Date   

Re: Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Quinton Hoole <qhoole@...>
 

I agee Liz

I think serverless app development falls under sig-apps, and serveless runtimes fall under sig-runtime.
It's pretty common for work groups to span across a few SIGs.

Q


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via Lists.Cncf.Io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2019 4:53 AM
To: Doug Davis <dug@...>; cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>; jbeda@... <jbeda@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG
 
Thanks for the reminder on this Joe.

The Serverless WG has already been performing that role of defining the landscape in their space, identifying gaps, writing white papers... The bit we’re missing is the liaison that we have between TOC and SIGs, which I for one think is valuable. 

After seeing that “Topic 4” diagram I am open to the idea of broadening to SIG App Platform. I foresee some confusion between that and SIG App Delivery with those names, though. Naming is hard. 

I would love to hear thoughts from more folks on the relationship between Serverless and the new Runtime SIG - we could certainly discuss on the next TOC call. Personally I don’t think SIG Runtime is a natural home for CloudEvents, function frameworks and so on, so I think there is a real gap.  

But there is some overlap already: Virtual Kubelet falls into Runtime’s charter, but also appears on the Serverless landscape. Runtime feels like the more natural home; is Serverless really the right place for VK on the landscape?


Liz
On 31 Oct 2019, 15:11 +0000, Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...>, wrote:

Hey fellow TOC members – poke on this?  Thoughts?

 

A couple of questions in my mind:

 

Joe

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:33 PM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

 

TOC members,

On a previous TOC call there was a request for feedback from the Serverless WG as to whether or not it would be a good fit for inclusion in the new AppDelivery SIG. During last week's WG call this topic was discussed and the net result is that the WG members felt that while there is some possible overlap, the scope of the WG is different enough that the SIG would not be an appropriate home for the WG. As a concrete example, it seems as though a project like CloudEvents (which came out of the WG's work) would not be in-scope for the AppDelivery SIG. With that, the WG thinks that a separate SIG might be more appropriate.

However, the creation of a Serverless SIG might be too limited in scope. One of the things that we're noticing is that the lines between CaaS, PaaS, FaaS and Serverless are getting blurry. Which means the distinction between the various platforms, or underlying technologies for each *aaS, is becoming less clear. Instead, the differences are becoming more akin to configuration settings rather than entirely distinct platform considerations. As such, the WG felt that an "AppPlatform" SIG might be more appropriate. This SIG could then focus on the underlying hosting technologies leveraged by higher-level SIGs (such as AppDelivery). It would be something along the lines of "Topic 4" in the diagram here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMhRz4vEwiHa3uD8DqFKHGTSxrVJNgkLG2WZWvi9lXo/edit#bookmark=id.qv45kp7nb29b

We can discuss this on a future TOC call, but if the TOC is interested in this we can take the action item to write-up a formal charter to further clarify the proposal that we have in mind.


thanks
-Doug Davis/Mark Peek/Ken Owens


Re: Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Liz Rice
 

Thanks for the reminder on this Joe.

The Serverless WG has already been performing that role of defining the landscape in their space, identifying gaps, writing white papers... The bit we’re missing is the liaison that we have between TOC and SIGs, which I for one think is valuable. 

After seeing that “Topic 4” diagram I am open to the idea of broadening to SIG App Platform. I foresee some confusion between that and SIG App Delivery with those names, though. Naming is hard. 

I would love to hear thoughts from more folks on the relationship between Serverless and the new Runtime SIG - we could certainly discuss on the next TOC call. Personally I don’t think SIG Runtime is a natural home for CloudEvents, function frameworks and so on, so I think there is a real gap.  

But there is some overlap already: Virtual Kubelet falls into Runtime’s charter, but also appears on the Serverless landscape. Runtime feels like the more natural home; is Serverless really the right place for VK on the landscape?


Liz
On 31 Oct 2019, 15:11 +0000, Joe Beda via Lists.Cncf.Io <jbeda=vmware.com@...>, wrote:

Hey fellow TOC members – poke on this?  Thoughts?

 

A couple of questions in my mind:

 

Joe

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:33 PM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

 

TOC members,

On a previous TOC call there was a request for feedback from the Serverless WG as to whether or not it would be a good fit for inclusion in the new AppDelivery SIG. During last week's WG call this topic was discussed and the net result is that the WG members felt that while there is some possible overlap, the scope of the WG is different enough that the SIG would not be an appropriate home for the WG. As a concrete example, it seems as though a project like CloudEvents (which came out of the WG's work) would not be in-scope for the AppDelivery SIG. With that, the WG thinks that a separate SIG might be more appropriate.

However, the creation of a Serverless SIG might be too limited in scope. One of the things that we're noticing is that the lines between CaaS, PaaS, FaaS and Serverless are getting blurry. Which means the distinction between the various platforms, or underlying technologies for each *aaS, is becoming less clear. Instead, the differences are becoming more akin to configuration settings rather than entirely distinct platform considerations. As such, the WG felt that an "AppPlatform" SIG might be more appropriate. This SIG could then focus on the underlying hosting technologies leveraged by higher-level SIGs (such as AppDelivery). It would be something along the lines of "Topic 4" in the diagram here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMhRz4vEwiHa3uD8DqFKHGTSxrVJNgkLG2WZWvi9lXo/edit#bookmark=id.qv45kp7nb29b

We can discuss this on a future TOC call, but if the TOC is interested in this we can take the action item to write-up a formal charter to further clarify the proposal that we have in mind.


thanks
-Doug Davis/Mark Peek/Ken Owens


Re: Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

Joe Beda <jbeda@...>
 

Hey fellow TOC members – poke on this?  Thoughts?

 

A couple of questions in my mind:

 

Joe

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Doug Davis <dug@...>
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 7:33 PM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] Serverless WG and the AppDelivery SIG

 

TOC members,

On a previous TOC call there was a request for feedback from the Serverless WG as to whether or not it would be a good fit for inclusion in the new AppDelivery SIG. During last week's WG call this topic was discussed and the net result is that the WG members felt that while there is some possible overlap, the scope of the WG is different enough that the SIG would not be an appropriate home for the WG. As a concrete example, it seems as though a project like CloudEvents (which came out of the WG's work) would not be in-scope for the AppDelivery SIG. With that, the WG thinks that a separate SIG might be more appropriate.

However, the creation of a Serverless SIG might be too limited in scope. One of the things that we're noticing is that the lines between CaaS, PaaS, FaaS and Serverless are getting blurry. Which means the distinction between the various platforms, or underlying technologies for each *aaS, is becoming less clear. Instead, the differences are becoming more akin to configuration settings rather than entirely distinct platform considerations. As such, the WG felt that an "AppPlatform" SIG might be more appropriate. This SIG could then focus on the underlying hosting technologies leveraged by higher-level SIGs (such as AppDelivery). It would be something along the lines of "Topic 4" in the diagram here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMhRz4vEwiHa3uD8DqFKHGTSxrVJNgkLG2WZWvi9lXo/edit#bookmark=id.qv45kp7nb29b

We can discuss this on a future TOC call, but if the TOC is interested in this we can take the action item to write-up a formal charter to further clarify the proposal that we have in mind.


thanks
-Doug Davis/Mark Peek/Ken Owens


[RESULT] Jaeger graduation (APPROVED)

Chris Aniszczyk
 


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Liz Rice
 

+1 binding

Liz
On 25 Oct 2019, 09:57 +0100, Rabi, Abdel, Vodafone Group <abdel.rabi@...>, wrote:

+1 nb

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 14:44
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

 

Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff

https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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] Vitess graduation

Rabi Abdel
 

+1 nb

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 14:44
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

 

Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff

https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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] Vitess graduation

Leonardo Di Donato
 

+1 nb
L.


On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:22 PM Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding 

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:44 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff
https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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] Vitess graduation

Nick Chase
 

+1 non-binding 


On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:44 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff
https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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


[RESULT] CloudEvents moving to incubation (APPROVED)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The CloudEvents project has been approved to the incubation maturity level from sandbox: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/297

+1 binding TOC votes (7/9):
Brendan Burns: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3648
Matt Klein: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3651
Joe Beda: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3660
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3666
Alexis Richardson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3667
XIang Li: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3671
Jeff Brewer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3674

+1 non-binding community votes:
Mark Peek: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3638

Thanks all for voting, we look forward to cultivating the CloudEvents community!

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


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Nicola Marco Decandia
 

+1 binding

 

Nicola Marco Decandia

Desotech S.r.l.


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Philippe Robin
 

+1 non-binding

 

Regards,

Philippe

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: 23 October 2019 14:44
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

 

Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff

https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Brewer, Jeff
 

+1 binding

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 6:44 AM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

 

This email is from an external sender.

 

Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff

https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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] Vitess graduation

Niraj Tolia
 

+1 non-binding

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:44 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff
https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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] Vitess graduation

Pengfei Ni
 

+1 nb


Best regards.


---
Pengfei Ni



刘海锋 via Lists.Cncf.Io <bjliuhaifeng=jd.com@...> 于2019年10月24日周四 上午9:10写道:

 

+1 nb

 

--Haifeng

 

 

发件人: <cncf-toc@...> 代表 Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
日期: 20191023 星期三 下午9:44
收件人: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
主题: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

 

Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff

https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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] CloudEvents moving to incubation

Sunny Raskar <sunny.raskar@...>
 

+ 1 Non-Binding

-Sunny 

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:56 AM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

- Lee

On Oct 21, 2019, at 2:23 PM, Brewer, Jeff via Lists.Cncf.Io <jeff_brewer=intuit.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding


On Oct 18, 2019, at 8:15 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:


This email is from an external sender.

CloudEvents (CE) has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/297

The project was initially developed as a result of the CNCF Serverless WGs investigation into the Serverless landscape and determination that addressing this “middleware routing” pain point was a good initial attempt at trying to ease some of the challenges faced by the Serverless community. Since entering the CNCF Sandbox, CE has released 3 interim versions (v0.1, v0.2, v0.3) as the specification has evolved and the project just called a vote for its 1.0 version. It is currently embedded by a variety of projects and companies: Microsoft EventGrid, Serverless.com Event Gateway, Knative (Google), Fn (Oracle), Adobe - I/O Events, Codit, EventFlow, Eclipse Vert.x, Debezium (RedHat), Kyma (SAP), Argo-Events, Brigade and more.

The CloudEvents community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/297/commits/d13c801435a447d2d81ebd1d3214f09a504c4b46#diff-8bf0cfc8ec2496e10a1ea2ec0b8e1941R20

Brendan Burns and Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/297#issuecomment-543409624
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d18oBMjBxO-JMbJ9xrAgM3WxuCTlaK0cz9r0jTUnIOQ/edit#

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/297

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


DISCLAIMER - MSysTechnologies LLC

This email message, contents and its attachments may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is actually intended. If you have erroneously received this message, please permanently delete it immediately and notify the sender. If you are not the intended recipient of the email message,you are notified strictly not to disseminate,distribute or copy this e-mail.E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as Information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, incomplete or contain viruses and MSysTechnologies LLC accepts no liability for the contents and integrity of this mail or for any damage caused by the limitations of the e-mail transmission.


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

刘海锋 <bjliuhaifeng@...>
 

 

+1 nb

 

--Haifeng

 

 

发件人: <cncf-toc@...> 代表 Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
日期: 20191023 星期三 下午9:44
收件人: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
主题: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

 

Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff

https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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] Vitess graduation

Li, Xiang
 

------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人:<demmer@...>
日 期:2019年10月24日 04:31:04
收件人:<cncf-toc@...>
主 题:Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess graduation

+1 non-binding


Re: [VOTE] Vitess graduation

Michael Demmer
 

+1 non-binding


Re: [VOTE] CloudEvents moving to incubation

Karl Wehden <karl.wehden@...>
 

+1 nonbinding


On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 13:56 Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding

- Lee

On Oct 21, 2019, at 2:23 PM, Brewer, Jeff via Lists.Cncf.Io <jeff_brewer=intuit.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding


On Oct 18, 2019, at 8:15 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:


This email is from an external sender.

CloudEvents (CE) has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/297

The project was initially developed as a result of the CNCF Serverless WGs investigation into the Serverless landscape and determination that addressing this “middleware routing” pain point was a good initial attempt at trying to ease some of the challenges faced by the Serverless community. Since entering the CNCF Sandbox, CE has released 3 interim versions (v0.1, v0.2, v0.3) as the specification has evolved and the project just called a vote for its 1.0 version. It is currently embedded by a variety of projects and companies: Microsoft EventGrid, Serverless.com Event Gateway, Knative (Google), Fn (Oracle), Adobe - I/O Events, Codit, EventFlow, Eclipse Vert.x, Debezium (RedHat), Kyma (SAP), Argo-Events, Brigade and more.

The CloudEvents community believes it has fulfilled all the incubation criteria:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/297/commits/d13c801435a447d2d81ebd1d3214f09a504c4b46#diff-8bf0cfc8ec2496e10a1ea2ec0b8e1941R20

Brendan Burns and Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/297#issuecomment-543409624
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d18oBMjBxO-JMbJ9xrAgM3WxuCTlaK0cz9r0jTUnIOQ/edit#

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/297

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] Vitess graduation

Randy Abernethy
 

+1 nb


On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:44 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Vitess has requested to move to the graduation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

Xiang Li from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306#issuecomment-543886043
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDlRdgfTiEWunpav-G8gkaQF7Zk84-9tNAXyv1I0Kws/edit?ts=5da8eafc#heading=h.nu2qbsaqadff
https://jaeger.devstats.cncf.io/d/8/dashboards?orgId=1&refresh=15m

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/306

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

4001 - 4020 of 7717