Project Proposal: NATS #81
Conversation
|
Thanks @ColinSullivan1! RFC @cncf/toc for due diligence |
|
I'm excited about the NATS project. Messaging and integration middleware paradigms have changed radically in the cloud-native era and NATS represents a view into the future of application-to-application and service-to-service IPC. NATS is a great fit for the CNCF. |
wallyqs
force-pushed
the
nats-proposal
branch
from
14bb792
to
dbccc77
Compare
|
I think you mean 2018 not 2017! This is for an Inception project still? |
|
@justincormack Thanks! I updated the PR description. It is, although if the committee feels we can move ahead to Incubating we'd be happy to accommodate. |
|
I'd prefer to leave at inception for now cc: @cncf/toc |
|
I can't find any reference to who the committers are or the governance process. There is a good contribution guide https://nats.io/documentation/contributing/ but looking at the repos I can't see who the committers are anywhere. |
|
@justincormack it's not a requirement that projects have governance fully figured out before they propose the project, it's something that CNCF can help with as the project enters inception/incubation (although it's nice if projects have governance defined in advance) |
|
@caniszczyk sure, but I do want to know who the committers are... |
|
@justincormack as part of that process, they should definitely have the equivalent of a MAINTAINERS.md :) |
|
@justincormack , governance advice was one of our asks, so any advice there would be much appreciated. We can add MAINTAINERS.md, or something similar, such as an AUTHORS file, to our repositories. |
|
HI,guys, how do nats deal with LF another standard project - openmessaging. Nowadays, it has 4 initial funding member and many members. what's more, including Apache RocketMQ, Apache Incubating Pulsar, and RabbitMQ are all involved in its implementation. http://openmessaging.cloud/. |
|
@vongosling I'm glad you joined in. My impression was that OpenMessaging was actually a closer fit to some work taking place in the CNCF's Serverless working group on OpenEvents: https://github.com/cncf/wg-serverless#openevents To answer your specific question, though, the presence of OpenMessaging in the LF has no effect on the decision for whether NATS comes into CNCF. CNCF already has multiple competing projects in some areas (e.g., containerd and rkt, linkerd and envoy). |
|
@dankohn Thanks for your reply, yeah, I have learned more about CNCF competing projects, also, I have followed up the CNCF Serverless working group for a long time. Actually, OpenMessaging stream parts have a similar closer roadmap to it. But, It is just parts of OpenMessaging . Nowadays, more and more company, not only from China, they all want to be involved in OpenMessaging standard, and I am very glad to introduce the further development under TSC's endeavor at the end of a month :-) |
|
I will look into openmessaging, was not aware of it prior. Thanks @vongosling |
|
My pleasure @derekcollison , if you have any suggestion about OpenMessaging, please let us know :-) |
|
seems like there were lots of comment conversation on the draft that does not translate well to github PR. |
|
the @cncf/toc vote is out for NATS to come in as incubation level: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/1843 |
|
Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that NATS has been accepted into CNCF as an INCUBATION level project (sponsored by Alexis Richardson). +1 TOC binding votes (8 / 9):
We'll be working with the NATS community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF project family. Thanks again to everyone who voted and participated in the due diligence process: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/due-diligence-guidelines.md Finally, please welcome the NATS community! |
As requested during the January 16, 2018 CNCF TOC meeting (minutes), we submit NATS for consideration to be included as a CNCF project.
The Google document where this was drafted can be found here.