and of course I posted the wrong screenshot sigh: -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

At the moment, we are limited to what the CFP tool is capable of doing, so we only have a list. We have updated the list of projects to label their relative maturity level in the CFP system. For

Yes I agree with Quinton

OK, I’m suggesting the opposite – three clearly separate lists – graduated, incubating, sandbox If I’m the only one who feel strongly on this I’m happy to step down off my soapbox. But I

We can annotate each listing with the project maturity level, that's my proposed solution moving forward. -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

This topic has already come up several times in the ToC. We explicitly decided that a very clear distinction should always be drawn between sandbox, incubation and graduated projects in

I don't see an issue with listing the projects in alphabetic order outside that it should be a series of checkboxes instead of radio buttons (we will fix that soon). The TOC list is meant for

Correct.

+1 congratulations and good work

Adding Tim Bozarth from Netflix, who's had some practical experience working with both gRPC and RSocket. Full thread here: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/topic/rsocket_followup_post_toc/24221841 +1

This is a question more for CNCF staff based on the marketing expectations of sandbox projects: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md#clarifying-marketing-expectations I'm

Hi all, While creating a CFP for Kubecon/Seattle I noticed that sandbox projects get first level choices in the Kubecon CFP. Does this apply to any sandbox project? Will the CNCF continue with this

Great news! Congratulations.

Congrats Prometheans! Very well deserved. Q Quinton Hoole Technical Vice President America Research Center 2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Tel: 408-330-4721 Cell: 408-320-8917

The vote for Prometheus to graduate has been approved: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/88 https://www.cncf.io/announcement/2018/08/09/prometheus-graduates/ +1 binding TOC votes (9/9): Alexis:

+1 (binding) -- Benjamin Hindman Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos Mesosphere Inc. Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere Follow Us

Yes, that’s right. I’m not sure where the notion that Go doesn’t do async well came from. In my experience golang does just fine using channels and go routines. Here’s a fairly useful

Hi Justin, From the go people I talked with we can use go channels for request stream and request channel. For request / response and fire forget people could be a use a go routine. I am not a go

Reading through the responses, imo this speaks to a need for a public project feature comparison I mentioned elsewhere in this thread (https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2192).

The Go question came up in the call, which is interesting as much of the CNCF ecosystem is currently Go based, although diversifying. Go is unusual in not supporting async interfaces really,