Point of process


Chris Wright
 

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris


Liz Rice
 

Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points: 
  • First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
  • I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago. To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space). Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to). 
Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Vinod
 

Thank you for raising this Chris.

I have contacted the TOC multiple times on unfair treatment and inequality, especially when it comes to TOC sponsorship and prioritisation even for sandbox submissions. From my experience, it's based on TOC intuition, personal or professional interest and the project merits or CNCF community interests are not always considered. Multiple other submissions are also waiting for TOC's mercy/reply. I have also requested the criteria/quality metrics for TOC's sponsorship, for which a proper answer wasn't given. It would be greatly appreciated if TOC could follow the CNCF principles (Fast is better than slow, Open, Fair, etc.)

If TOC is doing the right thing for the community I think it's also very important to be open and share details. Please also respond to community concerns.

Thanks,

Vinod

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points: 
  • First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
  • I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago. To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space). Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to). 
Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Chris Wright
 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points: 
  • First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.

Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.

Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.

  • I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.

If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
  • To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
  • Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to). 

Thank you for surfacing in a PR.

The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.

Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.

And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.

It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.



Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





alexis richardson
 

I believe the issue here is simple. The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret. End of story. We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what. But please do
it in the OPEN. The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:

First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.

Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry. What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.

Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.

I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.

If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."

To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal. It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF. It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?

Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).

Thank you for surfacing in a PR.

The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.

Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.

And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.

It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.



Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris




Davanum Srinivas
 

Heartily seconded! 

-- Dims


On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 6:23 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>





--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


alexis richardson
 

"kick" --> "kick off", obv ;-)

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:23 AM alexis richardson via Lists.Cncf.Io
<alexis=weave.works@...> wrote:

I believe the issue here is simple. The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret. End of story. We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what. But please do
it in the OPEN. The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:

First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.

Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry. What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.

Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.

I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.

If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."

To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal. It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF. It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?

Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).

Thank you for surfacing in a PR.

The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.

Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.

I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.

And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.

It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.



Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717

The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
community and CNCF support.

As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.

Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
secretive guidelines.

I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
treated equally and fairly.

thanks,
-chris





Chris Wright
 

Yes, I completely agree

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 6:26 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>


Erin Boyd
 

Amen!


On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 4:26 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>




Alex Chircop
 


While I recognize the importance and the impact of an initiative like hub.cncf.io to the cloud native mission, I also agree that this should be discussed and introduced in a more open manner.

The initiative is important for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:
1) A "package manager" that provides a simple, central way to source software for a platform is key to critical mass adoption of a platform - historically just think of the impact that package management had on the adoption of the various Linux distributions.
2) Software and package management is also a key step to ISV support for a platform - and that too is key to the acceptance and adoption of the platform

That said, it is critical to get this right, so openness, where we can benefit from some of the already mature initiatives in the community (even if they are competing) is the right thing:
1) When it comes to installing software, end-users want something that "just works" - so making it easy for software devs and orgs that release software to adopt the platform, test and manage distributions
2) Software deployments often have dependencies which may/should be managed through the overall solution - it does not make for a good user experience if different components of a package have different ways of sourcing or deploying - this is why it is key to get this right, and get systems to work together - even if this means that we may need to be opinionated, and even if it means that this requires resources to properly curate the repository
3) Cloud Native software deployment often have additional complexity or considerations during "day 2" operations - such as dealing with upgrades (and the dependency paths) and scaling etc ... - which is why it is odd (based on this email thread and yesterday's discussion) that the Operator Framework (and others) appear not to be involved in the initiative as this is something that this project has focused on
4) We should also consider a plan for how this hub is curated and managed - if end-users try the solution and the quality is not high (e.g. today there are already multiple options to install a give software package listed in hub) then they will move on, and we will not get many attempts to win them back over

TL;DR
An initiative like hub is key to the adoption of cloud native technologies and should be a central initiative for the CNCF and it's mission.   It is also too important to get it wrong and squander good will of end-users - when the core brand of the CNCF is placed on an initiative that is not successful, and/or does not gain traction, it dilutes the benefit and credibility of the whole community.

Kind Regards,
Alex


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Wright via Lists.Cncf.Io <chrisw=redhat.com@...>
Sent: 12 March 2020 12:33
To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process
 
Yes, I completely agree

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 6:26 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

I believe the issue here is simple.  The CNCF is an open organisation
and should not develop its own projects in secret.  End of story.  We
saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions" [1], which
led to collective bafflement from the community, TOC and End Users.

To be clear: I am 100% supportive of the CNCF using resources and
brand to kick projects, RFCs, RFPs, and who knows what.  But please do
it in the OPEN.  The CNCF should not compete with its membership.

[1]
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press-release/2019/02/cncf-launches-cloud-native-network-functions-cnf-testbed/



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:37 AM Chris Wright <chrisw@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:23 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points:
>>
>> First come, first served project assessment has been a worry for the TOC ever since I have been involved, if not longer. Accepting a project can be beneficial for that project but might be detrimental for a competing project. So, we try to look at competing / alternative solutions as part of any assessment. The order in which things are submitted is not the most important factor here.
>
>
> Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry.  What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of transparency and awkward sense of conflict of interest when it appears to come from CNCF.
>
> Our stated goal is not to be a king maker. One natural outcome is projects with overlapping scope.
>
>> I think we all would have liked CNCF Hub to be made public some time ago.
>
>
> If someone other than CNCF said in private, "hey, we have a great project that nobody uses or has seen, so you should delay your process" I would expect the response to be pretty disinterested. "Thanks for your input, happy to evaluate after you exist."
>>
>> To be fair to Dan, there have been some other pressing concerns to deal with in this time; I still think the project could have been made public sooner, but we are where we are. The TOC was made aware of the project, and I hope you’d agree we should act with all the information we have at our disposal.  It was clear that CNCF Hub would likely have an impact on the CNCF’s overall strategy around artifact discovery and distribution (and the operator hub is clearly in that space).
>
> I guess I'm really struggling not to see reverse cookie licking...despite what's existed for some time (with highly relevant concerns discussed and laid to rest in an open, active SIG community), here's a new and unproven concept...seemingly from CNCF.  It does beg the question: What is CNCF's strategy for artifact discovery and distribution?
>>
>> Considering that strategy properly and calmly is in our view extremely important. We were aware that the delay was frustrating to the OF project and tried to at least give some explanation as to why there was hold-up (hence the comment in the PR that you refer to).
>
>
> Thank you for surfacing in a PR.
>
> The discussion is 13days after the SIG recommendation for acceptance, and draws out a suggestion the OF comply with a new, non-existent concept.
>
>> Over the past few months we have been working to make the project assessment process more scalable and transparent. But IMO process should never trump doing what we believe is the right thing for the community.
>
>
> I agree that process for process sake is the negative expression of beuraucracy.
>
> And I applaud all the work towards scalability and transparency. The task here is onerous and even thankless. So please take this as constructive feedback.
>
> It's why I suggested some clarity on guidelines. Because if we all decide independently on the right thing, we are not a community.
>
>
>>
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>> On 11 Mar 2020, 22:33 +0000, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, wrote:
>>
>> During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into
>> the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the
>> vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet to be
>> submitted to the TOC and SIGs for review. You can see the comment
>> here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303#issuecomment-594059717
>>
>> The project, CNCF Hub, was just submitted March 10th to the TOC
>> mailing list as a project intended to be used as the CNCF standard for
>> discovering and installing projects within this ecosystem. This
>> project was mentioned to the community at KubeCon San Diego, but no
>> significant community awareness until March 10th. The project is being
>> released as pre-beta helm based project. The potential appearance of a
>> fait accompli by having this conceptual prototype with a CNCF domain
>> name is one of my concerns, as it can easily give a misleading view of
>> community and CNCF support.
>>
>> As a foundation based on open source and open governance, I can't
>> accept a process that gives a CNCF sponsored project any special path
>> in or ability to hold up another project for consideration.
>>
>> Projects should never be reviewed according to fluid, inconsistent or
>> secretive guidelines.
>>
>> I recommend that we clarify the guidelines to ensure all projects are
>> treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>>