Re: audience for "reference architecture" content

alexis richardson


Here is a slightly cleaned up version of the "projects and products" data that I mentioned.  It is also a cloud native market landscape.  Ken and I used this to inform our initial thinking on the simplified reference stack, which is also shown on the second tab.  

The original categories were based on public analysis by Matt Miller at Sequoia, but I have modified the categorisation a little.  I have also shown this data to other folks who analyse the space - press, investors, etc.  It feels reasonably thorough.  

I ask that you be gracious in your comments, first by noting some caveats.

1) Some of the categories are definitely "not quite right".  For example the APM-Logging spectrum is a moving target.  I have tried to split this into functions like "visualization" and "monitoring", without complete success.  It feels unfair in places.  Same thing for "platform".  But, I think it's a starting point.

2) I have not tried to put projects in "order of significance".  Just because something is at the top of a list, it does not make it more important than stuff lower down.  The ordering is more "as I thought of them" - ie. subjective.  It would be good to have a better model here, eg. public vs private vs startup vs community... But even that could be invidious.

3) The data in the sheet does not *quite* line up yet with some of the items in Ken's v0.3 deck.


PS -- Doug, I hope this helps with your questions below.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:


I think the new picture is fine to show things at a very high level (e.g. IaaS at the bottom, PaaS and SaaS are higher up, etc.) but I think most of my conversations will very quickly get into something more like "where does project X fit into all of this?" - and that's where I think the current picture is more useful. With so many CN-related projects out there, a more detailed picture helps to explain how all of the various puzzle pieces (projects) come together into one cohesive story. It also helps to show where we expect people to mix-n-match things based on their needs and where the plug-points might be.

STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---07/21/2016 07:54:53 AM---Hi all, Yesterday we had our 2nd discussion about the 'marketecture' stack that Ken

From: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 07/21/2016 07:54 AM
Subject: [cncf-toc] audience for "reference architecture" content
Sent by: cncf-toc-bounces@...

Hi all,

Yesterday we had our 2nd discussion about the 'marketecture' stack that Ken and I put out.  One piece of feedback, from Doug Davis by email, and then eg from Alan Conley on the call, was that much more detail could help.  

I believe this is a "target audience" issue.  We may need different material for different audiences even if those audiences are all "technical".  For example - I argued that for developer end users, less detail is good.  

It would be very helpful to hear from the people advocating for more detail, regarding their target audience.


cncf-toc mailing list

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.