Consider contributing jsonnet to CNCF

[steeling]

First, jsonnet is awesome! Thanks for your contributions here!

I was wondering if you've thought about contributing jsonnet to an OSS foundation like the CNCF, with the goal of increasing visibility and adoption.

Cheers!

[sparkprime]

Glad you like it :)

I wonder what concretely would change if it was part of the CNCF? And are there any bars to entry that would have to be met or something like that?

[steeling]

I'm not familiar with that process to be honest, but could try to carve out some time to investigate. To me, my largest frustration with jsonnet is that it's not used more :) I've had frustrations with helm, and kustomize, and wish that more k8s operators provided jsonnet templates out of the box.

I think by donating to CNCF you get a lot of publicity, and a blessing from the k8s community that this is an official way to do things.

[steeling]

Here's the official process https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/project_proposals.adoc

[steeling]

Another data point, pulumi is part of the CNCF https://landscape.cncf.io/selected=pulumi.

Pulumi takes a different approach than jsonnet. I think jsonnet's is more simple in that it can transpile to json or yaml, the lingua franca of cloud native configuration, while pulumi takes a more library driven approach to specific domains.

On the syntax side of things, one might liken pulumi to Google's piccolo, and jsonnet to Google's GCL

[moderation]

Pulumi Inc. is a CNCF member but the Pulumi project is not a CNCF project - https://landscape.cncf.io/format=card-mode&project=hosted. Jsonnet could add itself to the landscape in the Automation & Configuration category - https://landscape.cncf.io/category=automation-configuration&format=card-mode. Transferring jsonnet to the CNCF is a different process and @steeling linked to that document earlier