Ah, ok. Sorry, my mistake!

+1 binding

It wasn't in the sandbox, they went straight for incubation: https://github.com/datawire/ambassador I know it can be confusing as they were originally considered a sandbox contribution but decided to

+1 binding

This question is probably six months too late, but didn't CNCF own the Ambasaador trademark (since the project joined Sandbox)?

Personally I disagree that this is akin to asking for a license change. The name is an intrinsic part of the project. It is the primary key for the community. This feels more like accepting a fork

> if the TOC is saying "choose another name than IC4EP or something else that wouldn't confuse end users" before we accept the project fully then the project can do that in parallel as we onboard it

I don't think we have to fully pause everything but it's up to the TOC here, if the TOC is saying "choose another name than IC4EP or something else that wouldn't confuse end users" before we accept

OK then IMO we have to pause this for a bit. Can we finalize the name, get it fully done, and then re-submit the DD with the new name, website, etc. clearly in place?

The problem is the company rebranded to Ambassador also here: https://www.getambassador.io, so the project needs to be renamed to deal with the obvious trademark conflict here. The CNCF is open to

Also, to be clear, I think Ambassador is a big part of the OSS brand and I had erroneously thought that we were sticking with that name. If we are going to change the name to something entirely new it

I'm sorry for not tracking this more closely, but I agree with Joe on this. I'm not OK with an acronym for something that IMO is too generic. I think you either have to stick with Ambassador or choose

IC4E only begs the question about what it stands for. It also doesn't set the project up, IMO, for success as the more memorable name will be with the commercial entity and it could stunt the

Hi Joe, Matt, many thanks for your comments. @Matt, I remember you raising this in the DD document comments, and @Chris Aniszczyk suggested this would be acceptable under the

That's a very insightful report! Would be great to see more CNCF projects using fuzzing integration to simplify vulnerability scanning and bug fixing.

+1 NB Thank you Ashutosh Narkar, Aradhana Chetal and Andres Vega for all the hard work advancing SIG-Security. Dan Shaw @dshaw Cor.dev - Solving Solved Problems 💗

+1 NB Katie Gamanji

> I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy Proxy” as that also describes Contour. This will create confusion and will be easily misread as "THE Ingress Controller for Envoy Proxy" and

What is the new name? The name "ambassador" is all over the docs and I'd expect to see this reframed around the new name. I object to the name "Ingress Controller for Envoy Proxy” as that also

All, Ambassador is applying for incubation status: Issue: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/435 DD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bJhfqEADNI7YSQPyi8Kmb1VvN2FaqxMFRsYvp-vZQLg/edit DD has been