Date   

RexRay follow up

Brian Grant
 

Thanks to Clinton for presenting.


A response to Alexis's question/point about end-user benefit: I would expect it to be similar to the end-user benefit of CNI: more high-quality infrastructure options available in cloud-native environments. Not all of our projects will be used directly by users. Some may be used by other projects as components, libraries, frameworks, APIs, and so on.

Some questions about RexRay:
  • On contributors: My reading of the github stats is that there have been primarily 2 contributors over the past 6 months, both from Dell/EMC.
  • Are any of the listed users using RexRay in production?
  • Would the proposed Sandbox meet the project's need for a neutral home, at least initially?
  • Does RexRay itself include a control plane? Persistent state? If so, has it been adopted by any other project that has its own control plane?


Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Ihor Dvoretskyi
 

+1 non-binding

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <cdl@...>
 

+1, non-binding


On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Final RFC: CNCF Sandbox

Chris Aniszczyk
 

At today's TOC call there was consensus on the CNCF Sandbox proposal is close to being ready for a formal vote. We will leave the document open for any community comments for a week and do a formal vote next week: https://goo.gl/gZhBjY

After the vote and assuming the sandbox is approved, we will resume voting on new project proposals (existing inception proposals will be slotted for the sandbox). 

Thanks.

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


Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

+1 non-binding


thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

"Chris Aniszczyk" ---02/20/2018 08:57:36 AM---At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and reque

From: "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Date: 02/20/2018 08:57 AM
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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




Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

alexis richardson
 

+1 binding

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 5:02 PM, John Belamaric <jbelamaric@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Feb 20, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@...> wrote:

At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception
project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the
project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the
incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of
sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may
be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different
companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the
main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged
contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on
the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors
other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation
proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate
non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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



Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

John Belamaric
 

+1 non-binding

On Feb 20, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Eduardo Silva
 

+1 non-binding

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

On Feb 20, 2018, at 10:57 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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




--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 


Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Richard Hartmann
 

+1 non-binding

Sent by mobile; please excuse my brevity.

On Feb 20, 2018 17:57, "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


Re: [VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Lee Calcote
 

+1 non-binding

On Feb 20, 2018, at 10:57 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


[VOTE] CoreDNS moving to incubation

Chris Aniszczyk
 

At today's TOC call, we had the CoreDNS team perform their annual inception project review and request to move to the incubation level. You can see the project statistics here: https://coredns.devstats.cncf.io and they meet the incubation criteria requirements:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: seven listed in the ADOPTERS file, others may be discussed privately
- Have a healthy number of committers: six maintainers from four different companies (Google, Infoblox, Apprenda, Independent). 71 contributors in the main repository
- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: 12+ releases since joining CNCF, 489+ commits/merged PRs on the main repository since joining CNCF (81+ of those PRs are from authors other than Miek and Infoblox)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full incubation proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/66

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

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


TOC Agenda 2/20/2018

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the agenda deck for the TOC meeting tomorrow: https://goo.gl/Z5ytqu

The agenda is primarily focused on finalizing the CNCF Sandbox proposal. We will also hear updates from the CNCF Serverless WG, Reference Arch v2.0 call to action and if there's time, a presentation from the rexray team.

See everyone tomorrow!

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


Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

Stephen Watt
 

+1. I think the term "sandbox" is great. 

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

As a dog owner (see my sig), I love it!

Imagine all of the other easter eggs we could put in our docs.
We could "make governance docs great again!"


thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

"alexis richardson" ---02/08/2018 07:44:37 AM---As a dog owner, I object to that. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 02/08/2018 07:44 AM


Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Sent by: cncf-toc@...




As a dog owner, I object to that.

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
    Can we get the phrase "cat poop" added to the formal CNCF definition of Sandbox? That would make our governance docs much more interesting to read.


    thanks
    -Doug
    _______________________________________________________
    STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
    (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
    The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

    "Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition

    From:
    "Bryan Cantrill" <bryan@...>
    To:
    cncf-toc@...
    Cc:
    CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
    Date:
    02/08/2018 05:24 AM
    Subject:
    Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
    Sent by:
    cncf-toc@...






    I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

            - Bryan


    On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
        Hi all

        In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
        Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
        market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
        be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

        Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
        associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
        discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
        under active editing now:
        https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

        Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
        voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
        caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
        be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
        call.

        alexis






        On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
        <yangguan=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
        > +1 (non-binding)
        >











data on OCI contributors

Rob Lalonde
 

Hey Chris.

You can ignore my Slack message.

Have you seen any contributor stackalytics for the OCI project or do you have anything similar?
I see data for K8s and Helm.

Thanks!
Rob


Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

As a dog owner (see my sig), I love it!

Imagine all of the other easter eggs we could put in our docs.
We could "make governance docs great again!"


thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

"alexis richardson" ---02/08/2018 07:44:37 AM---As a dog owner, I object to that. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote

From: "alexis richardson" <alexis@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 02/08/2018 07:44 AM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Sent by: cncf-toc@...





As a dog owner, I object to that.

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:
    Can we get the phrase "cat poop" added to the formal CNCF definition of Sandbox? That would make our governance docs much more interesting to read.


    thanks
    -Doug
    _______________________________________________________
    STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
    (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
    The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

    "Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition

    From:
    "Bryan Cantrill" <bryan@...>
    To:
    cncf-toc@...
    Cc:
    CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
    Date:
    02/08/2018 05:24 AM
    Subject:
    Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
    Sent by:
    cncf-toc@...






    I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

            - Bryan


    On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
        Hi all

        In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
        Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
        market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
        be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

        Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
        associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
        discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
        under active editing now:
        https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

        Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
        voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
        caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
        be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
        call.

        alexis






On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>










Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

alexis richardson
 

As a dog owner, I object to that.

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Doug Davis <dug@...> wrote:

Can we get the phrase "cat poop" added to the formal CNCF definition of Sandbox? That would make our governance docs much more interesting to read.


thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

"Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition

From: "Bryan Cantrill" <bryan@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 02/08/2018 05:24 AM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Sent by: cncf-toc@...






I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

        - Bryan


On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
    Hi all

    In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
    Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
    market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
    be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

    Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
    associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
    discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
    under active editing now:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

    Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
    voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
    caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
    be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
    call.

    alexis






    On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
    <yangguan=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
    > +1 (non-binding)
    >








Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

Doug Davis <dug@...>
 

Can we get the phrase "cat poop" added to the formal CNCF definition of Sandbox? That would make our governance docs much more interesting to read.


thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@...
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog

"Bryan Cantrill" ---02/08/2018 05:24:38 AM---I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition

From: "Bryan Cantrill" <bryan@...>
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Date: 02/08/2018 05:24 AM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION
Sent by: cncf-toc@...






I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

        - Bryan


On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
    Hi all

    In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
    Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
    market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
    be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

    Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
    associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
    discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
    under active editing now:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

    Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
    voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
    caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
    be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
    call.

    alexis






On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>







Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

alexis richardson
 

Hurrah


On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, 10:24 Bryan Cantrill, <bryan@...> wrote:

I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

        - Bryan

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all

In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
under active editing now:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
call.

alexis






On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>





Re: [VOTE] [PAUSE] INCEPTION

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 


I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, broken plastic toys, and the occasional cat poop.  Much, much better than "inception"!

        - Bryan


On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all

In this week's TOC we converged on some possible changes to the
Inception tier, that can address issues that have been raised about
market perception & confusion.  It is most likely that Inception will
be replaced with a "Sandbox" tier.

Chris Aniszczyk is drafting a written statement proposing Sandbox and
associated changes and clarifications.  This will include much of the
discussion from the Zoom Chat on this week's TOC call.  This draft is
under active editing now:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MkuVT7Q6itn9ESW-iyqIXsEqTPBrStXlvzESg94933A/edit

Until the TOC has reviewed the Sandbox proposal we shall suspend
voting on Inception projects.  I apologise for any delays that are
caused by this.  For the avoidance of further confusion, Sandbox will
be presented *as soon as possible* which I hope means at the next TOC
call.

alexis






On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>





Re: [VOTE] SPIFFE project proposal (inception)

alexis richardson
 

Please note that as of 0945 UK time on 8 Feb 2018, voting is paused.



On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Yang Guan via Lists.Cncf.Io
<yangguan=google.com@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)

5641 - 5660 of 7337