I agree with Camille/Bryan that the project is young and we shouldn't put the name of CNCF on a project that could cause a production user to have a very bad experience. This will not help the CNCF

Love auto correct. Sorry folks. Not sure where the me came from. Typed new. Regards, Doug On Sep 2, 2016, at 2:27 PM, NASSAUR, DOUGLAS C via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

Was planning on attacking that in the me architecture committee. Regards, Doug On Sep 2, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

yes it would be excellent to involve Brendan (and Microsoft?) and David, if they are interested key patterns also include pretty much anything that netflix have published as oss..

​I am extremely interested in this and would love to contribute / join in. I feel that a few folks can contribute a lot. Brendan Burns is one. He and David Oppenheimer wrote a USENIX paper that

thanks JJ it would be very helpful if someone or some people could form a group to codify patterns & example apps!

*Very* well done, Alexis. I can't wait until we unpack the PATTERNS piece. This is key to pragmatically codifying Cloud Native for users. I keep going back to EIPs here:

happy to

Well done sir. When you get a few minutes let's discuss a couple points re the ra that I've discussed with Ken. I've been doing similar talks and I'd like to see if we can align on a couple points.

excellent stuff, Alexis! -zac On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 2:41 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-marketing cncf-marketing@... wrote: Zachary

Hi I gave a keynote yesterday at Software Circus in Amsterdam. The bulk of my talk was about CNCF and why it needs to exist, interspersed with some personal opinions of course. I used the draft

- kubernetes-dev + cncf-toc All, We are getting close to the point where we'll need to set out the principles for exiting Incubation at CNCF. Recall that we agreed to put all projects into

Bryan & Camille I'm travelling, so apologies for brevity. 1. I don't think it should matter that a project is "small" in scope, in the sense of being "narrow". Do one thing and do it well

I agree with Camille -- while an admirable start (and a good name), CoreDNS is just too new and too small: the project itself was only conceived of in March, and by any metric (GH issues,

Agreed.

The CNCF charter mentions that the TOC would define the criteria for new projects to join the CNCF [1], perhaps now would be a good time to formalize that so that everyone can evaluate the proposed

Thanks Camille. This issue will also come up with Heron. Perhaps we need to start putting gating conditions into the process eg Yes you can be in cncf but you cannot leave incubation until

-1. I think the project has great potential but is too early to be included in the foundation. I would love to see it again once it has gone through a full release cycle and gotten a little bit of

+1 Sent from my tiny device

+1 Kenneth Owens CTO Cisco Intercloud Services kenowens@... Phone: +1 408 424 0872 Mobile: +1 314 591 5708 Cisco.com Think before you print. This email may contain confidential and