|
We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just a quick note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing materials to clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon as the first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry over to our marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
|
|
|
thanks Dan & team
@all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on tomorrow's TOC call
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
|
|
|
Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the 300k?
Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? Is
that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy to
ask this on the call :)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--
Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
|
|
|
Jess
That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the process
of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all comments
good & timely, anywhere.
a
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...> wrote: Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the 300k?
Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? Is
that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy to
ask this on the call :)
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
thanks Dan & team
@all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on tomorrow's TOC call
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just a quick
note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing materials to
clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
https://www.cncf.io/
https://www.cncf.io/projects/
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon as the
first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry over to our
marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
--
Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands in a healthy place, it's no small feat! With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge success factor. And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably instills a certain amount of confidence in the project. The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure. Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community see this as criteria zero. Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken record here).
Would love to hear other's thoughts around this. Thanks, Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Jess
That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the process
of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all comments
good & timely, anywhere.
a
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle < me@...> wrote:
> Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the 300k?
>
> Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? Is
> that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy to
> ask this on the call :)
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
>> thanks Dan & team
>>
>> @all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on tomorrow's TOC call
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn < dan@...> wrote:
>>> We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just a quick
>>> note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing materials to
>>> clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
>>>
>>> https://www.cncf.io/
>>> https://www.cncf.io/projects/
>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
>>>
>>> We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon as the
>>> first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry over to our
>>> marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
>>> --
>>> Dan Kohn < dan@...>
>>> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
>>> +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Jessie Frazelle
> 4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
> pgp.mit.edu
>
>
>
|
|
|
Erin
Thank you.
What is your question about community support?
Alexis
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, < eboyd@...> wrote: Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands in a healthy place, it's no small feat! With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge success factor. And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably instills a certain amount of confidence in the project. The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure. Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community see this as criteria zero. Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken record here).
Would love to hear other's thoughts around this. Thanks, Erin
|
|
|
Hi Alexis,
It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see on many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is the community support beyond company A", etc. So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems counter-intuitive to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong community support.
Thoughts?
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Erin
Thank you.
What is your question about community support?
Alexis On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, < eboyd@...> wrote: Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands in a healthy place, it's no small feat! With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge success factor. And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably instills a certain amount of confidence in the project. The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure. Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community see this as criteria zero. Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken record here).
Would love to hear other's thoughts around this. Thanks, Erin
|
|
|
The way that Apache separates out its "incubator" projects from full projects is that incubation projects are not listed in the main list of Apache projects, but rather on the incubator.apache.org subsite. It might be worth examining an approach like that to make clear the distinction.
C
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Erin
Thank you.
What is your question about community support?
Alexis On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, < eboyd@...> wrote: Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands in a healthy place, it's no small feat! With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge success factor. And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably instills a certain amount of confidence in the project. The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure. Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community see this as criteria zero. Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken record here).
Would love to hear other's thoughts around this. Thanks, Erin
|
|
|
Camille, I agree, indeed we may wish to be more definitive even
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote: The way that Apache separates out its "incubator" projects from full
projects is that incubation projects are not listed in the main list of
Apache projects, but rather on the incubator.apache.org subsite. It might be
worth examining an approach like that to make clear the distinction.
C
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Erin
Thank you.
What is your question about community support?
Alexis
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands
in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
success factor.
And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better
understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are
concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a
potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a
bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably
instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is
not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community
see this as criteria zero.
Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan
is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are
trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so
things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken
record here).
Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
Thanks,
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Jess
That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the process
of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all comments
good & timely, anywhere.
a
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
wrote:
Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the
300k?
Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? Is
that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy to
ask this on the call :)
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
<alexis@...> wrote:
thanks Dan & team
@all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
tomorrow's TOC call
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
wrote:
We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just a
quick
note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing materials
to
clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
https://www.cncf.io/
https://www.cncf.io/projects/
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon as
the
first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry over
to our
marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
--
Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
|
|
|
Erin
Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
sponsor do so on their behalf.
alexis
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote: Hi Alexis,
It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see on
many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is the
community support beyond company A", etc.
So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems counter-intuitive
to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
community support.
Thoughts?
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Erin
Thank you.
What is your question about community support?
Alexis
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands
in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
success factor.
And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better
understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are
concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a
potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a
bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably
instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is
not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community
see this as criteria zero.
Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan
is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are
trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so
things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken
record here).
Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
Thanks,
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Jess
That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the process
of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all comments
good & timely, anywhere.
a
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
wrote:
Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the
300k?
Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? Is
that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy to
ask this on the call :)
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
<alexis@...> wrote:
thanks Dan & team
@all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
tomorrow's TOC call
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
wrote:
We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just a
quick
note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing materials
to
clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
https://www.cncf.io/
https://www.cncf.io/projects/
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon as
the
first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry over
to our
marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
--
Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
|
|
|
Since the moment is opening up for debate, I will make a stand (again) that we should require cross-org maintainership. I believe this might help with some of Jesse Frazelle's commentary recently as well, although only she could say. :-)
Generally this is a way to not only ensure that the projects are really of sufficient interest to users, but also to contributors. We acknowledge this in what it takes to graduate, anyway.
We do not require it at the outset, while at the same time a small company might be getting funded or gaining market share based on getting to one of these states. Since projects are getting so much press at the first stage of acceptance, they are getting a lot of the value without returning that value to the community in the form of shared control.
It's not too much to ask (and we should ask) that to receive the CNCF endorsement that real dedication (not just future expectation) to multi-org maintainership is required at all phases.
-Bob
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Erin
Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
sponsor do so on their behalf.
alexis
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
> Hi Alexis,
> It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see on
> many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is the
> community support beyond company A", etc.
>
> So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
> Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems counter-intuitive
> to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
> community support.
>
> Thoughts?
> Erin
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Erin
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> What is your question about community support?
>>
>> Alexis
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alexis/Dan et all,
>>> I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands
>>> in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
>>>
>>> With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
>>> success factor.
>>>
>>> And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better
>>> understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are
>>> concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a
>>> potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a
>>> bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably
>>> instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
>>>
>>> The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
>>> understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
>>> Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is
>>> not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
>>> requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community
>>> see this as criteria zero.
>>>
>>> Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
>>> forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
>>> publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan
>>> is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are
>>> trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so
>>> things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
>>> defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken
>>> record here).
>>>
>>> Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Erin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jess
>>>>
>>>> That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the process
>>>> of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all comments
>>>> good & timely, anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the
>>>> > 300k?
>>>> >
>>>> > Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? Is
>>>> > that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy to
>>>> > ask this on the call :)
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
>>>> > <alexis@...> wrote:
>>>> >> thanks Dan & team
>>>> >>
>>>> >> @all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
>>>> >> tomorrow's TOC call
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just a
>>>> >>> quick
>>>> >>> note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing materials
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/projects/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon as
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry over
>>>> >>> to our
>>>> >>> marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> Dan Kohn <dan@...>
>>>> >>> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io
>>>> >>> +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Jessie Frazelle
>>>> > 4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
>>>> > pgp.mit.edu
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
Hi Alexis, I think it is more about having a healthy open community with multiple consistent maintainers and contributors. Multiple backgrounds and agendas increase the amount of innovation in the project, but projects with a single company/maintainer might lack that drive.
- Luis
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Erin
Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
sponsor do so on their behalf.
alexis
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd < eboyd@...> wrote:
> Hi Alexis,
> It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see on
> many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is the
> community support beyond company A", etc.
>
> So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
> Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems counter-intuitive
> to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
> community support.
>
> Thoughts?
> Erin
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Erin
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> What is your question about community support?
>>
>> Alexis
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, < eboyd@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alexis/Dan et all,
>>> I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands
>>> in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
>>>
>>> With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
>>> success factor.
>>>
>>> And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better
>>> understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are
>>> concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a
>>> potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a
>>> bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably
>>> instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
>>>
>>> The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
>>> understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
>>> Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is
>>> not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
>>> requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community
>>> see this as criteria zero.
>>>
>>> Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
>>> forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
>>> publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan
>>> is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are
>>> trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so
>>> things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
>>> defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken
>>> record here).
>>>
>>> Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Erin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jess
>>>>
>>>> That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the process
>>>> of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all comments
>>>> good & timely, anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle < me@...>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the
>>>> > 300k?
>>>> >
>>>> > Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? Is
>>>> > that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy to
>>>> > ask this on the call :)
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
>>>> > <alexis@...> wrote:
>>>> >> thanks Dan & team
>>>> >>
>>>> >> @all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
>>>> >> tomorrow's TOC call
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn < dan@...>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just a
>>>> >>> quick
>>>> >>> note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing materials
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/projects/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon as
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry over
>>>> >>> to our
>>>> >>> marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> Dan Kohn < dan@...>
>>>> >>> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io
>>>> >>> +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Jessie Frazelle
>>>> > 4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
>>>> > pgp.mit.edu
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
I think that is a great idea. +1
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote: The way that Apache separates out its "incubator" projects from full projects is that incubation projects are not listed in the main list of Apache projects, but rather on the incubator.apache.org subsite. It might be worth examining an approach like that to make clear the distinction.
C
|
|
|
Bob
Thanks for this.
There is a consistent theme that we heard at the F2F in Austin and
again since, that was addressed on the last TOC call and obviously
needs more discussion.
Consider this sequence:
- small project is at super early stage
- joins CNCF with inception status || maintainers form a company
- is deluged with press & VC money
- everyone else is disgruntled, jointly and severally
Is this always an anti-pattern?
a
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Bob Wise <bob@...> wrote: Since the moment is opening up for debate, I will make a stand (again) that
we should require cross-org maintainership.
I believe this might help with some of Jesse Frazelle's commentary recently
as well, although only she could say. :-)
Generally this is a way to not only ensure that the projects are really of
sufficient interest to users, but also to contributors.
We acknowledge this in what it takes to graduate, anyway.
We do not require it at the outset, while at the same time a small company
might be getting funded or gaining market share based on getting to one of
these states.
Since projects are getting so much press at the first stage of acceptance,
they are getting a lot of the value without returning that value to the
community in the form of shared control.
It's not too much to ask (and we should ask) that to receive the CNCF
endorsement that real dedication (not just future expectation) to multi-org
maintainership is required at all phases.
-Bob
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Erin
Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
sponsor do so on their behalf.
alexis
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,
It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see
on
many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is
the
community support beyond company A", etc.
So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems
counter-intuitive
to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
community support.
Thoughts?
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Erin
Thank you.
What is your question about community support?
Alexis
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it
lands
in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
success factor.
And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide
better
understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the
community are
concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I
am a
potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed
(with a
bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website
probably
instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support
is
not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source
community
see this as criteria zero.
Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what
the plan
is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people
are
trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day
jobs, so
things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a
broken
record here).
Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
Thanks,
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Jess
That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the
process
of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all
comments
good & timely, anywhere.
a
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
wrote:
Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid
the
300k?
Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects?
Is
that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy
to
ask this on the call :)
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
<alexis@...> wrote:
thanks Dan & team
@all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
tomorrow's TOC call
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
wrote:
We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just
a
quick
note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing
materials
to
clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
https://www.cncf.io/
https://www.cncf.io/projects/
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon
as
the
first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry
over
to our
marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
--
Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
|
|
|
Luis
The CNCF does and should endorse cross-org maintainership. It has to
be realistic though. Many projects have a very healthy lifecycle with
just one group backing them, even when that group coincides with a
single legal entity.
a
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Luis Pab?n <luis@...> wrote: Hi Alexis,
I think it is more about having a healthy open community with multiple
consistent maintainers and contributors. Multiple backgrounds and agendas
increase the amount of innovation in the project, but projects with a single
company/maintainer might lack that drive.
- Luis
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Erin
Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
sponsor do so on their behalf.
alexis
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,
It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see
on
many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is
the
community support beyond company A", etc.
So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems
counter-intuitive
to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
community support.
Thoughts?
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Erin
Thank you.
What is your question about community support?
Alexis
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it
lands
in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
success factor.
And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide
better
understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the
community are
concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I
am a
potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed
(with a
bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website
probably
instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support
is
not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source
community
see this as criteria zero.
Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what
the plan
is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people
are
trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day
jobs, so
things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a
broken
record here).
Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
Thanks,
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Jess
That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the
process
of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all
comments
good & timely, anywhere.
a
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
wrote:
Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid
the
300k?
Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects?
Is
that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy
to
ask this on the call :)
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
<alexis@...> wrote:
thanks Dan & team
@all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
tomorrow's TOC call
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
wrote:
We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just
a
quick
note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing
materials
to
clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
https://www.cncf.io/
https://www.cncf.io/projects/
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon
as
the
first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry
over
to our
marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
--
Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
|
|
|
Alex Chircop
Following up on this thread and the discussion on the TOC call yesterday, I'd like to see better clarity overall in the marketing of how inception and incubation projects are differentiated. The changes to the website, the text to the press releases, and the landscape are all good first steps, however I worry that it does not achieve the goal of clearly differentiating the projects for end users. Camille's comment about how the Apache foundation differentiates incubation projects ( https://incubator.apache.org/) would be an option/example doing this better. Some simple examples of how the confusion is being perpetuated right now: * On https://www.cncf.io/projects/, the inception and incubation projects are listed together under different headings, but with nothing to indicate that they have different criteria. End users are very unlikely to make the effort to read and digest the graduation criteria, so any way of simply explaining the difference on the projects page would be helpful. * The press releases for both Rook (inception) and Vitess (incubator) both start with the tagline "Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) voted to accept xx as the yyth hosted project, alongside Kubernetes, Prometheus, ....". Although there was text in the release about inception projects and graduation criteria, the bulk of the blogs and follow-on articles latched onto the first sentence and ran with that. The tag line is that the projects are in the same box as Kubernetes or Prometheus. From an end user point of view there is very little to determine difference in project maturity, size or adoption. Anecdotally, I've personally spent a lot of effort answering questions in emails, slack & meetups over the last few days and can confirm that the confusion is real :-) I believe that all work on cloud native projects benefits the community and the adoption of cloud native technologies in general, and inception projects supported by a foundation like the CNCF is useful - however getting the terminology right and following on through in all aspects of marketing is critical to ensure end users are getting the right information. This is especially important in the "Cloud Native" world where there is certain amount of flux and constant change. Thanks, Alex On 06/02/2018, 07:52, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote: Luis The CNCF does and should endorse cross-org maintainership. It has to be realistic though. Many projects have a very healthy lifecycle with just one group backing them, even when that group coincides with a single legal entity. a
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Luis Pab?n <luis@...> wrote: > Hi Alexis, > I think it is more about having a healthy open community with multiple > consistent maintainers and contributors. Multiple backgrounds and agendas > increase the amount of innovation in the project, but projects with a single > company/maintainer might lack that drive. > > - Luis > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> > wrote: >> >> Erin >> >> Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or >> Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not >> promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If >> people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a >> sponsor do so on their behalf. >> >> alexis >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote: >> > Hi Alexis, >> > It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see >> > on >> > many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is >> > the >> > community support beyond company A", etc. >> > >> > So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open >> > Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems >> > counter-intuitive >> > to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong >> > community support. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > Erin >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Erin >> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> What is your question about community support? >> >> >> >> Alexis >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Alexis/Dan et all, >> >>> I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it >> >>> lands >> >>> in a healthy place, it's no small feat! >> >>> >> >>> With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge >> >>> success factor. >> >>> >> >>> And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide >> >>> better >> >>> understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the >> >>> community are >> >>> concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I >> >>> am a >> >>> potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed >> >>> (with a >> >>> bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website >> >>> probably >> >>> instills a certain amount of confidence in the project. >> >>> >> >>> The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and >> >>> understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure. >> >>> Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support >> >>> is >> >>> not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict >> >>> requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source >> >>> community >> >>> see this as criteria zero. >> >>> >> >>> Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought >> >>> forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and >> >>> publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what >> >>> the plan >> >>> is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people >> >>> are >> >>> trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day >> >>> jobs, so >> >>> things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well >> >>> defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a >> >>> broken >> >>> record here). >> >>> >> >>> Would love to hear other's thoughts around this. >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Erin >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Jess >> >>>> >> >>>> That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the >> >>>> process >> >>>> of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all >> >>>> comments >> >>>> good & timely, anywhere. >> >>>> >> >>>> a >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> > Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid >> >>>> > the >> >>>> > 300k? >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? >> >>>> > Is >> >>>> > that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy >> >>>> > to >> >>>> > ask this on the call :) >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson >> >>>> > <alexis@...> wrote: >> >>>> >> thanks Dan & team >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> @all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on >> >>>> >> tomorrow's TOC call >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> >> >>>> >> wrote: >> >>>> >>> We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just >> >>>> >>> a >> >>>> >>> quick >> >>>> >>> note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing >> >>>> >>> materials >> >>>> >>> to >> >>>> >>> clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects: >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/ >> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/projects/ >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0 >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon >> >>>> >>> as >> >>>> >>> the >> >>>> >>> first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry >> >>>> >>> over >> >>>> >>> to our >> >>>> >>> marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon. >> >>>> >>> -- >> >>>> >>> Dan Kohn <dan@...> >> >>>> >>> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation >> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io >> >>>> >>> +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > -- >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Jessie Frazelle >> >>>> > 4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3 >> >>>> > pgp.mit.edu >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >
|
|
|
Alex
Thanks for your patience in this. Showing a mature and objective face to users is so important and I know you have been overwhelmed and doggedly doing the right thing.
In terms of handling the issues below, the written proposal is the next step for all of us. It may be efficient to liaise with Dan directly. Your early feedback could help us avoid some iterations later.
A
Following up on this thread and the discussion on the TOC call yesterday, I'd like to see better clarity overall in the marketing of how inception and incubation projects are differentiated.
The changes to the website, the text to the press releases, and the landscape are all good first steps, however I worry that it does not achieve the goal of clearly differentiating the projects for end users. Camille's comment about how the Apache foundation differentiates incubation projects (https://incubator.apache.org/) would be an option/example doing this better.
Some simple examples of how the confusion is being perpetuated right now:
* On https://www.cncf.io/projects/, the inception and incubation projects are listed together under different headings, but with nothing to indicate that they have different criteria. End users are very unlikely to make the effort to read and digest the graduation criteria, so any way of simply explaining the difference on the projects page would be helpful.
* The press releases for both Rook (inception) and Vitess (incubator) both start with the tagline "Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) voted to accept xx as the yyth hosted project, alongside Kubernetes, Prometheus, ....". Although there was text in the release about inception projects and graduation criteria, the bulk of the blogs and follow-on articles latched onto the first sentence and ran with that. The tag line is that the projects are in the same box as Kubernetes or Prometheus. From an end user point of view there is very little to determine difference in project maturity, size or adoption.
Anecdotally, I've personally spent a lot of effort answering questions in emails, slack & meetups over the last few days and can confirm that the confusion is real :-)
I believe that all work on cloud native projects benefits the community and the adoption of cloud native technologies in general, and inception projects supported by a foundation like the CNCF is useful - however getting the terminology right and following on through in all aspects of marketing is critical to ensure end users are getting the right information. This is especially important in the "Cloud Native" world where there is certain amount of flux and constant change.
Thanks,
Alex
On 06/02/2018, 07:52, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
Luis
The CNCF does and should endorse cross-org maintainership. It has to
be realistic though. Many projects have a very healthy lifecycle with
just one group backing them, even when that group coincides with a
single legal entity.
a
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Luis Pab?n <luis@...> wrote:
> Hi Alexis,
> I think it is more about having a healthy open community with multiple
> consistent maintainers and contributors. Multiple backgrounds and agendas
> increase the amount of innovation in the project, but projects with a single
> company/maintainer might lack that drive.
>
> - Luis
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Erin
>>
>> Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
>> Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
>> promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
>> people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
>> sponsor do so on their behalf.
>>
>> alexis
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
>> > Hi Alexis,
>> > It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see
>> > on
>> > many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is
>> > the
>> > community support beyond company A", etc.
>> >
>> > So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
>> > Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems
>> > counter-intuitive
>> > to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
>> > community support.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> > Erin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Erin
>> >>
>> >> Thank you.
>> >>
>> >> What is your question about community support?
>> >>
>> >> Alexis
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Alexis/Dan et all,
>> >>> I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it
>> >>> lands
>> >>> in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
>> >>>
>> >>> With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
>> >>> success factor.
>> >>>
>> >>> And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide
>> >>> better
>> >>> understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the
>> >>> community are
>> >>> concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I
>> >>> am a
>> >>> potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed
>> >>> (with a
>> >>> bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website
>> >>> probably
>> >>> instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
>> >>>
>> >>> The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
>> >>> understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
>> >>> Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support
>> >>> is
>> >>> not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
>> >>> requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source
>> >>> community
>> >>> see this as criteria zero.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
>> >>> forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
>> >>> publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what
>> >>> the plan
>> >>> is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people
>> >>> are
>> >>> trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day
>> >>> jobs, so
>> >>> things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
>> >>> defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a
>> >>> broken
>> >>> record here).
>> >>>
>> >>> Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Erin
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jess
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the
>> >>>> process
>> >>>> of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all
>> >>>> comments
>> >>>> good & timely, anywhere.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> a
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> > Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid
>> >>>> > the
>> >>>> > 300k?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects?
>> >>>> > Is
>> >>>> > that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy
>> >>>> > to
>> >>>> > ask this on the call :)
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
>> >>>> > <alexis@...> wrote:
>> >>>> >> thanks Dan & team
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> @all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
>> >>>> >> tomorrow's TOC call
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
>> >>>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just
>> >>>> >>> a
>> >>>> >>> quick
>> >>>> >>> note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing
>> >>>> >>> materials
>> >>>> >>> to
>> >>>> >>> clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/
>> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/projects/
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon
>> >>>> >>> as
>> >>>> >>> the
>> >>>> >>> first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry
>> >>>> >>> over
>> >>>> >>> to our
>> >>>> >>> marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
>> >>>> >>> --
>> >>>> >>> Dan Kohn <dan@...>
>> >>>> >>> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
>> >>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io
>> >>>> >>> +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > --
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Jessie Frazelle
>> >>>> > 4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
>> >>>> > pgp.mit.edu
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
Alexis,
I guess it depends on what we plan to do with inception in terms of acceptance, dd, marketing, etc.. I absolutely think it's imperative that we have community support at incubation. The concerns I am seeing voiced in several PRs during the DD for inception. Does this better clarify my concerns to you?
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote: Erin
Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
sponsor do so on their behalf.
alexis
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd < eboyd@...> wrote:
> Hi Alexis,
> It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see on
> many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is the
> community support beyond company A", etc.
>
> So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
> Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems counter-intuitive
> to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
> community support.
>
> Thoughts?
> Erin
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Erin
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> What is your question about community support?
>>
>> Alexis
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, < eboyd@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alexis/Dan et all,
>>> I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it lands
>>> in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
>>>
>>> With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
>>> success factor.
>>>
>>> And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide better
>>> understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the community are
>>> concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I am a
>>> potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed (with a
>>> bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website probably
>>> instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
>>>
>>> The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
>>> understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
>>> Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support is
>>> not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
>>> requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source community
>>> see this as criteria zero.
>>>
>>> Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
>>> forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
>>> publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what the plan
>>> is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people are
>>> trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day jobs, so
>>> things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
>>> defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a broken
>>> record here).
>>>
>>> Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Erin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jess
>>>>
>>>> That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the process
>>>> of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all comments
>>>> good & timely, anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle < me@...>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid the
>>>> > 300k?
>>>> >
>>>> > Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects? Is
>>>> > that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy to
>>>> > ask this on the call :)
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
>>>> > <alexis@...> wrote:
>>>> >> thanks Dan & team
>>>> >>
>>>> >> @all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
>>>> >> tomorrow's TOC call
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn < dan@...>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just a
>>>> >>> quick
>>>> >>> note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing materials
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io/projects/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon as
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry over
>>>> >>> to our
>>>> >>> marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>> Dan Kohn < dan@...>
>>>> >>> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
>>>> >>> https://www.cncf.io
>>>> >>> +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Jessie Frazelle
>>>> > 4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
>>>> > pgp.mit.edu
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
Erin
Let's sort out inception/sandbox and then we'll see. For the record,
I think "community support" is not an objective metric.
alexis
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote: Alexis,
I guess it depends on what we plan to do with inception in terms of
acceptance, dd, marketing, etc..
I absolutely think it's imperative that we have community support at
incubation.
The concerns I am seeing voiced in several PRs during the DD for inception.
Does this better clarify my concerns to you?
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Erin
Please could you be specific? Do you think Inception and/or
Incubation should require Maintainers from more companies? I am not
promising changes, but *now* is the time to table and debate this. If
people have concerns, please invite them to voice them here or have a
sponsor do so on their behalf.
alexis
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,
It's not a question, but just an observation of voiced 'concern' I see
on
many of the inception level requests, where the feedback is "where is
the
community support beyond company A", etc.
So redefining our "what is means to be Cloud Native" and including Open
Source as part of this primary driving directive, it seems
counter-intuitive
to accept projects, even at an inception level if they don't strong
community support.
Thoughts?
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Erin
Thank you.
What is your question about community support?
Alexis
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, 19:02 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:
Alexis/Dan et all,
I appreciate the work it is to grow this foundation and ensure it
lands
in a healthy place, it's no small feat!
With the popularity of CNCF, it's 'endorsement' to projects is a huge
success factor.
And while I know we are current revamping definitions to provide
better
understanding of the stages of a project, I think many in the
community are
concerned that outside of this, perception is reality. Honestly, if I
am a
potential customer and looking at a project, just having it listed
(with a
bunch of other projects at different levels) on the CNCF website
probably
instills a certain amount of confidence in the project.
The criteria between inception to graduation is well documented and
understood by the TOC, but outside of that, I am not sure.
Many times it's been brought of that for instance, "community support
is
not sufficient for xyz project". We have agreed this is not a strict
requirement of inception, however those active in the Open Source
community
see this as criteria zero.
Also, do we have a good way of tracking technical concerns brought
forward from the DD to the next phase? Have we considered creating and
publishing a concrete timeline around each of these phases and what
the plan
is if projects don't meet these guidelines? I feel that many people
are
trying to provide good due diligence while also balancing their day
jobs, so
things are also getting possibly missed because the dates aren't well
defined. (I know I've mentioned this to Chris so sorry to feel like a
broken
record here).
Would love to hear other's thoughts around this.
Thanks,
Erin
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:20 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:
Jess
That's really one for Dan but AIUI the whole website is in the
process
of being nurtured into an optimal state for 2018 .... So all
comments
good & timely, anywhere.
a
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
wrote:
Quick question: what are the platinum members, the ones who paid
the
300k?
Do they need to be on the same slide / materials as the projects?
Is
that written into a contract or something? Also I'm more than happy
to
ask this on the call :)
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:14 AM, alexis richardson
<alexis@...> wrote:
thanks Dan & team
@all TOC community, please do comment to Dan directly or on
tomorrow's TOC call
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...>
wrote:
We'll be discussing maturity levels on the TOC call. This is just
a
quick
note that at the TOC's request, we revised CNCF marketing
materials
to
clearly separate Incubating and Inception projects:
https://www.cncf.io/
https://www.cncf.io/projects/
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BoxFeENJcINgHbKfygXpXROchiRO2LBT-pzdaOFr4Zg/edit#slide=id.g2c13d20ecb_1_0
We will obviously add a more prominent graduated section as soon
as
the
first projects graduate. The same project separation will carry
over
to our
marketing materials for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation
https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
--
Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu
|
|
|
