1. cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io
  2. Messages
   Date   
Welcome Ihor: New CNCF Dev Advocate

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Just a heads up, I'm happy to welcome Ihor Dvoretskyi to the CNCF:


As many of you are aware, CNCF has grown quite a bit over the last couple of years which is why we have hired a full-time Developer Advocate dedicated to the development, advocacy and community cultivation for CNCF projects. 

Ihor will still heavily be involved in the Kubernetes community and ensuring that we are doing the best we can for Kubernetes and other CNCF projects as we continue to grow as a foundation.

Anyways, welcome Ihor!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
Re: TOC Principles pull request

alexis richardson
 

Thanks Dan

All, please do take a last look over the g/doc comments.  If you see discussion there that you feel is not in GH or still unresolved, please update the GH doc.

Alexis


On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, 04:01 Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I took the TOC Principles document created by several TOC members and:

1. Converted it to markdown.
2. Left out the notes and comments on the budget.

The notes and comments are important (and remain in the original Google Doc), but will hopefully be addressed by the CNCF ServiceDesk and Service Dashboard that we'll be announcing in the next couple weeks.

For now, the TOC and I would appreciate your comments on the Principles themselves. If you don't think they adequately describe the way the TOC operates (and/or how it should operate), then please comment on the pull request.

Once comments are addressed, the goal is for the TOC to vote that this document represents the TOC Principles, and to have the CNCF governing board vote to endorse the Principles as well.

Rendered version

Pull request (comments welcome)

TOC Principles (i.e., the original document)

Thanks.
--
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
TOC Principles pull request

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

I took the TOC Principles document created by several TOC members and:

1. Converted it to markdown.
2. Left out the notes and comments on the budget.

The notes and comments are important (and remain in the original Google Doc), but will hopefully be addressed by the CNCF ServiceDesk and Service Dashboard that we'll be announcing in the next couple weeks.

For now, the TOC and I would appreciate your comments on the Principles themselves. If you don't think they adequately describe the way the TOC operates (and/or how it should operate), then please comment on the pull request.

Once comments are addressed, the goal is for the TOC to vote that this document represents the TOC Principles, and to have the CNCF governing board vote to endorse the Principles as well.

Rendered version

Pull request (comments welcome)

TOC Principles (i.e., the original document)

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

Quinton Hoole
 

Would it make sense to also highlight “CNCF Member” projects, distinct from “CNCF Project”s?  The former much less prominently than the latter of course. 

For example:

Oracle Database
Amazon Kinesis
Etc.

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Brian Grant <briangrant@...>
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 18:21
To: Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] New version of Cloud Native Landscape



On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Coming back to this: 

Please move Openstack, VMWare, and the other private cloud platforms back to the bottom. Bare metal should be side by side with public clouds, not in the provisioning layer.
In the next version, we'll rename Public cloud to cloud and put the bare metal category next to the public cloud one.
 
CI/CD definitely needs to be moved back up to the top.
That's done on 0.9.7, along with identifying Jaeger and Envoy as CNCF Projects.

"CI/CD Security" is incorrect/confusing. Image Security? And Vault isn't really in the same category as the others. That would be Key Management or Identity.
That category is changed to Secure Images. Where would you put a Key Management category? What else would go there?




But I'm not very familiar with any of those. Most clouds offer them, too.

Hashi's comparisons:

I'll think more about the layering, but I don't think provisioning is egregiously wrong, as it's a service commonly offered by clouds, configuration management tools, orchestration systems, and so on, which applications usually need in order to be able to authenticate with any other services. 
 
 
Though not a recent change, it would probably make sense to move Registry Services down to the provisioning layer.
OK. 

Nit: cri-o is a Kubernetes project, so it's owned by CNCF. Not sure how you want to indicate that.
I think it might make sense to list as a CNCF project when it exits incubation. Or we could call it a CNCF sub-project, or something like that.

No CNCF projects have graduated incubation yet :-)
 
 
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Brian Grant
 



On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Coming back to this: 

Please move Openstack, VMWare, and the other private cloud platforms back to the bottom. Bare metal should be side by side with public clouds, not in the provisioning layer.

In the next version, we'll rename Public cloud to cloud and put the bare metal category next to the public cloud one.
 
CI/CD definitely needs to be moved back up to the top.

That's done on 0.9.7, along with identifying Jaeger and Envoy as CNCF Projects.

"CI/CD Security" is incorrect/confusing. Image Security? And Vault isn't really in the same category as the others. That would be Key Management or Identity.

That category is changed to Secure Images. Where would you put a Key Management category? What else would go there?




But I'm not very familiar with any of those. Most clouds offer them, too.

Hashi's comparisons:

I'll think more about the layering, but I don't think provisioning is egregiously wrong, as it's a service commonly offered by clouds, configuration management tools, orchestration systems, and so on, which applications usually need in order to be able to authenticate with any other services. 
 
 
Though not a recent change, it would probably make sense to move Registry Services down to the provisioning layer.

OK. 

Nit: cri-o is a Kubernetes project, so it's owned by CNCF. Not sure how you want to indicate that.

I think it might make sense to list as a CNCF project when it exits incubation. Or we could call it a CNCF sub-project, or something like that.

No CNCF projects have graduated incubation yet :-)
 
 
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

Coming back to this: 

Please move Openstack, VMWare, and the other private cloud platforms back to the bottom. Bare metal should be side by side with public clouds, not in the provisioning layer.

In the next version, we'll rename Public cloud to cloud and put the bare metal category next to the public cloud one.
 
CI/CD definitely needs to be moved back up to the top.

That's done on 0.9.7, along with identifying Jaeger and Envoy as CNCF Projects.

"CI/CD Security" is incorrect/confusing. Image Security? And Vault isn't really in the same category as the others. That would be Key Management or Identity.

That category is changed to Secure Images. Where would you put a Key Management category? What else would go there?
 
Though not a recent change, it would probably make sense to move Registry Services down to the provisioning layer.

OK. 

Nit: cri-o is a Kubernetes project, so it's owned by CNCF. Not sure how you want to indicate that.

I think it might make sense to list as a CNCF project when it exits incubation. Or we could call it a CNCF sub-project, or something like that.
 
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Dustin Kirkland <kirkland@...>
 



On Sep 13, 2017 15:27, "Brian Grant via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Yeah, there are a bunch of changes in this version that don't make sense. For example, why is Openstack at a layer above public cloud?

We were making a distinction between software for provisioning a public (or private cloud) and providers offering public clouds. 


Coming back to this: 

Please move Openstack, VMWare, and the other private cloud platforms back to the bottom. Bare metal should be side by side with public clouds, not in the provisioning layer.

Big +1 on this request from Brian, particularly from the perspective of MAAS (Metal as a Service), as well as OpenStack, VMware, et al.

Those all definitely make more logical sense at the base level, bottom of the technology stack, and along side the public clouds.

CI/CD definitely needs to be moved back up to the top.

"CI/CD Security" is incorrect/confusing. Image Security? And Vault isn't really in the same category as the others. That would be Key Management or Identity.

Though not a recent change, it would probably make sense to move Registry Services down to the provisioning layer.

Nit: cri-o is a Kubernetes project, so it's owned by CNCF. Not sure how you want to indicate that.



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Brian Grant
 

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Yeah, there are a bunch of changes in this version that don't make sense. For example, why is Openstack at a layer above public cloud?

We were making a distinction between software for provisioning a public (or private cloud) and providers offering public clouds. 


Coming back to this: 

Please move Openstack, VMWare, and the other private cloud platforms back to the bottom. Bare metal should be side by side with public clouds, not in the provisioning layer.

CI/CD definitely needs to be moved back up to the top.

"CI/CD Security" is incorrect/confusing. Image Security? And Vault isn't really in the same category as the others. That would be Key Management or Identity.

Though not a recent change, it would probably make sense to move Registry Services down to the provisioning layer.

Nit: cri-o is a Kubernetes project, so it's owned by CNCF. Not sure how you want to indicate that.
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C <dn283x@...>
 

If it would be useful I'd like to introduce the periodic table of cloud native elements I've been driving with several of our members. It's intend is to provide an elemental view of cloud outcomes, how they differ from traditional applicable hosting/virtualization and the elements and enablers required to realize the outcomes. Each "element" is described in terms of characteristics, behaviors and attributes, is technology agnostic and introduces interface and inter-element agreements that define interfaces. Lastly it references this body of work to tie the science to the product and project current state. Let me know what you think and thanks for the time.

Regards, Doug

On Sep 13, 2017, at 12:07 PM, 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@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>> wrote:

The article is: https://diginomica.com/2017/09/11/docker-loses-first-mover-advantage-kubernetes/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__diginomica.com_2017_09_11_docker-2Dloses-2Dfirst-2Dmover-2Dadvantage-2Dkubernetes_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=rpl-KFFl_v0Q6VdAdW9uugIKtXEthRtJODOGc1JzIPo&e=>

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@...<mailto:dan@...>>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cncf.io_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=ssjDwbaNwYsUTLd2LgcAnENthHL4zGlKSqs-xA9P4Ao&e=>>
tel:+1-415-233-1000

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

one look at the Cloud Native Landscape Project’s product taxonomy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_cncf_landscape&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=dsP4JxbQqNbrXDTzW1zm6K9jrGQ-LJhVjUGxuVitLuE&e=> 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@...<mailto: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@...<mailto:dan@...>>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cncf.io_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=ssjDwbaNwYsUTLd2LgcAnENthHL4zGlKSqs-xA9P4Ao&e=>>
tel:+1-415-233-1000<tel:(415)%20233-1000>

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...<mailto: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@...<mailto: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@...<mailto: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@...<mailto: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@...<mailto:dan@...>>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cncf.io_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=ssjDwbaNwYsUTLd2LgcAnENthHL4zGlKSqs-xA9P4Ao&e=>>
tel:+1-415-233-1000<tel:(415)%20233-1000>

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...<mailto: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@...<mailto: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@...<mailto:dan@...>>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cncf.io_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=ssjDwbaNwYsUTLd2LgcAnENthHL4zGlKSqs-xA9P4Ao&e=>>
tel:+1-415-233-1000<tel:(415)%20233-1000>

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...<mailto: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@...<mailto: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@...<mailto:dan@...>>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cncf.io_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=ssjDwbaNwYsUTLd2LgcAnENthHL4zGlKSqs-xA9P4Ao&e=>>
tel:+1-415-233-1000<tel:(415)%20233-1000>

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

That's very disappointing

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 03:05 Camille Fournier <skamille@...<mailto: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@...<mailto: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@...<mailto: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@...<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_cncf_landscape&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=dsP4JxbQqNbrXDTzW1zm6K9jrGQ-LJhVjUGxuVitLuE&e=>:

[CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg]
​
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...<mailto:dan@...>>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cncf.io_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=ssjDwbaNwYsUTLd2LgcAnENthHL4zGlKSqs-xA9P4Ao&e=>>
tel:+1-415-233-1000<tel:(415)%20233-1000>

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=>


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=>



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=>



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=>
--
Chip Childers
CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation
1.267.250.0815<tel:(267)%20250-0815>


_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=>



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=>



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=>




--

Duncan Johnston-Watt

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Phone: +44 777 190 2653<tel:+44%207771%20902653> | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt

Twitter: @duncanjw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_duncanjw&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=UzYmVmFzucPkuZv8ZwzWDIMqiKnPWJJz7kmI9XBN3Bg&e=> | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkedin.com_in_duncanjohnstonwatt&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=9MfBHNAQLFFF5Lce9Q_-akPR70WSMnVkrNfshcuY6V4&e=>

[Cloudsoft Logo.jpg] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cloudsoft.io_&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=kCC_QcsFjYJYaN7JwVAxwx28ERIEtia1agQklSGdOt4&e=>

Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:

[Twitter_Logo_White_On_Blue.png]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_cloudsoft&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=Nc7leIbj5M2JdyFS2z2Dk_77aNQcBcJzB7qW2_YZrS0&e=> [YouTube-social-icon_red_48px.png] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_channel_UCpbLhvXrYWz8B-5FosUX6rn0Q&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=6MVP3KiFQK_Cu290YVK-aF3iByXJzWGQDjEDvPBK2HM&e=>

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=>



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=>



_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...<mailto:cncf-toc@...>
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=>
<CloudNativeLandscape_v0.9.6.jpg>
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.cncf.io_mailman_listinfo_cncf-2Dtoc&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6p0eGA_74Mh7puBbIA77IA&m=rCGCOzEPQ51W_Zg_q1X8-c1dC6wiZ1cmTdGDWoY3sww&s=NU8It3k2RJ2U3U8GsdI3o9Zad9t6sTe6XCaGeusZ2R8&e=
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape

Erin Boyd
 

Can we make the 2-D one more generic with drill downs for the online version that articulate all the products? I love that it highlights choices, but it should be able to provide an illustrative representation and not try to cram in the kitchen sink.
Plus, as this evolves, it will constantly have to be updated and versioned. It might be nice to be able to change it where things will change (projects,projects) dynamically and the static version is more just a 'general' presentation.

My 2.5 cents.

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Paul Fischer via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
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@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
_______________________________________________
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

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
6721 - 6740 of 7941