Re: CDF Working Groups Proposal


Kay Williams <kayw@...>
 

Thanks Chris.  It sounds like the CNCF model is a better fit (at the foundation level).

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 4:31 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] CDF Working Groups Proposal

 

Here's a doc outlining the difference between CNCF/k8s SIGs, really mostly about code ownership:

 

 

They serve different purposes and CNCF SIGs were mostly created to help scale the CNCF TOC with project reviews and also provide an area to focus.

 

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:27 PM Kay Williams via Lists.Cd.Foundation <kayw=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

Thanks Jaice for sharing.

 

At first blush the Kubernetes (project) model seems more complex than the CNCF (foundation) model.  Do you happen to have a comparison of the two? Can we get away with a simpler model at the foundation level? What are the factors to consider?

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Jaice Singer DuMars via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 4:14 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] CDF Working Groups Proposal

 

This is how Kubernetes does governance. I created this graphic some time ago to help make it easier to understand:

 

image.png

 

Being as I helped with this governance model, I am happy to answer any practical questions.

 

All the best,

Jaice

 

 

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:14 PM Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:

Kay: Gotcha, thanks for the clarification 

 

So, if I'm understanding it correctly the diff between working groups (shorter term, finer granularity efforts) and SIGs (longer term, broader standards work) seems like a good breakdown.

 

 

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:56 PM Kay Williams via Lists.Cd.Foundation <kayw=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

It may not be too much more to bite off?  The CNCF SIG model feels well thought out. Perhaps we can adopt it with little more than a search/replace from CNCF -> CDF.

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 12:31 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] CDF Working Groups Proposal

 

I broadly agree with the "two-tier" model and should have made that more clear in my proposal. k8s (and more recently the CNCF) splits these up into "working groups" and "special interest groups", with the latter being the longer-running version. I didn't try to bite off both of these at the same time, but maybe we should.

 

Dan Lorenc

 

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:25 PM Kay Williams via Lists.Cd.Foundation <kayw=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

I am not sure if we want/need to define all the top-level items for now.  I just threw out some items as possible examples.  The larger question is the two-tier structure.

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 12:21 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] CDF Working Groups Proposal

 

"Deployment" is pretty broad, I worry that such a group would be working with a LOT of conditionals, e.g. on-prem vs cloud, service vs. serverless, maybe even baremetal vs. VM/Container (sadly probably still pretty common).  On the other hand, this is also probably one of the hotter topic areas as far as engaging with enterprise/corp devs.

 

So... perhaps start with some prelim scoping discussions?

 

:)

 

This other 'top tier' categories seem good to me...

 

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:59 AM Kay Williams via Lists.Cd.Foundation <kayw=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

What would folks think about following a two tiered model?

 

Top-Tier

The top tier would be a more formal, long-running structure along logical, functional areas of need.  This would be similar to CNCF SIGs or OCP Projects.

 

CNCF - SIGs

OCP - Projects

 

For the CD Foundation, example top-tier items might include the following:

  • Supply Chain Security
  • Pipelines
  • Validation
  • Deployment

 

Second-Tier

The second tier would be a shorter-term structure with specific goals, deliverables and timelines. I think of this as what Dan is defining below in the working group proposal.

 

In the case of Software Supply Chain security (a broad topic) I am imagining we might have shorter working groups (or sprints?) that are largely time-bound.

 

2019.2 deliverables (2nd half 2019)

2020.1 deliverables (1st half 2020)

2020.2 deliverables (2nd half 2020)

Etc.

 

Thoughts from others?

Kay

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 8:42 AM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: [cdf-toc] CDF Working Groups Proposal

 

Hey All,

 

This topic has come up a few times since kicking off the CDF TOC, and I promised to put together a proposal on the lifecycle of working groups. I got a doc started here.

 

I'd appreciate any feedback on the doc, and hope to discuss tomorrow in the TOC meeting. If TOC members like the general direction, the next steps would be to iterate in this doc and then move this to a PR and vote.

 

Dan Lorenc


 

--

Tara Hernandez

Engineering Manager Google Cloud

 

 


 

--

Tara Hernandez

Engineering Manager Google Cloud

 

 


 

--

Jaice Singer DuMars

Cloud Native Strategy

+1 (206) 371-2293

601 N. 34th St., Seattle WA 98103


 

--

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

Join cdf-toc@lists.cd.foundation to automatically receive all group messages.