+1 non-binding From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of alexis richardson <alexis@...> Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Date: Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 8:04 AM To: "cncf-toc@..."

+1 non-binding 2018-02-01 16:44 GMT+01:00 Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>: -- Deutschlands beste Arbeitgeber - 1.Platz für QAware ausgezeichnet von Great Place to Work und kununu Dr. Josef

+1 binding

+1 non-binding

The TOC has decided to invite SPIFFE (https://github.com/spiffe) as an INCEPTION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC. SPIFFE (Secure Production Identity Framework For Everyone)

I'm glad so many people found my definitions helpful! I disagree that applications have "always been designed for resiliency, operability, and observability". I have worked on numerous systems that

I really like how Justin framed this but I don’t want to lose the “agility” piece he mentions. Applications have always been designed for resiliency, operability, and observability and have

I really like the "declarative, dynamic, resilient, scalable". I think it fits the need for the elevator pitch. -Bob

Thanks for indulging my last minute questions. +1 binding

+1. -- Duncan Johnston-Watt Founder & Chair, Advisory Board Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

I’m also more aligned with Justin’s definition, the way I usually describe Cloud-Native architecture in my posts is that it provides: Durability — services must sustain component

Wow, I really like Justin's (and Kris's) definitions. As I read Brian's proposed attributes, it occurred to me how much software we have that is indisputably cloud native and yet doesn't exhibit the

This is just my opinion. Feedback is encouraged. I did a lot of thinking about definitions when writing Cloud Native Infrastructure with Kris Nova last year. In the book I define cloud native

Good point. I'll think about that (and am open to suggestions). "Automation" is a bit too terse, and not differentiated from the numerous automation systems of the past.

Although the new definition is deeper and more inclusive, I think it is much less approachable especially to an less technical audience. The "container packaged, dynamically managed, micro service

+1 (non-binding)

+1 non-binding From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 8:50 AM To: "cncf-toc@..."

+1 binding

Hi Brian, Thank you. This is very timely with some of the efforts that are underway with the CNCF website. We intend to have a high level messaging on several use cases and applications. Regards, Dee

Yes I do. Paul