+1, non-binding Philippe

+1, non-binding Philippe

+1, nb Philippe

+1 nb (yay!) From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 1:27 PM To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Spiffe/Spire

+1 nb

+1 nb

+1 non-binding

+1 NB

+1 non-binding

+1 non-binding -- Chris Short He/Him/His Web | Twitch | Twitter | LinkedIn

+1 NB

There are two types of Sandbox projects. There are those “experimental” projects or places where a little-s sandbox is needed on neutral ground. There are projects that are clearly headed towards

Erin, Might I suggest a 3rd alternative reason. The sandbox process used to be fairly simple for the TOC and those bringing the process in. It had it's pitfalls (e.g., finding TOC members as sponsors

I just want to clarify a few points... I believe in the idea of a sandbox. But what are we trying to solve by changing this process? 1) Are we trying to solve the operation efficiency of the TOC by

What Alexis said. It's not always reasonable/possible to only go off of what use is publicly mentioned. Granted, this really comes back to the quality of production use being "at the discretion of the

If a big production user will provide a testimonial for DD purposes, it is acceptable for them to request that it not be made public. If so then the TOC (who vote) can see it to verify that the

Hi Matt, TOC Just starting another thread as this is not related to Contour. I was under the impression that only the public Adopter.md will be considered. Are there any guidelines on when TOC will

+1 NB

Matt and Alexis, Thank you for the answers you both clarify a lot. I’ll propose couple additions to the doc it seems like we might have to add some references to the Sandbox project that might help

Angel, I'll give my 2 cents in reverse order.... What makes something a sandbox project is different from the process to be accepted. So, this touches on something semantically different. The process