Re: "Steering committee" discussion


alexis richardson
 

I think it's important to listen to people who actually produce the software here. It is really really hard to sustain quality. Adding demands just hurts, doesn't help. That's why we are looking at broader options.


On Thu, 1 Oct 2020, 19:56 Stefano Maffulli, <stefano.maffulli@...> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 11:17 AM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Graduation is not meant to be some kind of super impossible bar.

My argument is that it shouldn't be intended as a final destination.

Let's not assume that all "collaboration" must be between multiple sellers of the same software.

How can you not? The power balance is shifted towards those who produce the software. The ones who make the software are natural monopolists, and generally they operate in winner-take-all markets. It's one of the fundamentals of open source to rebalance that power between those who produce and those who consume, by enabling the consumer to be a producer, breaking that barrier.

I know that for some software the collaboration aspect is less important though (the monopolistic threat is non-existent or has limited impact). That's why I'm suggesting to explore the software maturity model rather than a simple step like it is now with "graduation".


--
Stefano Maffulli
Sr. Dir. Digital and Community Marketing | stefano.maffulli@...

Join cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io to automatically receive all group messages.