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

Or "automatable": http://blog.kubernetes.io/2016/09/cloud-native-application-interfaces.html Good suggestion. I agree they aren't all necessary in every situation. They are intended to serve as

Paul Do you agree that mesh is helpful, but otherwise neither necessary nor sufficient? A

I think the overall definition is much better. I really like how service meshes enable DRY and declarative intent, but there are lots of other important technologies (such as network attached

Nice one Brian Once you said "cloud native is automation" Re the second section, I suggest "promote... but are not necessary for". In particular i am not convinced immutability is quite "right", and

I converted this to a gdoc for easier editing/commenting for now: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d9Ks3UvUV8sZj4ribAMwmq0MZwi1CwnOZWGtrCufOuk/edit?usp=sharing Thanks Brian for spearheading this

The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around

Thanks. I have a couple slides in the deck already, I may update them a bit before the meeting.

John, yes, we can definitely cover that.

Hi Alexis, We planned to have the annual inception review for CoreDNS at the Feb 6 meeting. Is there still space on the agenda for that? Thanks, John

Many of these companies have talked to us, and we are still in some form of conversation with some of them. The logos we've listed are only those from whom we've received explicit permission from. PS:

FWIW, it looks like there is decent demand for something like Vitess (13790 commits) based on the number of companies that have implemented their own solutions: Tumblr: jetpants (1335

+1 Binding