Absolutely! +1

Folks The issue we are facing here is how to make projects, and hence the cncf, sustainable. As Quinton pointed out this requires incentives. Marketing buzz is short lived and sponsors will move on

The template is a great idea, and we'd like to borrow that from Alexis' draft. We're creating a templates repo that projects can clone if they want to use our templates for the various requirements,

As an observer, I think this is a very solid analysis and recommendation. The risk of a "rubber stamp" steering committee is a serious concern, and clearly doesn't resolve the underlying challenge of

KubeEdge has applied for promotion from Sandbox to Incubation level: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/461 With the completion of KubeEdge Due Diligence and SIG Runtime recommendation, I'm opening the

As promised, we had an in-depth discussion of the Steering Committee proposal drafted by Alexis Richardson for the July 7th TOC meeting during the Governance WG meeting. Six members were present

+1, sounds like a logical thing to do. -alena.

Operator Framework SDK and OLM sub-projects have applied to join as incubating projects (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/303). +1 Binding: *note: Quorum is 10 as Jeff Brewer has been away* Katie

+1 NB - sounds good! --Kiran Mova | Co-Founder, Chief Architect MayaData | kiran.mova@... https://github.com/openebs/openebs

+1

Nice idea, and very well written doc. I can't help thinking that it might promote excess and undesirable bureaucracy though, unless quite carefully scoped. Anecdotally, the most common failure modes

Agreed - makes sense. We should also merge the new sandbox proposal process into main workflow doc too: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/project_proposals.adoc Thanks, Alex

+1 NB. Sound logic here. - Lee

+1

Now that we have the new Sandbox application process running, it might make sense to make similar tweaks to the Sandbox annual review process too. Specifically I'd like to suggest: * Moving from

Thanks Quinton, you raise good points. The SC is indeed meant to add value to the project and not introduce bureaucracy or 'interference'. Most projects are pretty good at running themselves. We

Josh Thanks! I would like to keep this at top level (TOC) for now, to maximise the attention on it. Once the foundational principles have been established (or rejected) by the TOC, I would be very

+1 binding

+1 binding

+1 binding