toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
sponsor do so on their behalf.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see on
many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is the
community support beyond company A", etc.
So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems counter-intuitive
to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
What is your question about community support?
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands
in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better
understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are
concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a
potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a
bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably
instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is
not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community
see this as criteria zero.
Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan
is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are
trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so
things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken
Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the process
of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all comments
good & timely, anywhere.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the
Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? Is
that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy to
ask this on the call :)
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
thanks Dan & team
@all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
tomorrow's TOC call
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just a
note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing materials
clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon as
first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry over
marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3