In the last message on the email thread on this in November it was mentioned that there were still some outstanding todo’s before the doc could be considered ready of due diligence review.  Some of them still appear to be missing:

===

Remaining TODOs:

• Categorize NATS integrations
  
• Link to an architectural overview
  
• Provide additional benchmarks (if this is still applicable).

===

Should we consider the document complete and ready for due diligence review, or still work in progress?

Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 10:56

To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

maybe, nonetheless we are using a g/doc currently

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

Wouldn’t it be preferable to do the preparation of the proposal in a Google Doc, and then commence the actual due diligence exercise with a PR (the way most of the other proposals have worked)?  That way it would be clear when exactly the proposal is submitted, and the proper record of due diligence comments/feedback would be available in GitHub for all to see.

As opposed to in this case where the document has been through various revisions in multiple documents, and it’s not been clear when the transition from document preparation to technical due diligence occurred?

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 10:09
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...g>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>

Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

It's all in a Google Doc, we haven't made a pr yet. 

All, please email me for access

On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, 18:04 Quinton Hoole, <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

Hi Alexis

I don’t see a PR for the NATS proposal?  Is there one?

Thanks

Q

From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...o> on behalf of Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 07:04
To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...g>, Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] RFC: Project Due Diligence Backlog

To add:

Nats DD is going well, I now need a few more existing or new people

who can help review the DD material please.

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc

<cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Hey all, hope everyone is having a great 2018! The next TOC meeting will be

in a week, on Jan 16th and we'll resume our usual schedule of meetings the

1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month.

We have some projects in the proposal stage seeking community due diligence

that we started late last year:

OPA: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/71

Rook: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/57

SPIFFE: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/68

Vitess: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Thanks to everyone who has already put the time in reviewing the proposals.

We expect to vote on projects proposals in the coming weeks.

See everyone next Tuesday!

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

_______________________________________________

cncf-toc mailing list

cncf-toc@...

https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

_______________________________________________

cncf-toc mailing list

cncf-toc@...

https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc