Date   

Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Paul Fischer
 

Personally I think it highlights the freedom of choice. Yes it is complex and there are many decisions  to make but don't we have to do that with any complex architecture we are trying to build? 

I will use this in my company to illustrate the growth and speed at which cloud native development is happening. Hopefully it can help drive and structure conversions around all the pieces that are needed to build a working architecture.

My 2 cents 

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 13, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Bernstein, Joshua via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

To some extent I agree with Brian, and it's not the message we want to send, but the reality is that this is the state of our industry. I can't tell you how many "ecosystem" slides I've seen over the years, but this particular effort is powerful, helpful, and really resonates with customers. The fact that CNCF puts out such a complete picture is really great value add. These things turn out to be complicated, intrinsically, and I think this is by far away excellent and under appreciated work. 

-Josh

On Sep 12, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

The article is: https://diginomica.com/2017/09/11/docker-loses-first-mover-advantage-kubernetes/

I'm certainly aware of the complexity argument. But when weighed against the ability to shape the discussion around the projects and products in the cloud native ecosystem, I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Quote from an unnamed article I just saw:

one look at the Cloud Native Landscape Project’s product taxonomy shows a mishmash of commercial products and open source projects that are sure to strike terror in any IT systems designer and cloud developer trying to assemble the tools necessary to build and deploy cloud native applications

I don't think that's the message we want to send.


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The interactive version we're building will support filtering by open source or not, which will provide that functionality. On the 2-D version, I think there's value in seeing that there are open source and proprietary offerings in most categories.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules.

Best

Duncan

On 12 September 2017 at 19:19, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I think that approach is the only reasonable one

(that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)



On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:
Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

-chip

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.




On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing


On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

Dan, Chris, any ideas?





On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

Thanks,
C

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt

Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

Cloudsoft Logo.jpg

Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:

Twitter_Logo_White_On_Blue.png YouTube-social-icon_red_48px.png


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: [RESULT] Jaeger project ACCEPTED (incubation)

Yuri Shkuro
 

Thanks to everyone for their support, and especially to Chris and Alexis for helping out with the process, and to Bryan for being our sponsor.

We're excited to join the community and work with all other CNCF projects!

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Ken Owens via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
+1

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
And congrats Jaeger!

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, 16:35 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Jaeger has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Bryan): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/42

+1 TOC binding votes (6 / 9):

+1 non-binding community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and please welcome the Jaeger community to CNCF. We will be working with the Jaeger community to move things over to: https://github.com/jaegertracing

Also this now marks our 12th project in CNCF!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: [RESULT] Jaeger project ACCEPTED (incubation)

Diane Mueller
 

Many thanks for everyone's efforts on bringing Jaeger into the CNCF fold! 

Congrats to the Jaeger team and to CNCF TOC for taking this step!

Diane 

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Ken Owens via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
+1

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
And congrats Jaeger!

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, 16:35 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Jaeger has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Bryan): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/42

+1 TOC binding votes (6 / 9):

+1 non-binding community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and please welcome the Jaeger community to CNCF. We will be working with the Jaeger community to move things over to: https://github.com/jaegertracing

Also this now marks our 12th project in CNCF!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Kind Regards,

Diane Mueller
Director, Community Development
Red Hat OpenShift
@openshiftcommons

We have more in Common than you know, learn more at http://commons.openshift.org


Re: [RESULT] Envoy project ACCEPTED (incubation)

Ken Owens
 

Welcome!

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Matt Klein via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Thanks Chris, Alexis, and CNCF community! Looking forward to working with everyone.

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Congratulations Envoy!

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, 16:08 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Envoy has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Alexis): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/43

+1 TOC binding votes (7 / 9):

+1 non-binding community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and please welcome the Envoy community! 

We'll be working with the Envoy community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF family and migrate things over to https://github.com/envoyproxy

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Matt Klein
Software Engineer
mklein@...

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: [RESULT] Jaeger project ACCEPTED (incubation)

Ken Owens
 

+1

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
And congrats Jaeger!

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, 16:35 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Jaeger has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Bryan): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/42

+1 TOC binding votes (6 / 9):

+1 non-binding community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and please welcome the Jaeger community to CNCF. We will be working with the Jaeger community to move things over to: https://github.com/jaegertracing

Also this now marks our 12th project in CNCF!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: [RESULT] Jaeger project ACCEPTED (incubation)

alexis richardson
 

And congrats Jaeger!


On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, 16:35 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Jaeger has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Bryan): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/42

+1 TOC binding votes (6 / 9):

+1 non-binding community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and please welcome the Jaeger community to CNCF. We will be working with the Jaeger community to move things over to: https://github.com/jaegertracing

Also this now marks our 12th project in CNCF!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Bernstein, Joshua <Joshua.Bernstein@...>
 

To some extent I agree with Brian, and it's not the message we want to send, but the reality is that this is the state of our industry. I can't tell you how many "ecosystem" slides I've seen over the years, but this particular effort is powerful, helpful, and really resonates with customers. The fact that CNCF puts out such a complete picture is really great value add. These things turn out to be complicated, intrinsically, and I think this is by far away excellent and under appreciated work. 

-Josh

On Sep 12, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

The article is: https://diginomica.com/2017/09/11/docker-loses-first-mover-advantage-kubernetes/

I'm certainly aware of the complexity argument. But when weighed against the ability to shape the discussion around the projects and products in the cloud native ecosystem, I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Quote from an unnamed article I just saw:

one look at the Cloud Native Landscape Project’s product taxonomy shows a mishmash of commercial products and open source projects that are sure to strike terror in any IT systems designer and cloud developer trying to assemble the tools necessary to build and deploy cloud native applications

I don't think that's the message we want to send.


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The interactive version we're building will support filtering by open source or not, which will provide that functionality. On the 2-D version, I think there's value in seeing that there are open source and proprietary offerings in most categories.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules.

Best

Duncan

On 12 September 2017 at 19:19, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I think that approach is the only reasonable one

(that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)



On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:
Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

-chip

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.




On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing


On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

Dan, Chris, any ideas?





On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

Thanks,
C

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt

Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

Cloudsoft Logo.jpg

Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:

Twitter_Logo_White_On_Blue.png YouTube-social-icon_red_48px.png


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: [RESULT] Envoy project ACCEPTED (incubation)

Matt Klein <mklein@...>
 

Thanks Chris, Alexis, and CNCF community! Looking forward to working with everyone.

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Congratulations Envoy!

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, 16:08 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Envoy has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Alexis): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/43

+1 TOC binding votes (7 / 9):

+1 non-binding community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and please welcome the Envoy community! 

We'll be working with the Envoy community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF family and migrate things over to https://github.com/envoyproxy

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--
Matt Klein
Software Engineer
mklein@...


[RESULT] Jaeger project ACCEPTED (incubation)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Jaeger has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Bryan): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/42

+1 TOC binding votes (6 / 9):

+1 non-binding community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and please welcome the Jaeger community to CNCF. We will be working with the Jaeger community to move things over to: https://github.com/jaegertracing

Also this now marks our 12th project in CNCF!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [RESULT] Envoy project ACCEPTED (incubation)

alexis richardson
 

Congratulations Envoy!


On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, 16:08 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Envoy has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Alexis): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/43

+1 TOC binding votes (7 / 9):

+1 non-binding community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and please welcome the Envoy community! 

We'll be working with the Envoy community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF family and migrate things over to https://github.com/envoyproxy

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


[RESULT] Envoy project ACCEPTED (incubation)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Envoy has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Alexis): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/43

+1 TOC binding votes (7 / 9):

+1 non-binding community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and please welcome the Envoy community! 

We'll be working with the Envoy community over the next few weeks to welcome them to the CNCF family and migrate things over to https://github.com/envoyproxy

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

alexis richardson
 

We could show layers and buckets and existing cncf projects

Out of scope buckets could be greyed out.


On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, 12:39 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Fwiw I actually find the product examples useful for being specific about the various boxes. I think it's a hard balance to strike : giving useful concrete examples without trying to be complete will violate our "no kingmaking" rule, but with no examples it's too vague. 

On Sep 12, 2017 11:36 PM, "Dan Kohn via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The article is: https://diginomica.com/2017/09/11/docker-loses-first-mover-advantage-kubernetes/

I'm certainly aware of the complexity argument. But when weighed against the ability to shape the discussion around the projects and products in the cloud native ecosystem, I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Quote from an unnamed article I just saw:

one look at the Cloud Native Landscape Project’s product taxonomy shows a mishmash of commercial products and open source projects that are sure to strike terror in any IT systems designer and cloud developer trying to assemble the tools necessary to build and deploy cloud native applications

I don't think that's the message we want to send.


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The interactive version we're building will support filtering by open source or not, which will provide that functionality. On the 2-D version, I think there's value in seeing that there are open source and proprietary offerings in most categories.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules.

Best

Duncan

On 12 September 2017 at 19:19, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I think that approach is the only reasonable one

(that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)



On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:
Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

-chip

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.




On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing


On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

Dan, Chris, any ideas?





On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

Thanks,
C

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt

Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

Cloudsoft Logo.jpg

Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:

Twitter_Logo_White_On_Blue.png YouTube-social-icon_red_48px.png


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Camille Fournier
 

Fwiw I actually find the product examples useful for being specific about the various boxes. I think it's a hard balance to strike : giving useful concrete examples without trying to be complete will violate our "no kingmaking" rule, but with no examples it's too vague. 

On Sep 12, 2017 11:36 PM, "Dan Kohn via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The article is: https://diginomica.com/2017/09/11/docker-loses-first-mover-advantage-kubernetes/

I'm certainly aware of the complexity argument. But when weighed against the ability to shape the discussion around the projects and products in the cloud native ecosystem, I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@linuxfoundation.org>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Quote from an unnamed article I just saw:

one look at the Cloud Native Landscape Project’s product taxonomy shows a mishmash of commercial products and open source projects that are sure to strike terror in any IT systems designer and cloud developer trying to assemble the tools necessary to build and deploy cloud native applications

I don't think that's the message we want to send.


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The interactive version we're building will support filtering by open source or not, which will provide that functionality. On the 2-D version, I think there's value in seeing that there are open source and proprietary offerings in most categories.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules.

Best

Duncan

On 12 September 2017 at 19:19, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I think that approach is the only reasonable one

(that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)



On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:
Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

-chip

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.




On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing


On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

Dan, Chris, any ideas?





On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

Thanks,
C

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt

Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

Cloudsoft Logo.jpg

Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:

Twitter_Logo_White_On_Blue.png YouTube-social-icon_red_48px.png


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>
 

While it made a lot of progress, I think this diagram still mainly serves marketing i.e. “We are cloud-native”

 

We didn’t tackle the loaded question of what cloud-native is, but IMO it’s not “my product works with Docker” or “runs on AWS” (see the link below) which is the case for some of the products in this diagram. Its maybe ok if its goal is to show how big is the tent, not sure it serves users.

 

Can read my views on that which try to provoke some thoughts/discussion:

Using Containers As Mini-VMs is NOT Cloud-Native!

 

Yaron

 

From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dan Kohn via cncf-toc
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] New version of Cloud Native Landscape

 

The article is: https://diginomica.com/2017/09/11/docker-loses-first-mover-advantage-kubernetes/

 

I'm certainly aware of the complexity argument. But when weighed against the ability to shape the discussion around the projects and products in the cloud native ecosystem, I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives.


--

Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

 

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:

Quote from an unnamed article I just saw:

 

one look at the Cloud Native Landscape Project’s product taxonomy shows a mishmash of commercial products and open source projects that are sure to strike terror in any IT systems designer and cloud developer trying to assemble the tools necessary to build and deploy cloud native applications

 

I don't think that's the message we want to send.

 

 

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

The interactive version we're building will support filtering by open source or not, which will provide that functionality. On the 2-D version, I think there's value in seeing that there are open source and proprietary offerings in most categories.


--

Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:
+1-415-233-1000

 

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules.

 

Best

 

Duncan

 

On 12 September 2017 at 19:19, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

I think that approach is the only reasonable one

 

(that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)

 

 

 

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.


Regards

Steve Watt

 

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

 

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

 

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

 

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.


--

Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:
+1-415-233-1000

 

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:

Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

 

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

 

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

 

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

 

-chip

 

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.


--

Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:
+1-415-233-1000

 

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:

That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

 

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.


--

Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:
+1-415-233-1000

 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

 

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing

 

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:

It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

 

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

 

Dan, Chris, any ideas?

 

 

 

 

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

 

Thanks,

C

 

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

 

CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg

--

Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:
+1-415-233-1000


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 

 


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 

 

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

--

Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815

 


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



 

--

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt

Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

Cloudsoft Logo.jpg

Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:

Twitter_Logo_White_On_Blue.pngYouTube-social-icon_red_48px.png


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

 

 


Re: [VOTE] Envoy project proposal (incubation)

Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
 

+1

On 11 September 2017 at 18:30, Dustin Kirkland via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
+1, non-binding.

Dustin Kirkland
VP of Product
Canonical, Ltd.
@dustinkirkland


On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc
<cncf-toc@...> wrote:
> The TOC has decided to invite Envoy (https://github.com/lyft/envoy) as an
> incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Alexis Richardson from the TOC:
>
> Envoy is a high performance C++ distributed proxy, communication bus and
> universal data plane designed for large microservice service mesh
> architectures. Envoy runs alongside every application and abstracts the
> network by providing common features in a platform-agnostic manner. When all
> service traffic in an infrastructure flows via an Envoy mesh, it becomes
> easy to visualize problem areas via consistent observability, tune overall
> performance, and add substrate features in a single place.
>
> Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub:
> https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/43
>
> Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate
> non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
>
> _______________________________________________
> cncf-toc mailing list
> cncf-toc@...
> https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
>
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.


Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

The article is: https://diginomica.com/2017/09/11/docker-loses-first-mover-advantage-kubernetes/

I'm certainly aware of the complexity argument. But when weighed against the ability to shape the discussion around the projects and products in the cloud native ecosystem, I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
Quote from an unnamed article I just saw:

one look at the Cloud Native Landscape Project’s product taxonomy shows a mishmash of commercial products and open source projects that are sure to strike terror in any IT systems designer and cloud developer trying to assemble the tools necessary to build and deploy cloud native applications

I don't think that's the message we want to send.


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The interactive version we're building will support filtering by open source or not, which will provide that functionality. On the 2-D version, I think there's value in seeing that there are open source and proprietary offerings in most categories.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules.

Best

Duncan

On 12 September 2017 at 19:19, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I think that approach is the only reasonable one

(that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)



On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:
Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

-chip

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.




On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing


On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

Dan, Chris, any ideas?





On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

Thanks,
C

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt

Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

Cloudsoft Logo.jpg

Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:

Twitter_Logo_White_On_Blue.png YouTube-social-icon_red_48px.png


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Brian Grant
 

Quote from an unnamed article I just saw:

one look at the Cloud Native Landscape Project’s product taxonomy shows a mishmash of commercial products and open source projects that are sure to strike terror in any IT systems designer and cloud developer trying to assemble the tools necessary to build and deploy cloud native applications

I don't think that's the message we want to send.


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The interactive version we're building will support filtering by open source or not, which will provide that functionality. On the 2-D version, I think there's value in seeing that there are open source and proprietary offerings in most categories.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@linuxfoundation.org>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules.

Best

Duncan

On 12 September 2017 at 19:19, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I think that approach is the only reasonable one

(that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)



On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:
Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

-chip

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.




On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing


On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

Dan, Chris, any ideas?





On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

Thanks,
C

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt

Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

Cloudsoft Logo.jpg

Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:

Twitter_Logo_White_On_Blue.png YouTube-social-icon_red_48px.png


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

The interactive version we're building will support filtering by open source or not, which will provide that functionality. On the 2-D version, I think there's value in seeing that there are open source and proprietary offerings in most categories.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules.

Best

Duncan

On 12 September 2017 at 19:19, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I think that approach is the only reasonable one

(that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)



On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:
Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

-chip

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.




On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing


On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

Dan, Chris, any ideas?





On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

Thanks,
C

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt

Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

Cloudsoft Logo.jpg

Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:

Twitter_Logo_White_On_Blue.png YouTube-social-icon_red_48px.png


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Duncan Johnston Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@...>
 

Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules.

Best

Duncan

On 12 September 2017 at 19:19, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I think that approach is the only reasonable one

(that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)



On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:
Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

-chip

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.




On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing


On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

Dan, Chris, any ideas?





On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

Thanks,
C

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt

Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

Cloudsoft Logo.jpg

Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:

Twitter_Logo_White_On_Blue.png YouTube-social-icon_red_48px.png


Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

alexis richardson
 

I think that approach is the only reasonable one

(that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)



On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. 

One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition.

Regards
Steve Watt

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom:

This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path.

It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely.

Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:
Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker:

What was / is the intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face.

If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take.

Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me.

-chip

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful.

I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with other projects.




On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I made the change at the last minute to deal with a spacing issue. I will revert it in the next version and restore CI/CD to the top layer. Apologies.

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
The TOC will have to fix this, by going back to the 0.92 structure, which was correct.  And rebuilding from there.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:06 Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

That's very disappointing


On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
It looks like it changed pretty significantly between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6. 

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Woah.  How did CICD get moved?  Wtf

Landscape 0.92 is authoritative. I'm afraid this new thing is not.

Dan, Chris, any ideas?





On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 02:13 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Can someone point me to the doc or remind me why we decided to put "CI/CD" into the "provisioning" layer? It's a bit of an odd duck there so we must've had a good reason for it.

Thanks,
C

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
You may be interested in the new version of the CNCF Cloud Native Landscape. As always, if you see something wrong, please open at issue at https://github.com/cncf/landscape:

CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg

--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...g>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


5981 - 6000 of 7191