There are some more details here, such as which TOC members were elected by which group: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md

I don't think that that's correct -- or rather, I don't see any grammatical way that "each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate..." can possibly refer to

Totally agree that it's a bit confusing at first, but on the nomination point: "Each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate" refers to the previous clause which

Chris, I'm a little confused about the nomination process. In particular, I can't see where in the charter it describes who many nominate candidates for the TOC. In section 6(e)(ii) it says: But I

TOC and wider community, there's been some discussion with the TOC about formalizing an archiving process for CNCF projects and what that would mean for projects. Please take a look at this issue and

Hey TOC and wider community, we have a set of project graduation/incubation reviews coming up that we want to share with the wider community: containerd (graduation):

TOC nominations are starting TODAY for the 6 TOC slots that open up in Jan 2019 that are selected by GB members (they can propose UP TO TWO NOMINEES as part of the GB, where you can only nominate up

Thank you for this. I kept making more and more notes, but could not figure out a sane place to put a concise reply in this 100+ mail thread. <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

It will run off the feedback doc + whatever suggestions people will bring up at the event.-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

Really appreciate this. Unfortunately I need to leave Seattle before then. Will there be a separate agenda or doc or will it run off the feedback doc? Best, Ruben

After some community feedback we scheduled this session at KubeCon Seattle: "BoF: KubeCon + CloudNativeCon - How Can We Improve the Conference" https://kccna18.sched.com/event/I7Iv If you have more

Not sure I can make the next meeting, but my thoughts on some of these: > Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/ > sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the

Sarah, thanks for calling out the negative language. I didn’t mean to go that route. Sorry about that. I agree with Sarah on this. Do we have our target audiences documented? Not communicating

When I think about what the CNCF is trying to accomplish, both as an organization and curator of conferences, I see a much broader and inclusive mission. In my estimation, the CNCF is the keeper of

There are a few things in this discussion that are a serious concern for me.... vendor is being used as a pejorative here. when we talk about vendors having outsized presences, there are also

It may be better to serve the community needs through smaller events.

100% in agreement, seems like we turned KubeCon to a cool infra tech conference vs a place for people to explore working/proven solutions to build apps on top. We should probably first determine

It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are

We will schedule something at KubeCon Seattle and put it on the schedule, I'll get it listed in time for the next TOC meeting and bring it up then :) Alexis can make the call to a lot some time on Nov

I'm in favour of the TOC being a focal point for a community discussion on how that community meets. At the same time we should be conscious that cncf events have many stakeholders ie. The