Re: Incubating and Inception levels in marketing materials


alexis richardson
 

Alex

Thanks for your patience in this.  Showing a mature and objective face to users is so important and I know you have been overwhelmed and doggedly doing the right thing. 

In terms of handling the issues below, the written proposal is the next step for all of us.  It may be efficient to liaise with Dan directly.  Your early feedback could help us avoid some iterations later.

A


On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, 16:08 Alex Chircop, <alex.chircop@...> wrote:
Following up on this thread and the discussion on the TOC call yesterday, I'd like to see better clarity overall in the marketing of how inception and incubation projects are differentiated.

The changes to the website, the text to the press releases,  and the landscape are all good first steps, however I worry that it does not achieve the goal of clearly differentiating the projects for end users.   Camille's comment about how the Apache foundation differentiates incubation projects (https://incubator.apache.org/) would be an option/example doing this better.

Some simple examples of how the confusion is being perpetuated right now:
*  On https://www.cncf.io/projects/, the inception and incubation projects are listed together under different headings, but with nothing to indicate that they have different criteria.  End users are very unlikely to make the effort to read and digest the graduation criteria, so any way of simply explaining the difference on the projects page would be helpful.
*  The press releases for both Rook (inception) and Vitess (incubator) both start with the tagline "Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) voted to accept xx as the yyth hosted project, alongside Kubernetes, Prometheus, ....".   Although there was text in the release about inception projects and graduation criteria, the bulk of the blogs and follow-on articles latched onto the first sentence and ran with that.   The tag line is that the projects are in the same box as Kubernetes or Prometheus.  From an end user point of view there is very little to determine difference in project maturity, size or adoption.

Anecdotally, I've personally spent a lot of effort answering questions in emails, slack & meetups over the last few days and can confirm that the confusion is real :-)

I believe that all work on cloud native projects benefits the community and the adoption of cloud native technologies in general, and inception projects supported by a foundation like the CNCF is useful - however getting the terminology right and following on through in all aspects of marketing is critical to ensure end users are getting the right information.   This is especially important in the "Cloud Native" world where there is certain amount of flux and constant change.

Thanks,
Alex

On 06/02/2018, 07:52, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:

    Luis

    The CNCF does and should endorse cross-org maintainership.  It has to
    be realistic though.  Many projects have a very healthy lifecycle with
    just one group backing them, even when that group coincides with a
    single legal entity.

    a


    On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Luis Pab?n <luis@...> wrote:
    > Hi Alexis,
    >  I think it is more about having a healthy open community with multiple
    > consistent maintainers and contributors. Multiple backgrounds and agendas
    > increase the amount of innovation in the project, but projects with a single
    > company/maintainer might lack that drive.
    >
    > - Luis
    >
    > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:20 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.