Date   

Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Davanum Srinivas
 

I like that Josh! A bit more work on the TOC side, but the paper trail is for sure a good idea.

Amye, TOC members,
Please chime in as well.

-- Dims

PS: we'll keep talking, when ready we can PR the changes to existing process(es) and then make it official (and then roll it out).


On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM Josh Berkus <jberkus@...> wrote:
On 4/30/22 09:18, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> - there are 21 applications currently in the queue, a bunch of them are
> resubmissions where the TOC has a set of questions and they came back
> with answers.

FWIW, this part of the process could be made considerably more efficient
for both the projects and the TOC as well.

Right now, when sandbox projects are sent out and come back with
answers, there's no paper trail for the questions and the answers.  This
forces TOC members to re-evaluate the project from scratch.

My suggestion for a simple process that would solve this.  If a project
needs to answer questions or get inspected by a TAG, what happens is:

1. The TOC writes the questions in an issue in the TOC repo
2. The project or the TAG (depending) answer those questions in the TOC
repo.
3. Evaluation is resumed whenever the questions are answered.

This would spare TOC members from effectively starting over each time a
project re-applies.


--
-- Josh Berkus
    Kubernetes Community Architect
    OSPO, OCTO



--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Josh Berkus
 

On 4/30/22 09:18, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
- there are 21 applications currently in the queue, a bunch of them are resubmissions where the TOC has a set of questions and they came back with answers.
FWIW, this part of the process could be made considerably more efficient for both the projects and the TOC as well.

Right now, when sandbox projects are sent out and come back with answers, there's no paper trail for the questions and the answers. This forces TOC members to re-evaluate the project from scratch.

My suggestion for a simple process that would solve this. If a project needs to answer questions or get inspected by a TAG, what happens is:

1. The TOC writes the questions in an issue in the TOC repo
2. The project or the TAG (depending) answer those questions in the TOC repo.
3. Evaluation is resumed whenever the questions are answered.

This would spare TOC members from effectively starting over each time a project re-applies.


--
-- Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community Architect
OSPO, OCTO


Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Davanum Srinivas
 

Chris,

I would prefer first to beef up our existing bodies and not spread thin folks already doing too much. My personal preference.

However I am not taking it off the table. 

It would be great if folks on this thread (who are not yet active in a TAG) pick one or more TAGs and actively participate in the activities, that would be wonderful for sure.

-- Dims


On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 12:22 PM Short, Chris <cbshort@...> wrote:
Just a thought, could the Sandbox process be amended to be run by a designed to be nimble, yet to be created committee/council/board?

Chris Short
He/Him/His
Sr. Developer Advocate, AWS Kubernetes (GitOps)
TZ=America/Detroit

On Apr 30, 2022, at 12:18, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.


Alois. 

Big thanks for bringing this up!

Some observations from me:
- there are 21 applications currently in the queue, a bunch of them are resubmissions where the TOC has a set of questions and they came back with answers.
- The process needs to be consistent (irrespective of when a project was submitted or who is evaluating it) to prevent angst/worry on the part of the submitters.
- TOC's are not particularly healthy as they are understaffed, we do push some of the submissions to talk to either TAGs or k8s SIGs for example and come back with written responses and endorsements for example.
- Getting time on calendars for everyone on the TOC is challenge, so we have/will run into quorum issues trying to schedule additional calls to get through the backlog
- "People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc." << I get it, but i'd rather not accept something that is ephemeral and doesn't really have folks who can drive things for the longer term, Sorry.
- On a good day, TOC is able to handle about 10-12 submissions. Trying to do more will be just rubber stamping instead of actually looking through, reading and watching the stuff the submitters have requested.

I do get the need for speed and I agree that we need to do better. So let's have this conversation and see how we can proceed next. 

Alois, I am happy to add this to the TOC agenda and walk through the issues and work through possible solutions, 

thanks,
Dims

On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 11:25 AM Reitbauer, Alois via lists.cncf.io <alois.reitbauer=dynatrace.com@...> wrote:

TOC-Members,

 

This email is a follow up of a conversation I started with dims.

 

I am asking you to rethink the current Sandbox process – mostly regarding speed. The idea of having a way to collaborate across organisations under a neutral foundation is key ideal of the CNCF. However, this is proving to get harder; mostly regarding the speed of acceptance.

 

Let me share an example. We have put together an industry consortium to define a common, vendor-neutral standard for feature flagging (https://openfeature.dev ) and brought together a consortium spanning key industry players and end users (see interested parties: https://github.com/open-feature/community/blob/main/interested-parties.md ). We submitted for sandbox early this year and given the current backlog and progress on evaluating projects it is very likely that the project will get accepted until late this year.

 

Pulling these activities off, getting buy in form key stakeholder and driving momentum to move them forward is a major effort. A key part of proces is being able to operate under a neutral entry like the CNCF. If this process is taking a very long time, it has negative impact on these initiatives. People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc.

 

The sandbox process is an essential part of evolving the cloud native landscape, but it is broken and needs to evolve.

 

I am proposing to make this a continuous process; maybe involving TAGs (again), who can support handling to workload and defining a set of criteria allowing project to prepare for being accepted quickly. Just some ideas on criteria:

  • Obviously, the project being cloud native
  • Clear goals and roadmap
  • A community engagement plan.
  • A team/consortium that can the delivery on the project’s goals.

 

Immediate steps then should be to get the current backlog down and define a “service level” by when project should be able to expect a response.

 

I am willing to support on improving the process, if needed/wanted.

 

 

This email may contain confidential information. If it appears this message was sent to you by mistake, please let us know of the error. In this case, we also ask that you do not further forward the content and delete it. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20.



--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Chris Short
 

Just a thought, could the Sandbox process be amended to be run by a designed to be nimble, yet to be created committee/council/board?

Chris Short
He/Him/His
Sr. Developer Advocate, AWS Kubernetes (GitOps)
TZ=America/Detroit

On Apr 30, 2022, at 12:18, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.


Alois. 

Big thanks for bringing this up!

Some observations from me:
- there are 21 applications currently in the queue, a bunch of them are resubmissions where the TOC has a set of questions and they came back with answers.
- The process needs to be consistent (irrespective of when a project was submitted or who is evaluating it) to prevent angst/worry on the part of the submitters.
- TOC's are not particularly healthy as they are understaffed, we do push some of the submissions to talk to either TAGs or k8s SIGs for example and come back with written responses and endorsements for example.
- Getting time on calendars for everyone on the TOC is challenge, so we have/will run into quorum issues trying to schedule additional calls to get through the backlog
- "People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc." << I get it, but i'd rather not accept something that is ephemeral and doesn't really have folks who can drive things for the longer term, Sorry.
- On a good day, TOC is able to handle about 10-12 submissions. Trying to do more will be just rubber stamping instead of actually looking through, reading and watching the stuff the submitters have requested.

I do get the need for speed and I agree that we need to do better. So let's have this conversation and see how we can proceed next. 

Alois, I am happy to add this to the TOC agenda and walk through the issues and work through possible solutions, 

thanks,
Dims

On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 11:25 AM Reitbauer, Alois via lists.cncf.io <alois.reitbauer=dynatrace.com@...> wrote:

TOC-Members,

 

This email is a follow up of a conversation I started with dims.

 

I am asking you to rethink the current Sandbox process – mostly regarding speed. The idea of having a way to collaborate across organisations under a neutral foundation is key ideal of the CNCF. However, this is proving to get harder; mostly regarding the speed of acceptance.

 

Let me share an example. We have put together an industry consortium to define a common, vendor-neutral standard for feature flagging (https://openfeature.dev ) and brought together a consortium spanning key industry players and end users (see interested parties: https://github.com/open-feature/community/blob/main/interested-parties.md ). We submitted for sandbox early this year and given the current backlog and progress on evaluating projects it is very likely that the project will get accepted until late this year.

 

Pulling these activities off, getting buy in form key stakeholder and driving momentum to move them forward is a major effort. A key part of proces is being able to operate under a neutral entry like the CNCF. If this process is taking a very long time, it has negative impact on these initiatives. People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc.

 

The sandbox process is an essential part of evolving the cloud native landscape, but it is broken and needs to evolve.

 

I am proposing to make this a continuous process; maybe involving TAGs (again), who can support handling to workload and defining a set of criteria allowing project to prepare for being accepted quickly. Just some ideas on criteria:

  • Obviously, the project being cloud native
  • Clear goals and roadmap
  • A community engagement plan.
  • A team/consortium that can the delivery on the project’s goals.

 

Immediate steps then should be to get the current backlog down and define a “service level” by when project should be able to expect a response.

 

I am willing to support on improving the process, if needed/wanted.

 

 

This email may contain confidential information. If it appears this message was sent to you by mistake, please let us know of the error. In this case, we also ask that you do not further forward the content and delete it. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20.



--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Davanum Srinivas
 

Alois. 

Big thanks for bringing this up!

Some observations from me:
- there are 21 applications currently in the queue, a bunch of them are resubmissions where the TOC has a set of questions and they came back with answers.
- The process needs to be consistent (irrespective of when a project was submitted or who is evaluating it) to prevent angst/worry on the part of the submitters.
- TOC's are not particularly healthy as they are understaffed, we do push some of the submissions to talk to either TAGs or k8s SIGs for example and come back with written responses and endorsements for example.
- Getting time on calendars for everyone on the TOC is challenge, so we have/will run into quorum issues trying to schedule additional calls to get through the backlog
- "People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc." << I get it, but i'd rather not accept something that is ephemeral and doesn't really have folks who can drive things for the longer term, Sorry.
- On a good day, TOC is able to handle about 10-12 submissions. Trying to do more will be just rubber stamping instead of actually looking through, reading and watching the stuff the submitters have requested.

I do get the need for speed and I agree that we need to do better. So let's have this conversation and see how we can proceed next. 

Alois, I am happy to add this to the TOC agenda and walk through the issues and work through possible solutions, 

thanks,
Dims


On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 11:25 AM Reitbauer, Alois via lists.cncf.io <alois.reitbauer=dynatrace.com@...> wrote:

TOC-Members,

 

This email is a follow up of a conversation I started with dims.

 

I am asking you to rethink the current Sandbox process – mostly regarding speed. The idea of having a way to collaborate across organisations under a neutral foundation is key ideal of the CNCF. However, this is proving to get harder; mostly regarding the speed of acceptance.

 

Let me share an example. We have put together an industry consortium to define a common, vendor-neutral standard for feature flagging (https://openfeature.dev ) and brought together a consortium spanning key industry players and end users (see interested parties: https://github.com/open-feature/community/blob/main/interested-parties.md ). We submitted for sandbox early this year and given the current backlog and progress on evaluating projects it is very likely that the project will get accepted until late this year.

 

Pulling these activities off, getting buy in form key stakeholder and driving momentum to move them forward is a major effort. A key part of proces is being able to operate under a neutral entry like the CNCF. If this process is taking a very long time, it has negative impact on these initiatives. People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc.

 

The sandbox process is an essential part of evolving the cloud native landscape, but it is broken and needs to evolve.

 

I am proposing to make this a continuous process; maybe involving TAGs (again), who can support handling to workload and defining a set of criteria allowing project to prepare for being accepted quickly. Just some ideas on criteria:

  • Obviously, the project being cloud native
  • Clear goals and roadmap
  • A community engagement plan.
  • A team/consortium that can the delivery on the project’s goals.

 

Immediate steps then should be to get the current backlog down and define a “service level” by when project should be able to expect a response.

 

I am willing to support on improving the process, if needed/wanted.

 

 

This email may contain confidential information. If it appears this message was sent to you by mistake, please let us know of the error. In this case, we also ask that you do not further forward the content and delete it. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20.



--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Alex Jones
 

+1 Agree


Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Alex Chircop
 

Agreed. +1

On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 4:25 PM Reitbauer, Alois via lists.cncf.io <alois.reitbauer=dynatrace.com@...> wrote:

TOC-Members,

 

This email is a follow up of a conversation I started with dims.

 

I am asking you to rethink the current Sandbox process – mostly regarding speed. The idea of having a way to collaborate across organisations under a neutral foundation is key ideal of the CNCF. However, this is proving to get harder; mostly regarding the speed of acceptance.

 

Let me share an example. We have put together an industry consortium to define a common, vendor-neutral standard for feature flagging (https://openfeature.dev ) and brought together a consortium spanning key industry players and end users (see interested parties: https://github.com/open-feature/community/blob/main/interested-parties.md ). We submitted for sandbox early this year and given the current backlog and progress on evaluating projects it is very likely that the project will get accepted until late this year.

 

Pulling these activities off, getting buy in form key stakeholder and driving momentum to move them forward is a major effort. A key part of proces is being able to operate under a neutral entry like the CNCF. If this process is taking a very long time, it has negative impact on these initiatives. People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc.

 

The sandbox process is an essential part of evolving the cloud native landscape, but it is broken and needs to evolve.

 

I am proposing to make this a continuous process; maybe involving TAGs (again), who can support handling to workload and defining a set of criteria allowing project to prepare for being accepted quickly. Just some ideas on criteria:

  • Obviously, the project being cloud native
  • Clear goals and roadmap
  • A community engagement plan.
  • A team/consortium that can the delivery on the project’s goals.

 

Immediate steps then should be to get the current backlog down and define a “service level” by when project should be able to expect a response.

 

I am willing to support on improving the process, if needed/wanted.

 

 

This email may contain confidential information. If it appears this message was sent to you by mistake, please let us know of the error. In this case, we also ask that you do not further forward the content and delete it. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20.



This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged or copyrighted material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. StorageOS Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 09614942. Registered office address: 2 Minton Place, Victoria Road, Bicester, Oxfordshire, OX26 6QB.


Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

alexis richardson
 

+1



On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 16:25 Reitbauer, Alois via lists.cncf.io, <alois.reitbauer=dynatrace.com@...> wrote:

TOC-Members,

 

This email is a follow up of a conversation I started with dims.

 

I am asking you to rethink the current Sandbox process – mostly regarding speed. The idea of having a way to collaborate across organisations under a neutral foundation is key ideal of the CNCF. However, this is proving to get harder; mostly regarding the speed of acceptance.

 

Let me share an example. We have put together an industry consortium to define a common, vendor-neutral standard for feature flagging (https://openfeature.dev ) and brought together a consortium spanning key industry players and end users (see interested parties: https://github.com/open-feature/community/blob/main/interested-parties.md ). We submitted for sandbox early this year and given the current backlog and progress on evaluating projects it is very likely that the project will get accepted until late this year.

 

Pulling these activities off, getting buy in form key stakeholder and driving momentum to move them forward is a major effort. A key part of proces is being able to operate under a neutral entry like the CNCF. If this process is taking a very long time, it has negative impact on these initiatives. People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc.

 

The sandbox process is an essential part of evolving the cloud native landscape, but it is broken and needs to evolve.

 

I am proposing to make this a continuous process; maybe involving TAGs (again), who can support handling to workload and defining a set of criteria allowing project to prepare for being accepted quickly. Just some ideas on criteria:

  • Obviously, the project being cloud native
  • Clear goals and roadmap
  • A community engagement plan.
  • A team/consortium that can the delivery on the project’s goals.

 

Immediate steps then should be to get the current backlog down and define a “service level” by when project should be able to expect a response.

 

I am willing to support on improving the process, if needed/wanted.

 

 

This email may contain confidential information. If it appears this message was sent to you by mistake, please let us know of the error. In this case, we also ask that you do not further forward the content and delete it. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20.


Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Reitbauer, Alois
 

TOC-Members,

 

This email is a follow up of a conversation I started with dims.

 

I am asking you to rethink the current Sandbox process – mostly regarding speed. The idea of having a way to collaborate across organisations under a neutral foundation is key ideal of the CNCF. However, this is proving to get harder; mostly regarding the speed of acceptance.

 

Let me share an example. We have put together an industry consortium to define a common, vendor-neutral standard for feature flagging (https://openfeature.dev ) and brought together a consortium spanning key industry players and end users (see interested parties: https://github.com/open-feature/community/blob/main/interested-parties.md ). We submitted for sandbox early this year and given the current backlog and progress on evaluating projects it is very likely that the project will get accepted until late this year.

 

Pulling these activities off, getting buy in form key stakeholder and driving momentum to move them forward is a major effort. A key part of proces is being able to operate under a neutral entry like the CNCF. If this process is taking a very long time, it has negative impact on these initiatives. People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc.

 

The sandbox process is an essential part of evolving the cloud native landscape, but it is broken and needs to evolve.

 

I am proposing to make this a continuous process; maybe involving TAGs (again), who can support handling to workload and defining a set of criteria allowing project to prepare for being accepted quickly. Just some ideas on criteria:

  • Obviously, the project being cloud native
  • Clear goals and roadmap
  • A community engagement plan.
  • A team/consortium that can the delivery on the project’s goals.

 

Immediate steps then should be to get the current backlog down and define a “service level” by when project should be able to expect a response.

 

I am willing to support on improving the process, if needed/wanted.

 

 

This email may contain confidential information. If it appears this message was sent to you by mistake, please let us know of the error. In this case, we also ask that you do not further forward the content and delete it. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20.


Green Cloud Interest

Richard Hill
 

+1 non Binding.


Really pleased to see initiatives like this kicking off and looking at computing from a new angle.


Will be watching this with interest.




Re: [VOTE] WG Environmental Conservation/Sustainability

Toni Menzel
 

+1 (non-binding)

rebaze GmbH
Developer focused Technology Consulting & Cloud Native Infrastructure.


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 1:11 AM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] WG Environmental Conservation/Sustainability
 
This is the official vote for the Environmental Conservation/Sustainability Working Group. 


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 | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...


Re: [VOTE] WG Environmental Conservation/Sustainability

Alena Prokharchyk
 

+1 non-binding

-alena

On Apr 26, 2022, at 3:11 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:

This is the official vote for the Environmental Conservation/Sustainability Working Group. 


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 | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...


Re: [VOTE] CubeFS for incubation

yuanyunyuleson
 

+1 non-binding


Re: [VOTE] CubeFS for incubation

常亮(leonchang)
 

+1 non-binding 


Re: [VOTE] CubeFS for incubation

hexiaochun@...
 

+1 non-binding


Onsite Maintainers Circle in Valencia! Help us spread the word!

Paris Pittman <paris_pittman@...>
 

All,

Please help us spread the word to all of your project lists and chat channels to promote the onsite Maintainers Circle session during Valencia KubeCon/CloudNativeCon! This is geared towards project Maintainers and those in named roles who make decisions for the project (committee members, OWNERs files, etc.). This will be our second in person session. 

This session is focusing on skills, tips/tricks, and the care you should put into yourself as a Reviewer. 
Mounds of pull requests are in your queue. How do you approach reviewing them? Reviewing can be challenging for a number of reasons: complex codebase, not the best tooling, the overwhelming number, and more. 
Experts Tim Hockin and Danielle Lancashire, two esteemed CNCF project maintainers, will be joining us. As always, this is an interactive session so come for the great talks but stay for the discussion in between. 



Paris


Re: [VOTE] WG Environmental Conservation/Sustainability

Aparna Subramanian
 

+1 NB

Aparna Subramanian
Director of Production Engineering
Shopify



On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 3:51 PM Evers, Melissa <melissa.evers@...> wrote:

+1 NB

 

Melissa Evers

Strategy to Execution

Intel Software and Advanced Technology Group

@melisevers, c 503.333.8488

she/her

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Daniel Helfand
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 2:38 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] WG Environmental Conservation/Sustainability

 

+1 NB

 

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:28 PM dzolo via lists.cncf.io <dzolo=spotify.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:48 PM r.levensalor@... <r.levensalor@...> wrote:

+1 NB

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Amye Scavarda Perrin via lists.cncf.io <ascavarda=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:11 PM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] WG Environmental Conservation/Sustainability

This is the official vote for the Environmental Conservation/Sustainability Working Group. 


 

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 | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...


 

--

~Dave



--
Cheers,
Aparna


Re: [VOTE] WG Environmental Conservation/Sustainability

Evers, Melissa <melissa.evers@...>
 

+1 NB

 

Melissa Evers

Strategy to Execution

Intel Software and Advanced Technology Group

@melisevers, c 503.333.8488

she/her

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Daniel Helfand
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 2:38 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] WG Environmental Conservation/Sustainability

 

+1 NB

 

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:28 PM dzolo via lists.cncf.io <dzolo=spotify.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:48 PM r.levensalor@... <r.levensalor@...> wrote:

+1 NB

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Amye Scavarda Perrin via lists.cncf.io <ascavarda=linuxfoundation.org@...>
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:11 PM
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] WG Environmental Conservation/Sustainability

This is the official vote for the Environmental Conservation/Sustainability Working Group. 


 

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 | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...


 

--

~Dave


Re: [k8s-steering] Re: [cncf-toc] Kubecon mask mandate post mortem (Re: Short statement from CNCF GB)

Davanum Srinivas
 

Agree Erin!


On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 6:02 PM Erin Boyd <eboyd@...> wrote:
I almost think we should lead with the inclosing at the start to better frame why we are providing this information.
Thoughts?

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 3:44 PM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:



--

Erin A. Boyd

Director of Emerging Technologies OCTO

Distinguished Engineer

Red Hat

eboyd@...   

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "steering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to steering+unsubscribe@....
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/steering/CAJhxK-nwcA9HEhCDJObkRPvyR45fRW%2B5sPYBBk4SKU%2Bvx_akFA%40mail.gmail.com.


--
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims


Re: Kubecon mask mandate post mortem (Re: Short statement from CNCF GB)

Erin Boyd
 

I almost think we should lead with the inclosing at the start to better frame why we are providing this information.
Thoughts?

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 3:44 PM Davanum Srinivas <davanum@...> wrote:



--

Erin A. Boyd

Director of Emerging Technologies OCTO

Distinguished Engineer

Red Hat

eboyd@...   

401 - 420 of 7323