Different projects make different design tradeoffs. Also, these 2 projects aren't directly comparable. This article explains the difference pretty

CNCF allows for competing projects, see our TOC principles for more information on this: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/PRINCIPLES.md#no-kingmakers--one-size-does-not-fit-all Istio currently

Hi Chris, Personally, I would like to get clarification of competing component: linkerd vs istio. I learnt for example one company I met in KubeCon converting from linkerd to

Hey TOC and community, we are requesting a vote to keep linkerd (https://github.com/linkerd/linkerd) as an inception project for another year based on their presentation yesterday. Here are some stats

Good idea

Chris, Dan, To Brian's comment - "I think there's an opportunity for help from TOC contributors with these types of reviews, to pre-review the information provided, ask questions about project health

The application specifically addressed the graduation criteria, which was helpful. I posted some links to some stats relating to project health and contributor diversity. The incubation criteria also

First off, happy 2018! Second, here's the deck for tomorrow: https://goo.gl/5wBe3d We plan to cover the existing project proposals + deciding on calling for a vote for the ones that have received

Thanks Chris for the quick reply. I have booked 30 minutes next Friday morning at 10 am and will have the github issue ready before then.

Hey Steve, you can book a time with me to chat here about the project proposal process: calendly.com/caniszczyk I also recommend filing a GitHub issue about your project with more information:

Hi, I am the author of light-4j which is a fast, lightweight and cloud native microservices framework built on top of Java 8 SE. I am considering to join CNCF and wondering if someone can be a sponsor

here is the doc https://docs.google.com/a/synadia.com/document/d/1s9wPNq_BvObnqxySR_ByaPCbs-Y1GB5tI7zoBvAF3nQ/edit?usp=sharing I would be grateful if people from this list could now consider it open

In the last message on the email thread on this in November it was mentioned that there were still some outstanding todo’s before the doc could be considered ready of due diligence review. Some of

no, you have to remove yourself.

maybe, nonetheless we are using a g/doc currently

Wouldn’t it be preferable to do the preparation of the proposal in a Google Doc, and then commence the actual due diligence exercise with a PR (the way most of the other proposals have worked)?

It's all in a Google Doc, we haven't made a pr yet. All, please email me for access

Hi Alexis I don’t see a PR for the NATS proposal? Is there one? Thanks Q From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> Reply-To: Alexis Richardson

To add: Nats DD is going well, I now need a few more existing or new people who can help review the DD material please. <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Hey all, hope everyone is having a great 2018! The next TOC meeting will be in a week, on Jan 16th and we'll resume our usual schedule of meetings the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month. We have some