Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

Dan Kohn <dan@...>

Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:
Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation or book on my calendar:

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:

I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison <ginger@...> wrote:
Thanks, Alexis. 


Ginger CollisonNATS Community & Ecosystem

Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers.  I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV).  We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'.  They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation.  Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors.  Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom.  This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals.  That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs.  We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation.  For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project.  Is it then risk-free?  NO.   So what are we trying to

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate.  I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.


On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
> or book on my calendar:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session:
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | | +44 (0) 780 126 1145

Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate

85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.