|
Re: [tag-contributor-strategy] Contributor Growth WG looking for another facilitator
Hi Carolyn/Chris,
How do I sign up for this?
Paavan Mistry
|
|
|
[tag-contributor-strategy] Contributor Growth WG looking for another facilitator
Chris Aniszczyk
FYI wider CNCF TOC community... this is a great opportunity to get involved in a TAG!
We are looking for a volunteer to be a facilitator for our Contributor Growth WG. You don't
have to be an "expert" on the topic, just able to attend regularly and facilitate the meeting by starting the meeting, finding a note taker, getting people to write their names on the agenda, and then helping us keep to the agenda, etc. At our general TAG
meetings, you may be asked to update the TAG on the working group status.
If you already attend the Contributor Growth meetings, please let us know if you would
like to step into leadership and help us run the WG!
Carolyn
--
|
|
|
Re: Agenda for 3/21 TOC meeting
Bill Mulligan <bill.mulligan@...>
I would +1 to a lot of what Craig said. I think part of the challenge is that a lot of things at the CNCF were designed for a different scale than they currently operate. We can see that in the recent update on the Ambassador program and it is even why TAGs were originally created. Maybe it is time to rethink the operations and role of the TOC.
Craig Box < craigb@...> schrieb am Mi., 22. März 2023, 00:45:
Hi Emily,
Thanks for driving a very productive discussion this morning. I’m sorry I couldn’t join. Having watched the video, I wanted to offer some input on a couple of points that were touched on, but not fully explored, in the meeting.
The CNCF must be valuable as-is: look at the queue of people trying to join!
Not all projects join the CNCF because they want more contributors. Many just want more adoption. They join because being a CNCF project is (a) a shorthand that some adopters require, or at least expect (b) the gatekeeper for acceptance into KubeCon.
(I have substantial experience in a Cloud Native open source project that was not part of the CNCF.)
Projects want to join the CNCF. They also want to move levels as quickly as possible, because that is a signal to the marketplace which spurs adoption, and their maintainers’ ability to build a business. As an example for contribution, Boeing announced their staff are able to contribute to CNCF Incubating or Graduating projects. If you are in the aviation or defense space and you want Boeing to support your project, you want to move up the levels quickly. (I’m pretty sure you can consider heavily regulated industries “the late majority”.)
We shouldn’t want every project to join the CNCF; we have more projects than we can logistically handle or support
The charter currently states: “The goal is to have an increasing bazaar of projects related to and that integrate with projects already accepted into the CNCF.” To gain admission to the playing field, you must join, and to gain adoption, you must move up the treadmill.
(See also, the changing opinions on whether or not Istio talks were welcome at past KubeCons).
We are but a few people with hundreds of projects on the landscape
This could be an opportunity to revisit if having 11 people on the TOC is still correct, or if some of the responsibility for vetting projects could be delegated.
The TOC was founded as 9 members when the CNCF had one project, and expanded to 11 at a time when it had 42 projects. There are 152 projects today. It is reasonable to think that 11 members can no longer provide the same level of service.
In the past, Chris Aniszczyk has described the TOC as “the Supreme Court” of the CNCF. The means of selection by different groups suggests it is meant to be representative of the whole CNCF community. Is it time to tweak the process so that the expectation isn’t that “TOC members will do all the level-moving work”, but instead that they are a body that is the final check and balance on work done by other groups?
Moreover, because projects want to move levels, why not have the onus be on them to actually prove they meet all the criteria? Or create a TAG Project Maturity?
There is no shortage of volunteers. There were 18 qualified candidates who put themselves forward for the 5 TOC spaces that were selected in the last 2 months.
We can’t just provide a checklist and then you’re graduated.
Why not? That is true for an OpenSSF Best Practices badge, for example, which is also a signal of maturity (albeit in a different area).
The graduation criteria read as a checklist. As written, the vote required seems to be does the project meet all the criteria, all of which are individually measurable.
Vitess graduated in less than a month. I think that's a reasonable expectation for a timeline, given that you should know in advance if you meet the criteria and only apply when you do. Even if there are to be new criteria added, it’s important to decide if there is still a “judgment call” criteria to be made by the Court TOC.
I don’t think the solution to the current situation is just that the TOC makes small tweaks. If we hypothetically introduced a “Super Graduated” level, then the CNCF’s promotion and event offerings to this level would determine whether a project needed to pursue it.
In closing, I’d like to return to the CNCF charter: “Fast is better than slow. The foundation enables projects to progress at high velocity to support aggressive adoption by users.”
-c
All,
Thanks to everyone who was able to join the TOC call today or had participated in the discussion on the GitHub issues and PRs for the proposed cloud native milestones as well as the open issues on graduation criteria. We had an excellent discussion that surfaced additional challenges and observations in both of these areas from a broad range of stakeholders and interested parties. Below is the top level summary that outlines key points of discussion and next steps. If you were unable to join us, please check out the YouTube recording here: https://youtu.be/WDwvowl9SAs
Regarding Milestones:
Consensus to rename as “Guide Posts”
Consensus to remove the maturity structure currently conveyed that aligns with the levels, ordering will remain to show evolution of these
Elevated during discussion of Milestones:
Need to scale the process for the projects we have before us
Better alignment or exploration of the value the foundation provides projects at various levels - have we lost or shifted the north star away from the original intent?
Regarding the Criteria: ( Note much of the discussion focused more on the process and logistics of moving levels, not on the specifics of the existing criteria or proposed criteria - this feedback exists on the issues)
The content in the repo on what the process is and the criteria is misleading and confusing in several key areas
Consensus that governance review should occur at Incubation or near moving to Incubation and not part of Graduation
Consensus that guidance and roll out for changes (to be proposed) needs developed for projects mid-application to move levels to ensure equitable evaluation
Existing confusion or duplication of work between the Google Doc and the PR
The plethora of project needs and maturity considerations for moving levels varies project to project, however, there is a fundamental core of criteria that are consistent across nearly all projects. There is a significant amount of discretion needed in evaluating projects seeking to move levels that needs to be balanced with maintainers and contributors trying to understand the path forward to move levels
Elevated during discussion of Criteria:
Actions / Requests from the call:
Emily Fox to provide the summary of today’s meeting - Completed as of this message, will also appear in a thread in #toc slack channel
Emily Fox will push an update on PR 997 to include the items where we reached consensus (estimated to be completed within the next week or two)
Thank you all again!
|
|
|
Re: Agenda for 3/21 TOC meeting
Craig Box
Hi Emily,
Thanks for driving a very productive discussion this morning. I’m sorry I couldn’t join. Having watched the video, I wanted to offer some input on a couple of points that were touched on, but not fully explored, in the meeting.
The CNCF must be valuable as-is: look at the queue of people trying to join!
Not all projects join the CNCF because they want more contributors. Many just want more adoption. They join because being a CNCF project is (a) a shorthand that some adopters require, or at least expect (b) the gatekeeper for acceptance into KubeCon.
(I have substantial experience in a Cloud Native open source project that was not part of the CNCF.)
Projects want to join the CNCF. They also want to move levels as quickly as possible, because that is a signal to the marketplace which spurs adoption, and their maintainers’ ability to build a business. As an example for contribution, Boeing announced their staff are able to contribute to CNCF Incubating or Graduating projects. If you are in the aviation or defense space and you want Boeing to support your project, you want to move up the levels quickly. (I’m pretty sure you can consider heavily regulated industries “the late majority”.)
We shouldn’t want every project to join the CNCF; we have more projects than we can logistically handle or support
The charter currently states: “The goal is to have an increasing bazaar of projects related to and that integrate with projects already accepted into the CNCF.” To gain admission to the playing field, you must join, and to gain adoption, you must move up the treadmill.
(See also, the changing opinions on whether or not Istio talks were welcome at past KubeCons).
We are but a few people with hundreds of projects on the landscape
This could be an opportunity to revisit if having 11 people on the TOC is still correct, or if some of the responsibility for vetting projects could be delegated.
The TOC was founded as 9 members when the CNCF had one project, and expanded to 11 at a time when it had 42 projects. There are 152 projects today. It is reasonable to think that 11 members can no longer provide the same level of service.
In the past, Chris Aniszczyk has described the TOC as “the Supreme Court” of the CNCF. The means of selection by different groups suggests it is meant to be representative of the whole CNCF community. Is it time to tweak the process so that the expectation isn’t that “TOC members will do all the level-moving work”, but instead that they are a body that is the final check and balance on work done by other groups?
Moreover, because projects want to move levels, why not have the onus be on them to actually prove they meet all the criteria? Or create a TAG Project Maturity?
There is no shortage of volunteers. There were 18 qualified candidates who put themselves forward for the 5 TOC spaces that were selected in the last 2 months.
We can’t just provide a checklist and then you’re graduated.
Why not? That is true for an OpenSSF Best Practices badge, for example, which is also a signal of maturity (albeit in a different area).
The graduation criteria read as a checklist. As written, the vote required seems to be does the project meet all the criteria, all of which are individually measurable.
Vitess graduated in less than a month. I think that's a reasonable expectation for a timeline, given that you should know in advance if you meet the criteria and only apply when you do. Even if there are to be new criteria added, it’s important to decide if there is still a “judgment call” criteria to be made by the Court TOC.
I don’t think the solution to the current situation is just that the TOC makes small tweaks. If we hypothetically introduced a “Super Graduated” level, then the CNCF’s promotion and event offerings to this level would determine whether a project needed to pursue it.
In closing, I’d like to return to the CNCF charter: “Fast is better than slow. The foundation enables projects to progress at high velocity to support aggressive adoption by users.”
-c
All,
Thanks to everyone who was able to join the TOC call today or had participated in the discussion on the GitHub issues and PRs for the proposed cloud native milestones as well as the open issues on graduation criteria. We had an excellent discussion that surfaced additional challenges and observations in both of these areas from a broad range of stakeholders and interested parties. Below is the top level summary that outlines key points of discussion and next steps. If you were unable to join us, please check out the YouTube recording here: https://youtu.be/WDwvowl9SAs
Regarding Milestones:
Consensus to rename as “Guide Posts”
Consensus to remove the maturity structure currently conveyed that aligns with the levels, ordering will remain to show evolution of these
Elevated during discussion of Milestones:
Need to scale the process for the projects we have before us
Better alignment or exploration of the value the foundation provides projects at various levels - have we lost or shifted the north star away from the original intent?
Regarding the Criteria: ( Note much of the discussion focused more on the process and logistics of moving levels, not on the specifics of the existing criteria or proposed criteria - this feedback exists on the issues)
The content in the repo on what the process is and the criteria is misleading and confusing in several key areas
Consensus that governance review should occur at Incubation or near moving to Incubation and not part of Graduation
Consensus that guidance and roll out for changes (to be proposed) needs developed for projects mid-application to move levels to ensure equitable evaluation
Existing confusion or duplication of work between the Google Doc and the PR
The plethora of project needs and maturity considerations for moving levels varies project to project, however, there is a fundamental core of criteria that are consistent across nearly all projects. There is a significant amount of discretion needed in evaluating projects seeking to move levels that needs to be balanced with maintainers and contributors trying to understand the path forward to move levels
Elevated during discussion of Criteria:
Actions / Requests from the call:
Emily Fox to provide the summary of today’s meeting - Completed as of this message, will also appear in a thread in #toc slack channel
Emily Fox will push an update on PR 997 to include the items where we reached consensus (estimated to be completed within the next week or two)
Thank you all again!
|
|
|
Re: Agenda for 3/21 TOC meeting
Emily Fox
All,
Thanks to everyone who was able to join the TOC call today or had participated in the discussion on the GitHub issues and PRs for the proposed cloud native milestones as well as the open issues on graduation criteria. We had an excellent discussion that surfaced additional challenges and observations in both of these areas from a broad range of stakeholders and interested parties. Below is the top level summary that outlines key points of discussion and next steps. If you were unable to join us, please check out the YouTube recording here: https://youtu.be/WDwvowl9SAs
Regarding Milestones:
-
Consensus to rename as “Guide Posts”
-
Consensus to remove the maturity structure currently conveyed that aligns with the levels, ordering will remain to show evolution of these
Elevated during discussion of Milestones:
-
Need to scale the process for the projects we have before us
-
Better alignment or exploration of the value the foundation provides projects at various levels - have we lost or shifted the north star away from the original intent?
Regarding the Criteria: ( Note much of the discussion focused more on the process and logistics of moving levels, not on the specifics of the existing criteria or proposed criteria - this feedback exists on the issues)
-
The content in the repo on what the process is and the criteria is misleading and confusing in several key areas
-
Consensus that governance review should occur at Incubation or near moving to Incubation and not part of Graduation
-
Consensus that guidance and roll out for changes (to be proposed) needs developed for projects mid-application to move levels to ensure equitable evaluation
-
Existing confusion or duplication of work between the Google Doc and the PR
-
The plethora of project needs and maturity considerations for moving levels varies project to project, however, there is a fundamental core of criteria that are consistent across nearly all projects. There is a significant amount of discretion needed in evaluating projects seeking to move levels that needs to be balanced with maintainers and contributors trying to understand the path forward to move levels
Elevated during discussion of Criteria:
Actions / Requests from the call:
-
Emily Fox to provide the summary of today’s meeting - Completed as of this message, will also appear in a thread in #toc slack channel
-
Emily Fox will push an update on PR 997 to include the items where we reached consensus (estimated to be completed within the next week or two)
Thank you all again!
|
|
|
Re: [RESULT] TOC Selected Seat, 2023
Scott Rigby
Big congrats Erin. Much appreciated! 🙂
Congrats Erin!
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:11 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: Great to have Erin's experience and expertise back on the TOC, congratulations! And thanks to all who put themselves forward
- L
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 10:47 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Congrats!
Congrats, Erin!
On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 12:29 -0700, Amye Scavarda Perrin wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the results of the TOC Election for the TOC
> chosen seat, please welcome Erin Boyd to the TOC.
>
> Many thanks to our additional candidates for this round:
> Ricardo Aravena
> Phil Estes
> Rey Lejano
> Saiyam Pathak
> Xing Yang
>
> Finally, thank you to Davanum Srinivas for his work on the TOC!
>
> --
> Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF |
> amye@...
>
|
|
|
Re: Expectations and updates from the TOC
Scott Rigby
Echoing all of the above. Thank you! 💖
Thank you for what y'all do. I know it's not easy and is more like threading a needle from an airplane at 40,000 feet. But, each and everyone of you is appreciated by the community.
Chris Short
He/Him/His
EKS Product Marketing
Kubernetes Contributor Comms Co-Lead
TZ=America/Detroit
|
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
|
Community members, Projects, and Adopters,
As you know we, the TOC, are currently managing a lot of open issues and requests from community members who have asked us to more accurately reflect the current state of project maturity, evaluations, reviews, and in general our processes. At the moment,
we’re working on getting a handle on these requests, organizing them into meaningful streams of work and core areas of focus for us and the community to pursue, while balancing the existing and ongoing obligations and activities assigned to the TOC. We feel
your additional perspective and concerns provide us key insights that — when taken together with other feedback and observations — can be integrated into a positive and actionable solution in alignment with our principles.
We ask that your give us some time to sort through these. We all thank you for being a valued community member interested in improving the experience not only for projects but for our community and adopters.
-Emily Fox
|
|
|
Re: Proposal - Provide CNCF-hosted Google workspace for DD docs
Scott Rigby
Hi Tom & Jay,
A bit late reply here, but yes I agree this would be a very helpful optional service! The question of who owns google docs/sheets/slides etc comes up often in CNCF project and working group community meetings.
A few morning thoughts ☕️:
It would be important for current maintainers of each project / members of each group to have permissions to add other people as editors on their project/group’s docs - so if desired these can remain inclusive to spontaneous volunteer notetakers whenever needed, and continue to be self organizing in that way.
Directories per entity - project/WG/TAG etc - with the same permissions as above for maintainers, chairs etc - would also be important so new docs can easily be created on the fly as needed.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:05 AM Jay Pipes < jaypipes@...> wrote: I think this is a great idea, Tom.
Hi,
At the end of 2022 I've opened a proposal to provide a CNCF-hosted Google workspace which will host all DD docs.
The reason for this is that DD docs that are currently being created are stored in that person's personal workspace who starts writing the doc and it stays there forever.
However, that means that person has full control and if relationships become bad or that person passes away the document gets lost.
It would be good to move this to a neutral place; independent from the original author. Kind regards, Tom Kerkhove
Senior software engineer at Microsoft – CNCF Ambassador - Ex-Azure MVP & GitHub Star Blog - blog.tomkerkhove.be
Twitter - @TomKerkhove
|
|
|
Agenda for 3/21 TOC meeting
Hi all, We'll be meeting at 8am tomorrow for a TOC + TAG Chairs meeting.
|
|
|
Re: TOC meeting Tuesday - milestones and criteria
Davanum Srinivas
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:31 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi all
Can someone confirm the time and dial in for tomorrow's TOC?
a
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 9:15 AM Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd love to join but cannot guarantee that I will make it. Are these recorded?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Tom Kerkhove
> Senior software engineer at Microsoft
>
> Blog - blog.tomkerkhove.be
> Twitter - @TomKerkhove
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:47 PM Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone ! In Tuesday’s TOC meeting we’ll be talking about cloud native milestones proposal and graduation criteria. If you are interested in either of these topics please join the call. Please check out the CNCF calendar for meeting info.
>
>
|
|
|
Re: TOC meeting Tuesday - milestones and criteria
Hi all
Can someone confirm the time and dial in for tomorrow's TOC?
a
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 9:15 AM Tom Kerkhove <kerkhove.tom@...> wrote:
Hi,
I'd love to join but cannot guarantee that I will make it. Are these recorded?
Kind regards,
Tom Kerkhove
Senior software engineer at Microsoft
Blog - blog.tomkerkhove.be
Twitter - @TomKerkhove
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:47 PM Emily Fox <themoxiefoxatwork@...> wrote:
Hey everyone ! In Tuesday’s TOC meeting we’ll be talking about cloud native milestones proposal and graduation criteria. If you are interested in either of these topics please join the call. Please check out the CNCF calendar for meeting info.
|
|
|
Re: TOC meeting Tuesday - milestones and criteria
Tom Kerkhove
Hi,
I'd love to join but cannot guarantee that I will make it. Are these recorded?
Hey everyone ! In Tuesday’s TOC meeting we’ll be talking about cloud native milestones proposal and graduation criteria. If you are interested in either of these topics please join the call. Please check out the CNCF calendar for meeting info.
|
|
|
TOC meeting Tuesday - milestones and criteria
Emily Fox
Hey everyone ! In Tuesday’s TOC meeting we’ll be talking about cloud native milestones proposal and graduation criteria. If you are interested in either of these topics please join the call. Please check out the CNCF calendar for meeting info.
|
|
|
Re: [RESULT] TOC Selected Seat, 2023
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:11 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: Great to have Erin's experience and expertise back on the TOC, congratulations! And thanks to all who put themselves forward
- L
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 10:47 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Congrats!
Congrats, Erin!
On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 12:29 -0700, Amye Scavarda Perrin wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the results of the TOC Election for the TOC
> chosen seat, please welcome Erin Boyd to the TOC.
>
> Many thanks to our additional candidates for this round:
> Ricardo Aravena
> Phil Estes
> Rey Lejano
> Saiyam Pathak
> Xing Yang
>
> Finally, thank you to Davanum Srinivas for his work on the TOC!
>
> --
> Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF |
> amye@...
>
|
|
|
Re: [RESULT] TOC Selected Seat, 2023
Alolita Sharma
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:11 AM Liz Rice < liz@...> wrote: Great to have Erin's experience and expertise back on the TOC, congratulations! And thanks to all who put themselves forward
- L
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 10:47 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Congrats!
Congrats, Erin!
On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 12:29 -0700, Amye Scavarda Perrin wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the results of the TOC Election for the TOC
> chosen seat, please welcome Erin Boyd to the TOC.
>
> Many thanks to our additional candidates for this round:
> Ricardo Aravena
> Phil Estes
> Rey Lejano
> Saiyam Pathak
> Xing Yang
>
> Finally, thank you to Davanum Srinivas for his work on the TOC!
>
> --
> Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF |
> amye@...
>
|
|
|
Re: [RESULT] TOC Selected Seat, 2023
Great to have Erin's experience and expertise back on the TOC, congratulations! And thanks to all who put themselves forward
- L
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 10:47 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Congrats!
Congrats, Erin!
On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 12:29 -0700, Amye Scavarda Perrin wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the results of the TOC Election for the TOC
> chosen seat, please welcome Erin Boyd to the TOC.
>
> Many thanks to our additional candidates for this round:
> Ricardo Aravena
> Phil Estes
> Rey Lejano
> Saiyam Pathak
> Xing Yang
>
> Finally, thank you to Davanum Srinivas for his work on the TOC!
>
> --
> Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF |
> amye@...
>
|
|
|
Re: [RESULT] TOC Selected Seat, 2023
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Congrats, Erin!
On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 12:29 -0700, Amye Scavarda Perrin wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the results of the TOC Election for the TOC
> chosen seat, please welcome Erin Boyd to the TOC.
>
> Many thanks to our additional candidates for this round:
> Ricardo Aravena
> Phil Estes
> Rey Lejano
> Saiyam Pathak
> Xing Yang
>
> Finally, thank you to Davanum Srinivas for his work on the TOC!
>
> --
> Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF |
> amye@...
>
|
|
|
Re: [RESULT] TOC Selected Seat, 2023
Vincent Batts
Congrats, Erin!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 12:29 -0700, Amye Scavarda Perrin wrote: I'm pleased to announce the results of the TOC Election for the TOC
chosen seat, please welcome Erin Boyd to the TOC.
Many thanks to our additional candidates for this round:
Ricardo Aravena
Phil Estes
Rey Lejano
Saiyam Pathak
Xing Yang
Finally, thank you to Davanum Srinivas for his work on the TOC!
--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF |
amye@...
|
|
|
Re: [RESULT] TOC Selected Seat, 2023
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:29 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote: I'm pleased to announce the results of the TOC Election for the TOC chosen seat, please welcome Erin Boyd to the TOC. Many thanks to our additional candidates for this round: Ricardo Aravena Phil Estes Rey Lejano Saiyam Pathak Xing Yang Finally, thank you to Davanum Srinivas for his work on the TOC!
-- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...
|
|
|
Re: [RESULT] TOC Selected Seat, 2023
Alex Chircop
Congratulations Erin! and thank you so much Dims for all your hard work and contributions!
Kind regards, Alex
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 7:29 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin < ascavarda@...> wrote: I'm pleased to announce the results of the TOC Election for the TOC chosen seat, please welcome Erin Boyd to the TOC. Many thanks to our additional candidates for this round: Ricardo Aravena Phil Estes Rey Lejano Saiyam Pathak Xing Yang Finally, thank you to Davanum Srinivas for his work on the TOC!
-- Amye Scavarda Perrin | Director of Developer Programs, CNCF | amye@...
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged or copyrighted material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. StorageOS Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 09614942. Registered office address: 2 Minton Place, Victoria Road, Bicester, Oxfordshire, OX26 6QB.
|
|
|
