|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
+1 non binding
Best Regards,
Von Gosling, Apache RocketMQ Founder, Linux OpenMessaging Founder
+1 non binding
Best Regards,
Von Gosling, Apache RocketMQ Founder, Linux OpenMessaging Founder
|
By
vongosling
·
#1461
·
|
|
Re: RFC: NATS project proposal due diligence
Let’s say until Feb 6th, which is the next TOC meeting. We can review at that time to see if the TOC feels there’s been enough due diligence to hold a vote or wait further.
Let’s say until Feb 6th, which is the next TOC meeting. We can review at that time to see if the TOC feels there’s been enough due diligence to hold a vote or wait further.
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#1460
·
|
|
Re: RFC: NATS project proposal due diligence
Hi Chris,
Can we create a timeline for the DD starting with this one?
Thanks,
Erin
Hi Chris,
Can we create a timeline for the DD starting with this one?
Thanks,
Erin
|
By
Erin Boyd
·
#1459
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] rook project proposal (inception)
Non-binding +1
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 12:08 PM
To: "cncf-toc@..."
Non-binding +1
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 12:08 PM
To: "cncf-toc@..."
|
By
Grigoriu, Marius <marius.grigoriu@...>
·
#1458
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] rook project proposal (inception)
+1 binding
By
Jonathan Boulle <jon@...>
·
#1457
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] rook project proposal (inception)
Non-binding +1
By
Joseph Jacks <jacks.joe@...>
·
#1456
·
|
|
RFC: NATS project proposal due diligence
The NATS community has posted their project proposal on GitHub:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/81
It would be great if the TOC and wider community would perform any due diligence and make any
The NATS community has posted their project proposal on GitHub:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/81
It would be great if the TOC and wider community would perform any due diligence and make any
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#1455
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
+1 non binding
By
Brandon DuRette
·
#1454
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
+1 non-binding for me
Best Regards,
Shannon Williams
shannon@...
+1 650-521-6902
+1 non-binding for me
Best Regards,
Shannon Williams
shannon@...
+1 650-521-6902
|
By
Shannon Williams <shannon@...>
·
#1453
·
|
|
[VOTE] rook project proposal (inception)
The TOC has decided to invite rook (https://github.com/rook/rook) as an INCEPTION level CNCF project, sponsored by Ben Hindman from the TOC.
Rook is an open source orchestrator for distributed storage
The TOC has decided to invite rook (https://github.com/rook/rook) as an INCEPTION level CNCF project, sponsored by Ben Hindman from the TOC.
Rook is an open source orchestrator for distributed storage
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#1452
·
|
|
FYI: TOC Project Voting Queue
At the TOC meeting earlier this week, the TOC has decided to invite 4 projects for voting after a lengthy community due diligence period:
rook: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/57
vitess:
At the TOC meeting earlier this week, the TOC has decided to invite 4 projects for voting after a lengthy community due diligence period:
rook: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/57
vitess:
|
By
Chris Aniszczyk
·
#1451
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
+1 non-binding for me, with +1 to Brian Grant on process
+1 non-binding for me, with +1 to Brian Grant on process
|
By
Erin Boyd
·
#1450
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
+1 from me, as well, but we need to talk about the desired process going forward
+1 from me, as well, but we need to talk about the desired process going forward
|
By
Brian Grant
·
#1449
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Apologies, my vote is binding.
Apologies, my vote is binding.
|
By
Sam Lambert <samlambert@...>
·
#1448
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
+1 non-binding.
By
Sam Lambert <samlambert@...>
·
#1447
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Here is my
+1
Vote
By
alexis richardson
·
#1446
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
Contributor diversity is not an explicit criterion at the incubation stage:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/graduation_criteria.adoc
Contributor diversity is not an explicit criterion at the incubation stage:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/graduation_criteria.adoc
|
By
Brian Grant
·
#1445
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
+1 to keeping it - non-binding
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 |
+1 to keeping it - non-binding
thanks
-Doug
_______________________________________________________
STSM | IBM Open Source, Cloud Architecture & Technology
(919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 |
|
By
Doug Davis <dug@...>
·
#1444
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
I think the biggest concern is that Buoyant continues to dominate development given that other companies are generally making small patches rather than becoming major contributors.
I think the biggest concern is that Buoyant continues to dominate development given that other companies are generally making small patches rather than becoming major contributors.
|
By
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
·
#1443
·
|
|
Re: [VOTE] linkerd inception project review 2018
I don't have a binding vote either but I am curious given linkerd's impressive stats why it isn't being promoted?
Best
Duncan
--
Duncan Johnston-Watt
Founder & Chair, Advisory Board
Phone: +44
I don't have a binding vote either but I am curious given linkerd's impressive stats why it isn't being promoted?
Best
Duncan
--
Duncan Johnston-Watt
Founder & Chair, Advisory Board
Phone: +44
|
By
Duncan Johnston-Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@...>
·
#1442
·
|