New Project: CNCF Project Summary Table

Hello, the Business Value Subcommittee (the working group who contributed the Landscape Guide) has a new project that should be associated with the Landscape per @caniszczyk.

Here's what we are proposing:

## What it is
The CNCF Project Summary Table will provide a relatively standardized, qualitative summary of CNCF projects that eases project evaluation for end users.

Built as a dynamic website and broken down into various categories (as specified in the [cloud native landscape](https://landscape.cncf.io/)), the content will be product manager-driven. Meaning, the responsibility for adding and keeping the information up to date lies on the projects themselves. While they don't have to participate, be believe they will see the value in it and help keep it up to date.

While we'll start with CNCF projects, we may extend it to all open source projects once proven successful and if desired.

## Problem statement
The cloud native ecosystem is growing fast but there's still a lack of standardized, high-level overview content that allows end users to identify which technologies they should evaluate further for their projects. While there are analyst-driven comparisons that can be helpful, they often give a lot more weight to their clients' technologies leading to some degree of skepticism among practitioners. Product comparisons written by individuals can also be found for various categories. Although they can be useful, they merely represent the author's perspective.

We need a trusted source that doesn't rely on pay-for-play or someone's personal opinion.

## Our goal

Provide end-users with a high-level overview of all CNCF projects from a source they trust. The framework aims at bringing some degree of objectivity through standardization.

The table is not meant to be a comprehensive overview of all the projects. Instead, its goal is to help end users identify which projects they should evaluate further — it's a "top-of-funnel" resource.

## Aiming at objectivity

Although total objectivity is impossible to achieve, our goal is to come up with a framework that gets as close as possible. We'll balance strict guidelines with some degree of freedom for projects to position themselves in the ecosystem.

## Tags vs open-ended descriptions

Project owners will describe their projects through a variety of descriptive tags defining key properties. Because these tags will focus on technical features it will allow for a degree of comparison.

**Example**: KubeEdge, Akri, OpenYurt, and SuperEdge all share the Edge tag indicating that they relate to the network edge. OpenYurt and SuperEdge also share the IoT tag, while KubeEdge and Akri don't. Metal3-io’s tags show it to be the only project dealing with baremetal and provisioning.

Not only can technologists infer project features, qualities, and properties from these tags, but when combined with the [CNCF landscape graph](https://github.com/cncf/landscape-graph) it will also help illustrate deeper relationships between projects. These types of insights are extremely valuable for the cloud native community.

You can [view our PoC here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OFs5ho6QIn1tPbjHUKrYGO7tHgC6jAP0JUHV7sXGEbA/edit).

## What's next

I believe @caniszczyk has given the thumbs up for this to move forward. The next step would be to get a repo and start building the table. Once the framework is built, we'll need to develop the site. Please advise on how to proceed.