Re: How are other projects signing releases?

Olivier Vernin
I would like to add some clarification, while the end goal is to effectively get a code signing certificates, the "tricky" part is to have a "verified" account on one of the many provider that exist in order to get a certificate.
During that account creation they ask various information to verify that the person who create the account really belong to the organization and has the right to proceed.
I think we won't be able to create that account as long as the jenkins trademark is not fully transfered to the Linux Foundation
Olivier
---
gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key 52210D3D
---
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, at 6:06 AM, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
Hey Tyler, I re-opened the issue to do some more investigation on our end, I need a bit more detail on the legal concerns, before we find a creative solution.
Almost all projects go the GPG route (or through some package registry) so this may be a new case.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:20 PM R. Tyler Croy < rtyler@...> wrote:
Greetings from ye olde Jenkins projecte! My colleague in the Jenkins infra
project Olivier (olblak) has been working on automating our releases and the
issue of signing those releases has been a sticking point. This is especially
challenging for the Mac and Windows packages we distribute, which must be
signed with a certificate from a certificate authority (think Verisign, etc).
Our Linux packages in contrast can be signed with a GPG key we can generate
and distribute ourselves.
This ticket was opened by cra@
some misunderstanding about the specifics about our requirements.
When we tried this ourselves perviously and a certificate authority would _not_
issue us a certificate because "Jenkins" itself was/is not itself a legal
entity. My assumption was that the CDF, as a legitimate legal entity would be
able to broker a valid certificate on our behalf and that could be shoved into
our Azure Key Vault for signing of our releases. As you can see in the ticket,
there's reluctance to do so at the moment.
I'm wondering if any other projects have found a way to sign packages requiring
valid certificates in a way that I might be missing here. For example, if we
just purchased a normal cert for jenkins.io (as an example), and used that as a code signing certificate, I'm not sure if that works in the Mac/Windows
ecosystem or if a certificate authority would go for it.
If there's not an approach I am be missing, and Dan's comments on the ticket
are correct in that the CDF would not at this time be able to acquire the code
signing certificate, then one of our initial motivations for Jenkins to move in
the foundation direction will have failed, and I'm not entirely certain how
we'll work around it. :-/
Looking forward to some ideas from the smart folks runnin' around here :)
Toodles
--
GPG Key ID: 0F2298A980EE31ACCA0A7825E5C92681BEF6CEA2
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
Re: How are other projects signing releases?

Chris Aniszczyk
Hey Tyler, I re-opened the issue to do some more investigation on our end, I need a bit more detail on the legal concerns, before we find a creative solution.
Almost all projects go the GPG route (or through some package registry) so this may be a new case.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:20 PM R. Tyler Croy < rtyler@...> wrote:
Greetings from ye olde Jenkins projecte! My colleague in the Jenkins infra
project Olivier (olblak) has been working on automating our releases and the
issue of signing those releases has been a sticking point. This is especially
challenging for the Mac and Windows packages we distribute, which must be
signed with a certificate from a certificate authority (think Verisign, etc).
Our Linux packages in contrast can be signed with a GPG key we can generate
and distribute ourselves.
This ticket was opened by cra@
(https://github.com/cdfoundation/foundation/issues/10) but I believe there was
some misunderstanding about the specifics about our requirements.
When we tried this ourselves perviously and a certificate authority would _not_
issue us a certificate because "Jenkins" itself was/is not itself a legal
entity. My assumption was that the CDF, as a legitimate legal entity would be
able to broker a valid certificate on our behalf and that could be shoved into
our Azure Key Vault for signing of our releases. As you can see in the ticket,
there's reluctance to do so at the moment.
I'm wondering if any other projects have found a way to sign packages requiring
valid certificates in a way that I might be missing here. For example, if we
just purchased a normal cert for jenkins.io (as an example), and used that as a
code signing certificate, I'm not sure if that works in the Mac/Windows
ecosystem or if a certificate authority would go for it.
If there's not an approach I am be missing, and Dan's comments on the ticket
are correct in that the CDF would not at this time be able to acquire the code
signing certificate, then one of our initial motivations for Jenkins to move in
the foundation direction will have failed, and I'm not entirely certain how
we'll work around it. :-/
Looking forward to some ideas from the smart folks runnin' around here :)
Toodles
--
GitHub: https://github.com/rtyler
GPG Key ID: 0F2298A980EE31ACCA0A7825E5C92681BEF6CEA2
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
How are other projects signing releases?
Greetings from ye olde Jenkins projecte! My colleague in the Jenkins infra project Olivier (olblak) has been working on automating our releases and the issue of signing those releases has been a sticking point. This is especially challenging for the Mac and Windows packages we distribute, which must be signed with a certificate from a certificate authority (think Verisign, etc). Our Linux packages in contrast can be signed with a GPG key we can generate and distribute ourselves. This ticket was opened by cra@ ( https://github.com/cdfoundation/foundation/issues/10) but I believe there was some misunderstanding about the specifics about our requirements. When we tried this ourselves perviously and a certificate authority would _not_ issue us a certificate because "Jenkins" itself was/is not itself a legal entity. My assumption was that the CDF, as a legitimate legal entity would be able to broker a valid certificate on our behalf and that could be shoved into our Azure Key Vault for signing of our releases. As you can see in the ticket, there's reluctance to do so at the moment. I'm wondering if any other projects have found a way to sign packages requiring valid certificates in a way that I might be missing here. For example, if we just purchased a normal cert for jenkins.io (as an example), and used that as a code signing certificate, I'm not sure if that works in the Mac/Windows ecosystem or if a certificate authority would go for it. If there's not an approach I am be missing, and Dan's comments on the ticket are correct in that the CDF would not at this time be able to acquire the code signing certificate, then one of our initial motivations for Jenkins to move in the foundation direction will have failed, and I'm not entirely certain how we'll work around it. :-/ Looking forward to some ideas from the smart folks runnin' around here :) Toodles -- GitHub: https://github.com/rtylerGPG Key ID: 0F2298A980EE31ACCA0A7825E5C92681BEF6CEA2
|
|
Re: Landscape draft ready for review by TOC
Reminder: if you are going to edit code, please create a pull request into /develop branch. The team will merge into master when develop passes review, test, and builds are clean.
Best -- Dan Lopez The Linux Foundation +1 415.735.5881
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:05 PM Dan Lopez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlopez=linuxfoundation.org@...> wrote:
Yes, lets do it all in github.
Please file issues and pull requests -- Dan Lopez The Linux Foundation +1 415.735.5881
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:02 PM Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
seconded. This is pretty slick, thanks for putting this together.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 2:59 PM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: Let’s do it all on GitHub! On Sep 27, 2019, at 5:54 AM, Michael Neale <mneale@...> wrote:
Thanks Tracy. How would you like feedback - as issues on the repo? PRs or email direct? On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:58 AM Tracy Ragan < tracy@...> wrote: A draft of our CDF landscape is now available for your input.
Please keep in mind the goal is to confirm the initial categories. What I would like to see happen is the TOC review it, give me feedback on the categories and I will be happy to update it accordingly. Once the categories are sorted out, we should allow the members to self-select which ones they fit in. That being said, I did my best to add members where I thought they belonged and to make sure we had a least one solution represented in each category regardless if they are CDF members or not. (We can't have an empty category.)
Also, I had problems with Cycloid and DevOpsInstitute's Crunchbase listing so they are not listed. I am working with them to get that sorted out. I want to make sure our members are all listed under the member category for first release even if they are not listed in a category.
Please let me know by October 4th your input. We would like to get this published on our website in short order.
-- Kind Regards,
Tracy Ragan
Where developers share and find microservices
-- Regards,
Michael Neale twitter: @michaelneale, skype: michael_d_neale Cofounder @ CloudBees
--
Tara Hernandez Engineering Manager Google Cloud
|
|
Re: Landscape draft ready for review by TOC
Yes, lets do it all in github.
Please file issues and pull requests -- Dan Lopez The Linux Foundation +1 415.735.5881
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:02 PM Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
seconded. This is pretty slick, thanks for putting this together.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 2:59 PM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: Let’s do it all on GitHub! On Sep 27, 2019, at 5:54 AM, Michael Neale <mneale@...> wrote:
Thanks Tracy. How would you like feedback - as issues on the repo? PRs or email direct? On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:58 AM Tracy Ragan < tracy@...> wrote: A draft of our CDF landscape is now available for your input.
Please keep in mind the goal is to confirm the initial categories. What I would like to see happen is the TOC review it, give me feedback on the categories and I will be happy to update it accordingly. Once the categories are sorted out, we should allow the members to self-select which ones they fit in. That being said, I did my best to add members where I thought they belonged and to make sure we had a least one solution represented in each category regardless if they are CDF members or not. (We can't have an empty category.)
Also, I had problems with Cycloid and DevOpsInstitute's Crunchbase listing so they are not listed. I am working with them to get that sorted out. I want to make sure our members are all listed under the member category for first release even if they are not listed in a category.
Please let me know by October 4th your input. We would like to get this published on our website in short order.
-- Kind Regards,
Tracy Ragan
Where developers share and find microservices
-- Regards,
Michael Neale twitter: @michaelneale, skype: michael_d_neale Cofounder @ CloudBees
--
Tara Hernandez Engineering Manager Google Cloud
|
|
Re: Landscape draft ready for review by TOC

Tara Hernandez
seconded. This is pretty slick, thanks for putting this together.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 2:59 PM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: Let’s do it all on GitHub! On Sep 27, 2019, at 5:54 AM, Michael Neale <mneale@...> wrote:
Thanks Tracy. How would you like feedback - as issues on the repo? PRs or email direct? On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:58 AM Tracy Ragan < tracy@...> wrote: A draft of our CDF landscape is now available for your input.
Please keep in mind the goal is to confirm the initial categories. What I would like to see happen is the TOC review it, give me feedback on the categories and I will be happy to update it accordingly. Once the categories are sorted out, we should allow the members to self-select which ones they fit in. That being said, I did my best to add members where I thought they belonged and to make sure we had a least one solution represented in each category regardless if they are CDF members or not. (We can't have an empty category.)
Also, I had problems with Cycloid and DevOpsInstitute's Crunchbase listing so they are not listed. I am working with them to get that sorted out. I want to make sure our members are all listed under the member category for first release even if they are not listed in a category.
Please let me know by October 4th your input. We would like to get this published on our website in short order.
-- Kind Regards,
Tracy Ragan
Where developers share and find microservices
-- Regards,
Michael Neale twitter: @michaelneale, skype: michael_d_neale Cofounder @ CloudBees
-- Tara Hernandez Engineering Manager Google Cloud
|
|
Re: Landscape draft ready for review by TOC

Chris Aniszczyk
Let’s do it all on GitHub!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Sep 27, 2019, at 5:54 AM, Michael Neale <mneale@...> wrote:
Thanks Tracy. How would you like feedback - as issues on the repo? PRs or email direct? On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:58 AM Tracy Ragan < tracy@...> wrote: A draft of our CDF landscape is now available for your input.
Please keep in mind the goal is to confirm the initial categories. What I would like to see happen is the TOC review it, give me feedback on the categories and I will be happy to update it accordingly. Once the categories are sorted out, we should allow the members to self-select which ones they fit in. That being said, I did my best to add members where I thought they belonged and to make sure we had a least one solution represented in each category regardless if they are CDF members or not. (We can't have an empty category.)
Also, I had problems with Cycloid and DevOpsInstitute's Crunchbase listing so they are not listed. I am working with them to get that sorted out. I want to make sure our members are all listed under the member category for first release even if they are not listed in a category.
Please let me know by October 4th your input. We would like to get this published on our website in short order.
-- Kind Regards,
Tracy Ragan CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558
Where developers share and find microservices
-- Regards,
Michael Neale twitter: @michaelneale, skype: michael_d_neale Cell: +61 423175597 (Australia) Cofounder @ CloudBees
|
|
Re: Landscape draft ready for review by TOC
Thanks Tracy. How would you like feedback - as issues on the repo? PRs or email direct?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:58 AM Tracy Ragan < tracy@...> wrote: A draft of our CDF landscape is now available for your input.
Please keep in mind the goal is to confirm the initial categories. What I would like to see happen is the TOC review it, give me feedback on the categories and I will be happy to update it accordingly. Once the categories are sorted out, we should allow the members to self-select which ones they fit in. That being said, I did my best to add members where I thought they belonged and to make sure we had a least one solution represented in each category regardless if they are CDF members or not. (We can't have an empty category.)
Also, I had problems with Cycloid and DevOpsInstitute's Crunchbase listing so they are not listed. I am working with them to get that sorted out. I want to make sure our members are all listed under the member category for first release even if they are not listed in a category.
Please let me know by October 4th your input. We would like to get this published on our website in short order.
-- Kind Regards,
Tracy Ragan CEO and Co-Founder / DeployHub / tel: + 1.505.424.6440/ mob: +1.505.780.0558
Where developers share and find microservices
-- Regards,
Michael Neale twitter: @michaelneale, skype: michael_d_neale Cell: +61 423175597 (Australia) Cofounder @ CloudBees
|
|

Fred Blaise
Thanks Dan :)
Would you mind just renaming the Drive folder to something more explicit like "CDF Security SIG"?
Cheers, fred
|
|
Re: Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings

Tara Hernandez
"Awesome"
:/
Guess we'll just have to play it by ear if we get somebody from behind the GFW who wants to join in...
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 2:20 PM Raymond Paik via Lists.Cd.Foundation <rpaik=gitlab.com@...> wrote:
FYI. Someone forwarded this article to me recently.
I don't have a direct first hand account from PRC on any issues with Zoom there. However, most developers find ways around restrictions and I've seen this with other conferencing tools like WebEx, Go-To-Meeting, etc.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:35 PM Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
Hey folks, me again - unfortunately I will have to miss tomorrow's meeting due to a work conflict but please let me know if there's thoughts on whether or not people think the docs -> GitHub mechanism is fine or if anyone wants to propose another option.
-Tara
So glad to know that web client for zoom is not blocked. I thought the zoom already be blocked totally. Anyway, using zoom sounds like a good idea.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:25 AM Ramin Akhbari via Lists.Cd.Foundation <rakhbari=ebay.com@...> wrote:
My 2-cents… Switching to Skype would most definitely be equivalent to “Jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire” type situation. My personal experience with Skype has been far sub-par over the last 3-4 years and there’s no indication
it’s improving in any way. I highly recommend either Zoom or paid Slack (if CDF can afford it).
Cheers,
Ramin
From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...>
On Behalf Of Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:23 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings
Ah good to know on Zoom -- from comments in the last meeting it sounded like it might not work.
We can also certainly discuss if we want to switch editors, but thanks for indicating the github solution is known to be a legit one.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:56 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Zoom isn't blocked in China yet, there's special instructions:
Hey folks, attempting to close out my action items from the last meeting.
It continues to look like github is our best bet for the meetings notes. I'm not finding anything else that's reliably available everywhere that really inspires, and this way it can be centralized to our TOC repo.
The downside to this of course is that we lose the shared editing during the meeting, so another possibility is that we publish the meetings notes to github once the meeting is complete but that we continue to use Docs during the meeting
itself so most folks have the ability to amend, comment, etc. I've tested a pretty straightforward way to do a publish that would support this model and you can see the results here:
I was also looking around at possible non-zoom chat options, and Skype and WeChat seem to be the most legit options (there's another one called Pinngle but all the reviews ultimately seem to be self-sourced by one guy out of the Ukraine
so I'm not feeling awesome about it). Comments on Skype seem to indicate that from China you're redirected to download the Chinese version so it's recommended to VPN your way to a better source, but regardless there can be quality issues. The consensus for
Wechat is that it's not ready for primetime outside of China yet (though inside of course it is King).
I suspect most people already knew all of this, but I guess I'm wondering out loud if we ultimately feel we can realistically support real time voice chat participation in China or similarly censored countries at this time?
Anyway, talk to you Tuesday!
--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud
--
--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud
--
Zhao Xiaojie (Rick) 
-- Tara Hernandez Engineering Manager Google Cloud
|
|
Re: Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings
FYI. Someone forwarded this article to me recently.
I don't have a direct first hand account from PRC on any issues with Zoom there. However, most developers find ways around restrictions and I've seen this with other conferencing tools like WebEx, Go-To-Meeting, etc.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:35 PM Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
Hey folks, me again - unfortunately I will have to miss tomorrow's meeting due to a work conflict but please let me know if there's thoughts on whether or not people think the docs -> GitHub mechanism is fine or if anyone wants to propose another option.
-Tara
So glad to know that web client for zoom is not blocked. I thought the zoom already be blocked totally. Anyway, using zoom sounds like a good idea.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:25 AM Ramin Akhbari via Lists.Cd.Foundation <rakhbari=ebay.com@...> wrote:
My 2-cents… Switching to Skype would most definitely be equivalent to “Jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire” type situation. My personal experience with Skype has been far sub-par over the last 3-4 years and there’s no indication
it’s improving in any way. I highly recommend either Zoom or paid Slack (if CDF can afford it).
Cheers,
Ramin
From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...>
On Behalf Of Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:23 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings
Ah good to know on Zoom -- from comments in the last meeting it sounded like it might not work.
We can also certainly discuss if we want to switch editors, but thanks for indicating the github solution is known to be a legit one.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:56 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Zoom isn't blocked in China yet, there's special instructions:
Hey folks, attempting to close out my action items from the last meeting.
It continues to look like github is our best bet for the meetings notes. I'm not finding anything else that's reliably available everywhere that really inspires, and this way it can be centralized to our TOC repo.
The downside to this of course is that we lose the shared editing during the meeting, so another possibility is that we publish the meetings notes to github once the meeting is complete but that we continue to use Docs during the meeting
itself so most folks have the ability to amend, comment, etc. I've tested a pretty straightforward way to do a publish that would support this model and you can see the results here:
I was also looking around at possible non-zoom chat options, and Skype and WeChat seem to be the most legit options (there's another one called Pinngle but all the reviews ultimately seem to be self-sourced by one guy out of the Ukraine
so I'm not feeling awesome about it). Comments on Skype seem to indicate that from China you're redirected to download the Chinese version so it's recommended to VPN your way to a better source, but regardless there can be quality issues. The consensus for
Wechat is that it's not ready for primetime outside of China yet (though inside of course it is King).
I suspect most people already knew all of this, but I guess I'm wondering out loud if we ultimately feel we can realistically support real time voice chat participation in China or similarly censored countries at this time?
Anyway, talk to you Tuesday!
--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud
--
--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud
--
Zhao Xiaojie (Rick) 
|
|
Thanks Dan! Yes, please add the Security SIG calendar invite to the CDF public calendar.
From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...>
On Behalf Of Dan Lopez via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 4:15 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Cc: Brian Russell <brianru@...>; Fred Blaise <fblaise@...>
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] Security SIG Update
Hello All
The Security SIG is now supported with the following operational tech:
For those on the TOC list that would like to get the calendar invite, please let me know and I can add you. Also, please let me know if you would like this calendar invite more public and added to the CDF public calendar.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 6:53 AM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation < dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I wanted to share a quick update on the Security SIG:
-
We are making plans to hold our first bi-weekly meeting on Tuesday October 8 at 8:00 AM Pacific. These will be one hour ahead of the bi-weekly TOC meeting.
-
Dan Lopez is setting up a mailing list, calendar invite, zoom link, shared document space, etc.
-
I will send a welcome email and agenda to the TOC mailing list ahead of the meeting; everyone is welcome to attend.
Thoughts, questions? Please send to Brian, Fred (cc’d) and I.
Thanks!
Kay
|
|
Hello All
The Security SIG is now supported with the following operational tech: For those on the TOC list that would like to get the calendar invite, please let me know and I can add you. Also, please let me know if you would like this calendar invite more public and added to the CDF public calendar.
Best -- Dan Lopez The Linux Foundation +1 415.735.5881
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 6:53 AM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:26 AM Kay Williams via Lists.Cd.Foundation <kayw=microsoft.com@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I wanted to share a quick update on the Security SIG:
- We are making plans to hold our first bi-weekly meeting on Tuesday October 8 at 8:00 AM Pacific. These will be one hour ahead of the bi-weekly TOC meeting.
- Dan Lopez is setting up a mailing list, calendar invite, zoom link, shared document space, etc.
- I will send a welcome email and agenda to the TOC mailing list ahead of the meeting; everyone is welcome to attend.
Thoughts, questions? Please send to Brian, Fred (cc’d) and I.
Thanks!
Kay
|
|
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:26 AM Kay Williams via Lists.Cd.Foundation <kayw=microsoft.com@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I wanted to share a quick update on the Security SIG:
- We are making plans to hold our first bi-weekly meeting on Tuesday October 8 at 8:00 AM Pacific. These will be one hour ahead of the bi-weekly TOC meeting.
- Dan Lopez is setting up a mailing list, calendar invite, zoom link, shared document space, etc.
- I will send a welcome email and agenda to the TOC mailing list ahead of the meeting; everyone is welcome to attend.
Thoughts, questions? Please send to Brian, Fred (cc’d) and I.
Thanks!
Kay
|
|
Hey everyone, I wanted to share a quick update on the Security SIG:
- We are making plans to hold our first bi-weekly meeting on Tuesday October 8 at 8:00 AM Pacific. These will be one hour ahead of the bi-weekly TOC meeting.
- Dan Lopez is setting up a mailing list, calendar invite, zoom link, shared document space, etc.
- I will send a welcome email and agenda to the TOC mailing list ahead of the meeting; everyone is welcome to attend.
Thoughts, questions? Please send to Brian, Fred (cc’d) and I.
Thanks!
Kay
|
|
Re: Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings

Tara Hernandez
Hey folks, me again - unfortunately I will have to miss tomorrow's meeting due to a work conflict but please let me know if there's thoughts on whether or not people think the docs -> GitHub mechanism is fine or if anyone wants to propose another option.
-Tara
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
So glad to know that web client for zoom is not blocked. I thought the zoom already be blocked totally. Anyway, using zoom sounds like a good idea.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:25 AM Ramin Akhbari via Lists.Cd.Foundation <rakhbari=ebay.com@...> wrote:
My 2-cents… Switching to Skype would most definitely be equivalent to “Jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire” type situation. My personal experience with Skype has been far sub-par over the last 3-4 years and there’s no indication
it’s improving in any way. I highly recommend either Zoom or paid Slack (if CDF can afford it).
Cheers,
Ramin
From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...>
On Behalf Of Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:23 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings
Ah good to know on Zoom -- from comments in the last meeting it sounded like it might not work.
We can also certainly discuss if we want to switch editors, but thanks for indicating the github solution is known to be a legit one.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:56 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Zoom isn't blocked in China yet, there's special instructions:
Hey folks, attempting to close out my action items from the last meeting.
It continues to look like github is our best bet for the meetings notes. I'm not finding anything else that's reliably available everywhere that really inspires, and this way it can be centralized to our TOC repo.
The downside to this of course is that we lose the shared editing during the meeting, so another possibility is that we publish the meetings notes to github once the meeting is complete but that we continue to use Docs during the meeting
itself so most folks have the ability to amend, comment, etc. I've tested a pretty straightforward way to do a publish that would support this model and you can see the results here:
I was also looking around at possible non-zoom chat options, and Skype and WeChat seem to be the most legit options (there's another one called Pinngle but all the reviews ultimately seem to be self-sourced by one guy out of the Ukraine
so I'm not feeling awesome about it). Comments on Skype seem to indicate that from China you're redirected to download the Chinese version so it's recommended to VPN your way to a better source, but regardless there can be quality issues. The consensus for
Wechat is that it's not ready for primetime outside of China yet (though inside of course it is King).
I suspect most people already knew all of this, but I guess I'm wondering out loud if we ultimately feel we can realistically support real time voice chat participation in China or similarly censored countries at this time?
Anyway, talk to you Tuesday!
--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud
--
--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud
--
Zhao Xiaojie (Rick) 
|
|
Tracy Miranda <tmiranda@...>
Hi Animesh,
Great - thanks for kicking this off. I know a number of interested parties in this and will direct them to look at the PR and give feedback/help build it out. Maybe also we can add to agenda for an upcoming TOC meeting.
Tracy
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Hi All,
Would like to see the appetite in the community for an MLOps Sig. I am part of IBM, and participating heavily in Kubeflow community. I have created a straw-man proposal here, and based on the initial interest of the group, will do a formal PR and bring it back for vote!
https://github.com/cdfoundation/toc/issues/34
Thanks, Animesh Singh
|
|
Re: Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings
So glad to know that web client for zoom is not blocked. I thought the zoom already be blocked totally. Anyway, using zoom sounds like a good idea.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:25 AM Ramin Akhbari via Lists.Cd.Foundation <rakhbari=ebay.com@...> wrote:
My 2-cents… Switching to Skype would most definitely be equivalent to “Jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire” type situation. My personal experience with Skype has been far sub-par over the last 3-4 years and there’s no indication
it’s improving in any way. I highly recommend either Zoom or paid Slack (if CDF can afford it).
Cheers,
Ramin
From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...>
On Behalf Of Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:23 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings
Ah good to know on Zoom -- from comments in the last meeting it sounded like it might not work.
We can also certainly discuss if we want to switch editors, but thanks for indicating the github solution is known to be a legit one.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:56 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Zoom isn't blocked in China yet, there's special instructions:
Hey folks, attempting to close out my action items from the last meeting.
It continues to look like github is our best bet for the meetings notes. I'm not finding anything else that's reliably available everywhere that really inspires, and this way it can be centralized to our TOC repo.
The downside to this of course is that we lose the shared editing during the meeting, so another possibility is that we publish the meetings notes to github once the meeting is complete but that we continue to use Docs during the meeting
itself so most folks have the ability to amend, comment, etc. I've tested a pretty straightforward way to do a publish that would support this model and you can see the results here:
I was also looking around at possible non-zoom chat options, and Skype and WeChat seem to be the most legit options (there's another one called Pinngle but all the reviews ultimately seem to be self-sourced by one guy out of the Ukraine
so I'm not feeling awesome about it). Comments on Skype seem to indicate that from China you're redirected to download the Chinese version so it's recommended to VPN your way to a better source, but regardless there can be quality issues. The consensus for
Wechat is that it's not ready for primetime outside of China yet (though inside of course it is King).
I suspect most people already knew all of this, but I guess I'm wondering out loud if we ultimately feel we can realistically support real time voice chat participation in China or similarly censored countries at this time?
Anyway, talk to you Tuesday!
--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud
--
--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud
-- Zhao Xiaojie (Rick) 
|
|
Re: Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings
My 2-cents… Switching to Skype would most definitely be equivalent to “Jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire” type situation. My personal experience with Skype has been far sub-par over the last 3-4 years and there’s no indication
it’s improving in any way. I highly recommend either Zoom or paid Slack (if CDF can afford it).
Cheers,
Ramin
From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...>
On Behalf Of Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:23 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings
Ah good to know on Zoom -- from comments in the last meeting it sounded like it might not work.
We can also certainly discuss if we want to switch editors, but thanks for indicating the github solution is known to be a legit one.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:56 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Zoom isn't blocked in China yet, there's special instructions:
Hey folks, attempting to close out my action items from the last meeting.
It continues to look like github is our best bet for the meetings notes. I'm not finding anything else that's reliably available everywhere that really inspires, and this way it can be centralized to our TOC repo.
The downside to this of course is that we lose the shared editing during the meeting, so another possibility is that we publish the meetings notes to github once the meeting is complete but that we continue to use Docs during the meeting
itself so most folks have the ability to amend, comment, etc. I've tested a pretty straightforward way to do a publish that would support this model and you can see the results here:
I was also looking around at possible non-zoom chat options, and Skype and WeChat seem to be the most legit options (there's another one called Pinngle but all the reviews ultimately seem to be self-sourced by one guy out of the Ukraine
so I'm not feeling awesome about it). Comments on Skype seem to indicate that from China you're redirected to download the Chinese version so it's recommended to VPN your way to a better source, but regardless there can be quality issues. The consensus for
Wechat is that it's not ready for primetime outside of China yet (though inside of course it is King).
I suspect most people already knew all of this, but I guess I'm wondering out loud if we ultimately feel we can realistically support real time voice chat participation in China or similarly censored countries at this time?
Anyway, talk to you Tuesday!
--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud
--
--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud
|
|
Re: Supporting China based contributors for TOC meetings

Tara Hernandez
Ah good to know on Zoom -- from comments in the last meeting it sounded like it might not work. We can also certainly discuss if we want to switch editors, but thanks for indicating the github solution is known to be a legit one.
Cheers! -Tara
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:56 AM Chris Aniszczyk < caniszczyk@...> wrote: Zoom isn't blocked in China yet, there's special instructions:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 1:53 PM Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
Hey folks, attempting to close out my action items from the last meeting.
It continues to look like github is our best bet for the meetings notes. I'm not finding anything else that's reliably available everywhere that really inspires, and this way it can be centralized to our TOC repo.
The downside to this of course is that we lose the shared editing during the meeting, so another possibility is that we publish the meetings notes to github once the meeting is complete but that we continue to use Docs during the meeting itself so most folks have the ability to amend, comment, etc. I've tested a pretty straightforward way to do a publish that would support this model and you can see the results here:
I was also looking around at possible non-zoom chat options, and Skype and WeChat seem to be the most legit options (there's another one called Pinngle but all the reviews ultimately seem to be self-sourced by one guy out of the Ukraine so I'm not feeling awesome about it). Comments on Skype seem to indicate that from China you're redirected to download the Chinese version so it's recommended to VPN your way to a better source, but regardless there can be quality issues. The consensus for Wechat is that it's not ready for primetime outside of China yet (though inside of course it is King).
I suspect most people already knew all of this, but I guess I'm wondering out loud if we ultimately feel we can realistically support real time voice chat participation in China or similarly censored countries at this time?
Anyway, talk to you Tuesday!
-Tara
-- Tara Hernandez Engineering Manager Google Cloud
--
-- Tara Hernandez Engineering Manager Google Cloud
|
|