+1 nb
I appreciate that the TOC took the time to talk with the Kubernetes Steering Committee prior to calling for a vote. I can't imagine a vote moving forward without their blessing. It's great that the TOC took the time to do that.
As a maintainer that maintains a CNCF project that came out from under the Kubernetes umbrella, I understand how there is more than just an association when being a sub-project of another project. Kubernetes has certain ways it does things. And, it's easy for sub-projects to get lost in that setup. If people have a different style of maintaining it can be really useful for that project to live elsewhere.
If folks don't know, if a project like k3s were to join Kubernetes as a sub-project their governance, CI, and processes would all need to change to conform to Kubernetes. This is one of the ways the Kubernetes projects manages to many people and so much work. There are standards and processes that need to be followed. It makes things far easier on the project.
Kubernetes has now had several projects move out from it's umbrella to be CNCF projects. It's great to watch projects grow enough that they can be separate projects on their own.
I read there's concern about projects being entangled with companies when they join the CNCF. In this case, Rancher. I've seen this before as I've watched the CNCF grow. It happened with a recent incubation project ... it's not just a sandbox thing. The CNCF staff does a good job of guiding the projects to straighten this stuff out given a little time and patience. I wouldn't consider this a blocker... more a task to be worked out if k3s goes in to the CNCF.
I also want to point out that it's hard and time consuming to get architecture changes into upstream Kubernetes. Sometimes they aren't even going to happen for various reasons... even if it would be useful. An alternative place to prove out proposed changes would give them a higher likelihood of getting into Kubernetes itself. It would also prove out that there are people who can maintain those changes. This is why I like k3s trying something out and proving it's useful and can work.
- Matt
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, at 2:57 PM, Michelle Noorali wrote:
+1 binding
- I think this is an opportunity for us to create forums/feedback loops and improve communication between distribution like projects and core projects where it makes sense.
- If Kind or Minikube ever wanted to pop out from under the Kubernetes umbrella, I'd support those projects being under the CNCF as well.
- We have certain graduation requirements for specs. I'd like to continue having discussions around whether there should be specific/additional graduation requirements for distributions. For now, I'm looking forward to seeing how the neutral IP space and focus on collaboration with the CNCF community further shapes the project and community.
Best,
Michelle Noorali
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:38 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Currently k3s is a distro of k8s.
We used to have a k8s sandbox. If we still did then k3s would happily live there as a way to show k8s how to be a better project.
k3s is not a fork of Kubernetes. It is an opinionated way of delivering Kubernetes to IoT and Edge devices. Talking to Kubernetes steering committee made it clear that Kubernetes main design principle is extensibility, and the core system will be maintained to support Kubernetes development/deployment in a generic and configurable way. Therefore projects like k3s could benefit the ecosystem by expanding Kubernetes adoption footprint while remaining standalone.
For the areas where k3s maintainers can contribute back to Kubernetes, we should strongly encourage them to do so. Mending the relationship with Kubernetes community should be the first priority for the health of the project. By accepting k3s to Sandbox we get an opportunity to advise on its contributor experience, sustainability and governance.
-alena
On Jul 31, 2020, at 11:07 AM, alexis richardson < alexis@...> wrote:
-1, nb
+1 to joe & bob comments.
I am very keen to see k3s initiative do well
I am even more keen to see it feed back into K8s
let's find a way to make this work! I don't know the answer and recognise how unfair this probably seems to the k3s folks
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:04 PM Joe Beda < jbeda@...> wrote: -1 non-binding
My concerns echo Bob’s.
There is a ton to like about k3s. There is a super enthusiastic user community and it has pioneered bringing together an opinionated set of components with a streamlined experience. That is awesome!
Concrete concerns:
- Is k3s a distribution? Many people publicly refer to it as such. The project page itself (k3s.io) has a headline saying “The certified Kubernetes distribution built for IoT & Edge computing”.
- Should the CNCF be a place to host distributions? (purpose discussion for the TOC)
- The name is very confusing. Kubernetes and k8s are synonymous. In fact, “k8s” is a registered trademark of the LF (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-list/). I’m not a lawyer, but these clearly commercially overlap and there is confusion in the marketplace. The LF may need to take action here regardless of the TOC decision.
- The places where k3s has made progress has, traditionally, included essentially forking parts of k8s and rebuilding. That forking has gotten thinner over time but is still there. There are promises around pushing changes upstream, but, to my knowledge, that has been minimal. The relationship there is fraught with a lot of history of friction and conflict.
- [point in time concern] The project is still pretty entangled with the rest of Rancher. This can be solved but obviously hasn’t been a priority. An example is that the documentation for k3s is part of the Rancher docs repo. Would the docs be included in the assets that come into the CNCF?
- The repo is also part of the Rancher org. The set of code owners is hidden and looks to be driven exclusively by Rancher (https://github.com/rancher/k3s/blob/master/CODEOWNERS).
There are a lot of thorny issues here. I have confidence in the TOC to be able to detangle these.
Thanks,
Joe
-1 non-binding.
I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox.
The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only.
Kubernetes as a project has, in my opinion, succeeded in part because of the community dedication to staying upstream and not forking.
For clarity, I would be strongly in favor of k3s being part of Kubernetes upstream.
-Bob
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
|
+1 binding.
-alena.
On Jul 31, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote:
Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.
Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
|
