Date
1 - 5 of 5
Proposal to create Extensions PMC
|
Chip Childers <cchilders@...>
Hi all!
The PMC Council is considering the attached proposal to restructure the foundation's PMCs. A critical part of this proposal was a set of changes to the Development Governance and Operations Policies that define how a PMC's Governance by Contribution voting process works. Last week, the CFF Board of Directors unanimously approved these changes (they will be posted to cloudfoundry.org this week). The TL;DR here is that PMCs can choose, at the time of formation, to delegate technical decisioning making completely to the projects. That's the proposed model for this Extensions PMC. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E8UePs_PjQrlgqkSyP_Hk4bNcXfqsGH7iX2LXnbLW58/edit?usp=sharing This is being shared for public comment. Please take a look and feel free to comment in the Google doc, in this email thread or by contacting me directly if you wish to remain anonymous. Comment period will be open until at least EOD Wednesday of this week. Thanks! -chip -- Chip Childers VP Technology, Cloud Foundry Foundation 1.267.250.0815 |
|
|
|
Dr Nic Williams <drnicwilliams@...>
Chip/DrMax et al,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
It might be helpful for the document to introduce the topic with a clear 2016/17 definition of what is "Core CF", and what "incubating project" means. I'm personally not actually sure - e.g. is the goal of Abacus & MySQL release to be CF Core? If so, does this mean that all CF Certified PaaS must deploy them? If this is clearly documented somewhere, perhaps a link in line is useful to me/others who also forget/are unclear. The proposal frames itself in part around the @cloudfoundry-community organization. This organization is collection of projects related to CF but do not necessarily have ambitions of being "Core CF". They can be solutions to problems; tools to help run CF; brokers to run alongside CF; apps to run on top of CF. It's been wonderful - because in part we can abandon projects when we think up all new ways to solve problems; or perhaps because Core CF components evolve or are removed or new ones introduced that help lift the tide for all ancillary tools. The projects afaict typically don't have full time teams working on them - they are more byproducts of ongoing real life work; or after hours inspiration from the suffering during work hours :) Did this organization of code bases get mentioned in this proposal because there is a desire by the Extensions PMC to do something with them? Perhaps explicitly flesh this out? At a glance the referenced projects are incubating projects with F/T teams - is this important; or is "incubating towards CF Core/Certification" the important aspect? On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:05 AM +1000, "Chip Childers" <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org> wrote:
Hi all! The PMC Council is considering the attached proposal to restructure the foundation's PMCs. A critical part of this proposal was a set of changes to the Development Governance and Operations Policies that define how a PMC's Governance by Contribution voting process works. Last week, the CFF Board of Directors unanimously approved these changes (they will be posted to cloudfoundry.org this week). The TL;DR here is that PMCs can choose, at the time of formation, to delegate technical decisioning making completely to the projects. That's the proposed model for this Extensions PMC. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E8UePs_PjQrlgqkSyP_Hk4bNcXfqsGH7iX2LXnbLW58/edit?usp=sharing This is being shared for public comment. Please take a look and feel free to comment in the Google doc, in this email thread or by contacting me directly if you wish to remain anonymous. Comment period will be open until at least EOD Wednesday of this week. Thanks! -chip-- Chip ChildersVP Technology, Cloud Foundry Foundation1.267.250.0815 |
|
|
|
Chip Childers <cchilders@...>
In line:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:56 PM Dr Nic Williams <drnicwilliams(a)gmail.com> wrote: Chip/DrMax et al,Good questions! "Core CF" - This really isn't a defined term. In the proposal (which I wrote the initial draft of), I was using the term to basically mean that we can think of the software within the CFF as being one of three categories: Components of the Elastic Runtime, Components of BOSH and "Extensions". My intention with that term was to describe the first two (ER and BOSH). "Incubating Projects" - the definition of "incubating" is in the Development Operations Policy <https://www.cloudfoundry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CFF_Development_Operations_Policy.pdf>, a portion of which is: C. Project Incubation. The purpose of the incubation process is to ensure that Projects have a successfully operating open and collaborative development community, follow development and quality guidelines as established by the PMC Council, have clear intellectual property oversight of the code base of the Project, adopt Foundation policies and are an architectural fit for the PMC. Incubation is a term tied to project lifecycle within the CFF... We have incubation, active and the attic. Incubation is as described above. Active are projects that are "matured" (and each PMC defines this themselves) to the point that they should be considered "active". Some general indicators of a project's readiness to graduate from incubating to active include: project operations (how the team / community is working together), intellectual property cleanliness (are the legal docs in order, etc...) and code maturity (is the code ready for production). For those that care about things like governance structure, it's important to understand that there's a technicality regarding PMC decision making that relates to project status (incubating / active / attic). Only committers on *Active* projects represent a vote for a company within a PMC. I'm personally not actually sure - e.g. is the goal of Abacus & MySQLLet's forget about the "Core" word for a bit... and go back to first principles. We have the three categories of projects (as listed above... ER, BOSH, Extensions) hosted within the Foundation. The goal of this reorganization is to simultaneously consolidate the projects that form the two platforms (ER & BOSH) and create a better way for "extensions" to be supported within the Foundation. The consolidation allows governance by contribution voting to be scoped properly for the two platforms (and the projects that make up those two platforms). The creation of an Extensions PMC allows for collaboration on projects that are surrounding the two platforms (ex: buildpacks run within ER, Services can be deployed by BOSH and tied into ER, etc...). A goal of a project shouldn't be to be "Core" unless it really is a component of one of the platforms (again, understanding that "Core" has no real definition). However, projects SHOULD want to move from incubating to active, if merely to help indicate their status as production ready. That topic was included to specifically point out that cloudfoundry-community isn't related to the proposal. Seems counter intuitive, I know. ;-) A couple of points: 1) The CFF doesn't "own" that organization. It's as you describe it... a collection of projects that have organically been shared in a common location. 2) It DOES seem like a little bit of curation of the projects in that repo might be useful. It's filled with interesting code, some of which is able to be used and some of which is likely quite stale. A first-time participant in the CF ecosystem (as I've heard from many individuals) can have a hard time knowing what's in there, what's valuable and what's no longer valuable. In general, I'd like to see if the community wants to do more curation of the code in there or not. It's up to people that want to take the opportunity to do so! Anyone want to think about ways to make it more useful to the ecosystem? Chip Childers CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation 1.267.250.0815 |
|
|
|
Chip Childers <cchilders@...>
All,
The PMC Council voted yesterday, forming the Extensions PMC with Dr. Max as the PMC Lead. All of the projects within the Buildpacks, Services and Utilities PMCs are now under the new structure. One exception is that we are proposing that the MySQL service be part of the Runtime PMC. Runtime will (hopefully) formally approve that change during it's next regularly scheduled meeting. -chip On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:59 AM Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org> wrote: Hi all!-- Chip Childers CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation 1.267.250.0815 |
|
|
|
Michael Maximilien
Since I have not seen anything else, I will assume we are somewhat settled
here... I like the idea of keeping things simple with two classes of projects and then BOSH. ------ As far as extensions is concern, I am planning a kick off call right after Thanksgiving to give us a chance to discuss how we move forward and I also want to share my vision for this PMC. The key challenge is what is best time for the majority. Can you please reply to maxim(a)us.ibm.com or mmaximilien(a)gmail.com with your intent to participate and the best time for your timezone. If we cannot reach a good time for all and there is enough interests then I might schedule two the same day. Feedback appreciated. Best, Max On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org> wrote: In line: -- max http://maximilien.org http://blog.maximilien.com |
|
|