Date   

Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

Josh Berkus
 

As promised, we had an in-depth discussion of the Steering Committee
proposal drafted by Alexis Richardson for the July 7th TOC meeting
during the Governance WG meeting. Six members were present and
participated in the discussion; notes are available here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSfiN1PRL3dH_ohfAs1lYvNWaBpAdvAI-9OQZYYIx8ahgy6230_oRbqljl6dUiGf5hTVJiferJgBmSX/pub

Assessment:

Regarding the specific proposal of using steering committees (SC) as a
workaround for the requirement to have maintainers from multiple
organizations for projects to move to the Graduated level, the
Governance WG recommends that the TOC not adopt it.

Full explanation:

Steering Committees are frequently important governance tools for large
and distributed projects, and more projects should consider having one
as a channel for end-user, collaborator, and diverse audience
representation. We valued Alexis’ writeup, and would like to
incorporate it into our handbooks in progress for CNCF projects on how
to develop governance.

Projects that would need the "SC workaround" are projects that have been
unable to attract a single maintainer from outside the original
sponsoring organization, which is usually a sign of serious issues
within the project. The Governance WG feels that the CNCF ecosystem is
ill-served by moving projects with such problems to the Graduated level,
and the proposal will not have the desired outcomes.

Our decision was based on what we view as the inability of a
non-technical Steering Committee to ensure that a project with
maintainers* exclusively employed by the same organization treat
submissions, roadmap items, and maintainer candidates from other
organizations fairly. Even diligent SC members would find it difficult
to understand enough about technical architecture decisions to
differentiate between bias and legitimate objections in reviews.
Further, unlike code and docs maintainers, it would be challenging for
the TOC to monitor activity and involvement levels of SC members, as
that would not create the same kind of contribution trail.

For this proposal, we considered specifically projects that are having
problems attracting contributors, because only such projects would need
this mechanism. It certainly takes time to bring code reviewers up to
speed, but the current requirement is a low bar; even a single dedicated
documentation leader from an end-user company would technically satisfy it.

While many folks have cited the Kubernetes project as an example,
Kubernetes has a diversity of maintainers all the way down to the SIG
level, so it would qualify for a maintainer multi-org requirement even
without a Steering Committee. At this point, the Governance WG does not
know of a good example of a project that successfully has used an SC to
moderate the influence of development being dominated by a single
company, so doing so would be experimental. As an experiment, we might
adopt it for one specific project, but we'd want to see the outcome of
that before we adopt it as general policy.

Even Alexis’s document suggests that in problem cases it would be up to
the TOC or their delegates to intervene to resolve project problems.
Given this, it’s unclear what advantage having an SC would offer over
Alexis’s original suggestion of having designated TOC monitors.

Overall, our judgement was that adopting the SC workaround would be, in
essence, removing the maintainer multi-organization requirement, and
that it would be better to simply remove the requirement instead if that
is the direction the TOC wishes to go.

Drafted by Governance WG:
Josh Berkus
Dawn Foster
Jennifer Davis
Davinum Srinivas
Paris Pittman

(* by “maintainers” we mean involved, leading contributors with the
authority to merge code, docs, and/or community materials into any of
the key repos belonging to the project. Such contributors may be called
"maintainers", "committers", or other titles. It does not refer to the
official CNCF maintainer list for voting purposes, as that list contains
many people who do not have merge authority in their individual projects.)


--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO


Re: Sandbox annual reviews

Alena Prokharchyk
 

+1, sounds like a logical thing to do.

-alena.

On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:58 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 



[RESULT] Operator Framework SDK and OLM approved

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Operator Framework SDK and OLM sub-projects have applied to join as incubating projects (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303).


+1 Binding: *note: Quorum is 10 as Jeff Brewer has been away*
Katie Gamanji: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4799
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4833
Justin Cormack: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4834
Xiang Li: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4835
Alena Prokharchyk: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4849
Brendan Burns: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4839
Michelle Noorali: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4939

+1 Non-binding:
Alex Chircop: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4789
Ken Owens: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4790
Karl Wehden: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4791
Ricardo Aravena: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4792
Gou Rao: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4795
Ken Sipe: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4797
Anil Vishnoi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4801
Erin Boyd: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4802
Diane Mueller: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4803
Rob Szumksi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4804
Oleg Chornyi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4805
Marc Boorshtein: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4806
Alexis Richardson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4807
Alois Reitbauer: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4808
Paul Buck: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4809
Steven Dake: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4820
Jonathan Berkhaun: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4821
Srinivas R Brahmaroutu: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4822
Naren Narendra: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4823
Chris Short: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4824
Suresh Krishnan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4826
Fredrick Kautz: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4837
Jifeng: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4852

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...


Re: Sandbox annual reviews

Kiran Mova
 

+1 NB - sounds good!

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:58 PM Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...> wrote:
+1

On Jul 9, 2020, at 4:58 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:


Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Re: Sandbox annual reviews

Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...>
 

+1

On Jul 9, 2020, at 4:58 AM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:


Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

Quinton Hoole <quinton@...>
 

Nice idea, and very well written doc.

 I can't help thinking that it might promote excess and undesirable bureaucracy though, unless quite carefully scoped.

Anecdotally, the most common failure modes of oss projects appear to center around a shortage of suitably skilled contributors to competently plan, design, build and document commonly required functionality.  That is in turn typically caused by lack of willingness by companies to hire, pay and otherwise support said suitably skilled contributors (specifically engineers/coders and project co-ordinator/managers).

Assuming that the above assertions are true, presumably we want to incentivize companies and individuals to fill the above gaps (i.e. fund competent engineers and project managers) , rather than form committees to decide what should hypothetically be done by the aforementioned missing people?

Alternatively stated, should the companies who find and pay the people needed to build what's required, not get to strongly influence what's built? 

If such competent contributions are being unreasonably blocked, I agree that a good escalation path is needed. Ultimately I think this should end up at well-constitued SIGS and the TOC, but a more focussed Steering Committee per project might we'll make sense, in some cases. But perhaps its purpose should be squarely focussed on ensuring that real and legitimate contributions are not unreasonably blocked. That's all.

Q


On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 14:50 alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all

Please see below a link to a public document that describes a proposed
charter for projects wishing to establish a Steering Committee.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Hiz1dGYRS7GcjedpRVnSlDjIj0AVjeTa0-Td7aW-Lk/edit?usp=sharing

The model proposed in the doc is intended to provide 'best practice'
for projects and governance through graduation and beyond. It is not
intended to be mandatory.  It is consistent with our existing CNCF TOC
Principles.

The model addresses some of the questions raised in this github thread
- https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/459

I welcome commentary in the doc or on this list.

alexis




Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews

Alex Chircop
 

Agreed - makes sense.   We should also merge the new sandbox proposal process into main workflow doc too: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/project_proposals.adoc

Thanks,
Alex


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Lee Calcote via lists.cncf.io <leecalcote=gmail.com@...>
Sent: 09 July 2020 12:31
To: michelle.noorali@... <michelle.noorali@...>
Cc: Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io <liz=lizrice.com@...>; cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>; liz@... <liz@...>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews
 
+1 NB. Sound logic here. 

- Lee

On Jul 9, 2020, at 4:42 AM, Michelle Noorali via lists.cncf.io <michelle.noorali=microsoft.com@...> wrote:


+1

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:58 AM
To: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews
 
Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews

Lee Calcote
 

+1 NB. Sound logic here. 

- Lee

On Jul 9, 2020, at 4:42 AM, Michelle Noorali via lists.cncf.io <michelle.noorali=microsoft.com@...> wrote:


+1

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:58 AM
To: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews
 
Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Re: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews

Michelle Noorali
 

+1


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Liz Rice via lists.cncf.io <liz=lizrice.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:58 AM
To: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cncf-toc] Sandbox annual reviews
 
Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Sandbox annual reviews

Liz Rice
 

Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: 

* Moving from three sponsors to a simple TOC majority vote
* A regular cadence to review & vote on these, so that projects know when they can expect to get feedback

Wdyt? 
Liz 

 


Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

alexis richardson
 

Thanks Quinton, you raise good points. 

The SC is indeed meant to add value to the project and not introduce bureaucracy or 'interference'.  Most projects are pretty good at running themselves.  We should aim for guidelines that protect that principle.

I agree, strongly, that economic incentives are super important for driving purposeful and sustainable development.  The SC model attempts to introduce enough ecosystem balance to solve the open core described in the doc, while keeping enough incentives in place.  The mechanism is to look to others than the core maintainers to help with the balance.  

It's only one model, and I think other models are good too.  This model in particular should help keep ISVs interested and bring users closer to projects. 






On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, 06:30 Quinton Hoole, <quinton@...> wrote:
Nice idea, and very well written doc.

 I can't help thinking that it might promote excess and undesirable bureaucracy though, unless quite carefully scoped.

Anecdotally, the most common failure modes of oss projects appear to center around a shortage of suitably skilled contributors to competently plan, design, build and document commonly required functionality.  That is in turn typically caused by lack of willingness by companies to hire, pay and otherwise support said suitably skilled contributors (specifically engineers/coders and project co-ordinator/managers).

Assuming that the above assertions are true, presumably we want to incentivize companies and individuals to fill the above gaps (i.e. fund competent engineers and project managers) , rather than form committees to decide what should hypothetically be done by the aforementioned missing people?

Alternatively stated, should the companies who find and pay the people needed to build what's required, not get to strongly influence what's built? 

If such competent contributions are being unreasonably blocked, I agree that a good escalation path is needed. Ultimately I think this should end up at well-constitued SIGS and the TOC, but a more focussed Steering Committee per project might we'll make sense, in some cases. But perhaps its purpose should be squarely focussed on ensuring that real and legitimate contributions are not unreasonably blocked. That's all.

Q

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 14:50 alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all

Please see below a link to a public document that describes a proposed
charter for projects wishing to establish a Steering Committee.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Hiz1dGYRS7GcjedpRVnSlDjIj0AVjeTa0-Td7aW-Lk/edit?usp=sharing

The model proposed in the doc is intended to provide 'best practice'
for projects and governance through graduation and beyond. It is not
intended to be mandatory.  It is consistent with our existing CNCF TOC
Principles.

The model addresses some of the questions raised in this github thread
- https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/459

I welcome commentary in the doc or on this list.

alexis




Re: Proposal for a new "Steering Committee Charter"

alexis richardson
 

Josh

Thanks!

I would like to keep this at top level (TOC) for now, to maximise the
attention on it. Once the foundational principles have been
established (or rejected) by the TOC, I would be very happy to move it
into the WG for further details and, if needed, a long term home.

alexis

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:56 PM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:

On 7/2/20 2:50 PM, alexis richardson wrote:
Hi all

Please see below a link to a public document that describes a proposed
charter for projects wishing to establish a Steering Committee.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Hiz1dGYRS7GcjedpRVnSlDjIj0AVjeTa0-Td7aW-Lk/edit?usp=sharing

The model proposed in the doc is intended to provide 'best practice'
for projects and governance through graduation and beyond. It is not
intended to be mandatory. It is consistent with our existing CNCF TOC
Principles.
Hey, this is a really useful advisory. I'd like to include it in the
Governance WG advisory documents, and collaborate on it there, if you're
up for it?

--
--
Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community
Red Hat OSPO


Re: [VOTE] Operator Framework SDK and OLM

Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...>
 

+1 binding 

On Jun 24, 2020, at 5:54 AM, jifeng@... wrote:



+1 binding

------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人:Justin Cormack via lists.cncf.io<justin.cormack=docker.com@...>
日 期:2020年06月16日 21:26:35
收件人:Amye Scavarda Perrin<ascavarda@...>
抄 送:CNCF TOC<cncf-toc@...>
主 题:Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Operator Framework SDK and OLM

+1 (binding)

Justin


On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:10 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Operator Framework SDK and OLM sub-projects have applied for join as incubation projects (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303).

Katie Gamanji is the TOC sponsor for Operator Framework, has completed DD and has called for a vote.  

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YJz3_UdJlM1IZmIthUtdvVXwid0V7dOHyQ4kuX--4TE/ 

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

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

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...



Re: [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

Li, Xiang
 

+1 binding

------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Richard Hartmann <richih@...>
Sent At:2020 Jul. 7 (Tue.) 05:55
To:Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc:CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] TiKV Graduation

+1 NB

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:06 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin
<ascavarda@...> wrote:
>
> The TiKV project has applied for promotion to "Graduated" (see https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/414).
>
> Saad Ali is the TOC sponsor and has called for the vote at the end of the public comment period. (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4847)
>
> Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KCFeOdTIUXEkJJjaBrge8aIdovwdx4W2HngmUm5nfOA/edit#
>
> CNCF SIG Storage has reviewed the proposal, their recommendation can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15TQERAYI-6NWj3eTGZxKJ_g3kBP9E11v1b-Gx8lFpt0/edit#
>
> Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.
>
> Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
>
> --
> Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...



Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation

Li, Xiang
 

+1 binding

------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Tina Tsou <tina.tsou@...>
Sent At:2020 Jul. 7 (Tue.) 15:42
To:chris@... <chris@...>
Cc:Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Rook Graduation

+1 NB


Thank you,
Tina ^ ^

On Jul 7, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Chris Short via lists.cncf.io <chris=chrisshort.net@...> wrote:


+1 non-binding

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 18:03 Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Rook has applied for graduation (see https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/366).

Saad Ali is the TOC sponsor for Rook, has completed DD and has called for a vote.  (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4846)

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acp9gJ1D_qflHKJBg4gB-nZwZQs87_Dh9uiH4pITc_U/edit?usp=sharing

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

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


--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...

--

Chris Short
He/Him/His
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] Rook Graduation

Tina Tsou
 

+1 NB


Thank you,
Tina ^ ^

On Jul 7, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Chris Short via lists.cncf.io <chris=chrisshort.net@...> wrote:


+1 non-binding

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 18:03 Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Rook has applied for graduation (see https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/366).

Saad Ali is the TOC sponsor for Rook, has completed DD and has called for a vote.  (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4846)

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acp9gJ1D_qflHKJBg4gB-nZwZQs87_Dh9uiH4pITc_U/edit?usp=sharing

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

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


--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...

--

Chris Short
He/Him/His
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] Rook Graduation

Chris Short
 

+1 non-binding

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 18:03 Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
Rook has applied for graduation (see https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/366).

Saad Ali is the TOC sponsor for Rook, has completed DD and has called for a vote.  (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4846)

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acp9gJ1D_qflHKJBg4gB-nZwZQs87_Dh9uiH4pITc_U/edit?usp=sharing

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

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


--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...

--

Chris Short
He/Him/His


Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation

Burdis, Keith R.
 

+1 non-binding

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Amye Scavarda Perrin
Sent: 06 July 2020 23:03
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Rook Graduation

 

Rook has applied for graduation (see https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/366).

Saad Ali is the TOC sponsor for Rook, has completed DD and has called for a vote.  (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4846)

Due diligence doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acp9gJ1D_qflHKJBg4gB-nZwZQs87_Dh9uiH4pITc_U/edit?usp=sharing

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread.

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

 

--

Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...




Your Personal Data: We may collect and process information about you that may be subject to data protection laws. For more information about how we use and disclose your personal data, how we protect your information, our legal basis to use your information, your rights and who you can contact, please refer to: www.gs.com/privacy-notices


Re: [VOTE] Rook Graduation

Yash Thakkar
 

+1 NB


[RESULT] Contour approved

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Contour has requested to join at the incubation level. (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/330/commits)
https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4653
 

+1 Binding: *note: Quorum is 10 as Jeff Brewer has been away*
Matt Klein: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4737
Alena Prokharchyk: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4748
Liz Rice: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4770
Sheng Liang: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4771
Justin Cormack: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4776
Michelle Noorali: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4855
Brendan Burns: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4858
Saad Ali: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4864

+1 Non-Binding
Angel Ramirez: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4654
Ken Owens: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4658
Siddharth Bhadri: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4661
Matt Baldwin: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4667
Mark Peek: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4670
Yusuf Hadiwinata: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4688
Michael Payne: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4708
Alexis Richardson: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4710
Jeyappragash Jeyakeerthi: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4714
Tero Saarni: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4725
Stephen Augustus: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4726
Philippe Robin: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4731
Gadi Naor: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4733
Kevin Ryan: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4780
Andrew Aitken: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4781
Lee Calcote: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4811
Keith Burdis: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4856
Alex Chircop: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4859
Gerred Dillon: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4860
Jon Mittelhauser: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4861
Hervé Leclerc: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/4862

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...

2601 - 2620 of 7547