Re: Point of process
|
While I recognize the importance and the impact of an initiative like hub.cncf.io to the cloud native mission, I also agree that this should be discussed and introduced in a more open manner.
The initiative is important for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:
1) A "package manager" that provides a simple, central way to source software for a platform is key to critical mass adoption of a platform - historically just think of the impact that package management had on the adoption of the various Linux distributions.
2) Software and package management is also a key step to ISV support for a platform - and that too is key to the acceptance and adoption of the platform
That said, it is critical to get this right, so openness, where we can benefit from some of the already mature initiatives in the community (even
if they are competing) is the right thing:
1) When it comes to installing software, end-users want something that "just works" - so making it easy for software devs and
orgs that release software to adopt the platform, test and manage distributions
2) Software deployments often have dependencies which may/should be managed through the overall solution - it does not make for a good user experience if different components of a package have different ways of sourcing or deploying - this is why it is key
to get this right, and get systems to work together - even if this means that we may need to be opinionated, and even if it means that this requires resources to properly curate the repository
3) Cloud Native software deployment often have additional complexity or considerations during "day 2" operations - such as dealing with upgrades (and the dependency paths) and scaling etc ... - which is why it is odd (based on this email thread and yesterday's
discussion) that the Operator Framework (and others) appear not to be involved in the initiative as this is something that this project has focused on
4) We should also consider a plan for how this hub is curated and managed - if end-users try the solution and the quality is not high (e.g. today there are already multiple options to install a give software package listed in hub) then they will move on, and
we will not get many attempts to win them back over
TL;DR
An initiative like hub is key to the adoption of cloud native technologies and should be a central initiative for the CNCF and it's mission. It is also too important to get it wrong and squander good will of end-users - when the core brand of the CNCF is
placed on an initiative that is not successful, and/or does not gain traction, it dilutes the benefit and credibility of the whole community.
Kind Regards,
Alex
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Wright via Lists.Cncf.Io <chrisw=redhat.com@...>
Sent: 12 March 2020 12:33 To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process Yes, I completely agree
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 6:26 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I believe the issue here is simple. The CNCF is an open organisation |
|
|