As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad either.

Jeff

On 6/4/19, 9:11 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis@...> wrote:

This email is from an external sender.


Jeff

I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates
and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus
supporting dev tools.

IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of scope.

Does this make sense?

a

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:07 PM Brewer, Jeff <Jeff_Brewer@...> wrote:
>
> Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we define an "application" in a more formal way, having App Delivery as a SIG is premature. Am I making sense?
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/19, 9:04 AM, "cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis richardson" <cncf-toc@... on behalf of alexis@...> wrote:
>
> This email is from an external sender.
>
>
> Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery.
>
> Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be
> SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall
> figure out a plan to solicit leaders for the group.
>
> Interested? Email us offline.
>
> Alexis+Michelle
>
>
>
>
>