboration aspect is less important though (the monopolistic threat is non-existent or has limited impact). That's why I'm suggesting to explore the software maturity model rather than a simple step like it is now with "graduation". -- Stefano Maffulli Sr. Dir. Digital and Community Marketing | stefano.maffulli@...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Steering committee" discussion
alexis richardson
Graduation is not meant to be some kind of super impossible bar. It
should be pretty easy to go from successful Incubation to Graduation, provided social conditions are met. Let's not assume that all "collaboration" must be between multiple sellers of the same software. On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 6:54 PM Stefano Maffulli via lists.cncf.io <stefano.maffulli=scality.com@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation
Ken Owens
+1 NB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Steering committee" discussion
Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli@...>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:43 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
I think it's a serious mistake to de-emphasize diversity of employment among project maintainers in a consortium that is all about collaboration. I'd love to explore other venues before throwing the towel. Maybe the problem is with the word "graduation" and the way it's portrayed as a destination, rather than one of the criteria to assess longevity and community control of the roadmap. Pieces of the conversation from Matt and Alexis hint at a source of misinterpretation of what "graduation" means. The fact that CNCF is showing a linear progress from incubation to graduation maybe is contributing to the confusion. Alexis says: On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: CNCF Incubation tests for production use and technical DD. It has a Sustainability, governance and production use are correlated but quite independent variables. IIRC the Eclipse and Apache Foundation played have experience exposing a series of indicators in a maturity model. Some adopters of software may have more tolerance than others for things like "employment diversity of maintainers". How about rethinking the flow from incubation to graduation not as a ladder but rather as criteria for a decision-support matrix? /stef
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation
Bhaarat Sharma
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Barak Stout via lists.cncf.io <bstout=goraft.tech@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 1:48 PM To: Kevin.Ryan@... <Kevin.Ryan@...> Cc: sheng@... <sheng@...>; gamanjie@... <gamanjie@...>; aprokharchyk@... <aprokharchyk@...>; Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Rook Graduation +1 NB !
Barak Stout
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation
Barak Stout
+1 NB !
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Barak Stout
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation
Kevin.Ryan@...
+1 !!
K
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
On Behalf Of Sheng Liang via lists.cncf.io
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 10:44 AM To: gamanjie@...; aprokharchyk@... Cc: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Rook Graduation
+1 binding
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Katie Gamanji via lists.cncf.io" <gamanjie=gmail.com@...>
+1 binding Great addition to the graduated suite of CNCF projects!
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 7:35 PM Alena Prokharchyk via lists.cncf.io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation
Sheng Liang <sheng@...>
+1 binding
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Katie Gamanji via lists.cncf.io" <gamanjie=gmail.com@...>
+1 binding Great addition to the graduated suite of CNCF projects!
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 7:35 PM Alena Prokharchyk via
lists.cncf.io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
Johan Tordsson
+1 NB Johan Tordsson Den 2020-09-30 kl. 18:00, skrev Amye
Scavarda Perrin:
-- Johan Tordsson, PhD CTO & Co-founder www.elastisys.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
Jeremy Rickard
+1 NB
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:02 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
Magno Logan
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:11 PM Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "Steering committee" discussion
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 04:27 AM, alexis richardson wrote:
It may just be me, but there seems to be a lot of focus on the possibility of "bad actors" and mitigating the possible harm that they can cause. When we build tools like surveys, questionnaires, and templates to help us in evaluative processes, we need to be aware of biases that they can introduce or reinforce. These biases can be both beneficial and harmful. If you ask too much about bad actors, it can cause or introduce a perception that open-source has a pervasive problem with bad actors, when in fact (based only on my personal experience) it is a very rare circumstance. I think each of those rare circumstances are exceptionally complex, and addressing the problem will likely require a set of unique corrective actions, potentially in multiple areas. There's no magic solution to fixing a dysfunctional community. In terms of attracting contributors: complex topic, but the SC canImplementing the SC concept may be one way that a project community builds to be a healthy, well functioning community. I'm not aware of good examples of how this has been demonstrated in practice, and I think that the TOC should expand the areas where evaluating what is Perception vs Reality beyond the small mention in the DD review template [1] that exists today * Perception vs Reality: Is there lots of buzz, but the software is flaky/untested/unused? Does it have a bad reputation for some flaw that has already been addressed? Reputation/perception is usually rooted in some kind of reality about how things are functioning in practice, like was the case in my Xen project example. You can check all the boxes for CNCF graduation and still get off course. The exceptionally rare (as far as I'm aware) circumstances where people want to capitalize on the common goodwill and brand equity of Open Source and the CNCF (along with all the valuable benefits and services that CNCF is able to provide to its member projects) without being committed to building an inclusive, well functioning, non-discriminatory community and ecosystem won't be blocked by a multi-organization contributor requirement, a steering committee, a longevity plan, a contributor ladder, or a quarterly roadmap. --msw [1] https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/dd-review-template.md#users
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
+1 - Emily Fox @TheMoxieFox (personal handle)
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020, 12:03 Ken Owens, <kenchristineowens@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated
Ken Owens
+1 nb
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
