Proposal: Add criteria for graduating projects to publish a 6 month product roadmap about toc

[quinton-hoole]

I think that having a roadmap that says "we have no roadmap and here's why" is a good way to deal with that. Co-incidentally, that's exactly what CII does: https://github.com/coreinfrastructure/best-practices-badge/blob/master/doc/roadmap.md Q

…

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:14 PM Luc Perkins ***@***.***> wrote: I do think that roadmaps are a good idea and a best practice *in general*, but there are also projects for which roadmaps make less sense, particularly for projects that are essentially specifications or have a heavy specification component. CNI, TUF, SPIFFE, OpenMetrics, and CloudEvents are existing CNCF projects that fit this bill. I would argue for relaxing any hypothetical roadmap requirement for "spec" projects, as stability and lack of feature turnover can be hallmarks of project strength. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#174 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ApoAeGMdKSCArCxWA3tKpMttsxDAxjmbks5uzJIPgaJpZM4YziKu> .

-- Quinton Hoole [email protected]

[skamille]

I don't think it's our business to tell open source projects that they need to put roadmaps out for the benefit of end users. It's nice if they do, but that seems like a rather excessive requirement that is far beyond what I've seen from not-for-profit open source anywhere else.

…

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:08 AM Cheryl J. Hung ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks @quinton-hoole <https://github.com/quinton-hoole> @lucperkins <https://github.com/lucperkins> for the feedback. I agree that a roadmap for a specification project can explicitly state that there are no planned upcoming changes. Any other feedback, or shall we add it as an agenda item to a future TOC meeting? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#174 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlGknX6tALgqeNLwDeuljWuLczd8h7Jks5uzTk5gaJpZM4YziKu> .

[quinton-hoole]

SGTM This should arguably be covered by the CII Best Practises Program <https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en>, which is a requirement for CNCF graduation. If not, we should fill the gap, IMO. Q

…

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:55 AM Cheryl J. Hung ***@***.***> wrote: I spoke to a Kubernetes end user company who are currently planning their 2019 technical architecture. The CTO asked me whether projects had feature roadmaps for the next six months - one year which they can incorporate into their planning. They are a small company with four infrastructure engineers, so lack the time to engage directly with each project. I propose that the graduation criteria should require projects to publish a six month feature roadmap. This provides visibility for planning and also allows users to give early feedback. The format could be a simple file in Github. Feedback and thoughts are very welcome. @caniszczyk <https://github.com/caniszczyk> @monadic <https://github.com/monadic> — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#174>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ApoAeFe3hmRgdgwiYrI03CSvaCZzc6Ijks5uzCsUgaJpZM4YziKu> .

-- Quinton Hoole [email protected]

[lucperkins]

I do think that roadmaps are a good idea and a best practice in general, but there are also projects for which roadmaps make less sense, particularly for projects that are essentially specifications or have a heavy specification component. CNI, TUF, SPIFFE, OpenMetrics, CloudEvents, and to a lesser extent OpenTracing are existing CNCF projects that fit this bill.

I would argue for relaxing any hypothetical roadmap requirement for "spec" projects, as stability and lack of feature turnover can be hallmarks of project strength.

[oicheryl]

Thanks @quinton-hoole @lucperkins for the feedback. I agree that a roadmap for a specification project can explicitly state that there are no planned upcoming changes.

Any other feedback, or shall we add it as an agenda item to a future TOC meeting?

[oicheryl]

Right, it could never be a requirement for all open source projects, but would you say that "Graduation" implies enough maturity for people to plan six months ahead?

[skamille]

No, I wouldn't.

…

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:58 PM Cheryl J. Hung ***@***.***> wrote: Right, it could never be a requirement for all open source projects, but would you say that "Graduation" implies enough maturity for people to plan six months ahead? — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#174 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlGkt3vmZnzD_HDiYzpNBOVUcqrEHylks5uztzlgaJpZM4YziKu> .

[quinton-hoole]

Camille, could you expand a bit on your objections to making a roadmap a requirement for graduation. I want to make sure I understand the crux of your objections. I've heard "rather excessive" and "far beyond other OSS projects", but I sense that there's more? Playing the devils advocate for the moment, if we're telling users that they can "bet the farm" on graduated projects, and projects are seeing significant value in being promoted as such, then a basic roadmap does't seem self-evidently excessive? Q On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:04 AM Camille Fournier <[email protected]> wrote:

…

No, I wouldn't. On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:58 PM Cheryl J. Hung ***@***.***> wrote: > Right, it could never be a requirement for all open source projects, but > would you say that "Graduation" implies enough maturity for people to plan > six months ahead? > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#174 (comment)>, or mute > the thread > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlGkt3vmZnzD_HDiYzpNBOVUcqrEHylks5uztzlgaJpZM4YziKu > > . > — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#174 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ApoAeGszTIqmHtg18uKZwHEdtaSy36KLks5uzt5FgaJpZM4YziKu> .

-- Quinton Hoole [email protected]

[skamille]

I guess in general I don't put much stock in project roadmaps 6 months out, having seen even vendors barely capable of delivering anything reliable on them, and knowing in excruciating detail the challenges in software project planning. Furthermore, we are an open source foundation, NOT a vendor software provider. I'm very reluctant to add a level of what I would consider to be sales-y bureaucracy onto projects that are supposed to be somewhat more self-governing and open. This is the kind of thing that I might expect from a vendored version of an open source project, but not necessarily from the open source project itself, if that makes sense. I'd be very interested in hearing from our graduated projects as to how they would feel about providing roadmap commitments 6 months out. But this all just feels very anti-open source to me, favoring projects with large professional funding behind them, which is not the only projects I would hope we're encouraging. On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:14 PM Quinton Hoole <[email protected]> wrote:

…

Camille, could you expand a bit on your objections to making a roadmap a requirement for graduation. I want to make sure I understand the crux of your objections. I've heard "rather excessive" and "far beyond other OSS projects", but I sense that there's more? Playing the devils advocate for the moment, if we're telling users that they can "bet the farm" on graduated projects, and projects are seeing significant value in being promoted as such, then a basic roadmap does't seem self-evidently excessive? Q On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:04 AM Camille Fournier < ***@***.***> wrote: > No, I wouldn't. > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:58 PM Cheryl J. Hung ***@***.*** > > wrote: > > > Right, it could never be a requirement for all open source projects, but > > would you say that "Graduation" implies enough maturity for people to > plan > > six months ahead? > > > > — > > You are receiving this because you commented. > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > > <#174 (comment)>, or mute > > the thread > > < > https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlGkt3vmZnzD_HDiYzpNBOVUcqrEHylks5uztzlgaJpZM4YziKu > > > > . > > > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#174 (comment)>, or mute > the thread > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ApoAeGszTIqmHtg18uKZwHEdtaSy36KLks5uzt5FgaJpZM4YziKu > > . > -- Quinton Hoole ***@***.*** — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#174 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlGkkty66CBudyVVRE09-vmj3FVZkgFks5uzu6YgaJpZM4YziKu> .

[quinton-hoole]

Aah, that makes sense and, on second thoughts, I do share most of your concerns. I'm going to amend my position on this to "nice to have" rather than a requirement, for the reasons you mention. Q On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:25 PM Camille Fournier <[email protected]> wrote:

…

I guess in general I don't put much stock in project roadmaps 6 months out, having seen even vendors barely capable of delivering anything reliable on them, and knowing in excruciating detail the challenges in software project planning. Furthermore, we are an open source foundation, NOT a vendor software provider. I'm very reluctant to add a level of what I would consider to be sales-y bureaucracy onto projects that are supposed to be somewhat more self-governing and open. This is the kind of thing that I might expect from a vendored version of an open source project, but not necessarily from the open source project itself, if that makes sense. I'd be very interested in hearing from our graduated projects as to how they would feel about providing roadmap commitments 6 months out. But this all just feels very anti-open source to me, favoring projects with large professional funding behind them, which is not the only projects I would hope we're encouraging. On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:14 PM Quinton Hoole ***@***.***> wrote: > Camille, could you expand a bit on your objections to making a roadmap a > requirement for graduation. I want to make sure I understand the crux of > your objections. I've heard "rather excessive" and "far beyond other OSS > projects", but I sense that there's more? > > Playing the devils advocate for the moment, if we're telling users that > they can "bet the farm" on graduated projects, and projects are seeing > significant value in being promoted as such, then a basic roadmap does't > seem self-evidently excessive? > > Q > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:04 AM Camille Fournier < > ***@***.***> > wrote: > > > No, I wouldn't. > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:58 PM Cheryl J. Hung < ***@***.*** > > > > wrote: > > > > > Right, it could never be a requirement for all open source projects, > but > > > would you say that "Graduation" implies enough maturity for people to > > plan > > > six months ahead? > > > > > > — > > > You are receiving this because you commented. > > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > > > <#174 (comment)>, or > mute > > > the thread > > > < > > > https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlGkt3vmZnzD_HDiYzpNBOVUcqrEHylks5uztzlgaJpZM4YziKu > > > > > > . > > > > > > > — > > You are receiving this because you commented. > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > > <#174 (comment)>, or mute > > the thread > > < > https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ApoAeGszTIqmHtg18uKZwHEdtaSy36KLks5uzt5FgaJpZM4YziKu > > > > . > > > > > -- > Quinton Hoole > ***@***.*** > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#174 (comment)>, or mute > the thread > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlGkkty66CBudyVVRE09-vmj3FVZkgFks5uzu6YgaJpZM4YziKu > > . > — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#174 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ApoAeNOG5FvCjErPaPljm4m-hLghticxks5uzvFMgaJpZM4YziKu> .

-- Quinton Hoole [email protected]

[oicheryl]

Closing for now; I will send a writeup about end user needs to the TOC mailing list next week.