Thanks to everyone for their support, and especially to Chris and Alexis for helping out with the process, and to Bryan for being our sponsor. We're excited to join the community and work with all

Many thanks for everyone's efforts on bringing Jaeger into the CNCF fold! Congrats to the Jaeger team and to CNCF TOC for taking this step! Diane -- Kind Regards, Diane Mueller Director, Community

Welcome!

+1

And congrats Jaeger!

To some extent I agree with Brian, and it's not the message we want to send, but the reality is that this is the state of our industry. I can't tell you how many "ecosystem" slides I've seen over the

Thanks Chris, Alexis, and CNCF community! Looking forward to working with everyone. -- Matt Klein Software Engineer mklein@...

Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Jaeger has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Bryan): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/42 +1 TOC binding votes (6 / 9): Alexis:

Congratulations Envoy!

Hey everyone, I'm happy to announce that Envoy has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project (sponsored by Alexis): https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/43 +1 TOC binding votes (7 / 9): Alexis:

We could show layers and buckets and existing cncf projects Out of scope buckets could be greyed out.

Fwiw I actually find the product examples useful for being specific about the various boxes. I think it's a hard balance to strike : giving useful concrete examples without trying to be complete will

While it made a lot of progress, I think this diagram still mainly serves marketing i.e. “We are cloud-native” We didn’t tackle the loaded question of what cloud-native is, but IMO it’s

+1 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This message contains confidential information

The article is: https://diginomica.com/2017/09/11/docker-loses-first-mover-advantage-kubernetes/ I'm certainly aware of the complexity argument. But when weighed against the ability to shape the

Quote from an unnamed article I just saw: one look at the Cloud Native Landscape Project’s product taxonomy shows a mishmash of commercial products and open source projects that are sure to strike

The interactive version we're building will support filtering by open source or not, which will provide that functionality. On the 2-D version, I think there's value in seeing that there are open

Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules. Best Duncan -- Duncan Johnston-Watt Founder & Chief

I think that approach is the only reasonable one (that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)

Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every