To be clear, I totally agree that "trying to address every project in that space" is not a goal, and neither can it be for almost any of the CNCF SIGs (Storage, Security, Traffic/Networking clearly

PS: Regarding "there will be 1000's of them", I think it's worth noting that the same can be said about most CNCF SIG's. There are thousands of projects and vendors related to Traffic/Networking,

Alexis, it's not clear whether you're proposing: a) Creating a new CNCF SIG to cover "App Frameworks, Platforms etc", or b) Declaring these to be out of scope of the CNCF. If you're suggesting (a)

Hi folks Please can we stop arguing about this. Let the Sig folk draft a charter for comment and then let's argue, bikeshed, whatever. All I'm saying is that projects like cloudfoundry and Openshift

I think it's in scope of some theoretical future SIG, when we have projects / active discussions in that area. That future SIG could even be this SIG-App Delivery in some future incarnation that

I am not sure we do ourselves any favours by separating Serverless into its own vertical. Would you expect serverless / function security to fall into the remit of SIG-security? I would. Given that,

I believe they are by nature in scope - but also trying to address every project in those spaces is boiling the ocean. Roger B.A. Klorese Senior Product Manager SUSE 705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000 Seattle

Is there a doc that gives a more detailed explanation of what "App Delivery" is meant to cover? I honestly do not know what it means for both PaaS and Serverless to be out of scope when I believe all

i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ... Plus, there will be 1000s of them. So

Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

My personal opinion is that everything that we consider to be in scope of the CNCF needs to be in scope for at least one CNCF SIG. Ergo anything that is declared out of scope for this CNCF Apps SIG

Alexis - since you mentioned that PaaS and serverless isn't in scope, in your opinion, does this mean that you see defining how to deliver a "serverless app" as something distinct from a "PaaS app" or

Yep, they are.

As long as app templates are part of the SIG, then it should be fine. Just need to be explicit with the charter (the name at least caused me a little confusion). I agree don't go too broad

Jeff I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus supporting dev tools. IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out

Would it make sense to have a more general app sig? I'd be curious what other CNCF TOC members think. I know in general Kubernetes has tried to stay unopinionated "up the stack" but it seems unless we

Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery. Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall figure

The CNCF Security SIG has been approved: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/146 +1 binding TOC votes (7/9): Alexis: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/3304 Brendan:

Here's a friendly reminder that we meet

+1. This does seem to be going in the right direction. Thanks