3 ms·

The terms "incubating" and "graduation" have meaning to others, even if you choose to ignore them: https://www.cncf.io/projects/ https://www.cncf.io/projects/

The terms "incubating" and "graduation" have meaning to others, even if you choose to ignore them: https://www.cncf.io/projects/ https://www.cncf.io/projects/ CNCF projects have a maturity level of sandbox, incubating, or graduated, which corresponds to the Innovators, Early Adopters, and Early Majority tiers of the Crossing the Chasm diagram. The maturity level is a signal by CNCF as to what sorts of enterprises should be adopting different projects. > Are there any foundations that don't operate like this? Presumably. My main experiences are with the Apache Software Foundation, though, which in terms of "incubation" operates similarly to CNCF. > Are foundations good at all for anything? The answer is foundation-specific. But in general, foundations allow for pooling of resources and wisdom such as legal services, and allow for consumers to know a lot about a project's governance and status at a glance in a way which is difficult to ascertain for a standalone project on the web or Github or wherever.

ghaff 6y ago
> allow for consumers to know a lot about a project's governance and status Although, as you say, the specifics vary by foundation and range quite a bit in how heavyweight they are, foundations also provide something of a neutral home for projects. A company may still be somewhat dominant in a given project but it can't just take its ball and go home to the degree possible if it kept control of domains, trademarks, and so forth on its own.
- rectang 6y ago
  I deliberately left this point ambiguous. ;) The pressure on foundations to accommodate the wishes of major donors is immense and unceasing. Different foundations respond to that pressure in different ways. I don't think it makes sense to assume that just because a project is at a foundation that it is independent by any useful definition. It's possible for dominant players to set things up such that they maintain effective control over the governance of a project which resides at a foundation. It's possible to generalize when you know the foundation, but it's not possible to generalize across all foundations.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I don't disagree with any of that. Certainly there are vast differences between Apache, OpenStack, and SPI, for example. And there can be considerable differences even between projects within a single foundation to the degree that a foundation like CNCF allows considerable latitude in how individual projects choose to organize. In any case, if most of a project's committers are with a single company, that company is going to have a lot of control even if the project is nominally under generally neutral governance.

ghaff 6y ago

> allow for consumers to know a lot about a project's governance and status Although, as you say, the specifics vary by foundation and range quite a bit in how heavyweight they are, foundations also provide something of a neutral home for projects. A company may still be somewhat dominant in a given project but it can't just take its ball and go home to the degree possible if it kept control of domains, trademarks, and so forth on its own.

rectang 6y ago
I deliberately left this point ambiguous. ;) The pressure on foundations to accommodate the wishes of major donors is immense and unceasing. Different foundations respond to that pressure in different ways. I don't think it makes sense to assume that just because a project is at a foundation that it is independent by any useful definition. It's possible for dominant players to set things up such that they maintain effective control over the governance of a project which resides at a foundation. It's possible to generalize when you know the foundation, but it's not possible to generalize across all foundations.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I don't disagree with any of that. Certainly there are vast differences between Apache, OpenStack, and SPI, for example. And there can be considerable differences even between projects within a single foundation to the degree that a foundation like CNCF allows considerable latitude in how individual projects choose to organize. In any case, if most of a project's committers are with a single company, that company is going to have a lot of control even if the project is nominally under generally neutral governance.