Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[WIP] What: Cloud Native Guide Posts Issue #961 #997
[WIP] What: Cloud Native Guide Posts Issue #961 #997
Changes from 6 commits
92669da
2595b34
3b2ac2a
7d73de8
223b894
36547b7
feab2de
cbe4163
f634e26
bb00b37
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This one worries me A LOT. It clearly incentivizes projects and companies to do the wrong thing, in order to meet these "milestones".
For example, fearing that they are being seen to have "too many" contributions going into the open source project, the major backer of a project decides to hold their engineering efforts back into closed-source add-ons. Or use outsourcing companies and partners rather than hire people to work full-time on the project. Or decide not to contribute a project to the CNCF because it's going to be such an uphill struggle for the project to see itself as successful according to these criteria.
None of these outcomes are good for anyone in our community.
(Also, why arbitrarily 5? And what does "regular" mean? We could spend time debating these points - but that is time that could be better spent on actually progressing / supporting projects.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense, I suggested a slightly different variation of this here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aL0mxInyz-qtRT2QM7kdr9riM36uihILtgM4TR35cPQ. I think it's hard to determine a fixed number that can work for all the variety of different projects. IMO a more 'open' or 'flexible' language would work better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These are good counterpoints @lizrice . We also don't want to have a single entity (company or organization or individual) be the majority decision maker of a projects technical direction, if that entity is acquired or disappears, the project can be left out to dry, and in some case unable to recover because the primary pool of contribution has evaporated.
@raravena80 @lizrice - How do we strike a balance in these milestones — as guiding points projects could leverage to in order to become more resilient, mature, and widely adopted versions — that could help projects avoid the scenarios you present as well as a increase the likelihood of project's survivability with primary entity's complete absence? What actionable goals/ideals/structure/governance could be provided for projects to increase their resilience and survival likelihood in the event a core contributing entity ceases to be or continue?
Ricardo mentioned open and flexible language here, would the following adjustments meet the intent?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can't say I'm keen on removing specifics from this. Folks in the community manager role for a project like having clear targets. Once a project gets to applying Graduated, if they don't have at least five regular contributors, the application isn't likely to go well.
Note that these are milestones, not updates to the specific requirements.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 I believe all these can be covered in the March 21st TOC meeting.