Date   

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

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: 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: prometheus

John Lawler <jlawler@...>
 

-1 

Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other project, but rather about the willy nilly process. I really thing that there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.

John

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
To: Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] prometheus

+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: prometheus

Brian Grant
 

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:11 AM, John Lawler via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
-1 

Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other project, but rather about the willy nilly process. I really thing that there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.

If we're going to figure out the proposal process, we need a proposal to start with, IMO. 

This thread is merely an expression of interest in a proposal. We don't know whether the project is interested.

sysdig is great. And complementary to prometheus. Besides, we've previously agreed that we could accept overlapping projects. 

Maybe this was the reasoning by work groups: to gather a group of people to look for candidate projects within a particular subdomain, with a goal of producing a proposal (or multiple proposals) at the end.
 

John

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
To: Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] prometheus

+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



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: prometheus

Chris Wright
 

* Brian Grant via cncf-toc (cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io) wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:11 AM, John Lawler via cncf-toc <
cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> wrote:

-1

Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out
there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same
ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other
project, but rather about the willy nilly process. I really thing that
there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.
If we're going to figure out the proposal process, we need a proposal to
start with, IMO.

This thread is merely an expression of interest in a proposal. We don't
know whether the project is interested.

sysdig is great. And complementary to prometheus. Besides, we've previously
agreed that we could accept overlapping projects.

Maybe this was the reasoning by work groups: to gather a group of people to
look for candidate projects within a particular subdomain, with a goal of
producing a proposal (or multiple proposals) at the end.
yes


Re: prometheus

Rob Hirschfeld
 

RE: process & incubation.

Sorry to come in late.? My experience is that community may consider graduation from incubation as assured.? I agree that it's intended to be a "maybe" but that can be hard to control once the message gets out and expectations are set.

On 04/14/2016 09:11 AM, John Lawler via cncf-toc wrote:
-1?

Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other project, but rather about the willy nilly process. I really thing that there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.

John

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
To: Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] prometheus

+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




_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

-- 
  

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO, Founder

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt 


Re: prometheus

alexis richardson
 

Great point - worth pursuing on the Incubation thread.


On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:38 Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
RE: process & incubation.

Sorry to come in late.  My experience is that community may consider graduation from incubation as assured.  I agree that it's intended to be a "maybe" but that can be hard to control once the message gets out and expectations are set.


On 04/14/2016 09:11 AM, John Lawler via cncf-toc wrote:
-1 

Prometheus is a fine system but it is certainly not the only only one out there. Sysdig, for example, is also open source and covers much of the same ground. My down vote is not about Prometheus or Sysdig or any other project, but rather about the willy nilly process. I really thing that there should be a lot more discussion on this any any other such proposals.

John

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Solomon Hykes via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
To: Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] prometheus

+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




_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

-- 
  

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO, Founder

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: cloudedge & ravolt 
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: prometheus

Camille Fournier
 

+1

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:03 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



Prometheus proposal for CNCF

alexis richardson
 

All,

I am delighted to sponsor the Prometheus project for adoption in CNCF.


TOC,

Please take a look at the doc, and expect a presentation on Wednesday April 20th 2016.

alexis


draft slides for TOC meeting tomorrow

alexis richardson
 


FW: [oci-members] Reminder: Submit a talk for ContainerCon/ContainerCon Japan!

Kenneth Owens (kenowens) <kenowens@...>
 

Team,

 

I would like to submit a panel proposal to Containercon on What is the CNCF and What we plan to accomplish.

 

Anyone interested in being on the Panel?

 

Kenneth Owens
CTO
Cisco Intercloud Services
kenowens@...
Phone: +1 408 424 0872
Mobile: +1 314 591 5708


Cisco.com

   

 

Think before you print. Think before you print.

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

 

 

From: Sarah Saul [mailto:ssaul@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 8:53 AM
To: oci-members@...
Subject: [oci-members] Reminder: Submit a talk for ContainerCon/ContainerCon Japan!

 

Hello All,

 

Just a reminder that the CFP for ContainerCon North America will close on April 26. 

 

 

Get in your talks while there is still time!

 

ContainerCon Japan is also open for papers as well. Deadline to submit is May 5th.

 

Submit here: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/containercon-japan/program/cfp

Any questions, reach out directly.

 

Best,

Sarah

 

Sarah Saul

Client Services Manager

The Linux Foundation

Skype: srsaul

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OCI Members" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oci-members+unsubscribe@....


CNI discussion - actions

alexis richardson
 

All,

Issues I heard today:

1. would be good to talk about some fundamental assumptions about what we think about standards (which is part of the OCI mandate) - suggest we involve the GB in this.  also: there are related topics - service broker, volumes... E.g.: the TOC needs to decide if a project can be "just a spec", or does it need to be "mainly code that just happens to have a spec".

2. invite some CNI stakeholders, not on TOC, to give us the "project point of view" -- eg metaswitch, redhat?

3. perception, brand and timing are issues; would be good to get some more projects on board that aren't 'glue' or 'interface' type things.


Summary:

So let's separate the discussion:  

A) type of acceptable work/projects in CNCF 
vs  
B) is CNI a good fit.   

We need to resolve A independently of B, and can get going first on A.   But, eg in parallel, I think it would be fair to hear from a CNI lead (or two) who is not on TOC.

alexis



Discuss/Vote: CNCF Working Groups

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the proposal PR for WGs in CNCF:

The actual simple process:

The first proposed WG around the Service Broker is a WIP, waiting for our finalization of the process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JnjndNwBB9mct91MLofzNrJwew_MJgwPXlULzrKx14Q/edit#heading=h.32tcpqhictr1

Please comment/vote as I'd love to get something moving:
https://github.com/cncf/toc#voting

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


TOC call: this week & next week

alexis richardson
 

Hi all,

I am going to be on a plane during next week's TOC call.  Please could a TOC member volunteer to chair the call next week?

Thank-you all for the call yesterday.  I wanted to say that I'm really pleased with how we are interacting as a group.  Yes, we have already found some things to disagree about!  But we are still getting to know each other and figuring out assumptions and expectations.  That will take a little time.  For me, what is more important is that we seem to have consensus on the priority of establishing a base of *good open source software projects*.  Perhaps I am stating the obvious there.  Yet we could so easily have picked a different battle to fight first -- something at one remove from focus on the projects. 

To make sure that CNCF attracts such projects, I'd really like us to focus on the question "How can we help?"

Would it be possible to start the ball rolling on this next week?  

We can return to other topics later, those being: discussion of assumptions around interoperability and 'what can be a project', plus working groups and so on.  

alexis









an interesting read, about "Cloud Native"

alexis richardson
 

Hi all,

Not too long ago Joe Beda wrote an interesting doc about "Cloud Native".  I have his permission to share it, and so I am posting a URL below. 

I bring this to your attention because it may help us think about how to define "cloud native" for prospective projects and end users.   Obviously this is Joe's take on things.  What do others think?


alexis






Re: CNI discussion - actions

Stefan Junker <stefan.junker@...>
 

Hi,

I’m one of the maintainers of CNI. I was on the CNCF call yesterday
during which understood only TOC members should state their opinion, so
I decided to just listen and write down my thoughts afterwards.

Although CNI is a small project it has been around for a while, and
since I joined, the goal has transitioned away from the initial
statement which was still captured in the README. Shortly after the call
I submitted a small but significant change [1] which I hope will clarify
the position of the project.

We, the maintainers, don’t want to make CNI a blessed standard. Instead,
we hold great value in the specification that has already allowed many
projects to use the flexible plugin system for developing and
interconnecting simple to complex container networking solutions.

Our hope is that the CNCF provides a stable, vendor-neutral brand and
home to foster these values, so that even more developers feel
comfortable to help improve the quality of existing code and upstream
their plugin code.

Thanks for your attention! I will also be happy to answer any questions
that the TOC has about the project.

Stefan Junker

[1]: https://github.com/appc/cni/pull/186


CNI discussion - actions

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

re: topic "A" - acceptable CNCF projects

IMO the CNCF should allow a variety of types of projects. Ranging from ones that are pure "code" to ones that are just "specifications". While pure spec projects aren't nearly as interesting to me, I'm not comfortable with the idea what we outright ban them. They do have a place in the bigger picture especially if people want to use CNCF as a place to do harmonization type of work and trying to develop a joint spec is the first step in that process.

I'd prefer if we looked for ways to include more projects (as long as they fit the technical aspects of CNCF's scope), instead of trying to define a high bar for acceptance. We're supposed to be here to help/promote CN technology, in all its forms.


re: CNI

To the CNI issues mentioned yesterday, personally, I don't think it matters that in its README CNI mentioned wanting to be a standard. Its interesting that it has since been removed, but given that CNCF is not a standards producing body that sentence meant nothing to me. In fact, if the authors of a spec that's under the CNCF umbrella wanted to take it to w3c, oasis, ietf, etc... to get that formal standardization, that's their choice and IMO shouldn't impact whether they can remain a CNCF project. To imply that a spec that's been developed under CNCF can not be taken down that path feels pretty limiting and should be out of the CNCF's control. In fact, I would argue that if a CNCF spec was so popular and widely adopted that it became a "real standard" it would actually be a good thing and would show CNCF's value over the traditional paper-only standards process.

Let's evaluate CNI on whether its within the scope of CNCF's CN work, and whether the benefits to both sides makes sense.


thanks
-Doug Davis
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---04/20/2016 12:03:18 PM---All, Issues I heard today:

From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 04/20/2016 12:03 PM
Subject: [cncf-toc] CNI discussion - actions
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...





All,

Issues I heard today:

1. would be good to talk about some fundamental assumptions about what we think about standards (which is part of the OCI mandate) - suggest we involve the GB in this.  also: there are related topics - service broker, volumes... E.g.: the TOC needs to decide if a project can be "just a spec", or does it need to be "mainly code that just happens to have a spec".

2. invite some CNI stakeholders, not on TOC, to give us the "project point of view" -- eg metaswitch, redhat?

3. perception, brand and timing are issues; would be good to get some more projects on board that aren't 'glue' or 'interface' type things.


Summary:

So let's separate the discussion:  

A) type of acceptable work/projects in CNCF 
vs  
B) is CNI a good fit.   

We need to resolve A independently of B, and can get going first on A.   But, eg in parallel, I think it would be fair to hear from a CNI lead (or two) who is not on TOC.

alexis

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: CNI discussion - actions

Chris Aniszczyk
 

On top of what Doug said, I'd like to remind the TOC on what's in the charter currently around projects (section 9):
https://cncf.io/governance

9. CNCF Projects

(a) It is expected that member companies, and open source community members will bring project assets to the TOC for discussion and inclusion into the CNCF. All such contributions should meet a set criteria created by the TOC and ratified by the Governing Board. The goal is to have an increasing bazaar of projects related to and that integrate with projects already accepted into the CNCF.
(b) Projects can be associated with the CNCF in the following 3 ways:

i. Included in CNCF, under a neutral home for collaboration

a. All aspects of the project are governed by the CNCF
b. The project is marketed by the CNCF as a CNCF project
c. The project should be a core functional component of the CNCF solution. (e.g. such as Kubernetes, Mesos, etcd, etc.)

ii. Associated with the CNCF via an API or specification

a. Includes components where the CNCF may offer or enable multiple options
b. The project is referred to as a component that the CNCF integrates with, not as a project hosted by the CNCF
c. Integration and compliance are defined by an API or specification
d. Active development on the project or component is ideally done in the upstream community

iii. Used by the CNCF

a. A project or component that is completely licensed under an OSI approved open source license and is well managed and used as a component in the CNCF
b. Project is not actively marketed by the CNCF,
c. Active development on the project or component is ideally done in the upstream community

(c) Existing open source projects should continue to run through their existing technical governance structure to maintain cohesion and velocity. Projects approved by the TOC for inclusion in the CNCF will be ‘lightly’ subject to the Technical Oversight
Committee.
(d) A standard protocol to achieve committer status shall be established across projects based on an individual’s level and duration of contribution. Maintainer status is achieved through contribution to a given project over time and validation by peer
committers.
(e) New open source projects initiated in CNCF shall complete a project proposal template adopted by the TOC and be approved by the TOC for inclusion in CNCF. The TOC members shall be afforded sufficient time to discuss and review new project proposals. New project proposals shall include details of the roles in the project, the governance proposed for the project and identify alignment with CNCF’s role and values.


On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Doug Davis via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

re: topic "A" - acceptable CNCF projects

IMO the CNCF should allow a variety of types of projects. Ranging from ones that are pure "code" to ones that are just "specifications". While pure spec projects aren't nearly as interesting to me, I'm not comfortable with the idea what we outright ban them. They do have a place in the bigger picture especially if people want to use CNCF as a place to do harmonization type of work and trying to develop a joint spec is the first step in that process.

I'd prefer if we looked for ways to include more projects (as long as they fit the technical aspects of CNCF's scope), instead of trying to define a high bar for acceptance. We're supposed to be here to help/promote CN technology, in all its forms.


re: CNI

To the CNI issues mentioned yesterday, personally, I don't think it matters that in its README CNI mentioned wanting to be a standard. Its interesting that it has since been removed, but given that CNCF is not a standards producing body that sentence meant nothing to me. In fact, if the authors of a spec that's under the CNCF umbrella wanted to take it to w3c, oasis, ietf, etc... to get that formal standardization, that's their choice and IMO shouldn't impact whether they can remain a CNCF project. To imply that a spec that's been developed under CNCF can not be taken down that path feels pretty limiting and should be out of the CNCF's control. In fact, I would argue that if a CNCF spec was so popular and widely adopted that it became a "real standard" it would actually be a good thing and would show CNCF's value over the traditional paper-only standards process.

Let's evaluate CNI on whether its within the scope of CNCF's CN work, and whether the benefits to both sides makes sense.


thanks
-Doug Davis
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---04/20/2016 12:03:18 PM---All, Issues I heard today:

From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 04/20/2016 12:03 PM
Subject: [cncf-toc] CNI discussion - actions
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...





All,

Issues I heard today:

1. would be good to talk about some fundamental assumptions about what we think about standards (which is part of the OCI mandate) - suggest we involve the GB in this.  also: there are related topics - service broker, volumes... E.g.: the TOC needs to decide if a project can be "just a spec", or does it need to be "mainly code that just happens to have a spec".

2. invite some CNI stakeholders, not on TOC, to give us the "project point of view" -- eg metaswitch, redhat?

3. perception, brand and timing are issues; would be good to get some more projects on board that aren't 'glue' or 'interface' type things.


Summary:

So let's separate the discussion:  

A) type of acceptable work/projects in CNCF 
vs  
B) is CNI a good fit.   

We need to resolve A independently of B, and can get going first on A.   But, eg in parallel, I think it would be fair to hear from a CNI lead (or two) who is not on TOC.

alexis

_______________________________________________
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




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


Re: CNI discussion - actions

alexis richardson
 

Doug

I think the main worry is "ex ante and de jure standards", i.e.:
- created ahead of real adoption & maturation of use cases
- by a legislature with wide authority 

I know that Craig liked to say the TOC was like the supreme court (!) for CNCF, but I think we need to be very humble about our reach.

I am OK with standards emerging "ex post and de re".  After the fact, and as a matter of fact.

That doesn't mean we cannot have interop & glue & documents in the CNCF.  We just need to figure out how to do that.  Carefully.

a




On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

re: topic "A" - acceptable CNCF projects

IMO the CNCF should allow a variety of types of projects. Ranging from ones that are pure "code" to ones that are just "specifications". While pure spec projects aren't nearly as interesting to me, I'm not comfortable with the idea what we outright ban them. They do have a place in the bigger picture especially if people want to use CNCF as a place to do harmonization type of work and trying to develop a joint spec is the first step in that process.

I'd prefer if we looked for ways to include more projects (as long as they fit the technical aspects of CNCF's scope), instead of trying to define a high bar for acceptance. We're supposed to be here to help/promote CN technology, in all its forms.


re: CNI

To the CNI issues mentioned yesterday, personally, I don't think it matters that in its README CNI mentioned wanting to be a standard. Its interesting that it has since been removed, but given that CNCF is not a standards producing body that sentence meant nothing to me. In fact, if the authors of a spec that's under the CNCF umbrella wanted to take it to w3c, oasis, ietf, etc... to get that formal standardization, that's their choice and IMO shouldn't impact whether they can remain a CNCF project. To imply that a spec that's been developed under CNCF can not be taken down that path feels pretty limiting and should be out of the CNCF's control. In fact, I would argue that if a CNCF spec was so popular and widely adopted that it became a "real standard" it would actually be a good thing and would show CNCF's value over the traditional paper-only standards process.

Let's evaluate CNI on whether its within the scope of CNCF's CN work, and whether the benefits to both sides makes sense.


thanks
-Doug Davis
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---04/20/2016 12:03:18 PM---All, Issues I heard today:

From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 04/20/2016 12:03 PM
Subject: [cncf-toc] CNI discussion - actions
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...





All,

Issues I heard today:

1. would be good to talk about some fundamental assumptions about what we think about standards (which is part of the OCI mandate) - suggest we involve the GB in this.  also: there are related topics - service broker, volumes... E.g.: the TOC needs to decide if a project can be "just a spec", or does it need to be "mainly code that just happens to have a spec".

2. invite some CNI stakeholders, not on TOC, to give us the "project point of view" -- eg metaswitch, redhat?

3. perception, brand and timing are issues; would be good to get some more projects on board that aren't 'glue' or 'interface' type things.


Summary:

So let's separate the discussion:  

A) type of acceptable work/projects in CNCF 
vs  
B) is CNI a good fit.   

We need to resolve A independently of B, and can get going first on A.   But, eg in parallel, I think it would be fair to hear from a CNI lead (or two) who is not on TOC.

alexis

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



141 - 160 of 6231