toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018, 12:12 AM Shannon Williams < shannon@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding for me
Best Regards,
Shannon Williams
shannon@...
+1 650-521-6902
From: cncf-toc@... [mailto:cncf-toc@...]
On Behalf Of Erin Boyd
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:00 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
+1 non-binding for me, with +1 to Brian Grant on process
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Brian Grant via
Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
+1 from me, as well, but we need to talk about the desired process going forward
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:55 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Here is my
Contributor diversity is not an explicit criterion at the incubation stage:
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
I think the biggest concern is that Buoyant continues to dominate development given that other companies are generally making small patches rather than becoming major contributors. Chart:
Please note that non-binding votes are encouraged.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Duncan Johnston-Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@...> wrote:
I don't have a binding vote either but I am curious given linkerd's impressive stats why it isn't being promoted?
On 17 January 2018 at 20:59, Brandon Dimcheff via
Lists.Cncf.Io <brandon=olark.com@...> wrote:
I don't have a vote, but I'd love to see linkerd remain a CNCF project.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:20 PM William Morgan <william@...> wrote:
FWIW that article is not 100% correct. Linkerd ships with a control plane (Namerd). This is how these companies are controlling routing policy across Linkerd instances.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Brian Grant via
Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
Different projects make different design tradeoffs.
Also, these 2 projects aren't directly comparable.
This article explains the difference pretty well:
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
CNCF allows for competing projects, see our TOC principles for more information on this:
Istio currently isn't an official CNCF project but has been invited to formalize a project proposal.
For the merits of one project over another, I'd advise you to speak to the respective project communities for that information.
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Santosa, Andy <asantosa@...> wrote:
Personally, I would like to get clarification of competing component: linkerd vs istio. I learnt for example one company I met in KubeCon converting from linkerd to istio.
Hey TOC and community, we are requesting a vote to keep linkerd (https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd)
as an inception project for another year based on their presentation yesterday. Here are some stats shared yesterday from the linkerd community:
* 60+ contributors; 50+ releases (2--4 week cadence); 3400+ GH stars
* 1.5m+ Docker Hub pulls; 5--10 billion requests a day
* 1400+ Slack members
* 40+ companies using Linkerd in production. Public ones include Monzo, CreditKarma, Salesforce, Expedia, BigCommerce, NCBI, PayPal, Taboola, FOX, and AOL
* Powers the Human Genome Project!
Please vote +1/-1 (remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support).
Also note that every inception project has to be reviewed on an annual basis to decide whether it will continue to be a CNCF project or potentially graduate to another level. We will have another
discussion in the near future about moving/graduating linkerd to another level, along with other CNCF projects.
--
--
|
