Resolve "members" section on website

[scottrigby]

• Depends on Clarify WG roles and process for getting involved gitops-working-group/gitops-working-group#38

Problem

Currently the website shows "founding members" because it was the easiest to start, since those are known. It's not yet clarified what "membership" means in the GitOps Working Group and OpenGitOps project.

Steps to resolve

These can be worked on in parallel:

• initial resolution in Ensure website follows CNCF website guidelines #32
• resolve Clarify WG roles and process for getting involved gitops-working-group/gitops-working-group#38
  • please everyone participate in this, we will not shortcut the process by arguing here
• agree on the next design iteration for this
  • add an agenda item for our next WG meeting @murillodigital added
  • Agreed here Resolve "members" section on website #22 (comment)

Follow-up

• Outreach plan has been moved to Work to fill out current members section of website #56

[moshloop]

I think "Founding members" isn't really fair to latecomers or representative of the contribution.

I would suggest just Members, with a randomized scrolling list on the home page, and alphabetical on the members page

We should also have a section for end-users, in which case Advocates and Adopters might be a better wording.

[roberthstrand]

As someone who has been doing a lot within the working group, I feel that I would like to see that I could add Crayon to a list. I agree with Moshe that just having founding members is a bit unfair, but I don't want the members section to become a big mess.

Advocates and Adopters sounds fair, where Adopters could be very open while Advocates would have some restrictions like being part of meetings, having representatives part of committees, and such.

[todaywasawesome]

Let's come up with a good way to recognize "current" maintainers.

In the short term, let's get all of those logos added as members and try to grow that because we don't have to figure anything out to do that. So I would encourage opening PRs to add Crayon and others as members and we can get them on the site right away.

[roberthstrand]

Let's come up with a good way to recognize "current" maintainers.

In the short term, let's get all of those logos added as members and try to grow that because we don't have to figure anything out to do that. So I would encourage opening PRs to add Crayon and others as members and we can get them on the site right away.

I added (first failed, but anywhoo) Crayon in PR #26. Just added it in the members selection and nothing else, I figured that would result in just being part of the members list and not the frontpage.

[scottrigby]

@moshloop do you have any bandwidth to help gather logos and permission from orgs the members represent?

This was one of our blockers for adding ALL the company logos.

Secondly, we did agree as a group that there's value in highlighting well known companies who have a unique level of contribution to, and continue to lend wider credibility to this initiative. Exactly how this gets represented on the website is something we intend to iterate on - this was the web design discussion that received very little feedback BTW https://github.com/gitops-working-group/gitops-working-group/issues/159. .

To update this, I believe these can be worked on in parallel:

• resolve Clarify WG roles and process for getting involved gitops-working-group/gitops-working-group#38
  • please participate in this, we will not shortcut the process by arguing here
• gather logos and permission from orgs the members represent
  • this is something you can help make happen sooner if you are motivated!
• agree on the next design iteration for this
  • @murillodigital added an agenda item for our next WG meeting notes

* note that I'm keeping the current list of things done/to-do in the issue description above, just as a general best practice.

[moshloop]

There is no precedent in any CNCF project for recognizing vendors as maintainers. Contribution ladders are for individuals, not companies.

Regardless, The whole idea of a working group that has a ladder doesn't make sense - A working group is consensus-driven.

Vendors are always treated in a vendor-neutral way, even for projects with a single vendor (Linkerd, OPA) - by giving some vendors a significantly larger marketing stage, above the fold is anything but vendor-neutral.

I am all for highlighting the history, but it is secondary to a vendor-neutral platform, The glaring P1 bug that directly contravenes the Charter and CNCF principles need to be fixed now - it can't wait until a consensus-driven decision is made around a secondary concern that may never be reached.

@scottrigby If companies want to be on the website, then they should submit a PR

[roberthstrand]

There is no precedent in any CNCF project for recognizing vendors as maintainers. Contribution ladders are for individuals, not companies.

Regardless, The whole idea of a working group that has a ladder doesn't make sense - A working group is consensus-driven.

Vendors are always treated in a vendor-neutral way, even for projects with a single vendor (Linkerd, OPA) - by giving some vendors a significantly larger marketing stage, above the fold is anything but vendor-neutral.

I am all for highlighting the history, but it is secondary to a vendor-neutral platform, The glaring P1 bug that directly contravenes the Charter and CNCF principles need to be fixed now - it can't wait until a consensus-driven decision is made around a secondary concern that may never be reached.

@scottrigby If companies want to be on the website, then they should submit a PR

I agree with the sentiment, but this is also not the working group website, but the project website. Most projects have vendors on their homepage to show that it's supported by well known actors.

Maybe this would resolved by highlighting a certain number of the members on the home page selected at random from the greater list, but also have the current (and then some) companies highlighted as "backed up by" or whatever we call it. For that list, one would probably set some expectations for what entails. Many of the current companies that are on the home page today are not only participants in the working group but also create much content in regards to GitOps, create tools for it, enable it on their platforms, etc.

This would make it easier for people that use or follow the GitOps principles to add themselves to the list of members, while companies that invest time and effort into OpenGitOps get a little back for donating their time and people to the cause. At the same time, it would be vendor neutral because anyone could get to that status if they want to.

What do folks think?

[moshloop]

Most projects have vendors on their homepage to show that it's supported by well-known actors.

This is fine, but it is a flat alphabetical list, with no "featured" vendors - even for projects with a single vendor.

Many of the current companies that are on the home page today are not only participants in the working group but also create much content in regards to GitOps, create tools for it, enable it on their platforms, etc.

The same can be said for many companies not on that list, You can distinguish between end-users/adopters and advocates/vendors but you cannot create a hierarchy within those sets

[roberthstrand]

Many of the current companies that are on the home page today are not only participants in the working group but also create much content in regards to GitOps, create tools for it, enable it on their platforms, etc.

The same can be said for many companies not on that list, You can distinguish between end-users/adopters and advocates/vendors but you cannot create a hierarchy within those sets

I agree.

I for one think that it's great to showcase well known actors that are helping us create this project, by helping us run the working group through letting employees prioritise it. This list could easily be expanded, of course, but then I would prefer to have some prerequisites for that. Thinks like, having employees being part of committees, running public events on the topic, create content and buzz from official social media accounts. Things that makes promotes GitOps, that would actually make sense for an advocates list.

Having a list where everyone can add their company is a non-brainer, and perhaps this list will have some random names pulled to the home page. This means reviewing and approving PR's would basically just mean checking that the link they are adding aren't bogus, then approve it.

I think this is fair, both to people that use GitOps and are invested in it but also to the companies that spend time and money on this.

Maybe at a point we could have pages for each member, where one could add inn what they do and how they use GitOps? A lot can be done there as well.

[moshloop]

I for one think that it's great to showcase well-known actors that are helping us create this project,

This is almost impossible to do in a vendor-neutral way, who gets to set the criteria? Who evaluates the criteria initially and on an ongoing basis? Highlighting what each vendor is doing by linking to posts, resources, products, conferences are fine but this WG is not allowed by its own charter to say one vendor is contributing more than another.

vmware is listed last, on goharbor.io despite the fact they contribute(d) more than all the other partners combined.