|
Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
Interested? Email us offline.
Alexis+Michelle
|
|
|
Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
Jeff
On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
This email is from an external sender.
Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
Interested? Email us offline.
Alexis+Michelle
|
|
|
Jeff
I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
supporting dev tools.
IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
Does this make sense?
a
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
Jeff
On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
This email is from an external sender.
Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
Interested? Email us offline.
Alexis+Michelle
|
|
|
As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either. Jeff On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote: This email is from an external sender. Jeff I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus supporting dev tools. IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope. Does this make sense? a
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
>
> Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
>
> Interested? Email us offline.
>
> Alexis+Michelle
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
Yep, they are.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
Jeff
On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
This email is from an external sender.
Jeff
I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
supporting dev tools.
IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
Does this make sense?
a
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
>
> Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
>
> Interested? Email us offline.
>
> Alexis+Michelle
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote: > > As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either. > > Jeff > > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote: > > This email is from an external sender. > > > Jeff > > I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates > and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus > supporting dev tools. > > IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope. > > Does this make sense? > > a > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote: > > > > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense? > > > > Jeff > > > > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote: > > > > This email is from an external sender. > > > > > > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery. > > > > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be > > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall > > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group. > > > > Interested? Email us offline. > > > > Alexis+Michelle > > > > > > > > > > > >
|
|
|
Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG. Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope
of the CNCF in general.
My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that
failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").
CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.
So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:
- Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
- Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
- PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out
of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c
Q
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion,
does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> supporting dev tools.
>
> IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> a
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having
App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >
> > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >
> > Interested? Email us offline.
> >
> > Alexis+Michelle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...
________________________________
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
Jeff
On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
This email is from an external sender.
Jeff
I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
supporting dev tools.
IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
Does this make sense?
a
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
>
> Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
>
> Interested? Email us offline.
>
> Alexis+Michelle
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...
Plus, there will be 1000s of them.
So please can they have their own Area.
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG. Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope
of the CNCF in general.
My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that
failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").
CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.
So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:
- Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
- Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
- PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out
of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c
Q
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion,
does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> supporting dev tools.
>
> IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> a
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having
App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >
> > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >
> > Interested? Email us offline.
> >
> > Alexis+Michelle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover?
I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all of them are (probably) based on containers and therefore will leverage container images as part of "App Delivery".
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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 ---06/04/2019 02:22:19 PM---Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis <dug@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 02:22 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote: > > Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently. > > thanks > -Doug > _______________________________________________________ > 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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote: > > From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...> > To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...> > Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> > Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery" > Sent by: cncf-toc@... > > ________________________________ > > > > Yep, they are. > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote: > > > > As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either. > > > > Jeff > > > > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote: > > > > This email is from an external sender. > > > > > > Jeff > > > > I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates > > and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus > > supporting dev tools. > > > > IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope. > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > a > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote: > > > > > > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense? > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote: > > > > > > This email is from an external sender. > > > > > > > > > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery. > > > > > > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be > > > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall > > > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group. > > > > > > Interested? Email us offline. > > > > > > Alexis+Michelle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|
|
|
Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
I believe they are by nature in scope - but also trying to address every project in those spaces is boiling the ocean.
On Jun 4, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Doug Davis < dug@...> wrote:
Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover?
I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all of them are (probably) based on containers and therefore will leverage container images as part of "App Delivery".
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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
<graycol.gif>Alexis Richardson ---06/04/2019 02:22:19 PM---Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis <dug@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>,
Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 02:22 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
>
> Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world
a lot recently.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> _______________________________________________________
> 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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
> To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
> Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
> Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
> Sent by: cncf-toc@...
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Yep, they are.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> > and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> > supporting dev tools.
> >
> > IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> >
> > a
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way,
having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of
alexis@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > This email is from an external sender.
> > >
> > >
> > > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> > >
> > > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> > >
> > > Interested? Email us offline.
> > >
> > > Alexis+Michelle
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
I am not sure we do ourselves any favours by separating Serverless into its own vertical.
Would you expect serverless / function security to fall into the remit of SIG-security? I would. Given that, what if this SIG were to encompass app definition in both Serverless / functions and container-based approaches?
I agree with Alexis that moving up the stack to frameworks / IDEs etc is a huge area that doesn't need to be in scope.
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:27 +0200, alexis richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...
Plus, there will be 1000s of them.
So please can they have their own Area.
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG. Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope of the CNCF in general.
My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").
CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.
So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:
- Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
- Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
- PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c
Q
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> supporting dev tools.
>
> IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> a
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >
> > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >
> > Interested? Email us offline.
> >
> > Alexis+Michelle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
I think it's in scope of some theoretical future SIG, when we have projects / active discussions in that area.
That future SIG could even be this SIG-App Delivery in some future incarnation that wishes to take it on, IMO
We could carve it out as a proposed SIG that folks can pick up and run with, should they wish, if that would make people feel more comfortable that we view it as generally in the purview of the CNCF?
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:51 +0200, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, wrote:
Liz, to be clear, is your opinion that PaaS, Frameworks, IDE's etc are:
a) out of scope of the CNCF
b) in scope of some other CNCF SIG (and if so, which?)
c) something else?
Q
From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:30 AM
To: Quinton Hoole; alexis richardson
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
I am not sure we do ourselves any favours by separating Serverless into its own vertical.
Would you expect serverless / function security to fall into the remit of SIG-security? I would. Given that, what if this SIG were to encompass app definition in both Serverless / functions and container-based approaches?
I agree with Alexis that moving up the stack to frameworks / IDEs etc is a huge area that doesn't need to be in scope.
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:27 +0200, alexis richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...
Plus, there will be 1000s of them.
So please can they have their own Area.
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG. Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope of the CNCF in general.
My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").
CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.
So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:
- Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
- Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
- PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c
Q
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> supporting dev tools.
>
> IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> a
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >
> > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >
> > Interested? Email us offline.
> >
> > Alexis+Michelle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
Hi folks
Please can we stop arguing about this. Let the Sig folk draft a charter for comment and then let's argue, bikeshed, whatever.
All I'm saying is that projects like cloudfoundry and Openshift and openfaas are in their own bucket that aggregates across many things and is huge.
I'd like app delivery to be narrow if possible, but that feels hard already!
A
Doug, the only doc I'm aware of is the proposed SIGs:
But I think that description is not actually universally agreed upon yet, hence this discussion.
|
App Dev, Ops & Testing |
PaaS, Serverless, Operators, CI/CD, Conformance, Chaos Eng, Scalability and Reliability measurement etc. |
At the risk of over-repeating myself, I think it's important that for any given technology-related question that a user comes to us with, we should only essentially have two answers:
Either:
1) That's not in scope of the CNCF. Please find an answer elsewhere.
or
2) Please speak to CNCF SIG X - they cover that area.
I do not think we should ever have to answer:
X) Yes, the CNCF considers that in scope, but we don't actually have a place for you to go and discuss that.
Q
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:36 AM
To: Alexis Richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover?
I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all of them are (probably) based on containers and therefore will leverage container images as part of "App Delivery".
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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 ---06/04/2019 02:22:19 PM---Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis <dug@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 02:22 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
>
> Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world
a lot recently.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> _______________________________________________________
> 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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
> To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
> Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
> Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
> Sent by: cncf-toc@...
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Yep, they are.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> > and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> > supporting dev tools.
> >
> > IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> >
> > a
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way,
having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > This email is from an external sender.
> > >
> > >
> > > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> > >
> > > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> > >
> > > Interested? Email us offline.
> > >
> > > Alexis+Michelle
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Alexis, it's not clear whether you're proposing:
a) Creating a new CNCF SIG to cover "App Frameworks, Platforms etc", or
b) Declaring these to be out of scope of the CNCF.
If you're suggesting (a) then I would be fairly well positioned to help to put that together, if needed.
Q
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...
Plus, there will be 1000s of them.
So please can they have their own Area.
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG. Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope
of the CNCF in general.
My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that
failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").
CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.
So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:
- Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
- Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
- PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out
of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c
Q
From:
cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion,
does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..."
<cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> supporting dev tools.
>
> IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> a
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having
App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...>
wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >
> > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >
> > Interested? Email us offline.
> >
> > Alexis+Michelle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
PS: Regarding "there will be 1000's of them", I think it's worth noting that the same can be said about most CNCF SIG's. There are thousands of projects and vendors related to Traffic/Networking, Storage, Security, etc. But I still believe that each of these
areas is well-defined enough to benefit from an umbrella CNCF SIG.
Q
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Quinton Hoole
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:37 AM
To: Alexis Richardson
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Alexis, it's not clear whether you're proposing:
a) Creating a new CNCF SIG to cover "App Frameworks, Platforms etc", or
b) Declaring these to be out of scope of the CNCF.
If you're suggesting (a) then I would be fairly well positioned to help to put that together, if needed.
Q
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...
Plus, there will be 1000s of them.
So please can they have their own Area.
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG. Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope
of the CNCF in general.
My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that
failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").
CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.
So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:
- Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
- Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
- PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out
of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c
Q
From:
cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion,
does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..."
<cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by: cncf-toc@...
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> supporting dev tools.
>
> IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> a
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having
App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...>
wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >
> > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >
> > Interested? Email us offline.
> >
> > Alexis+Michelle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
To be clear, I totally agree that "trying to address every project in that space" is not a goal, and neither can it be for almost any of the CNCF SIGs (Storage, Security, Traffic/Networking clearly also suffer from a similar problem).
Q
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:39 AM
To: Doug Davis
Cc: Alexis Richardson; Jeff Brewer; cncf-toc@...; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
I believe they are by nature in scope - but also trying to address every project in those spaces is boiling the ocean.
On Jun 4, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Doug Davis < dug@...> wrote:
Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover?
I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all of them are (probably) based on containers and therefore will leverage container images as part of "App Delivery".
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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
<graycol.gif>Alexis Richardson ---06/04/2019 02:22:19 PM---Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis <dug@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>,
Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 02:22 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
>
> Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world
a lot recently.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> _______________________________________________________
> 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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
> To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
> Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
> Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
> Sent by: cncf-toc@...
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Yep, they are.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> > and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> > supporting dev tools.
> >
> > IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> >
> > a
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way,
having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of
alexis@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > This email is from an external sender.
> > >
> > >
> > > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> > >
> > > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> > >
> > > Interested? Email us offline.
> > >
> > > Alexis+Michelle
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Liz, to be clear, is your opinion that PaaS, Frameworks, IDE's etc are:
a) out of scope of the CNCF
b) in scope of some other CNCF SIG (and if so, which?)
c) something else?
Q
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:30 AM
To: Quinton Hoole; alexis richardson
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
I am not sure we do ourselves any favours by separating Serverless into its own vertical.
Would you expect serverless / function security to fall into the remit of SIG-security? I would. Given that, what if this SIG were to encompass app definition in both Serverless / functions and container-based approaches?
I agree with Alexis that moving up the stack to frameworks / IDEs etc is a huge area that doesn't need to be in scope.
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:27 +0200, alexis richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...
Plus, there will be 1000s of them.
So please can they have their own Area.
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG. Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope
of the CNCF in general.
My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that
failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").
CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.
So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:
- Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
- Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
- PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out
of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c
Q
From:
cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion,
does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..."
<cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by:
cncf-toc@...
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> supporting dev tools.
>
> IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> a
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having
App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...>
wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >
> > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >
> > Interested? Email us offline.
> >
> > Alexis+Michelle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Doug, the only doc I'm aware of is the proposed SIGs:
But I think that description is not actually universally agreed upon yet, hence this discussion.
|
App Dev, Ops & Testing |
PaaS, Serverless, Operators, CI/CD, Conformance, Chaos Eng, Scalability and Reliability measurement etc. |
At the risk of over-repeating myself, I think it's important that for any given technology-related question that a user comes to us with, we should only essentially have two answers:
Either:
1) That's not in scope of the CNCF. Please find an answer elsewhere.
or
2) Please speak to CNCF SIG X - they cover that area.
I do not think we should ever have to answer:
X) Yes, the CNCF considers that in scope, but we don't actually have a place for you to go and discuss that.
Q
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:36 AM
To: Alexis Richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover?
I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all of them are (probably) based on containers and therefore will leverage container images as part of "App Delivery".
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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 ---06/04/2019 02:22:19 PM---Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
To: Doug Davis <dug@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>, "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>, Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 02:22 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of
scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:08 PM Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
>
> Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world
a lot recently.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> _______________________________________________________
> 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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
> To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
> Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
> Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
> Sent by: cncf-toc@...
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Yep, they are.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> > and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> > supporting dev tools.
> >
> > IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> >
> > a
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way,
having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > This email is from an external sender.
> > >
> > >
> > > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> > >
> > > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> > >
> > > Interested? Email us offline.
> > >
> > > Alexis+Michelle
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Thanks Liz
I like your approach. So to make things more concrete and immediate ��
1) I have a project, Amino OS (http://github.com/Amino-OS/Amino.Run), that we presented at Kubecon in Barcelona,.
2) I believe it to be in scope of the CNCF. I would welcome discussions to the contrary, if anyone disagrees.
3)
Ergo, I think it should fall within the scope of some CNCF SIG
4)
I would like to donate Amino-OS to the CNCF.
5) Would you like me to kickstart a CNCF SIG to cover these sorts of projects (given that Alexis would like to keep them out of scope of the CNCF "App Dev, Ops and Testing" SIG as captured in the current CNCF docs (see below). Or perhaps
the "App Delivery" SIG under consideration here is actually something different than the one described in the doc.
|
App Dev, Ops & Testing |
PaaS, Serverless, Operators, CI/CD, Conformance, Chaos Eng, Scalability and Reliability measurement etc. |
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:53 AM
To: Alexis Richardson; Quinton Hoole
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
I think it's in scope of some theoretical future SIG, when we have projects / active discussions in that area.
That future SIG could even be this SIG-App Delivery in some future incarnation that wishes to take it on, IMO
We could carve it out as a proposed SIG that folks can pick up and run with, should they wish, if that would make people feel more comfortable that we view it as generally in the purview of the CNCF?
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:51 +0200, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>, wrote:
Liz, to be clear, is your opinion that PaaS, Frameworks, IDE's etc are:
a) out of scope of the CNCF
b) in scope of some other CNCF SIG (and if so, which?)
c) something else?
Q
From: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 11:30 AM
To: Quinton Hoole; alexis richardson
Cc: Doug Davis; cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
I am not sure we do ourselves any favours by separating Serverless into its own vertical.
Would you expect serverless / function security to fall into the remit of SIG-security? I would. Given that, what if this SIG were to encompass app definition in both Serverless / functions and container-based approaches?
I agree with Alexis that moving up the stack to frameworks / IDEs etc is a huge area that doesn't need to be in scope.
On 4 Jun 2019, 20:27 +0200, alexis richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ...
Plus, there will be 1000s of them.
So please can they have their own Area.
My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG. Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG either needs to be in scope of another SIG, or our of scope
of the CNCF in general.
My other personal opinion that is of relevance here is that we should keep the number of CNCF SIGs as small as possible today (based on the "SIG Sprawl" experience in Kubernetes, which resulted in large numbers of ineffective SIGs - we saw much more of that
failure case than "A highly effective SIG whose scope is too broad").
CNCF SIGs should by all means contain more specifically focussed subgroups (whether it be a working group, or a sub-project, or whatever), but I think each subgroup should be very clearly under the auspices of a CNCF SIG.
So, to get back to the original question regarding scope of this SIG, I would suggest that:
- Serverless applications should be considered a subclass of applications, and fall within this CNCF Apps SIG.
- Serverless infrastructure (e.g. how to build FaaS systems on top of Kubernetes, etc) should fall under the "CNCF Core and Applied Architectures" SIG.
- PaaS and the other areas I mentioned (Cloud IDE's, CI/CD, Experiment frameworks etc) should fall under this CNCF Apps SIG, unless (1) we can convince another CNCF SIG to consider them in scope (seems highly dubious), or (2) the TOC deems them to be out
of scope of the CNCF as a whole (also seems highly dubious).
My 2c
Q
From:
cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:08 AM
To: alexis richardson
Cc: cncf-toc@...; Brewer, Jeff; Michelle Noorali
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion,
does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or a "K8s app" ? I've been starting to merge these world a lot recently.
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
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" ---06/04/2019 12:15:03 PM---Yep, they are. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: "Brewer, Jeff" <Jeff_Brewer@...>
Cc: Michelle Noorali <Michelle.Noorali@...>, "cncf-toc@..."
<cncf-toc@...>
Date: 06/04/2019 12:15 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] CNCF SIG "App Delivery"
Sent by:
cncf-toc@...
Yep, they are.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Jeff
>
> I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
> and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
> supporting dev tools.
>
> IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> a
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
> >
> > Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having
App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...>
wrote:
> >
> > This email is from an external sender.
> >
> >
> > Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
> >
> > Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> > SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> > figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
> >
> > Interested? Email us offline.
> >
> > Alexis+Michelle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
