Heartily seconded! -- Dims-- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

I believe the issue here is simple. The CNCF is an open organisation and should not develop its own projects in secret. End of story. We saw this happen before eg "cloud native network functions"

Agree with the sentiment here. I'd put it as domain squatting or cookie licking is not healthy for the broader industry. What I find uncomfortable here is the potential added component of lack of

Thumbs up on the Conf Hub from the Litmus community. The community has a hub (https://hub.litmuschaos.io) for chaos experiments of Kubernetes applications. It will be nice to see the community coming

Thank you for raising this Chris. I have contacted the TOC multiple times on unfair treatment and inequality, especially when it comes to TOC sponsorship and prioritisation even for sandbox

Lots to unpack here, Chris, and as it’s 11pm I may not do it full justice in this response but I did want to make a couple of quick points: First come, first served project assessment has been a

During the evaluation of the Operator Framework for acceptance into the CNCF as an incubation project, I was surprised to learn that the vote was being held up by a request on behalf of a project yet

Erin, I was hoping to have a conversation with the TOC, CNCF staff, and other projects needing/having a hub (e.g., Falco and OPA) first for two reasons: The CNCF provides services for projects.

This is an exciting development. Having a central repository/hub for all the cloud-native artifacts makes sense. -Devdatta

Well it appears I have stuck my foot in my mouth...so apologies. It looks like this is the most broad list we have for the CNCF community. Can we safely assume that all the SIGs are also subscribed

Happy to move this anywhere - can you suggest a place that would be more appropriate? -- Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate 85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105 nova@...

Erin, Which public mailing list are you referring to? Thanks, Matt -- Erin A. Boyd Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO Red Hat eboyd@...

Kris/Matt, Can we please move all these discussions to the public mailing list and/or a PR for sandbox? Now that the repo has been made public, let's invite the other interested parties that aren't

Matt - yes that is the point of the Monday call at 9am Pacific Would you or anyone else care to join? -- Kris Nova Chief Open Source Advocate 85 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105 nova@...

Kris, Did the Falco and OPA folks want to talk about this together prior to coming to a CNCF call? Possibly to prepare for the CNCF call. - Matt

I'm available then and also during the TOC meeting. If you decide to expand Monday's meeting (or would like me to attend even if it's not expanded), I'd love an invite!

So we set up a call next Monday morning with Falco + OPA to discuss this. Looks like a lot of this has been happening without our communities involved. Should we all join forces for a CNCF wide call

This is nice! 🙌🏽🙇🏽‍♂️

Thanks Dan & Matt for getting this public! We had a brief discussion on this in the closed TOC call yesterday, and it’s clear that many TOC members have questions and ideas around this. We are

Excited to see this. The sandbox criteria (https://www.cncf.io/sandbox-projects/) (point 3 specifically) states: 3. Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG