|
Costa
The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor
Netdata. Had a sponsor stepped forward, Netdata would have been
invited to initiate the DD process for incubation, with Github issue
creation etc. Note that the project was too mature for sandbox.
After DD there would have been a vote. If this was not communicated
to you, then I apologise.
alexis
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 7:01 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
Alexis, thank you for the information.
So, you say that TOC members discussed about Netdata and decided it is not cloud native and should not be invited to CNCF.
Are there any meeting minutes about this?
Which TOC members were present?
Was this decision unanimous?
Is the standard procedure to silently make such decisions without letting the founders know and giving them the option to provide additional information that may help in the decision?
To my understanding Netdata is the definition of "Cloud Native". It is the only monitoring solution that does not require any centralization of metrics, provides 1s granularity as standard, supports unlimited metrics per node, provides meaningful presentation and visualization for all metrics, comes pre-configured with alarms that are attached automatically to all metrics and can be used immediately after installation with zero configuration on most setups. So, I am very curious to see a list of Cloud Native criteria Netdata did not meet.
Thank you!
|
|
|
+1, the TOC felt the same way when the voting happened. On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:18 PM Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...> wrote:
Roger,
I get your point but disagree with your example.
Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.
Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:
https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0
https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0
Mark
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@...>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@..." <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow
If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...
Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E 95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC
On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Alexis,
Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?
If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.
--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com
On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Matt
OK, but:
We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?
Other than I fully agree with you.
a
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.
Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.
New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.
Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.
Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.
--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com
|
|
|
Matt,
Yes, indeed, we do have the Definition. The TOC worked on this along
with the layered stack (architecture) and landscape (which fits into
the stack). You are 100% right that there should be greater clarity
and consistency. Without this we get confusion and worse. So, the
CNCF TOC should regularly review *all* core technical content with
those criteria in mind. There was an Architecture WG for this, which
could be revived in some form. I think this could help in lots of
ways, including the arduous job of marketing CNCF.
alexis
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:59 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Alexis,
Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?
If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.
--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com
On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Matt
OK, but:
We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?
Other than I fully agree with you.
a
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.
Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.
New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.
Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.
Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.
--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com
|
|
|
Roger,
I get your point but disagree with your example.
Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.
Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:
https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0
https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0
Mark
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@...>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@..." <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow
If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...
On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Alexis,
Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a
Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?
If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.
On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Matt
OK, but:
We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?
Other than I fully agree with you.
a
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.
Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.
New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.
Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this
is just me as an external observer.
Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of
a few people.
--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com
|
|
|
Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
No, my point is that what makes something sufficiently cloud-native to be on the landscape may not be totally obvious.
Roger are you saying this applies to Netdata too?
Because Netdata is not a virtual appliance...
|
|
|
Costa Tsaousis
Roger are you saying this applies to Netdata too?
Because Netdata is not a virtual appliance...
|
|
|
Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...
On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote:
Alexis,
Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape.
What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?
If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.
On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson < alexis@...> wrote:
Matt
OK, but:
We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?
Other than I fully agree with you.
a
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina < matt@...> wrote:
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.
Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.
New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.
Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this
is just me as an external observer.
Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of
a few people.
--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com
|
|
|
Costa Tsaousis
Alexis, thank you for the information.
So, you say that TOC members discussed about Netdata and decided it is not cloud native and should not be invited to CNCF.
Are there any meeting minutes about this?
Which TOC members were present?
Was this decision unanimous?
Is the standard procedure to silently make such decisions without letting the founders know and giving them the option to provide additional information that may help in the decision?
To my understanding Netdata is the definition of "Cloud Native". It is the only monitoring solution that does not require any centralization of metrics, provides 1s granularity as standard, supports unlimited metrics per node, provides meaningful presentation and visualization for all metrics, comes pre-configured with alarms that are attached automatically to all metrics and can be used immediately after installation with zero configuration on most setups. So, I am very curious to see a list of Cloud Native criteria Netdata did not meet.
Thank you!
|
|
|
Alexis,
Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?
If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.
On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson < alexis@...> wrote:
Matt OK, but: We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native" landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is our purpose? Other than I fully agree with you. a On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina < matt@...> wrote:
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.
Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.
New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.
Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.
Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.
--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com
|
|
|
Josh, please see my reply to Matt which expresses why it is so diminished. On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:39 PM Josh Michielsen <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
I'm well aware you did. Certainly that makes your opinion a valuable one! But again I have to stress being it's founder doesn't mean you can speak for everyone else that finds it valuable.
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 6:33 pm Alexis Richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
Josh
I created the landscape, so I feel I have a dog in this race.
a
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:19 PM Josh Michielsen
<josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
This comes across as "I don't find it valuable therefore it has no value", which isn't exactly a nuanced opinion. You certainly don't represent my feelings on the topic. Much like how you found netdata's use of the CNCF logo misleading, you're speaking from a position of authority in a way that (to me at least) probably misrepresents the views of the CNCF and possibly the wider community.
Obviously you're free to have the opinion that it has no value, but I think you should represent that view more honestly.
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 5:34 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
For example: Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to
see it as cloud native.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Shilla Saebi <shilla.saebi@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,
Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?
Thank you,
Shilla
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Costa
"Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
netdata was rejected? How?"
After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
become a CNCF project.
The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.
a
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
Hi all,
I am the founder of Netdata.
We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.
The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.
|
|
|
Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
I'm well aware you did. Certainly that makes your opinion a valuable one! But again I have to stress being it's founder doesn't mean you can speak for everyone else that finds it valuable. On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 6:33 pm Alexis Richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
Josh
I created the landscape, so I feel I have a dog in this race.
a
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:19 PM Josh Michielsen
<josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
>
> This comes across as "I don't find it valuable therefore it has no value", which isn't exactly a nuanced opinion. You certainly don't represent my feelings on the topic. Much like how you found netdata's use of the CNCF logo misleading, you're speaking from a position of authority in a way that (to me at least) probably misrepresents the views of the CNCF and possibly the wider community.
>
> Obviously you're free to have the opinion that it has no value, but I think you should represent that view more honestly.
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 5:34 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
>>
>> When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
>> and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
>> they live in that structure.
>>
>> Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
>>
>> For example: Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to
>> see it as cloud native.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Shilla Saebi <shilla.saebi@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Alexis,
>> >
>> > Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> > Shilla
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Costa
>> >>
>> >> "Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
>> >> CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
>> >> netdata was rejected? How?"
>> >>
>> >> After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
>> >> become a CNCF project.
>> >>
>> >> The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.
>> >>
>> >> a
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > I am the founder of Netdata.
>> >> >
>> >> > We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
>> >> >
>> >> > David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
>> >> >
>> >> > I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
>> >> >
>> >> > David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
>> >> >
>> >> > During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
>> >> >
>> >> > Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
>> >> >
>> >> > Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
>> >> >
>> >> > Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.
The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.
|
|
|
Matt
OK, but:
We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?
Other than I fully agree with you.
a
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.
Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.
New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.
Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.
Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.
--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com
|
|
|
Josh I created the landscape, so I feel I have a dog in this race. a On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:19 PM Josh Michielsen <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
This comes across as "I don't find it valuable therefore it has no value", which isn't exactly a nuanced opinion. You certainly don't represent my feelings on the topic. Much like how you found netdata's use of the CNCF logo misleading, you're speaking from a position of authority in a way that (to me at least) probably misrepresents the views of the CNCF and possibly the wider community.
Obviously you're free to have the opinion that it has no value, but I think you should represent that view more honestly.
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 5:34 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
For example: Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to
see it as cloud native.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Shilla Saebi <shilla.saebi@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,
Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?
Thank you,
Shilla
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Costa
"Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
netdata was rejected? How?"
After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
become a CNCF project.
The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.
a
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
Hi all,
I am the founder of Netdata.
We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.
|
|
|
Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
This comes across as "I don't find it valuable therefore it has no value", which isn't exactly a nuanced opinion. You certainly don't represent my feelings on the topic. Much like how you found netdata's use of the CNCF logo misleading, you're speaking from a position of authority in a way that (to me at least) probably misrepresents the views of the CNCF and possibly the wider community.
Obviously you're free to have the opinion that it has no value, but I think you should represent that view more honestly. On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 5:34 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
For example: Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to
see it as cloud native.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Shilla Saebi <shilla.saebi@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexis,
>
> Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Shilla
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
>>
>> Costa
>>
>> "Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
>> CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
>> netdata was rejected? How?"
>>
>> After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
>> become a CNCF project.
>>
>> The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.
>>
>> a
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I am the founder of Netdata.
>> >
>> > We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
>> >
>> > David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
>> >
>> > I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
>> >
>> > David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
>> >
>> > Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
>> >
>> > During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
>> >
>> > Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
>> >
>> > So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
>> >
>> > Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
>> >
>> > Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.
|
|
|
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.
Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.
New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.
Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.
Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.
|
|
|
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.
For example: Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to
see it as cloud native.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Shilla Saebi <shilla.saebi@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,
Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?
Thank you,
Shilla
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Costa
"Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
netdata was rejected? How?"
After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
become a CNCF project.
The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.
a
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
Hi all,
I am the founder of Netdata.
We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
|
|
|
Shilla Saebi
Hi Alexis,
Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?
Thank you,
Shilla
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Costa
"Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
netdata was rejected? How?"
After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
become a CNCF project.
The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.
a
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am the founder of Netdata.
>
> We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
>
> David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
>
> I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
>
> David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
>
> Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
>
> During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
>
> Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
>
> So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
>
> Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
>
> Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
>
> Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
>
>
|
|
|
Costa
"Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
netdata was rejected? How?"
After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
become a CNCF project.
The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.
a
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
Hi all,
I am the founder of Netdata.
We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
|
|
|
Costa Tsaousis
Hi all,
I am the founder of Netdata.
We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
|
|
|
Dan, thanks for handling this in a polite way.
I’ve witnessed and heard about worse moves than this to promote projects and products. The cloud native space is pretty crowded and people are looking for an edge. Some will try to game the system. Some will push the limit in marketing. At the least, we can be polite and first approach people in a kind manner. I prefer to start from Hanlon’s razor.
On Jun 7, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Dan Kohn < dan@...> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 7:58 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
I wasn't clear - I was thinking about the criteria the CNCF has for adding projects to the landscape (where one of the criteria is some number of github stars, if I recall correctly).
On 7 Jun 2019, 12:01 +0100, Davanum Srinivas < davanum@...>, wrote:
Liz,
Isn't there a challenge that folks who may want to "game" will not use the new system as it does not show the "inflated" numbers that they currently use?
Thanks,
Dims
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 3:33 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote:
Maybe we (or GitHub) could build some kind of “realstars” count which only counts stars from folks who have also done some number of other activities (raising PRs or issues, making comments, maybe even just filling in their profile...)
On 7 Jun 2019, 01:00 +0100, Shannon Williams < shannon@...>, wrote:
Perfect Dan, thanks.
Best Regards,
Shannon Williams Rancher Labs shannon@... +1 650-521-6902
From: Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 2:46 PM
To: Matthew Farina <matt@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>; Shannon Williams <shannon@...>; david.andrew.mckay@...; Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:58 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
While I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if this violates the trademark rules. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/ states:
Do not use a logo of The Linux Foundation on posters, brochures, signs, websites, or other marketing materials to promote your events, products or services without written permission from The Linux Foundation.
On Jun 6, 2019, at 4:51 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected". This is an
example of "lying by omission". It is not OK.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:49 PM Shannon Williams <shannon@...> wrote:
+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo. @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of David McKay via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 1:40 PM
To: Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow
While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified.
IIRC, they did try to become a CNCF project and had no sponsors.
A quick Google shows that they're using this "endorsement" actively in their marketing campaigns:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17304734
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 13:30 Josh M, <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
It's technically not wrong I guess....
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, 9:28 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape
and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC
Netdata presentation."
https://github.com/netdata/netdata/blob/master/README.md
The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.
--
|
|
|
