Kubernetes Limits Links to Third Party Projects

I wish community projects had better maintainer capacity.

You're hitting a real problem, thanks for chiming here. There's a real fatigue for maintainers in crossing the chasm of awareness and maintenance: it's not the case of Kubernetes, widely adopted, known, and established.

A project can thrive and catch more attention in several ways: not all developers are good at PR due to multiple reasons. Kubernetes has the luck of having a broader maintainers base on specific areas, such as the documentation tailoring specific topics, such as multi tenancy in this case.

Speaking on behalf of Project Capsule project, we had several referrals from the Kubernetes documentation website, which helped us in these years to create more confidence from end users, and who knows, in getting aboard a new mainrainer which is doing a great job.

This will not be possible anymore due to the said policy. We're fine (sic) as an established project, I'm just thinking for the emerging ones who couldn't benefit from the cross references in building a shared knowledge.

Documentation will be a silos, offloading to blog posts which are:

1. Hard to write, especially for non native speakers like me
2. Time consuming: although reviewers of the community, it takes time for non PR-people
3. Biased: we received a feedback @lmktfy that no vendor pitches were allowed

In regard of the latter point, considering open source projects as vendors is absolutely a non sense, but the overall discussion by this person in the last messages is that Capsule, Kyverno, and OPA Gatekeeper are vendors, or part of a vendor such as the CNCF — it's the same as Kubernetes one, so what are we talking about?

I understand the goal of SIG Docs, this issue received a feedback from a diverse set of people with different roles in the community we all belong to.

Open Source is about collaboration, PoVs sharing, and strong opinions weakly held — no offense here, it seems to me this is not happening here.