cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Topics Expanded Polls

Export Group Data

Between

and

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 non-binding

By Igor Mameshin · #3497 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 NB From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> Date: Friday, August 2, 2019 at 10:03 AM To: Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re:

By Jon Mittelhauser · #3496 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 binding

By Matt Klein · #3495 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 binding from Alimail iPhone

By Li, Xiang · #3494 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1, binding

By Brendan Burns · #3493 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 binding

By Brian Grant · #3492 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 nb *Stares at my rkt shirt with tears in my eyes* -- Stephen

By Stephen Augustus · #3491 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 NB but CoreOS still had the best logos -- Chris Short He/Him/They Web | Newsletter | Twitter | LinkedIn

By Chris Short · #3490 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 binding From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> Date: Friday, August 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...> Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving Hey all,

By Joe Beda <jbeda@...> · #3489 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 From: caniszczyk@... At: 08/02/19 11:31:04To: cncf-toc@... Subject: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] rkt archiving

By Matthew Hunt (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX) · #3488 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 nb -- -- Randy AbernethyManaging PartnerRX-M, LLCrandy.abernethy@...o 415-800-2922c 415-624-6447

By Randy Abernethy · #3487 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

With sadness +1 (nb)

By Ruben Orduz <orduzr@...> · #3486 ·

Re: [VOTE] rkt archiving

+1 nb thanks -Doug _______________________________________________________ STSM | IBM Hybrid Cloud | OM Knative (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@... The more I'm around some people, the more I

By Doug Davis <dug@...> · #3485 ·

[VOTE] rkt archiving

Hey all, I'd like to formally call the vote to archive the rkt project based on our previous multiple discussions on this topic across a few TOC meetings. Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this

By Chris Aniszczyk · #3484 ·

Draft of Application Delivery SIG Charter available

The first draft of the application delivery SIG charter is available here [1]. We ask everyone on the mailing list as well as the TOC for feedback. Please let us know as well if you want us to

By Reitbauer, Alois <alois.reitbauer@...> · #3483 ·

Re: Bias and publishing guidance from CNCF

+1 for "review", +1 for learning from ACM & academia I still think we cannot pretend to be unbiased. Even algos are biased.

By alexis richardson · #3482 ·

Re: Bias and publishing guidance from CNCF

Thanks for kicking off this thread, Gareth. I'm reminded of a couple things when it comes to attribution and bias: Academic and society papers (e.g., ACM) have author attribution including

By Matt Farina · #3481 ·

Re: Bias and publishing guidance from CNCF

Agreed, this is an important point, and good to expose to sunlight. I like Alexis’ authorship statements and the point about listing authors and their affiliations. Sometimes people’s biases

By Liz Rice · #3480 ·

Re: Bias and publishing guidance from CNCF

Thanks for raising this Gareth. This is an open issue for SIG Security where we have a growing number of individuals participating in assessments and an open issue to write up guidelines:

By Sarah Allen · #3479 ·

Re: Bias and publishing guidance from CNCF

Thanks for posting this Gareth. IMO it is better to be open about bias than to pretend it away. We could state that documents coming from CNCF TOC & SIGs are marked as "Authored by members of the

By alexis richardson · #3478 ·

4501 - 4520 of 7995

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms