Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.

Regards

Steve Watt

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.

--

Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:

Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

-chip

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.

--

Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:

That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.

--

Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:

It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

Dan, Chris, any ideas?

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

Thanks,

C

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

​

--

Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

--

Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc