Re: "Steering committee" discussion


Reitbauer, Alois
 

I was listening in to this for a while and wanted to share my observations:

 

  • I think the general assumption should be that people working on projects have good intentions and should be supported. Some comments feel like protecting against people trying to trick the system. Sure they exist and this needs to be addressed but an open, inclusive mind set should be first.
  • It seems to me that project goals get mixed up with metrics or concrete measures to achieve them. Long term sustainability can mean contributors from many organisations and this makes sense. However, if a project is widely used and companies also buy commercial (SaaS) offerings of the solutions there will be somebody maintaining the project. There have been cases in the past – non CNCF – where companies stopped doing open source releases. This is rare and can still be addressed.
  • Naming the project stages still seems to be an issues. The CNCF also has another naming scheme from the technology radar. If the intention is to show maturity and recommendations to the community the assess, trial and adopt nomenclature might be helpful.

 

 

// Alois

 

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "alexis richardson via lists.cncf.io" <alexis=weave.works@...>
Reply to: "alexis@..." <alexis@...>
Date: Thursday, 1. October 2020 at 21:05
To: Stefano Maffulli <stefano.maffulli@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] "Steering committee" discussion

 

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@...

The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20

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