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

There's even Minecraft on Vitess :-) https://minecraftly.readme.io/v1.0/docs/what-is-minecraftly-universe

To follow up on this, with some links for external confirmation: I think some of the confusion arose due to data being sampled at different times. The original presentation to the TOC was last April,

Committers from multiple organizations is part of the graduation criteria, not incubation criteria: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/graduation_criteria.adoc#graduation-stage That said,

Thanks Sugu. That answers my question. +1 (non-binding). Q From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Sugu Sougoumarane <ssougou@...> Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at

Hi guys, I'm an engineer at HubSpot who was part of the decision to adopt vitess over a year ago and have contributed to the project both internally and externally. In that time we have committed

Ah, I should have made this explicit in our slides, but here is the information to address your concerns about the graduation criteria: The following eight companies have vitess serving production