|
Tobie Langel
Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure: Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
Best,
--tobie
|
|
|
Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
Raghu.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure: Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
Best,
--tobie
|
|
|
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from? What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name? - Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout? - If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
-Greg
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha < rsimha@...> wrote: Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
Raghu.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure: Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
Best,
--tobie
|
|
|
Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Did someone make an issue on the summit repo to request time during the summit for this session?
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from? What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name? - Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout? - If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
-Greg
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha < rsimha@...> wrote: Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
Raghu.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure: Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
Best,
--tobie
|
|
|
Tobie Langel
Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg.
To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it.
It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer.
My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that: - It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain.
- The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this.
- It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime.
- It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source).
- Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data.
Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above.
Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this?
Thanks,
--tobie
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from? What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name? - Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout? - If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
-Greg
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha < rsimha@...> wrote: Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
Raghu.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure: Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
Best,
--tobie
|
|
|
I can answer for the infra/cache side.
This sounds fine. The privacy policy would typically include securely short-term logging of IP addresses for security/privacy purposes only. For example to handle DOS attacks. No cookies or other user data would be logged however. That's probably something that could be reconsidered if needed.
-Greg
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg.
To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it.
It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer.
My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that: - It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain.
- The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this.
- It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime.
- It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source).
- Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data.
Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above.
Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this?
Thanks,
--tobie
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from? What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name? - Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout? - If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
-Greg
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha < rsimha@...> wrote: Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
Raghu.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure: Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
Best,
--tobie
|
|
|
Tobie Langel
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Did someone make an issue on the summit repo to request time during the summit for this session?
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from? What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name? - Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout? - If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
-Greg
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha < rsimha@...> wrote: Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
Raghu.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure: Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
Best,
--tobie
|
|
|
Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of
the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation.
From:
Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson
<jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit
Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg.
To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it.
It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer.
My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that:
-
It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain.
-
The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this.
-
It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime.
-
It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source).
-
Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data.
Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above.
Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:13 PM Greg Grothaus < greggrothaus@...> wrote:
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from?
What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name?
- Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout?
- If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote:
Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure:
Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
|
|
|
Tobie Langel
Thanks, Tierney.
Given the main point of this exercise is to move towards consensus upstream of graduation, who else should involved to have a better sense of what the CPC and foundation’s positions are?
—tobie
Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of
the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation.
From:
Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson
<jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit
Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg.
To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it.
It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer.
My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that:
-
It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain.
-
The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this.
-
It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime.
-
It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source).
-
Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data.
Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above.
Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this?
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from?
What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name?
- Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout?
- If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote:
Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure:
Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
|
|
|
Hi all!
Wanted to let you know that we've got space & time reserved for this on the collaborator summit agenda:
Room: 512DH Date: Friday, 12/13 Time: 4:00 PM EST
I'll send this as a calendar invite to everyone as well. Do we think we'll want to dial anyone in to the conversation? Let me know & I'll see what we can do.
- Jory
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:10 AM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Thanks, Tierney.
Given the main point of this exercise is to move towards consensus upstream of graduation, who else should involved to have a better sense of what the CPC and foundation’s positions are?
—tobie
Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of
the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation.
From:
Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson
<jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit
Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg.
To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it.
It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer.
My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that:
-
It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain.
-
The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this.
-
It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime.
-
It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source).
-
Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data.
Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above.
Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this?
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from?
What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name?
- Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout?
- If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote:
Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure:
Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
|
|
|
Tobie Langel
Yes, Greg will need to dial in.
Can we make sure to have 60 minutes available for this?
Thanks,
—tobie
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 15:49 Jory Burson < jory@...> wrote: Hi all!
Wanted to let you know that we've got space & time reserved for this on the collaborator summit agenda:
Room: 512DH Date: Friday, 12/13 Time: 4:00 PM EST
I'll send this as a calendar invite to everyone as well. Do we think we'll want to dial anyone in to the conversation? Let me know & I'll see what we can do.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:10 AM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Thanks, Tierney.
Given the main point of this exercise is to move towards consensus upstream of graduation, who else should involved to have a better sense of what the CPC and foundation’s positions are?
—tobie
Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of
the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation.
From:
Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson
<jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit
Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg.
To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it.
It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer.
My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that:
-
It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain.
-
The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this.
-
It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime.
-
It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source).
-
Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data.
Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above.
Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this?
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from?
What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name?
- Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout?
- If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote:
Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure:
Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
|
|
|
We have a confirmed 60 minutes, and if we need more time, I'm confident we can take more.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 9:51 AM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Yes, Greg will need to dial in.
Can we make sure to have 60 minutes available for this?
Thanks,
—tobie On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 15:49 Jory Burson < jory@...> wrote: Hi all!
Wanted to let you know that we've got space & time reserved for this on the collaborator summit agenda:
Room: 512DH Date: Friday, 12/13 Time: 4:00 PM EST
I'll send this as a calendar invite to everyone as well. Do we think we'll want to dial anyone in to the conversation? Let me know & I'll see what we can do.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:10 AM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Thanks, Tierney.
Given the main point of this exercise is to move towards consensus upstream of graduation, who else should involved to have a better sense of what the CPC and foundation’s positions are?
—tobie
Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of
the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation.
From:
Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson
<jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit
Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg.
To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it.
It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer.
My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that:
-
It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain.
-
The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this.
-
It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime.
-
It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source).
-
Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data.
Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above.
Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this?
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from?
What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name?
- Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout?
- If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote:
Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure:
Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
|
|
|
I will call in as well, I will be gone by then.
Thank you for setting this up, Jory. Best, Brian -- Brian Warner The Linux Foundation bwarner@...+1 724 301-6171
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 9:55 AM Jory Burson < jory@...> wrote: We have a confirmed 60 minutes, and if we need more time, I'm confident we can take more.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 9:51 AM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Yes, Greg will need to dial in.
Can we make sure to have 60 minutes available for this?
Thanks,
—tobie On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 15:49 Jory Burson < jory@...> wrote: Hi all!
Wanted to let you know that we've got space & time reserved for this on the collaborator summit agenda:
Room: 512DH Date: Friday, 12/13 Time: 4:00 PM EST
I'll send this as a calendar invite to everyone as well. Do we think we'll want to dial anyone in to the conversation? Let me know & I'll see what we can do.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:10 AM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Thanks, Tierney.
Given the main point of this exercise is to move towards consensus upstream of graduation, who else should involved to have a better sense of what the CPC and foundation’s positions are?
—tobie
Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of
the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation.
From:
Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson
<jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit
Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg.
To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it.
It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer.
My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that:
-
It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain.
-
The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this.
-
It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime.
-
It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source).
-
Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data.
Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above.
Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this?
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from?
What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name?
- Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout?
- If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote:
Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure:
Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
|
|
|
No problem. I assume this is using the hangouts ID in the meeting for the connection. If there is something else I need to set up in advance, let me know.
-Greg
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:51 AM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Yes, Greg will need to dial in.
Can we make sure to have 60 minutes available for this?
Thanks,
—tobie On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 15:49 Jory Burson < jory@...> wrote: Hi all!
Wanted to let you know that we've got space & time reserved for this on the collaborator summit agenda:
Room: 512DH Date: Friday, 12/13 Time: 4:00 PM EST
I'll send this as a calendar invite to everyone as well. Do we think we'll want to dial anyone in to the conversation? Let me know & I'll see what we can do.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:10 AM Tobie Langel < tobie@...> wrote: Thanks, Tierney.
Given the main point of this exercise is to move towards consensus upstream of graduation, who else should involved to have a better sense of what the CPC and foundation’s positions are?
—tobie
Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of
the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation.
From:
Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson
<jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit
Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg.
To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it.
It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer.
My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that:
-
It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain.
-
The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this.
-
It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime.
-
It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source).
-
Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data.
Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above.
Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this?
There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:
What domain name will we serve the runtime from?
What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name?
- Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout?
- If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.
Let me know what you think.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote:
Hi folks,
AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.
This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure:
Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.
Looking forward to catching up with you all.
|
|
|
I have accepted the invite but just FYI, I will also be dialing in. Thanks! Kris
From: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Cc: Jory Burson <jory@...>; Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>; Esther Kim <esth@...>; Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>; Myles Borins <mborins@...>; Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>; Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>; Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>; amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit No problem. I assume this is using the hangouts ID in the meeting for the connection. If there is something else I need to set up in advance, let me know. On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:51 AM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote: Yes, Greg will need to dial in. Can we make sure to have 60 minutes available for this? On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 15:49 Jory Burson <jory@...> wrote: Hi all! Wanted to let you know that we've got space & time reserved for this on the collaborator summit agenda: I'll send this as a calendar invite to everyone as well. Do we think we'll want to dial anyone in to the conversation? Let me know & I'll see what we can do. On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:10 AM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote: Given the main point of this exercise is to move towards consensus upstream of graduation, who else should involved to have a better sense of what the CPC and foundation’s positions are? Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation. From: Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson <jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg. To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it. It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer. My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that: · It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain. · The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this. · It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime. · It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source). · Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data. Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above. Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this? There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity: What domain name will we serve the runtime from? What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name? - Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout? - If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used? On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote: Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie. Let me know what you think. On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote: Hi folks, AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week. This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure: Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started. Looking forward to catching up with you all.
|
|
|
Thanks for setting up this meeting, Jory.
I have accepted the invite but just FYI, I will also be dialing in. Thanks! Kris From: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Cc: Jory Burson <jory@...>; Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>; Esther Kim <esth@...>; Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>; Myles Borins <mborins@...>; Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>; Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>; Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>; amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit No problem. I assume this is using the hangouts ID in the meeting for the connection. If there is something else I need to set up in advance, let me know. On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:51 AM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote: Yes, Greg will need to dial in. Can we make sure to have 60 minutes available for this? On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 15:49 Jory Burson <jory@...> wrote: Hi all! Wanted to let you know that we've got space & time reserved for this on the collaborator summit agenda: I'll send this as a calendar invite to everyone as well. Do we think we'll want to dial anyone in to the conversation? Let me know & I'll see what we can do. On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:10 AM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote: Given the main point of this exercise is to move towards consensus upstream of graduation, who else should involved to have a better sense of what the CPC and foundation’s positions are? Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation. From: Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson <jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg. To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it. It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer. My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that: · It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain. · The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this. · It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime. · It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source). · Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data. Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above. Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this? There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity: What domain name will we serve the runtime from? What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name? - Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout? - If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used? On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote: Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie. Let me know what you think. On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote: Hi folks, AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week. This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure: Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started. Looking forward to catching up with you all.
|
|
|
Of course! Naina, you have been added to the invite - I've also updated the meeting so you should be able to add others as well.
- Jory
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 12:32 PM Raghu Simha < rsimha@...> wrote: Thanks for setting up this meeting, Jory.
I have accepted the invite but just FYI, I will also be dialing in. Thanks! Kris From: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Cc: Jory Burson <jory@...>; Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>; Esther Kim <esth@...>; Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>; Myles Borins <mborins@...>; Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>; Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>; Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>; amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit No problem. I assume this is using the hangouts ID in the meeting for the connection. If there is something else I need to set up in advance, let me know. On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:51 AM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote: Yes, Greg will need to dial in. Can we make sure to have 60 minutes available for this? On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 15:49 Jory Burson <jory@...> wrote: Hi all! Wanted to let you know that we've got space & time reserved for this on the collaborator summit agenda: I'll send this as a calendar invite to everyone as well. Do we think we'll want to dial anyone in to the conversation? Let me know & I'll see what we can do. On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:10 AM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote: Given the main point of this exercise is to move towards consensus upstream of graduation, who else should involved to have a better sense of what the CPC and foundation’s positions are? Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation. From: Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson <jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg. To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it. It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer. My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that: · It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain. · The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this. · It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime. · It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source). · Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data. Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above. Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this? There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity: What domain name will we serve the runtime from? What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name? - Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout? - If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used? On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote: Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie. Let me know what you think. On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote: Hi folks, AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week. This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure: Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started. Looking forward to catching up with you all.
|
|
|
