Actually copying Cheryl this time On 18 Jun 2019, 22:41 +0200, Liz Rice <liz@...>, wrote:

Hi Erin! My first question would be what the group wants to achieve, and what it is about being a SIG that would help them achieve those goals? Hello Frederick! I think the main difference is that

Frederick! Nice to see you! To answer your question, see: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/cncf-sigs.md This outlines the overall goals. While it doesn't directly address user groups, it

I'm relatively new to the organizational structure of the CNCF in regards to user groups vs Sig's. Is someone able to point me to some documentation about the difference between a user group and

Hi TOC, I have a few users from the TUG who were inquiring about the formation of a SIG for this group instead. What are everyone's thoughts around this? Erin -- Erin A. Boyd

https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/06/11/cncf-openness-guidelines/ CNCF is an open source technical community where technical project collaboration, discussions, and decision-making should be open and

Hey all, we have our TOC project presentation meeting tomorrow: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aL_W8G0QGBolgmbgXGwpt8yfoTooSJbqAKJkcxcVbJE/edit?usp=sharing We are scheduled to hear from the

To be honest, this is a way better informed spam without results. I do not see an agreement being made on what is being achieved in this discussion. What do we want to stop? A gamified starred

Alexis, thank you for the insights. > "Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to see it as cloud native." > "The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor

I was thinking of this comment: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163#issuecomment-437167354 Harbor incubation proposal by clouderati · Pull Request #163 · cncf/toc · GitHub +1 non-binding. Our

Perhaps you’re thinking further kubernetes integrations which was in the slide deck for the TOC presentation. That preso was on 2018-06-19 while the links I provided for an early tagged release

Wasn't Harbor originally delivered ONLY as a virtual appliance, with the containers coming later? The discussion of whether to accept it as a CNCF project received pushback at the time based

Costa The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor Netdata. Had a sponsor stepped forward, Netdata would have been invited to initiate the DD process for incubation, with

+1, the TOC felt the same way when the voting happened. <markpeek=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Matt, Yes, indeed, we do have the Definition. The TOC worked on this along with the layered stack (architecture) and landscape (which fits into the stack). You are 100% right that there should be

Roger, I get your point but disagree with your example. Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual

No, my point is that what makes something sufficiently cloud-native to be on the landscape may not be totally obvious. Roger B.A. Klorese Senior Product Manager SUSE 705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000 Seattle

Roger are you saying this applies to Netdata too? Because Netdata is not a virtual appliance...

If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual

Alexis, thank you for the information. So, you say that TOC members discussed about Netdata and decided it is not cloud native and should not be invited to CNCF. Are there any meeting minutes about