Date   

[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@linuxfoundation.org


FYI: CNCF code search via SourceGraph

Chris Aniszczyk
 

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:

 

  • I think the general assumption should be that people working on projects have good intentions and should be supported. Some comments feel like protecting against people trying to trick the system. Sure they exist and this needs to be addressed but an open, inclusive mind set should be first.
  • It seems to me that project goals get mixed up with metrics or concrete measures to achieve them. Long term sustainability can mean contributors from many organisations and this makes sense. However, if a project is widely used and companies also buy commercial (SaaS) offerings of the solutions there will be somebody maintaining the project. There have been cases in the past – non CNCF – where companies stopped doing open source releases. This is rare and can still be addressed.
  • Naming the project stages still seems to be an issues. The CNCF also has another naming scheme from the technology radar. If the intention is to show maturity and recommendations to the community the assess, trial and adopt nomenclature might be helpful.

 

 

// Alois

 

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "alexis richardson via lists.cncf.io" <alexis=weave.works@...>
Reply to: "alexis@..." <alexis@...>
Date: Thursday, 1. October 2020 at 21:05
To: Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] "Steering committee" discussion

 

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:

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.

 

Let's not assume that all "collaboration" must be between multiple sellers of the same software.

 

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@...

The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20


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:
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.

Let's not assume that all "collaboration" must be between multiple sellers of the same software.

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

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.

Let's not assume that all "collaboration" must be between multiple sellers of the same software.

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@lists.cncf.io> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:43 AM Liz Rice <liz@lizrice.com> wrote:

Problem statement summary: projects that are controlled by a single vendor struggle to meet the current graduation requirement to have maintainers from multiple organizations (for valid reasons such as, they tend to hire the folks who are expert in that project). This multi-organization requirement is intended to address two concerns:
1. longevity of the project (in the event that a vendor is acquired or goes out of business)
2. ensuring that the project roadmap is community controlled, and not only run in the commercial interest of the vendor (we want to avoid feature hold-back)
We recognize that the current multi-org requirement may not be the only (or even necessarily the best) way to address those concerns

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@weave.works> wrote:

CNCF Incubation tests for production use and technical DD. It has a
high bar. Graduation is oriented towards sustainability including
some of the matters you touch on below. Graduation is more about
sustainability and governance, than about production use. Those are
all related in the end of course.

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

Ken Owens
 

+1 NB

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:43 PM Sheng Liang via lists.cncf.io <sheng=rancher.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Katie Gamanji via lists.cncf.io" <gamanjie=gmail.com@...>
Reply-To: "gamanjie@..." <gamanjie@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 2:30 AM
To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Cc: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Rook Graduation

 

+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:

+1 binding

 

-alena.



On Jul 6, 2020, at 3:03 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@...

 


Re: "Steering committee" discussion

Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli@...>
 

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:43 AM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Problem statement summary: projects that are controlled by a single vendor struggle to meet the current graduation requirement to have maintainers from multiple organizations (for valid reasons such as, they tend to hire the folks who are expert in that project). This multi-organization requirement is intended to address two concerns: 
1. longevity of the project (in the event that a vendor is acquired or goes out of business)
2. ensuring that the project roadmap is community controlled, and not only run in the commercial interest of the vendor (we want to avoid feature hold-back)
We recognize that the current multi-org requirement may not be the only (or even necessarily the best) way to address those concerns

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
high bar.  Graduation is oriented towards sustainability including
some of the matters you touch on below.  Graduation is more about
sustainability and governance, than about production use.  Those are
all related in the end of course.

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
 

+1 NB !

--
Bhaarat Sharma
Raft | CTO
M. 703-708-4463
bsharma@...

SBA 8(a) Certified | WOSB


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

On Oct 1, 2020, at 1:46 PM, Kevin.Ryan via lists.cncf.io <Kevin.Ryan=arm.com@...> wrote:

+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@...>
Reply-To: "gamanjie@..." <gamanjie@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 2:30 AM
To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Cc: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Rook Graduation
 

+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:
+1 binding
 
-alena.

 

On Jul 6, 2020, at 3:03 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@...
 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation

Barak Stout
 

+1 NB ! 

Barak Stout

On Oct 1, 2020, at 1:46 PM, Kevin.Ryan via lists.cncf.io <Kevin.Ryan=arm.com@...> wrote:

+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@...>
Reply-To: "gamanjie@..." <gamanjie@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 2:30 AM
To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Cc: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Rook Graduation
 

+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:
+1 binding
 
-alena.

 

On Jul 6, 2020, at 3:03 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@...
 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


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@...>
Reply-To: "gamanjie@..." <gamanjie@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 2:30 AM
To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Cc: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Rook Graduation

 

+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:

+1 binding

 

-alena.

 

On Jul 6, 2020, at 3:03 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@...

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation

Sheng Liang
 

+1 binding

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Katie Gamanji via lists.cncf.io" <gamanjie=gmail.com@...>
Reply-To: "gamanjie@..." <gamanjie@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 2:30 AM
To: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Cc: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Rook Graduation

 

+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:

+1 binding

 

-alena.



On Jul 6, 2020, at 3:03 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@...

 


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:
The Open Policy Agent project has applied for graduation from incubation to graduated. (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/520)

The due diligence document can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19M5fTpe57rQIMNxawRl5wSWvJUapuzY-CkV4O5pvieU/edit
 
Brendan Burns has called for public comment: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5281

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@...
-- 
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:
The Open Policy Agent project has applied for graduation from incubation to graduated. (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/520)

The due diligence document can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19M5fTpe57rQIMNxawRl5wSWvJUapuzY-CkV4O5pvieU/edit
 
Brendan Burns has called for public comment: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5281

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] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated

Magno Logan
 

+1 nb

Best Regards,

Magno Rodrigues


On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:11 PM Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@...> wrote:
+1

- Emily Fox

@TheMoxieFox (personal handle)

On Wed, 30 Sep 2020, 12:03 Ken Owens, <kenchristineowens@...> wrote:
+1 nb

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The Open Policy Agent project has applied for graduation from incubation to graduated. (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/520)

The due diligence document can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19M5fTpe57rQIMNxawRl5wSWvJUapuzY-CkV4O5pvieU/edit
 
Brendan Burns has called for public comment: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5281

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: "Steering committee" discussion

Matt Wilson
 

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 04:27 AM, alexis richardson wrote:

Matt

Thanks. A few quick comments (topline for speed).

CNCF Incubation tests for production use and technical DD. It has a
high bar. Graduation is oriented towards sustainability including
some of the matters you touch on below. Graduation is more about
sustainability and governance, than about production use. Those are
all related in the end of course.

I am a big fan of regular Q&A surveys with maintainers and users "and
more". They are a good way to assess health, eg "do you think the
project will make more progress in the next 12mo than in the last
12mo? why", and "are you aware of any bad actors".
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 can
help by being a lighthouse showing many ways to get involved, by
showcasing what direction and features need building, and by having
clear contributor paths.
Implementing 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

Emily Fox
 

+1

- Emily Fox

@TheMoxieFox (personal handle)


On Wed, 30 Sep 2020, 12:03 Ken Owens, <kenchristineowens@...> wrote:
+1 nb

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:01 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The Open Policy Agent project has applied for graduation from incubation to graduated. (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/520)

The due diligence document can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19M5fTpe57rQIMNxawRl5wSWvJUapuzY-CkV4O5pvieU/edit
 
Brendan Burns has called for public comment: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5281

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] 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:
The Open Policy Agent project has applied for graduation from incubation to graduated. (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/520)

The due diligence document can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19M5fTpe57rQIMNxawRl5wSWvJUapuzY-CkV4O5pvieU/edit
 
Brendan Burns has called for public comment: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5281

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@...


[VOTE] Open Policy Agent from incubating to graduated

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

The Open Policy Agent project has applied for graduation from incubation to graduated. (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/520)

The due diligence document can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19M5fTpe57rQIMNxawRl5wSWvJUapuzY-CkV4O5pvieU/edit
 
Brendan Burns has called for public comment: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/5281

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: "Steering committee" discussion

alexis richardson
 

Matt

Thanks. A few quick comments (topline for speed).

CNCF Incubation tests for production use and technical DD. It has a
high bar. Graduation is oriented towards sustainability including
some of the matters you touch on below. Graduation is more about
sustainability and governance, than about production use. Those are
all related in the end of course.

I am a big fan of regular Q&A surveys with maintainers and users "and
more". They are a good way to assess health, eg "do you think the
project will make more progress in the next 12mo than in the last
12mo? why", and "are you aware of any bad actors".

In terms of attracting contributors: complex topic, but the SC can
help by being a lighthouse showing many ways to get involved, by
showcasing what direction and features need building, and by having
clear contributor paths.

a

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:16 AM Matt Wilson <msw@linux.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:05 AM, Liz Rice wrote:

I think my wording could be better - the graduation requirement should be
for functional community control of the project roadmap (not merely a plan
for a community-controlled roadmap)
The start of your original email was clear, but the addition of the
word "plan" did make it a bit less so. Thank you for the clarification!

I've taken the liberty to re-format the thread below to inline replies
from earlier messages. I hope that the context doesn't change the
meaning of any quoted text from others.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 18:52, Alexis Richardson <alexis@weave.works> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:48 AM, Bob Wise (AWS) wrote:

What would the mechanism used to be sure that a “plan” for a
community controlled roadmap becomes a reality? At present, holding
graduation as the milestone for that is, imho, one of the most
critical functions the CNCF has.
I (speaking only for myself) would like to understand the function
better. As I understand it, CNCF graduation is a signal that the project
has attained a certain level of "maturity". This is like a "Good
Housekeeping Seal of Approval" that gives users/customers a signal that
they can confidently adopt the software. Maintaining a high quality bar
for graduation is important in building the ongoing strong brand of the
CNCF, which I think plays a key role in supporting beneficial ecosystems
that are part of building and sustaining open-source software.

However, I currently view graduation milestones with the same kind of
skepticism of some engineering "qualification" practices I've seen,
where a product or service is very intensely tested before it is
released using tools and procedures that are not integrated into a
continuous automated testing system. "Qualification" around a major
milestone event gives you a snapshot-in-time view of quality, but modern
software changes more rapidly, so you need to be qualifying
continuously.

So too open-source projects need to change. Communities evolve.
Practices change and adapt. Communities that are not able to change and
evolve are more likely to become dysfunctional. Rather than obsessing
about if a vendor's interest is holding back features, I think you
should investigate how contentious decisions are made, and how disputes
are resolved among stakeholders. The roadmap/features is only one thing
that a development community, or other stakeholders, might disagree
about.

Liz clarified (above) that a proposed concern is to require functional
community control over the roadmap. I would shorten it: require a
functional community (in contrast to a dysfunctional community). I think
you (the CNCF TOC by applying the graduation seal-of-approval) need to
understand what community processes look like in practice, and if is a
healthy dynamic that aligns well with what we've learned so far about
building sustainable open-source software development communities and
commercial ecosystems. That'd be a hard job that I do not envy.

One tool that can help assess how well a community is functioning is a
free-form response template. But more deeply than how is it functioning,
a response template can help trigger, and demonstrate, more mindfulness
in community architecture. One I like is included in Python PIP-8002,
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8002/#annex-1-template-questions
I think that a well functioning community is one that has a process that
enables the evolution of its policies and practices over time. I like
that this template asks these questions:

3. How do you like the process?
* Which parts work well?
* Which parts could work better?
* When it doesn't work well, how does it look like?
* What would you change if it were only up to you?
[...]
5. Process evolution
* How did this process evolve historically?
* How can it be changed in the future?

The SC model could generate
* quarterly roadmap
* contributor ladder
* contingency plan
From my perspective, I care very little about any of these things
(though I may not understand what you actually mean). An open-source
license is my ultimate contingency plan. What I'm looking for otherwise
is a strong, welcoming, self-governing community, along with committed
companies participating in a growing commercial ecosystem around the
software.

Projects struggling to get maintainers when the owning entity is
unwilling to give up control to the community seems like a natural
consequence.
This mostly does not happen. Although due to some bad actors, it can.
Mostly projects are a handful of people on a mission, struggling to
make it work, in the face of massive demands and uncertainty.
Yes, there are a number of reasons why a project may not attract
contributors. There are a number of case studies where the overall
sentiment and perception was that an open-source project was too closely
held by a single commercial entity. Sometimes that has practical impacts
in the sustainability of the ecosystem that builds, maintains, and
supports the software.

In my opinion (biased from my experience and perspective), a key case
study in Linux Foundation history is the Xen project. We are fortunate
that the late Lars Kurth documented this case study well, see
http://slideshare.net/xen_com_mgr/lceu13-xen-project-lessons-learned.
When we formed the Xen Project as a Linux Foundation collaborative
project, there were a number of _symptoms_ that indicated that the
community, the project, and the ecosystem around it were trending toward
unhealthy. This was a sustainability concern for many stakeholders,
including me. Forming the Xen Project was only _part_ of addressing the
problem.

People who were most familiar with the Xen community were aware of some
the underlying causes of these symptoms, which were reflected in a
larger "image" problem for the project. Over many years the project and
its community gained a reputation of being difficult to work with,
inwardly focused, and not collaborative with other significant parts of
the open-source software ecosystem on which Xen was built--namely Linux
and QEMU, both of which were extensively modified and maintained as
separate "out of tree / not upstream" development branches for many
years. Some would call the software "forked".

At the time we formed the Xen Project at LF, it already had core
maintainers for multiple organizations, despite having earned a
reputation of being too closely held by Citrix. There are examples of
healthy projects with a small number of people from one organization
with "commit bit" access to the canonical repository, and also examples
of unhealthy projects that have people from multiple organizations with
"commit bit" access. So, I generally agree that the "multi-organization"
criterion is not a good one on its own. It _might_ be a symptom that
there's something else going on that deserves additional investigation.

So, TL;DR? Building a sustainable community is complex. The things that
may be the actual underlying risk factors in sustainability/longevity
may not be obvious in a surface level inspection. A plan is no guarantee
of future success. I think it takes applying mindful, intentional
community-building practices and a willingness to adapt.

--msw




461 - 480 of 5825