cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Topics Expanded Polls

Export Group Data

Between

and

Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

We need VCs to sit on their hands until Incubation

By alexis richardson · #6966 ·

Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Just for a historic perspective. When we did this discussion the last time, we identified that there are fundamentally two divergent goals that we have to balance: Projects Goal #1) Bring multiple,

By Brendan Burns · #6965 ·

2022 Service Mesh Interface Annual Review Submission

Hello there! I’d like to report that a PR for the SMI sandbox project’s annual review has been submitted: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/833. Please review at your earliest convenience.

By Keith Mattix <keithmattix2@...> · #6964 ·

Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Remember, the point of cncf is not to create ways for committees to sit in judgment over projects. It is to make great projects that enable end user success. That is all.

By alexis richardson · #6963 ·

Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Four levels would increase the total work required to assess a project through their life cycle. There might be good reasons to do it, but I don't see that it would solve the initial problem raised on

By Liz Rice · #6962 ·

Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Stringent implies work, judgement, and value. It seems that scaling wall has been hit already..

By alexis richardson · #6961 ·

Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

I agree on quite a few points :) Replying in line with some thoughts > We tried SIGs (now TAGs) doing due diligence for projects. The level> of scrutiny, and the closeness to the guidance material

By Bob Killen · #6960 ·

Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Which parts, specifically? I think we need consensus on a direction before we, potentially, start new/updating processes. Agreed. At the same time, we need to take Goodhart's law[1] into account. A

By Richard Hartmann · #6959 ·

Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Richard how would you formalise this? The goal, IMO, is to reduce the subjective judgment on entry to sandbox, and increase the quantitative aspects

By alexis richardson · #6958 ·

Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation

Replying top-level as my thoughts jump across the thread. I didn't run the numbers, yet I believe that the pace of submissions has picked up. That alone can increase backlog. We tried SIGs (now

By Richard Hartmann · #6957 ·

Re: LFX Mentorship '22 Summer Semester

Hello everyone! Just a reminder that the cutoff for making project proposals is May 8th! This is a great opportunity to have a paid mentee help with your projects. Please open a PR with your ideas:

By Nate Waddington · #6956 ·

Re: Kyverno incubation public comment period

+ 1 NB -- Thanks and Regards, Maulik Shyani CEO 408.480.8501

By Maulik Shyani · #6955 ·

Re: Kyverno incubation public comment period

+1 NB Chris Short He/Him/His Sr. Developer Advocate, AWS Kubernetes (GitOps) TZ=America/Detroit

By Chris Short · #6954 ·

Re: No TOC meetings for May 3 and May 17th, TOC panel on May 18

Got it - thank you!

By Katie Gamanji · #6953 ·

Re: No TOC meetings for May 3 and May 17th, TOC panel on May 18

Katie, typically whoever makes it to the event in-person :)-- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

By Davanum Srinivas · #6952 ·

Re: Results from Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, April 26

Hello Dawn - thanks a lot for your direction here. We will surely work on the given resources. --

By Maulik Shyani · #6951 ·

Re: Results from Sandbox Inclusion Meeting, April 26

Hi Maulik, I’m not on the TOC, so I’m not sure if there were specific concerns about Matos raised during the meeting, but I do have a few suggestions for you based on our work within TAG

By Dawn Foster · #6950 ·

Re: No TOC meetings for May 3 and May 17th, TOC panel on May 18

Thank you Amye for the update! Do we know who will represent the TOC in the panel?

By Katie Gamanji · #6949 ·

Re: [VOTE] WG Environmental Conservation/Sustainability

+1 binding

By Matt Farina · #6948 ·

No TOC meetings for May 3 and May 17th, TOC panel on May 18

A quick note that the TOC meetings for May 3rd and May 17th are cancelled. We have a conflict with the TOC for the 3rd, and we'll have an open TOC panel at KubeCon replacing our standard meeting for

By Amye Scavarda Perrin · #6947 ·

1041 - 1060 of 7995

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms