Would it be appropriate to respond in a more public manner? Maybe just an article that says "check out our updated landscape" maybe to mention the archival of projects etc.. as well. Just thinking out

Thank you Dan I must say I'm a bit sceptical about stars. I wish it were more like stack overflow or discuss, so that you have to earn the right to give them out. On 6 Jun 2019, 22:46 +0100, Dan

I created this PR: https://github.com/netdata/netdata/pull/6234 -- Dan Kohn <dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

While I’m not a lawyer, I wonder if this violates the trademark rules. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/trademark-usage/ states: Just thinking out loud. -- Matt Farina mattfarina.com

The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected". This is an example of "lying by omission". It is not OK.

+1 – feels like an inappropriate use of the logo. @Dan Kohn – anything we can do to stop that?

While not "technically" incorrect, I understand what Alexis is saying; it seems like unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified. IIRC,

It's technically not wrong I guess....The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC Netdata

+1. Sent from the virtual desk of Chris Didato. (Please excuse the brevity and any typos).

I don't think we need to tightly couple the submission of projects and the creation of a SIG to deal with them :-) I get the intention to have SIGs to cover all known projects, but in the absence of a

I am also interested in the App Delivery / App Scope, and in participation. We are working through this from a few different viewpoints and would be interested in evaluating and testing the

> I'd like app delivery to be narrow if possible, but that feels hard already! From my POV I'm not disagreeing, I just don't have a good sense of what this "narrow scope" includes, so it's hard to

Thanks Liz I like your approach. So to make things more concrete and immediate �� 1) I have a project, Amino OS (http://github.com/Amino-OS/Amino.Run), that we presented at Kubecon in

Doug, the only doc I'm aware of is the proposed SIGs: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/proposed.md But I think that description is not actually universally agreed upon yet, hence this

Liz, to be clear, is your opinion that PaaS, Frameworks, IDE's etc are: a) out of scope of the CNCF b) in scope of some other CNCF SIG (and if so, which?) c) something else? Q

To be clear, I totally agree that "trying to address every project in that space" is not a goal, and neither can it be for almost any of the CNCF SIGs (Storage, Security, Traffic/Networking clearly

PS: Regarding "there will be 1000's of them", I think it's worth noting that the same can be said about most CNCF SIG's. There are thousands of projects and vendors related to Traffic/Networking,

Alexis, it's not clear whether you're proposing: a) Creating a new CNCF SIG to cover "App Frameworks, Platforms etc", or b) Declaring these to be out of scope of the CNCF. If you're suggesting (a)

Hi folks Please can we stop arguing about this. Let the Sig folk draft a charter for comment and then let's argue, bikeshed, whatever. All I'm saying is that projects like cloudfoundry and Openshift