We should also fix the whitespace in that file and also make the adopters list into an unordered list. But keeping this simple for the moment to more easily see the diff.
Logo consideration for badge: The badge doesn't currently have an icon, which is fine. We do have a white logo in cncf/artwork repo that would look great as an enhancement, but we'd need to request the logo here but we'd more popularity on this repo first - see their policy on assessing popularity. For future, we could ask folks to star this repo, and once it reaches 5k stars we can revisit this. In the meantime, badge with no icon is still nice 😺
📊 Going for lazy consensus here. What do maintainers think about this?
Background
Conformance/compliance was one of the initial goals of the GitOps WG and OpenGitOps project. It has been discussed elsewhere but here is a GitHub discussion to track some of this: https://github.com/open-gitops/project/discussions/105
More recently - last week - I missed the last OpenGitOps meeting where the question about a possible OpenGitOps shield of some kind was discussed (it was earlier asked about in this Slack thread).
My question was how can we verify someone is following the principles? Then I remembered we already sorted that out – qualitatively anyway – by using the pull review process for people who want to be listed in our ADOPTERS.md file. This file has clear instructions, and just needs to be promoted more.
After discussing with @niklasmtj and @christianh814 I thought it makes sense to combine these two ideas, so this PR updates the ADOPTERS file with this additional incentive 🙂
Preview https://github.com/scottrigby/ogo-project/blob/adopters-compliance/ADOPTERS.md
Additional review notes
We should also fix the whitespace in that file and also make the adopters list into an unordered list. But keeping this simple for the moment to more easily see the diff.
Logo consideration for badge: The badge doesn't currently have an icon, which is fine. We do have a white logo in cncf/artwork repo that would look great as an enhancement, but we'd need to request the logo here but we'd more popularity on this repo first - see their policy on assessing popularity. For future, we could ask folks to star this repo, and once it reaches 5k stars we can revisit this. In the meantime, badge with no icon is still nice 😺
📊 Going for lazy consensus here. What do maintainers think about this?
Background
Conformance/compliance was one of the initial goals of the GitOps WG and OpenGitOps project. It has been discussed elsewhere but here is a GitHub discussion to track some of this: https://github.com/open-gitops/project/discussions/105
More recently - last week - I missed the last OpenGitOps meeting where the question about a possible OpenGitOps shield of some kind was discussed (it was earlier asked about in this Slack thread).
My question was how can we verify someone is following the principles? Then I remembered we already sorted that out – qualitatively anyway – by using the pull review process for people who want to be listed in our
ADOPTERS.mdfile. This file has clear instructions, and just needs to be promoted more.After discussing with @niklasmtj and @christianh814 I thought it makes sense to combine these two ideas, so this PR updates the ADOPTERS file with this additional incentive 🙂