Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting
Quinton Hoole <quinton@...>
toggle quoted message Show quoted text
Regarding requiring multiple maintainer organizations for graduated projects, specifically:
Alexis: "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've also discussed this at length with the NATS folks. I'll repeat the essence of the conversation here. I don't think it's about being 100% risk-free. But let's face it, if only one organization is de-facto maintaining a project, and that organization decides to no longer do so (of simply ceases to exist), then users of the project may find themselves in a bad situation. Given that this sort of thing happens a lot (organizations changing strategy and which projects they fund, and startups disappearing) the chances of this happening are high. The intention of requiring more than one maintainer org, is primarily to bring that probability down significantly.
So the ultimate litmus test is, in my opinion, what are the chances of the project ceasing to be effectively maintained? One simple argument is that there are 3 maintaining organizations, the chances of all of them defunding, or ceasing to exist, is sufficiently low. IMO, if there is only one maintaining organization, particularly if it is a relatively small organization, then the probability it unacceptably high for us to label the project as Graduated.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many