Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials


alexis richardson
 

Bob

Thanks for this.

There is a consistent theme that we heard at the F2F in Austin and
again since, that was addressed on the last TOC call and obviously
needs more discussion.

Consider this sequence:
- small project is at super early stage
- joins CNCF with inception status || maintainers form a company
- is deluged with press & VC money
- everyone else is disgruntled, jointly and severally

Is this always an anti-pattern?

a

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Bob Wise <bob@...> wrote:
Since the moment is opening up for debate, I will make a stand (again) that
we should require cross-org maintainership.
I believe this might help with some of Jesse Frazelle's commentary recently
as well, although only she could say. :-)

Generally this is a way to not only ensure that the projects are really of
sufficient interest to users, but also to contributors.
We acknowledge this in what it takes to graduate, anyway.

We do not require it at the outset, while at the same time a small company
might be getting funded or gaining market share based on getting to one of
these states.
Since projects are getting so much press at the first stage of acceptance,
they are getting a lot of the value without returning that value to the
community in the form of shared control.

It's not too much to ask (and we should ask) that to receive the CNCF
endorsement that real dedication (not just future expectation) to multi-org
maintainership is required at all phases.

-Bob


On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:

Erin

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.

alexis


On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,
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
community support.

Thoughts?
Erin



On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:

Erin

Thank you.

What is your question about community support?

Alexis


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
success factor.

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
record here).

Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
Thanks,
Erin



On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:

Jess

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.

a



On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
wrote:
Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid
the
300k?

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
<alexis@...> wrote:
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@...>
wrote:
We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just
a
quick
note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing
materials
to
clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:

https://www.cncf.io/
https://www.cncf.io/projects/


https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0

We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon
as
the
first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry
over
to our
marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu




Join cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io to automatically receive all group messages.