Skip to content
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

Vote on topics for future CNCF Technology Radars #35

Open
oicheryl opened this issue Jun 12, 2020 · 37 comments
Open

Vote on topics for future CNCF Technology Radars #35

oicheryl opened this issue Jun 12, 2020 · 37 comments

Comments

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 12, 2020

If you are interested in learning what end users recommend for a cloud native use case, add a comment below or +1 to vote. Examples could be categories from the CNCF Landscape, or industry verticals such as financial services.

Topics will be selected quarterly by the editorial team as the basis for a CNCF Technology Radar.

More information at https://github.com/cncf/enduser-public/blob/master/CNCFTechnologyRadar.pdf

@LawrenceHecht
Copy link

@LawrenceHecht LawrenceHecht commented Jun 12, 2020

Cheryl, I've done this type of project before. Here are a few suggestions:

  1. Make sure to have a link to the actual tool/product being evaluated. Make sure to time stamp the assessments.
  2. Review the quarterly assessments at a meeting of CNCF end users. This way, you are not assigning a rating only based on the number of votes a technology initially gets.
  3. Don't compromise on making this an invite-only activity.
@LawrenceHecht
Copy link

@LawrenceHecht LawrenceHecht commented Jun 12, 2020

And, in response to a tweet from @caniszczyk, I think the results should be made publicly available with the CNCF providing value to its members by only letting its end user community participate in making the ratings. Of course, I don't have insight into the membership sales pitch, so take that idea for what it's worth.

@caniszczyk
Copy link
Contributor

@caniszczyk caniszczyk commented Jun 12, 2020

@LawrenceHecht

This is an activity meant for CNCF End Users who are actually running these projects in production and share this information amongst each other in a safe environment where there are no vendors, it's by design we do it this way. It is a membership benefit of becoming an official CNCF End User :)

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 14, 2020

@LawrenceHecht I appreciate the comments!

1.Make sure to have a link to the actual tool/product being evaluated. Make sure to time stamp the assessments.

+1, it's definitely a point in time exercise.

Review the quarterly assessments at a meeting of CNCF end users. This way, you are not assigning a rating only based on the number of votes a technology initially gets.

The CNCF end users review the draft before it is released. Each radar will feature a different set of projects depending on the use case, so each technology will be assessed anew each time.

Don't compromise on making this an invite-only activity.

Also +1. I've already had people ask how they can get their project on the radar.

I think the results should be made publicly available with the CNCF providing value to its members by only letting its end user community participate in making the ratings.

Some of the end users don't have legal/PR permission to publicly state what they use, hence CNCF can publish only aggregrated and anonymized results.

@travis-sobeck
Copy link

@travis-sobeck travis-sobeck commented Jun 15, 2020

I like the content, but PDFs are not a useful output medium for this kind of thing (imho).

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 16, 2020

@travis-sobeck you mean the graphic? What don't you like about it?

@travis-sobeck
Copy link

@travis-sobeck travis-sobeck commented Jun 16, 2020

@oicheryl The problem with a PDF is that it's not interactive. If I'm looking at a graphic with data points, I want to be able to click on the data points to see the source, think of a Grafana graph (or anything similar). Or at a minimum, a link to a specific line on a spreadsheet/webpage with the data. Which is the problem with a PDF, its just one monolithic thing. I want to send a link to someone else to a specific piece of info, not the whole monolithic thing.
Lastly, a pdf of a spreadsheet is again not interactive. Give people read access to the anonymized data, even if its just json/csv or google spreadsheet.

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 16, 2020

@travis-sobeck Got it, I'd absolutely love to make it more interactive. As the very first tech radar it's intentionally a bare bones MVP, but we can add all sorts of bells and whistles over time.

I really want to make this a useful resource for the wider community, so very happy to get the feedback and improve!

@travis-sobeck
Copy link

@travis-sobeck travis-sobeck commented Jun 16, 2020

@oicheryl Yeah, that's fair.

@povilasv
Copy link

@povilasv povilasv commented Jun 20, 2020

I would be interested to know what end users recommend for monitoring solutions :)

@gadinaor
Copy link

@gadinaor gadinaor commented Jun 22, 2020

@oicheryl very nice and useful initiative

Would be great to see this for:

  • Security
  • Monitoring
@KellyGriffin
Copy link

@KellyGriffin KellyGriffin commented Jun 22, 2020

Great insight and very useful.

Voting for future ideas:

  • Security
  • Monitoring / Visbility
@jcwinchell
Copy link

@jcwinchell jcwinchell commented Jun 24, 2020

Love the concept! Flux was buried in my long list of things to check out and this moved it up towards the top.
I'd like to see radars for:

  • security
  • service mesh
@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 24, 2020

@povilasv @gadinaor @KellyGriffin @jcwinchell I've noted your votes - please keep them coming!

@cpretzer
Copy link

@cpretzer cpretzer commented Jun 26, 2020

+1 for:

  • Service Mesh
  • Observability (Monitoring, Visibility, and the like)
@rmleme
Copy link

@rmleme rmleme commented Jun 27, 2020

Nice job Cheryl!

+1 for:

  • Serverless
@netinfo03
Copy link

@netinfo03 netinfo03 commented Jun 27, 2020

Great concept!

+1 for :

  1. Security ( Kubernetes, Containers, Reduce attack surface, Mitigate cyberjacking)
  2. Monitoring
  3. Virtualization
  4. Requirements management (Rally, VersionOne,WorkFront, JIra etc)
  5. Incident management
  6. Log management
@rsraszka
Copy link

@rsraszka rsraszka commented Jun 27, 2020

  1. Security
  2. Service Mesh
  3. Performance monitoring
  4. Log Management
@gunturaf
Copy link

@gunturaf gunturaf commented Jun 27, 2020

+1 for:

  1. Monitoring
  2. Security
  3. Service Mesh
  4. Log Management
@chira001
Copy link

@chira001 chira001 commented Jun 29, 2020

Hi @oicheryl - this is brilliant!

As discussed in the TOC call (and wanted to capture here), I think it would be very valuable to also have a radar that focused on technology types (as opposed to specific projects) e.g. different runtimes vs serverless or perhaps different types storage (e.g. object vs file vs block vs KV vs database), as that would provide an indicator for where SIGs need to focus on. (This would be similar to the Techniques quadrant in the example on slide 6 in your deck).

In terms of votes for the next focus areas:

  1. Storage
  2. Observability (including monitoring, logging, performance, instrumentation etc ...)
@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Cheers @chira001 and yes, the Radar format could absolutely be extended to techniques or technology types.

It's getting hard to track so let's do this a bit differently. I'll post one topic per comment, and then people can 👍 the ones they want to see. If you think of something that's not listed, you can add another comment.

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Incident management

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Log management

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Monitoring

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Performance monitoring

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Security

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Service Mesh

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Serverless

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Virtualization

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Requirements management

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 29, 2020

Storage

@epowell101
Copy link

@epowell101 epowell101 commented Jun 29, 2020

Regarding the storage one, Kiran Mova the community leader and chief architect of OpenEBS will be speaking objectively about currently storage landscape for specifically cloud or kubernetes native storage in an upcoming webinar: https://www.cncf.io/webinars/kubernetes-for-storage-an-overview/ This could be some raw material. Anyway +1 for storage and per Alex's point above that itself covers different use cases like DB on Kubernetes tend to be on block whereas back-ups tend to feed into object and so on.

@evectis
Copy link

@evectis evectis commented Jun 30, 2020

Chaos Engineering

@dijitali
Copy link

@dijitali dijitali commented Jun 30, 2020

The CNCF end users review the draft before it is released. Each radar will feature a different set of projects depending on the use case, so each technology will be assessed anew each time.

As you mentioned: a single radar is a point-in-time exercise but one of the the key benefits comes from seeing the trajectory of those blips over time to get an idea of a project's uptake and stability.

Just my 2 cents but I'd suggest it would be worth standardising on a number of radar topics and revisiting them regularly.

@rootsongjc
Copy link
Member

@rootsongjc rootsongjc commented Jun 30, 2020

Service Mesh +1

1 similar comment
@GladiusK
Copy link

@GladiusK GladiusK commented Jun 30, 2020

Service Mesh +1

@oicheryl
Copy link
Contributor Author

@oicheryl oicheryl commented Jun 30, 2020

Thanks @epowell101 for sharing, note that the data for this radar comes entirely from the CNCF End User Community. (See "About the methodology" on https://www.cncf.io/blog/2020/06/12/introducing-the-cncf-technology-radar/.) You could encourage OpenEBS end users to join https://www.cncf.io/people/end-user-community/ to make sure your project is represented.

Thanks @rootsongjc @GladiusK - please also 👍 this comment so I can track: #35 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
You can’t perform that action at this time.