Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] Point of process
toggle quoted message Show quoted text
All of these discussion got me thinking about a few things. I figured I'd share.
First, I agree this should have been done in the open from the start. While I didn't run the show and I did ask for this to be open sooner I spent quite a period of time not paying attention and didn't push the issue until this week when it was opened. I'm sorry I didn't do that sooner. I think this is a wonderful lesson learned but shouldn't be the central point moving forward because...
I was reading the foundation charter again and was reminded that the CNCF is there to foster and support projects. For those of us who work on projects this is a benefit for both the projects and their users. The focus, I would think, should be here.
With that in mind, I was asked some questions about the CNCF Hub today and figured I'd share what my 2 cents were. They may not carry much but I did take some time to think them out.
First, the idea of the Hub was for CNCF projects. These aren't vendor controlled open source projects. They are CNCF projects in a vendor neutral home.
Second, I saw this in the support and foster areas as easy discovery and installation of artifacts which is extremely beneficial for uptake. While this has benefited Helm it would be an amazing benefit for other current CNCF projects with artifacts. It would help them foster growth which is a criteria for graduation.
Third, the design for the Hub was intentionally not to be a host for the artifacts. Current vendors do a lot of artifact hosting and this doesn't do that. Instead, it's a distributed search system that lists what's public in those systems. The UX benefit helps the projects distributed artifacts be more easily accessible which is important for users of the projects and the projects themselves.
All of this is under the guise of fostering and supporting projects which is a task of the CNCF.
I'm also reminded of the many services the CNCF provides projects. Devstats, conference hosting, and other elements. In my mind I see something like a Hub living alongside those in a similar manner. Though, I imagine this point is up for debate.
As this has impact on existing CNCF projects - Helm, Falco, and OPA come to mind - I would like to see a lively conversation among the existing projects who would be impacted. Do they want a single hub? Do they want a shared codebase that can be used for individual hubs? What's a better cloud native consumer experience for people to find artifacts?
I know this whole conversation impacts the operator framework which is unfortunate. But, I would appreciate if the topic of the conversation in this coming meeting is in the positive direction around supporting the projects.
Thanks for listening,
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Brendan Burns via Lists.Cncf.Io wrote: