toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The foundation exists to foster cloud native technology and adoption by end users
The basis for this is that certain open source projects solve problems specific to cloud native, as defined by the cncf
Being a neutral home for those projects and providing core services and help has to be the absolute baseline. All projects however nascent have the right to ask for that.
Helping with adoption requires users and the cncf to have a conversation in which technologies are recommended, as are patterns and other best practices eg for interop, scale, what have you
If you combine the above then you need:
1. a high bar for projects that are being recommended to customers. Incubation and graduation have a high bar. It could be higher
2. a low bar for new (sandbox) projects that are high risk but need a neutral venue and core services
3. commitment to prune failures out of the sandbox, in a timely manner
4. clarity around this model
We continue to fail at 4.
Marketing of projects is something everyone will debate. It is hard to separate user engagement from marketing - the activities are so similar.
I recommend review of the Sandbox marketing language. If you feel the CNCF is handling this badly please speak out. Sandbox is a very limited blessing but the projects are entitled to be excited about joining the Sandbox.
Today's discussion was about how we scale CNCF and the TOC. The WGs and Categories are possible ways to federate work. That all obviously need more thought and care. Even if we had no sandbox we would still have to resolve this issue.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 00:02 Joseph Jacks, <j@...
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 18:04 Nick Chase <nchase@...
First off, please take this in the sprit in which it's intended. It's
not meant to be snarky or argumentative, (though it will probably sound
that way), it's just meant to start a conversation.
I've been thinking a lot about the conversation about working groups
from this morning's meeting, and I think we're missing a fundamental issue.
What I heard was a lot of talk about how "we don't want to be
kingmakers" and "people put more importance on being a CNCF project than
they should". Well, if being a CNCF project doesn't mean anything ...
why do it?
In my opinion the foundations role should be a space for shared IP.
And I agreed that people are putting too much importance on being in the foundation. You can do open source without a foundation. The foundations role should not be marketing projects and creating non-organic growth but helping the projects have a space to work without worrying about IP or licensing. It should also help the communities of those projects get things they need like money for CI infrastructure or other things and making sure those projects communities are healthy.
thats what a foundation is in imho.
In fact, why have a foundation at all?
If the purpose of the CNCF is just to foster cloud native computing, and
not to validate a project's existence, then why handle projects at all?
Why not just create standards, or even just recommendations, as W3C
I guess what I'm saying is that while nobody likes politics -- and
believe me I DESPISE them -- if you're going to have a foundation that
is supposed to mean something, then ... it should mean something.
So my feeling is that we either bite the bullet and get tough about
letting projects in -- even if that means asking them to perhaps work
together, or create a joint API and then manage the API -- or we drop
the pretenses and just create a directory anybody can add themselves to.
See, I told you it would sound snarky, but really, I am only trying to
start the discussion.
Somebody please, tell me what I'm missing here.
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3