The Changelog: Software Development, Open Source - The Cloud Native Computing Foundation (Interview)

Episode Date: November 29, 2017

Dan Kohn, Executive Director of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation, joined the show to talk about what it means to be Cloud Native, the ins and outs of Dan's role to the foundation, how they make money to sustain things, membership, the support they give to open source projects, the home they've given to Kubernetes, Prometheus and many other projects that have become the de facto projects to build cloud native applications on.

Bandwidth for Changelog is provided by Fastly. Learn more at Fastly.com. And we're hosted on Linode servers. Head to Linode.com slash Changelog. This episode is brought to you by CircleCI. CircleCI is how leading engineering teams deliver value faster by automating the software development process using continuous integration and continuous delivery.

You are free to focus on what matters most, which is building value for your customers. CircleCI allows you to build faster, test more, and fail less. Get started with their free plan, which gives you unlimited projects and 1,500 bills per month, which is plenty to get started with. Head to circleci.com slash changelogpodcast. And by Linode. Linode is our cloud server of choice, and everything we do here at ChangeLog is hosted on Linode servers. Pick a plan, pick a distro, and pick a location, and in seconds, deploy your virtual server,

draw worthy hardware, SSD cloud storage, 40 gigabit network, Intel E5 processors, simple, easy control panel, 99.9% uptime guaranteed, 24-7 customer support, 9 data centers, 3 regions, anywhere in the world they've got you covered. Head to leno.com slash changelog and get $20 in hosting credit. Thank you. executive director of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation, which is part of the Linux Foundation. We talked about what it means to be cloud native, the ins and outs of Dan's role, how they make money to sustain things, membership, the support they give to open source projects, the home they've given to Kubernetes, Prometheus,

and many other projects that have become the de facto projects to build cloud native applications on. And by the way, I'll be at the upcoming KubeCon and CloudNativeCon. So if you're going to be there, look out for a changelog T and say hi. So then we have you here and Jared and I, we've been wondering this ourselves. We've heard it quite a bit. I'm sure that many of our listeners have heard this term cloud native. And I kind of think I know what it means.

It seems like it encompasses lots of stuff and sort of says, this is what we're talking about. Can you kind of break down what you think cloud native means? Oh, certainly. So the Cloud Native Computing Foundation, we think of it as having three parts. The first is that you break up your application into different pieces, which we call microservices. The second is that you containerize each of those different parts of your application, put them each in their own container. And then the third is that you use an orchestration platform like Kubernetes

in order to keep all those containers working together. So it's those three parts, microservice, container, orchestration. Those three things is what makes up cloud native. That's how we think of it. But we do see it as a journey where very few companies are actually fully 100% cloud native, or it's a destination and there's many different ways of getting there, many different combinations of software. And how long have you been involved with the Linux Foundation? Has it just been since you've been the executive director of CNCF, or do you have some history?

I do. This is actually my second go-around. And I was the chief operating officer a decade ago when the Linux Foundation was just this tiny little organization. In fact, I helped merge together the two predecessor organizations with Jim Zemlin, a free standards group in the open source development labs. And back then, the entire budget for the Linux Foundation was smaller than CNCF's today. And we definitely had a just open source was less clear. You know, Sun was the big competition with Solaris, and Windows was still completely dominant on the OS side. You didn't have billions of Linux and devices out there with Android. And so I was there for several years, four or five years, and then left and was CTO of a couple startups here in New York. And when I left my last one, I kept in touch with the Linux Foundation along the way and looked at this opportunity to come back and take over as executive director of CNCF.

So what was the, considering that history, what was the early days of forming this like? What was the motive? What was some of the early pain points to make this something the Linux Foundation wanted to do? Linux Foundation, people miss the fact that it's doing way more than just Linux today. It's really a foundation of foundations. And you've probably heard of a few of the other groups, things like Node.js is in the Linux Foundation. And then another one that's just insanely exciting is Let's Encrypt, which just this week

showed that they're now providing certificates for more than 35% of the web. And they offer free HTTPS certificates. Definitely one of my favorite things that have happened over the last few years is Let's Encrypt. I think it's one of the best things that's happened to the web recently.

Yeah. Oh, I totally agree. And once you look at it, it just makes so much sense to have this as a free shared resource. But I will point out that although the Linux Foundation provides the administration for it

and the healthcare plan and provides the audited financials and everything, the funding is actually contributed by big companies like Microsoft and Google and others and lots of individual donors. And so if you support having a secure web, please consider contributing to Let's Encrypt. It's just an absolutely fantastic organization.

I think part of our conversation we want to have with you is one, background on the Cloud Native Computing Foundation, the role of the Linux Foundation and how you said it's a foundation of foundations. It's not just Linux anymore. Node, Let's Encrypt, and others, as you mentioned. I think the other side is like, you know, what is the role of a foundation? You know, like I think a lot of open source, as it becomes to be more popularized or a project goes and gets really exciting like Prometheus or

Kubernetes, those kinds of projects, they really need some sort of like larger support. So can you help us kind of start to break down what it is, what the role of a foundation is to not only the technologies, but the communities and the code and all the things that are involved in running a successful, large mainstream or even maybe a mid-sized mainstream project? Really, you know, one of the biggest changes in the roles of open source software foundations is the emergence and ubiquity of GitHub. Because it used to be the case 20 years ago that for a foundation to be able to provide source code hosting and a website and a mailing list was just immensely valuable.

And so sort of any project needed that or wanted that in order to be real and just be able to function. But today, everybody gets those things for free from GitHub and other similar services, GitLab, et cetera. And so now for an open source foundation actually has to provide some additional value on top of that in order for it to make sense. So going back to that history, the Cloud Native Computing Foundation really began with Google having created this internal software, Kubernetes, which they developed based on the 15 years of experience they had running containers on their system called Borg. So Kubernetes was built on that, factored in a lot of that learning. And then they were successful in getting companies like IBM and

Red Hat and Huawei and others to engage with them and start contributing to it and becoming maintainers on it. And they said, okay, for this software to really reach its potential, we think contributing it to an open source software foundation would help make it more successful, that it would be a way of ensuring neutrality. That's an interesting point, is the neutral point, Jerry. We didn't quite consider it. Maybe we did, maybe we didn't.

But being neutral, having no sides. Definitely. And what I think is interesting about it is if you go back in time to early 2015, Kubernetes was already incredibly cool technology and did a lot of very useful stuff. Obviously, it was new. But at that moment, Google kind of had four choices in front of them. They could have kept it Clue Source Proprietary, which is kind of like Amazon's Elastic Container

Service, and said, okay, you have to be a Google Cloud customer in order to use it. Number two, they could have open sourced it, but maintained the Google control. And, you know, that's what they've done with Golang. And both Kubernetes and Docker and a lot of other software is written in Go. People think it's fantastic language. They trust Rob Pike's architecture and, you know, judgment on how he maintains it. And so the fact that it's as a project is controlled by Google, I don't think has really diminished

its adoption all that much. And then the third sort of more open option is they could have come to the Linux Foundation and said, well, we'd like to create a Kubernetes Foundation and have a new home for this. And with Red Hat and these other companies on board,

the Linux Foundation likely would have said, yes, sure and these other companies on board, the Linux Foundation likely would have said, yes, sure, we can create a home for the Kubernetes Foundation. But interestingly, Google decided that they'd like to go the most open route, which is to have an open source foundation that certainly could be a good home for Kubernetes. And the idea was always that Kubernetes would be the anchor tenant of CNCF. But it was explicitly named the Cloud Native Computing Foundation to be able to offer a lot of additional software and really support a whole ecosystem of software. And then also to make it easier to bring potential competitors or, you know, if you don't mind that word, coopetition, but companies like Mesosphere that was promoting Mesos and Docker that was promoting Docker Swarm and ideally some of the public

clouds in as well. So that's interesting. Why do you think Google went that route, especially if you were involved in those initial conversations? And then, like you said, with Go, it hasn't really held it back necessarily. But with something like Kubernetes, do you think that the route they took with Go, which is to keep it open source but internally directed, would that have held back Kubernetes in retrospect? What are your thoughts on that?

Yeah, and I wasn't there then. And this is actually somewhat of a stylized history because in reality, when they created Kubernetes, they were planning on having it be open source from the get-go. I don't think they decided exactly what they were going to do with it, but they never, I don't believe, seriously considered a closed source Kubernetes like an Amazon ECS. But I think the reason is they said, look, this is infrastructure software and a platform. And there's this metaphor that I think is gaining currency now, which is that in a lot of ways, Kubernetes is the Linux of the cloud. And kind of like Linux, it just would never be able to be remotely as successful if it were all controlled by one company, even if that company were seen as very positive and generally open and supportive and such. And so they made this

decision. But to be blunt, the first, oh, I'll say year or so of CNCF was kind of tough going, where we have this relatively complicated structure of how we're set up. And it was created for very good reasons where the fear was that they didn't want to create an organization where the people providing the most money would get to determine the technology decisions. They wanted to have some independence around the technology and the architecture. And so these original founding companies, when they wrote the charter, they created this separate group called the Technical Oversight Committee, or TOC. And that's a group of nine top technical architects, folks like Brian Cantrell of Joyent and Brian Grant of Google and Solomon Hikes of Docker, who have to jointly, and it actually requires

a two-thirds majority, agree in order for any new project to come in. That's interesting because I want to talk about that architecture a little bit because from the outside, looking at it, even if you go to cncf.io and you look at the platinum members and you see AWS and CoreOS and Google and Docker and all these large corporations. And then you see some of the membership fees that they're paying, which for the Platinum is like $370,000 a year. And there's this aura of this is a pay-to-play

type of a situation. And it's so interesting that the architecture, the structure y'all put in place is specifically to fight against that happening. Is that what you're saying? Oh, it definitely is. And my favorite counterexample on it is OpenTracing, which was the third project in CNCF

and was created largely by a guy named Ben Siegelman who has a startup called LightStep. And so he proposed OpenTracing to CNCF over a year ago now, like 14 months or something. And it went through the whole process and got accepted to this TOC and has been maturing and growing since then. And through that whole period, LightStep never had gotten around to becoming a member of CNCF. And so I think it's really a great example of how we've separated the technology decisions of what projects make sense in the cloud native landscape that we want to host and promote and the membership decisions, which is what provides the funding and some of the marketing behind what we do. Right. So go back to that first year then and describe the difficulties you had because of the structuring of this technical oversight. Well, all I'd say is that when you create a complicated structure, it definitely takes time to work out the kinks. And so when I arrived 18

months ago, we had just gotten Kubernetes in. We were almost ready to bring in our second project, Prometheus. But we just had a lot of kind of concern of, oh, well, is this project not supporting Kubernetes enough? Is it such a big tent that it sort of doesn't mean anything? There was just a lot of, uh, anxiety about exactly what our mission was, the strategy, what kind of projects should be coming in.

And I, you know, and you, it would be the sort of heroic narrative to go back and say, oh, and I, I came in and I just magically put together this strategy, strategy document and everyone agreed.

But as with most things, there's just a ton of chatting with people and just kind of talking things through. And there were definitely a few course corrections along the way. But what was real great is over time, we were able to bring in more projects. And then, I mean, I think there's a really interesting story with Prometheus, for example, where after they had been in for a year, we were just able to show that they had, that it helped build so much momentum behind them. And now, I mean, I'll point out that Prometheus

already had a great following even before it came into CNCF. And in particular, it's not tied to Kubernetes. It works great with Docker Swarm and Mesos and Nomad and virtual machines and all kinds of other infrastructure. But it's a particularly good fit with Kubernetes. People who use Kubernetes find Prometheus adds a ton of value. And so we were able to sort of demonstrate that there's a lot of value by connecting these projects together and helping to market and promote them together. So Dan, what is it that excited you back when you got involved with this and brought you back

to the Linux Foundation and kind of gets you out of bed in the morning, especially now that the structure is put in place? What is it about your work at CNCF running the operation? And maybe you can even describe, you know, what exactly your role is. I don't think we've quite laid that out. But like, what drives you to do this personally? Sure. So, you know, my last two startups that I was in over the previous five years, one was a shoppable ads company and another one was a health care startup focused around higher quality MRIs. And both of them were incredibly stimulating in their own ways. And it was also a ton of fun for me to get re-immersed in programming and actually become a pretty decent Node.js developer. Although, you know, the JavaScript world moves so fast that I feel like three years

later, all of my skills there are now obsolete. And then with the second startup to go into Ruby and Rails as well. But there's also a sense which the startup job or even the CTO role is very narrow. I mean, just a huge amount of my day was focused on GitHub code reviews and Kanban boards and even coding myself. And so I feel like that background, though, was incredibly helpful because it did and does give me just an enormous amount of respect for developers. all of the developers at end user companies that are building their applications on top of this cloud native ecosystem and relying on this infrastructure software in order to make their job easier. And so, I mean, I'd say the part that's just a huge amount of fun for me and really is incredibly, on an ongoing basis, just very stimulating and rewarding and exciting, is getting to work with all of those developers.

And ideally, when things are going well, helping to make their lives easier, helping to, you know, move these projects forward. I mean, there's just an unbelievable level of excitement around the technologies that we're hosting right now. And so getting to be a part of that and hopefully in a small way, helping to make these projects succeed is very rewarding. When I think about a position of executive director of a foundation, I think about a lot of meetings, a lot of conversations, a lot of relationship building events. I don't think of any of the stuff that you used to do with regard to the coding, the Kanban boards,

all the stuff that was very technical. And eventually you can grow tired of over time. But I can't help but laugh a little bit. We were talking before we started recording that you have the number one story on Hacker News this morning or this afternoon. Not that you didn't write it, but you posted it about replacing the x86 firmware with Linux and Go. So you still

nerd out. You're still interested in technical things. Yeah, but it's a pretty great job when I can actually say, hey, I can justify spending 20 minutes a day or half an hour a day on Hacker News and just keeping up on this stuff is sort of an expected part of what I do um but i i mean i don't think if i were i think if i were were less geeky that that i'd be far less effective at the job so comparing your i guess previous path which was entrepreneurship cto um you know what is what is different about what you do now in comparison to, say, building a business or the role of an entrepreneur

and kind of break down some of the things you might do day-to-day to kind of demystify what an executive director is? So the biggest difference by far is that in this job, I get no stock options. The Linux Foundation is a not-for-profit, and so you don't get the kind of lottery ticket or potential upside that you have in a startup. But other than that, I think the job communication, about providing a set of services and tools to our projects and to our members. And so a ton of it is just chatting with folks. So I'll make a little plug for a SaaS service I use called Calendly. And I just spend a ton of time sending out my little Calendly link and saying, hey, if you'd like to chat about this,

please book a time with me and people can book 15 or 30 or 60 minutes. And I just spend a lot of time hearing about our members who have a new project that they might like to promote or some event coming up or some issue or some concern or why they're unhappy with this other company or this other project. And to the degree possible, there's just a ton of kind of herding cats or looking for themes or looking for opportunities to connect people together. And then I do go to a lot of events around the world and I speak at a good number of those.

But I also just find it immensely useful to just sit in the hallway. And, you know, sort of happily now after 18 months, I've met enough people that folks will generally come up to me and say, oh, you know, I saw your post on Hacker News or I saw your talk earlier or something. I have this idea or I'm concerned about this issue. And again, I just feel like there's the, in the big company, there's a term for it, which is management by walking around. And it tends to be a key role for kind of a mid-level person. And I feel like I'm trying to do the same sort of thing, but maybe it's by flying around. But I do want to emphasize that I'm not literally in charge of these projects.

I mean, one of the semi-unusual things about CNCF is we have what we informally call a bring-your-own-governance process, where we do require that any projects, when they come in, that they have a neutrality, that they can't all be biased towards one company or exclude their competitors or other sorts of things. But we don't say, oh, you must use this exact governance process. We're very open to different projects trying different things. And then we ask them to eventually to document that and to make sure that they're living up to it. And so our philosophy on that front is much more about how do we provide services to the projects and help them succeed than to ever say, oh, you need to be doing X or

not doing Y. this episode is brought to you by gitLab and their Global Developer Survey for 2018. They're doing the survey to inform the larger population of developers all across the world about the needs of modern developers, their current satisfaction with management, tooling, workflows, trends at work, and more, perception discrepancies between developers and management, and most importantly, what high-functioning development organizations are doing differently. Their 2016 survey uncovered that developers have a lot more say in choosing the tools they use and often they were using tools their managers weren't even aware of. And this survey we're asking you to take was vetted by

10 internal GitLab engineers to ensure it's high quality and highly relevant to developers. Topics in the survey include developer satisfaction, open source technology, workflow and collaboration, CI, CD practices, and developer tooling and their preferences. If you have insights to share, we'd love for you to inform the global developer community and please consider taking the survey. The entire survey includes around 25 required questions

and a handful of completely optional questions for you to share a short answer with more details. The survey takes around 15 minutes on average to complete, and you can find it at about.gitlab.com slash developer dash survey. Once again, about.gitlab.com slash developer dash survey, or check the show notes for a link. So Dan, you mentioned with the rise of GitHub as a shared platform that a lot of the services and the offerings that foundations used to offer aren't necessarily needed anymore, but there's still a lot that people need. And

there's a lot of reasons why projects want to be part of the CNCF. So can you lay out the benefits and the services provided by the foundation? Absolutely. And I'd say by far the first one is the most important, and that's just that a neutral home increases contributions. And so there's tons of absolutely fantastic projects out there that are on GitHub but obviously controlled by one company. But when big companies want to make a bet as to what platform to invest in and to build on top of. And for infrastructure software like Kubernetes and cloud native, it's often a decade long bet. They would love to know that there's multiple companies backing it and backing it in a big way. And that if one company gets acquired or changes direction or anything else, that that software is not going to atrophy. And so then

other kinds of advantages are the fact that coming into CNCF implies an endorsement by our technical oversight committee. We have these end user and service provider communities that we provide engagement with. So you have a sort of very thoughtful, knowledgeable group of end users and consultants who could give you some insight or complain about things that are happening. We have full-time press and analyst relations teams. And then, you know, definitely an advantage is just the fact that we do have some cash available that we're very interested in investing in these projects. And so we're doing some things like a security audit of Envoy or investing in documentation around Rocket or just even small things like they don't like their logo or just sort of keeping all of that material and things like running a robot that maintains a contributor license agreement. So, you know, overall, I just say that we have a full-time staff that is eager to assist these projects.

And so the maintainers tend to be extremely busy people. It's not the case that they're just emailing us 20 times a day asking for random things. But we do sort of have a set of services that we provide, and it's not in any way complete. I mean, comprehensive if there's other things that projects want help with. So some of our projects have just asked for advice on things like governance or legal issues or trademark or others that we're there to help them out. of foundation is in place for projects like this is to essentially run the business part of the project and to allow you know the toc or maintainers or the onboarders or any any new contributors in the community to to thrive in the tech part of it but to sort of give or hand over a lot of the you know the day-to-day business operations and stuff, like logos and, you

know, marketing and branding. Right. The distinction is a little subtler than that, because when you look at something like Kubernetes, there's over 50 different companies that are building software products on top of Kubernetes, offering commercial Kubernetes distributions. And so they're definitely not interested in us, quote, handling the business or running that for them or competing with them in any way. But there's just some neutrality, some administrative tasks that all of them have agreed, yes, it

would be nice if there were a neutral nonprofit foundation that could handle this stuff for us, as opposed to the kind of straight commercial support or marketing or such that each of these businesses do. Yeah, I think administration, yeah, it makes a lot of sense as opposed to the business side, but the operations and the administration. A lot of just the infrastructural support. One thing you mentioned is that there's cash available for certain things, such as paying for a security audit, logos, maybe swag, maybe there's travel in there. I don't know. But have you guys considered, and is there anybody who's ever used cash from a project to directly pay for labor? We do have a philosophy that we're generally trying to avoid hiring developers.

And the reason for that is that all of our members tend to be the ones employing developers to improve these projects. And we'd like to not be in competition with our members over the hiring. I guess we sort of recently made an exception to that where we hired on this guy, Zach Corlison, who is helping to manage the documentation work for Kubernetes. And there's a ton of great documentation efforts that have been contributed, particularly by Google, who supplied the two kind of leaders of the special interest group. And we now have contributions from other companies. Huawei, Dell, Red Hat, and IBM have all stepped in and offered one full-time documentation person because it's just seen as one of the kind of deficits right now in Kubernetes or areas that need investment.

But we made the judgment that bringing Zach on to help coordinate all of those efforts was going to be pretty valuable. It makes a lot of sense. And the projects that pass, I don't know what you call it, the certification, or maybe we can talk about next how a project becomes supported. I know you, at the very beginning, laid out what makes a cloud-native application, microservices, containerization, and orchestration. But maybe you can lay out what a particular project goes through in order to become on the list of supported projects to give people an idea of what is a good fit

and what is not. Sure. So we have this technical oversight committee and they have two public calls every week and every month. And I definitely encourage your listeners to participate in the calls. I'll give you the URL for it. And it's just two hours out of the month. That's a good way of kind of hearing what's happening in our community and opportunities for getting involved. And on each of those calls, we tend to have one or two new projects that comes along and would like to give like a

12 or 15 minute presentation on what they're doing, how they fit into the cloud native landscape, you know, what they compete with, what they are alternatives to, and then they get a few minutes of questions. And then if there's interest from our technical oversight committee, we'll do a formal application process where we put together a bunch of documentation about the project, the libraries it depends on, its backing, its responsiveness, and such. And then we have a group of what we call TOC contributors who assist with that due diligence. And in a lot of cases, they're from companies that have worked with these projects before or can say, oh, we've had a great experience with it. We definitely endorse that,

or we've had real issues, or we don't think it's mature enough yet. And then eventually, if it gets that far, it'll go up for a vote, and it requires six votes from the TOC in order for a project to come in. Are there any projects that are single maintainer or even a couple of maintainer that are, is your language, I know member or hosted projects that are hosted projects or are foundations generally more of a fit for projects with larger teams, multiple companies investing into them?

I think my answer is that some of our projects started as single projects, single maintainer projects. So that in particular, open tracing that I mentioned earlier, I believe at the very beginning, it was only Ben Siegelman. I think by the time it came in to CNCF, there were already other maintainers on board. The expectation is we really wouldn't want to have a single maintainer project for very long. I mean, if it was sort of someone who came in and they said, hey, I think this is immensely valuable. I've had trouble finding other maintainers who are active enough and knowledgeable enough. Maybe that's something we could help them with,

but we definitely wouldn't see that. One of the factors for projects is you talk about a bus factor of what happens if someone gets hit by a bus. And so that's something we would like to look at on projects that we host. I think that's something that people come to this conversation thinking. They're like, if I'm in this cloud-native world, how do I determine whether or not there are benefits to joining this kind of foundation? And then I think to myself, if I'm that kind of project, what are they giving up? So we can kind of break down the services, quote unquote services you offer and the gains. By joining a foundation, what do people lose out on? What's taken away? Oh, I mean, I think it's a great question. And it's definitely a conversation I have all the time with different companies in the space. And the good news is they're not giving up all that

much. I mean, in the big scheme of things, it's certainly not the case of, oh, I've contributed my project to CNCF. Now I don't need to worry about it anymore. You have exactly the same issue queue and pull requests open and everything else the next day. And so, as we said, we're not hiring the developers. We're not managing your project for you. And so for every project that comes to CNCFR, we have every expectation that all of the existing maintainers, companies backing, et cetera, will continue to do so. I mean, because a big part of what a foundation does is provide legal government or sort of legal guidance right so in some ways i'm sure someone's signing off on some sort of

like uh power of attorney you know like that kind of thing like you have a foundation operating on your behalf or something like that so you've given some sort of legal right to an entity to to care for you yeah i mean in principle that might be but in reality, a lot of our projects, so for example, in September, we had Envoy, which is a really exciting service mesh contributed by Lyft, and then coincidentally, Jaeger, which is a distributed tracing implementation contributed by Uber. But in both of those cases, you know, there's very established companies behind it who have lawyers who can manage all of those processes. And so it's not that our attorneys are really going to tell the developers something meaningfully different.

I would also say a lot of the heavy lifting on that front comes from the fact that we require all of our projects to use the Apache license. And in fact, yeah, the vast majority of projects in this space are already using the Apache license. And so when a project comes into CNCF, we do require that they transfer the trademark to CNCF, which is essentially what to allow us to ensure that people are using it correctly and that neutrality. But there's no need to transfer the copyright or any patents or anything like that because the Apache license already covers both copyright and patents. So it's really kind of like joining a club. There's definitely an aspect of that. And so, but back to your question on downsides,

you know, the biggest one is, might be on some forms of integrated marketing, where we think of ourselves as a very commercially friendly foundation. We're perfectly happy for, in fact, we would prefer for our project websites to have an enterprise page or commercial support or such that lists all of the companies that provide that commercial support. But as an example, there's a company, Treasure Data, that is the main force behind the logging software, FluentD. But it's important. So it's fine for them to list themselves and say, hey, if you want commercial support on FluentD, we're happy to provide that. But it's important that if anyone else wants to provide commercial support, they also need to be able to get a listing on the same page and be treated exactly the same way.

And there's some things like, you know, if there's a slack for the project, it's not okay to do commercial postings on that slack. And so we are, there's a tiny bit that companies give up or in terms of their ability maybe to do some integrated marketing. But I would suggest it's really pretty much on the margins. And the tradeoff for that is, like you said, it's a club and there's a ton of marketing that goes with being a CNCF project. And I think at least right now, a kind of halo effect or it's been described as a Peloton effect of kind of being in a slipstream with

Kubernetes. And, you know, not that, oh, my project's been accepted by CNCF, so all Kubernetes users are going to adopt it, but just, oh, my project's in CNCF, so Kubernetes users are probably going to be willing to take a look at it and carefully evaluate it. Is participation as a project in this foundation in particular, is it seen as an endorsement? So adding a project or bringing on a project to the foundation, is that seen as an endorsement across the board that this is a good thing? Is that exactly what happens? I would say yes to that. We definitely don't want to have any project

hosted by CMCF that we don't actively endorse. Because a lot of times with endorsement, when you endorse something, you're stamping it. With names like the Linux Foundation and Kubernetes and Google and all the other members that are a part of it,

like all the weight of those brands come with that endorsement? Well, I won't strictly say that I speak for Google, but certainly for the Linux Foundation and CNCF, there's an endorsement there. Well, they're involvement, right? They continue to be members. Okay. Yeah, but I mean, just as an example,

GKE, the Google Kubernetes engine, doesn't implement every CNCF project. So the stronger endorsement would be, do they actually implement it? Use it, yeah. Yeah. True. The other side of it is that we definitely don't have the philosophy that because a project has come into CNCF that we won't consider any other project in that space. And in fact, we've already proven that where Linkerd came in earlier this year

as a service mesh technology. And then later in the year, we brought in Envoy. And essentially, those two projects are competitors. I mean, in principle, you could use them both. But in reality, almost everyone is going to pick one or the other. And so that is a key thought, which is that we have this thing we call the cloud native landscape. And you can include a link to it. It's a little bit of an overwhelming document with 300 or more logos of all these open source projects and closed source products.

And you can see that CNCF has one project in most of the boxes so far. But we definitely don't have the philosophy that there can only be one project in a box. Just because we've hosted one, we're still totally open to other projects coming along. And if they have something else to offer. What does growth look like for the foundation in terms of its hosted projects right now? On your projects page, there's 14. You've named most of them in this call.

But two, three, four, five years from now, is the goal to still have maybe two dozen? Or are you trying to get to that 300? What does it look like if things go well? Yeah, I would hope we wouldn't stay at 14, and I definitely hope we don't get to 300. Right now, I think our pace has been about one new project per month that has been coming on. There's definitely no sort of mandate to do that or demand or anything else. And I guess I, you know, Andrew Morton,

the top kernel developer about seven or eight years ago, made a prediction that the Linux kernel was almost done. And I certainly won't make that prediction. I mean, I think there's always going to be new projects coming along, new ideas. I sort of expect a lot of the innovation to start moving up the stack as Kubernetes becomes more and more established. But just because, say, a company has rolled out Kubernetes internally and has had a great experience with it, doesn't by any means mean that there's agreement yet on things like application definition or the best way to deploy new applications.

And so I still think there's just a ton of innovation in the space going on and that it is incredibly fast moving. And then, you know, the other side of thing is that the TOC, we hasn't done it to date, but I believe there's a very strong willingness to kick projects out or to, we might call it something like move them to an attic or something if they are no longer being actively developed or if technology has moved along to the degree that we are no longer being actively developed or if technology has moved along to the degree that we can no longer actively endorse them. And so our hope is, again, to be building an open source ecosystem or landscape that

where choosing any of the projects in CNCF represents a smart choice. You know, Jared, it kind of reminds me of some of his backstory, which we haven't shared yet, which is his involvement in the Core Infrastructure Initiative. And the whole reason that was done was to, you know, to kind of battle back HeartBlade. And it seems like what you're sharing here, Dan, is that, you know, you're in place to essentially provide a foundation, for lack of better terms, for a landscape of open source projects that support an ecosystem. That seems like it should be on the nose, but it's taken a little while for me to get that revealed through this conversation.

Yeah, I think that is a nice way of looking at it. And I'm extremely proud of the role that I played about three years ago in combating Heartbleed, where I, um, I actually was, was at one of my startups at the time and had, uh, you know, was still in touch with the Linux foundation, Jim and everything. And my experience was just, I had to stay late at work that night and rotate our certificates. And I had a super easy setup with, um, very modern and was on Heroku. And it know took me 45 minutes to just look up the documentation and make sure I was doing it correctly and everything but I still came home

late that night and my wife was a little annoyed with me and it just hit me that there were literally hundreds of thousands of people around the world who were dealing with exactly the same issue but essentially all of them had a much worse experience than I did. You know, things locked in firmware or trying to deal with monthly or quarterly releases or where you don't even have the source code or all sorts of other just nightmare situations. And so working with Jim,

I put together that plan to bring, and we were able to bring in 20 companies in in under three weeks to each contribute 100k. So it wound up being $6 million over three years. And that really helped improve OpenSSL. And then we were able to put together a census looking at some other projects that needed help, things like NTPDD. And then another part that I'm very proud of or pleased with is the Best Practices Badge, which is a project that I worked on very closely with David Weor. And I can't remember, was he on an earlier version of this podcast? That's right. I was looking it up as you talked there because you're firing off all sorts of memories for me.

I was like, wait a second. Yeah, so episode 215 of the Change Log back in August of 2016, we had David on, talking all about the best practices badge and the core infrastructure initiative. So for people that want to deep dive that particular tale, David covered it very well. And so I assume you and him know each other quite well. Yes, that was probably my biggest success being involved in CII was to find David and recruit him in. And he and I were really the co-developers on that project. I mean, he did really the lead on all of the what the 66 criteria should be and everything.

But at the time, he actually hadn't done any Rails development before, and I was working for a Rails development company. And so I put together the original scaffolding for it and the CI system and then helped along the way on the software development. And again, it's just an extremely satisfying process to have started that from scratch and then have well over a thousand badged projects. And in fact, not so coincidentally, one of the criteria in order for a project to graduate within CNCF is they do need to get the best practices badge. Coming back to what Jared said earlier, which was around growth. So you mentioned, you know, at a dozen or so projects now,

you know, a few years from now, what's the goal? What's growth like? Essentially, you're aiming growth with the CloudNita Foundation. And I'm curious how you balance that growth, one, with acquiring new members to facilitate funding, and then two, acquiring new projects to make sure that you have enough staff and enough finances to cover things. And then on the tail end of that, how open are the books of a foundation like this? Yeah, it's a great question. And thankfully,

we haven't needed to make a lot of trade-offs so far. We've been able to be really successful both in bringing in new projects and being able to provide them more and more services and correspondingly bringing in a ton of members. And so at least right now, we're really in a positive feedback loop. And that is our whole philosophy of how open source ecosystems like ours can grow, that you have these projects, companies can use them to produce useful products. Those products can throw off profits that can be reinvested back into the projects again. On the member front, we've really had a ton of success in 2017 measure, and most of the big enterprise software companies and others that all consider these technologies to really be integral to their future. We're particularly pleased over the last few months that we were able to bring in Amazon,

Oracle, Microsoft, Pivotal, VMware, and SAP as platinum members. And then on the books, we're a nonprofit foundation, so we have audited financials and we work with the Linux Foundation's finance team to keep pretty clean books. Those are all shared with the governing board. And then this February, we're going to be publishing a summary for the first time. So it won't be the very detailed what we put every single expense into, but just how much we're spending on developer tools and what we're spending for events and third-party events that we go to and our documentation and other kinds of things. But that is also probably a good segue to the question of our own events, which has been definitely a big focus for CNCF.

And we're now just, I think, 13 days away from the biggest event we'll ever run, which is KubeCon CloudNativeCon. That's going to be in Austin December 6th through 8th and is not sold out yet, but is heading very fast towards selling out at 4,000 attendees, which really is completely insane

because we had just 1,000 people a year ago in Seattle. That's huge. So it really, yeah, 4X is a little crazy, but it just speaks to the level of excitement and the increasing adoption in this space. Which places so much more weight on the question I just asked around this growth pattern and balancing it. And just to maybe clarify some things here for those listening, like Jared and I come into this call thinking, what's a foundation? What do they do? And then on the flip side, you've got this whole entire potentially a sales process to say, not so much

target, but to have a strategy with whom out there should be members to be involved in what they should be involved in. This whole effort that would go into creating a strategy and determining who and getting them on board and then all that's involved in acquiring new members to fund this foundation. That's a whole different side of things I didn't quite consider. Obviously, it's there because you got to have the money. very careful planning it must take to do it with balance, but then do it neutrally, as it seems like the threading of you is around being neutral. And that gives you a little bit of insight into probably why my job is hard. I will point out

some of the huge assets that I have and CNCF has. First of all, we're part of the Linux Foundation. And so we get to rely on the Linux Foundation events team, which has been doing these kinds of open source events for more than a decade now. And I actually helped hire Angela Brown, who runs our events team a decade ago in my first go-around, and her team is now, I don't know, over 30 people. But what's great about the fact that she does 50 events around the world every year and has been doing these events is that through most of the year, we just kind of have two or three people who are focused on CNCF. But then as we approach Austin right now,

and then we'll be in Copenhagen May 2nd to 4th of 2018, that team can surge up and we're going to have, I believe, that all of these companies that are backing CNCF are really interested in these events being successful, that it's just a great opportunity for them to interact with end users and developers and get the word out about their products. And so it's really pretty amazing to see the growth in sponsorship. We're actually going to have 106 different sponsors for Austin compared to, I think it was 25 a year ago. And so again, trying to build out a 4,000 person event from scratch would be almost impossible. But we also do get the

advantage that we're iterating here. And so we do one of these every six months, one in North America and one in Europe, and we just try and keep having them get better. And then just the last piece of it is that what really makes it feasible for me to deal with this is that I don't actually decide on the content for it. I hire or, or, or bring on two co-chairs for, for, for our event. And then they bring on a group of volunteers to, to run a program committee.

And we have a process where lots and lots of people submit. So in this case, this year, I believe it was over 800 submissions for 127 selected talks. So it was a 17% acceptance rate. But they're then able to shape a program, including the keynotes, that is thematic and covers a wide range, but has some neutrality that it's not, for example, the Platinum members or the ones who are funding the most who necessarily get to talk. This episode is brought to you by our friends at TopTal, the best place to work as a freelancer or hire the top 3% of freelance talent for developers, designers, and finance experts. In this segment,

I talk with Jeff Mazur. My name is Jeff Mazur, and I'm a TopTal finance expert. And Jeff has a pretty awesome background for a freelancer. I have a background both in finance and law, and I actually have a CFA and a JD. I've worked both in finance and as a practicing lawyer for major law firms in New York, Washington and Chicago. So I asked Jeff to share what differentiates TopTal as a global talent network and the process he had to go through to ensure he could be trusted as a finance expert for TopTal. The differentiator I see between TopTal and some of the organizations that are comparable or try to offer a similar type of service is that the people who are part of TopTel have really gone through pretty extensive screens. So in my case, for example, I probably spent 20 hours of preparation and conversation and interviewing to make sure that I was the right fit for TopTel. So what I offer and what other

TopTel finance experts offer is we offer just really deep expertise in the areas that we talk about. So for example, if you look at ICOs, if you just did a Google search or you went into another platform and you look for ICO experts, ICO coordinators, ICO finance experts, you'd come across thousands of people. I mean, given the frothiness of the market and the level of interest in the market, you know, everyone's a finance expert right now in ICOs. But in the case of TopTal, what they've really done is that they winnowed that, you know, huge group out to come up with people who really are experts in the field.

So if you're looking to freelance or you're looking to gain access to a network of top industry experts in development, design, or finance. Head to TopTal.com and tell them Adam from the Change Law sent you. That's T-O-P-T-A-L.com. And for those out there wanting a more personal introduction, email me, Adam at ChangeLaw.com. so dan looking at your members page it's quite an impressive list um we were doing some back of the envelope math before the show i mean it looks like there's there's easily 100 companies here um and so the the question that i have it makes a lot of sense that Platinum members, like you said, the big cloud providers, AWS, Docker, Google, so on Microsoft, why they would have benefits from

being members. But when you get down into the other companies, the silver members, I start to miss where their benefits are, like a Capital One or a Buoyant or a Bloomberg. And I wonder, when you go to these companies and you have these meetings about supporting the CNCF and becoming members, what's the sales pitch to a Capital One? Where are their benefits? Sure, and the obvious question is to say, well, wait a minute, aren't all of your projects open source?

So can't I just download them all for free and use them? Why do I need to pay you money? Or, you know, what doesn't work is, this was the joke with the Linux Foundation a decade ago, was to say, oh yeah, just come in as a Platinum member and we'll be sure that all of your patches will get approved. And let me just say, I am joking there. It's definitely not true. There's no sense in which members get any kind of leg up on that front. Yes, definitely. And people say, well, isn't this just a pay-for-play organization? And so we definitely get that accusation.

And the sort of obvious answer is, well, given that anyone can download it for free and that we do take in projects from companies that are not members and from individuals that aren't members, that's obviously not the case. that a lot of these companies get some benefit by publicly demonstrating that they're embracing cloud-native computing and supporting cloud-native computing and being able to interact with their peers and customers and such. You mentioned Bloomberg and Capital One. They're part of our end-user community, and that was also one of the real challenges

in getting set up. When I joined 18 months ago, we had three members in our end user community. And we've now grown that through to 27 today, which is something that I'm just particularly proud of and I think has been a huge asset for our organization. What's the difference there with the end user? Yeah. Sorry, you're already going to go into it. Go ahead. Oh, sure. It's just that the definition of an end user is that you don't offer cloud-native services. So Google and Docker and Alibaba all are offering hosting or software, other sorts of things. The New York Times sells newspapers and Ticketmaster sells tickets and Wikimedia Foundation runs Wikipedia.

And so they're not offering cloud-native services to their customers. And what's been great is that when companies make big bets on Kubernetes and the surrounding technologies, the idea of becoming a member of our end user community is not a particularly big expense. And they do see it as pretty valuable both to support our efforts,

but also from a communication standpoint, we have a monthly private phone call between them, which is kind of a vendor-free zone and a Slack channel and a mailing list. And then it's also, we do in those monthly phone calls, we're connecting them with the project maintainers and giving them that additional insight into kind of what's coming down the line.

And so, and those project maintainers generally find it pretty interesting to have a thoughtful, engaged group of potential users. So, so far we've been able to make that membership and the kind of economic proposition work for a lot of companies. It's definitely logistically been a challenging process to bring on. I think we're up to 157 members so far. We do a monthly marketing call for them that's gotten bigger and bigger and trying to figure out exactly what the set of benefits are that companies get because they do need to be

things like we have two webinars that we do every month and that we heavily promote, and those are only available to members. But even those webinars are not just an opportunity to sell proprietary product. We'll more generally get two or three companies together to give more of an overview on something like cloud-native storage or security or new technologies or such. And so I'd say right now, at least, the formula's working, and we've been able to come up with a value proposition that makes sense for folks.

I mean, 157 members is proof. I guess the proof's in the pudding, Adam, that they've definitely convinced a whole lot of companies to hop on board. I mean, it's pretty compelling. I mean, at the top of the chain and as well at the bottom, you've got insider news. So you get to be involved in behind-the-scenes things that I don't want to say it's pay for player club like, but it's very club like you get inside access to things, right? You even mentioned access to maintainers that maybe you could have that as not a member, but why not? Because, hey, you get insider news, you get marketing and you also get to sustain and

or, you know, maintain the efforts of the projects and the efforts and, you efforts and all the things to keep this ecosystem thriving. I mean, it seems pretty compelling. Yeah, and the ranges of dollars that we're talking about here. So platinum member, 370,000 USD per year. Gold member, 120. So those are the bigger tiers. But then once you get down to what Dan's talking about, the silver end user members,

4,000, 50,000, 7,000. But for a small startup with 50 people or less, it's actually just 7,000. And so it is designed to be a reasonable fee that we're working hard not to be onerous for these folks.

I mean, so let's break down maybe some hypotheticals on the $7,000 in that case there. So if I'm the CEO of that company, 50,000 employees or less, and I'm— 50 employees. Sorry, 50 employees, not 50,000 employees or less. 50 employees. 50 employees, not 50,000. I'm that company, and I want to have this insider perspective. I want to be involved in these calls, and this matters that much to me. How does that $7,000 tend to get, not so much down to the dime, but how does it tend to get used?

Does it actually sustain the projects? Is it, you know, on this show we cover things like maintainer burnout and contributor on-ramping. What kind of, if I'm coming into this as that kind of company, how are those dollars affecting the sustaining efforts of these projects? Sure, they are in that we're providing a set of services to the maintainers that hopefully make them more successful and more productive. So whether it's setting up

press calls or analyst calls or just giving them a subscription to some sort of online service that plugs into GitHub and provides something useful like CI or documentation or other sorts of things. All of that contributes to it. Now, from a budget standpoint, the majority of our funding comes from our platinum members.

And so we think for the sort of smallest startups out there, the 7K for becoming a member is a particularly good deal. And I guess I will give the quick pitch that we also have a startup sponsorship offer where small startup companies who are members can get a booth at our event for $5,000. That's normally a $20,000 booth, and it comes with five tickets that's worth $5,500 anyway. And so I think a lot of small companies say, hey, $12,000 to sort of dive into this community and demonstrate that it's important to us, but that we can kind of treat as a marketing expense is a pretty reasonable thing to do. And that tends to be a different value proposition from a big company like a Bloomberg or a bigger bank, and then certainly from the gold or the platinum members. Cool, Dan. Well, tell us what's

new with CNCF. It sounds like everything's been moving pretty quickly. KubeCon next month sounds like it's going to be a huge event, and probably a lot of your efforts are going into that. But what else is new? Do you got any new supporting projects or anything else? The biggest thing that CNCF probably will have done this year, other than running our events, we just announced a couple weeks ago, is the software conformance program that we put together called Certified Kubernetes. And this has been over nine months in process and just a really intricate, involved process on how to ensure conformance around Kubernetes

that there's over, so we have 32 different companies signed up at launch. And I think we're up to 37 or 38 now. And so these are folks like Google with the Google Kubernetes engine and Red Hat with OpenShift and really every vendor in this space who has a commercial offering.

And for all of them, they're still completely allowed to make modifications to the software and changes and improvements and patches to it, but it's a way of ensuring that each of their versions of Kubernetes remains compatible. And so when an application deploys on one version, that it will work correctly on others as well. And we're really thrilled that this process is something

that we worked extremely closely with the Kubernetes project on. It actually makes use of the conformance tests that are already built into Kubernetes and the kind of technical issues that come up of something. What counts as an external API that matters for conformance versus an internal API implementation detail? Those kinds of questions get escalated to the architecture special interest group within Kubernetes. But we were able to just bring together really everybody in this industry.

And it was actually a shockingly non-contentious project for what's really one of the biggest software conformance efforts that I'm aware of. So it's kind of like a best practices badge for Kubernetes. It's like you're doing an encore presentation of a best practices badge where you're saying we're going to conform to this specific published, is it like a public API that you're conforming to, but then your internals can be different? Or give us some of the detail of what conformance looks like. Yeah, that's exactly the case. And so there is an analogy to the best practices badge where there's a test that you take, but the difference is that the certified Kubernetes conformance program is completely automated.

And so as a vendor, you download this open source tool called Sonobui, and it runs the tests and then puts out a log file. And you then submit that log file and some other data in a pull request. And when that's accepted, you become certified. But one of the just really exciting or, I think, innovative aspects of it is that any of your users can come along later and run those exact same tests with the same test harness in order to confirm that your platform or your distribution remains conformant. And so instead of needing an official lab that is expensive or slow or clunky or such,

it's almost like a distributed verification process. Interesting. So you're guaranteeing portability for the end users of these different implementations. Yeah, that's definitely what we're aiming for here. If you have an application and it deploys onto a given version of Kubernetes, then it should work on any other version as well. There's a lot of concern out there

with cloud lock-in, essentially. And this seems to be counteracting that. Oh, I think that's definitely the case. And so, you know, really a huge, probably the most central message of cloud native is an open source software stack that gives you portability between any public, private, or hybrid cloud.

But then furthermore, even after you've chosen Kubernetes and chosen this other software, there's the question of, oh, well, am I locked into my distro or this specific platform that I chose? And the aspiration of this program is that, no, you're not. You should be able to move between any of them and pick the company that will provide you the best support and work with you and everything else. The great thing about that for us and users of these clouds

is that it forces them to compete on the strata that we care about the most, which is price, performance, security, tooling, right? It forces them to compete there and not on other aspects of what they provide, which may just be customization for lock-in sake, for instance. So that's great. Sure, although I think they also do compete on value-added

services, so using their database or caching or all the other services that they provide. Right. But our goal is that they wouldn't be competing with, oh, we implement this API better than our competitor. And then I will mention just one other program that we rolled out in September,

which is essentially another kind of certification, except it's of expertise for consultancies. And so this is what we call our Kubernetes certified service provider. And there again, we were able to get several dozen, I think it's 23 companies right now as our launch KCSP partners. And so they get a special placement

on the Kubernetes webpage and on our webpage. But we actually put together an entire curriculum about what a Kubernetes expert should know. And these companies have gotten three of their internal experts to pass an online exam. And what's pretty neat about that exam and also the training that we offer around it is it's not a multiple choice test.

We actually spin up nine different clusters over the course of the exam and have you deploy Kubernetes and demonstrate that you can debug it and work with it and such. And so it's a very real world kind of experience. Sounds like fun. Well, I'll give you a little

dirty detail here which is for everybody who's passed the exam so far which is several hundred people four or five hundred people the exam on average was turning out to be four hours long um which is is pretty painful and uh yeah but uh we working with our, our psychometrician, we just figured out a way of dropping out some of the questions that did not impact the scores. So all of those people would have scored the same anyway, in order to cut the exam back to just three hours, which, um, and, and, you know, hopefully two and a half or three, but, uh, I think we'll make it a much more reasonable experience for, uh, for folks. Cause we, we, but I think we'll make it a much more reasonable experience for folks. Because we do think that this training that we're offering

and the exam along with it is a really great way to come up to speed on Kubernetes. But we don't want that to have to be a painful experience. So for those that have been tuning in this entire show, kind of getting a glimpse behind the scenes, at your job, at the role you play each and every day, the importance of this foundation, the projects behind it, the members involved, both end users as well as cloud providers and everyone else in between.

I think probably the best way to lead this would be to give people some inroads into getting involved or supporting or playing a role, you know, if they want to. One, I'm sure it could be membership. Two, it could be going to the conference. You know, what are some other common paths for our listeners, which are developers, people out there that, you know, they want to know more about how a foundation is actually run and the support it gives to the projects. What can they do to get involved? What's some good takeaways for them? Yeah, so really the biggest one is please go take a look at our projects. That's the area

where all of our projects are eager to have more contributions, more users. And so if you, you know, there's this joke that sysadmins know Perl and DevOps engineers know Ruby and help your company be able to deploy much faster. And going from quarterly or monthly deployments to hopefully dozens of deployments per day, so getting a much faster internal velocity. So that would be definitely my biggest call to action would just be to go look at our projects. And hopefully you'll find all 14 of them are very welcoming and eager to have new users. And then as you see bugs or areas for improvement or features that are missing, would love to get your contributions on it. a few other sort of angles into things or we do have a really great um completely free course on edX that um is an intro to Kubernetes course and that I think is a great way to to learn about

it and then um if you sort of like what you see there you might decide to take our our more advanced course um that's a an intermediate training course and that prepares you for that exam that I mentioned before, particularly if you want to start getting immersed into Kubernetes. And then certainly our event, KubeCon Cloud NativeCon in Austin, December 6th through 8th, is really the best way to just kind of drink from a fire hose and see everything that's going on. And this year we have a number of one-on-one sessions. We sort of have both the green slopes and the double black diamond sessions and everywhere in between. And then, as I said, we'll be in Copenhagen May 2nd through 4th,

which so for our European friends is maybe an easier way to dive in. You guys are busy, busy, busy. Wow. So for our European friends, it's maybe an easier way to dive in. You guys are busy. Busy, busy. Wow. I had no idea about this edX course, too. So this is free, and I'm assuming the course is supported by or funded by or produced by the Linux Foundation? Exactly.

So CNCF funds it, but the Linux Foundation has an internal training team that put it together. That's interesting. It's actually one of the areas that I'm most proud of this year where we have over 14,000 people have signed up for this. And my favorite statistic is it's actually from 141 different countries. So it's been really neat to see that adoption and interest around the world. It's currently ranked 3.5 out of 5 on the course. I think we should aim better than that.

We're going to be doing some revisions for it because the course was done towards 1.6, but we have a new version that will be hooked into the 1.8 release. And then we're actually going to be doing quarterly updates of these to have them match up with Kubernetes. Very cool. Well, Dan, thank you so much

for the time you've shared with us today and the insights into the role you play specifically and then the role the foundation and also the Linux foundation, as a parent foundation to many, the role the foundation and also the Linux foundation, you know, as a parent foundation to many, the role it plays and the importance of it. And hopefully, you know, open source developers out there have gotten a glimpse behind the scenes at what it takes to run a foundation and maybe more importantly,

the importance of it to hit it right on the nose. But Dan, thank you so much for your time today. We appreciate it. Yeah, and thank you guys for all the work that you do. I've been a longtime listener, and I really think it is immensely important for help connecting together this diverse and physically distributed group of open source developers around the world.

Absolutely. Yeah, thank you for being a listener. Much appreciated. All right, thank you for tuning into this. Much appreciated. All right. Thank you for tuning into this episode of The Change Log. If you enjoyed this show, you know what to do. Go on Apple Podcasts, go on Overcast, go on Twitter, share it with a friend, rate us. Tell everyone you know.

This is a great show. We want you to tell your friends about this show. You worked so hard on this show, and all we want you to do is share it. Just share it. Thank you to our sponsors, CircleCI, Linode, GitLab, and TopTow. Also, thanks to Fastly, our bandwidth partner. Head to fastly.com to learn more. We host everything we do on Linode cloud servers.

Head to linode.com slash changelog. Check them out. Support this show. This show is hosted by myself, Adam Stachowiak and Jared Santo. Editing is by Jonathan Youngblood. And the awesome music you hear during the shows is produced by Breakmaster Cylinder. You can find more shows just like this at changelog.com or by going to Apple Podcasts, going to Overcast, and searching for Changelog or the Changelog or Request for Commits or GoTime.

And you know, changelog.com slash podcast. Follow our podcast there, changelog.com slash podcasts. Thanks for listening. We'll see you next week. you you