Date   

Re: Vote on SIG-Observability Charter

Justin Cormack
 

+1 binding


On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:12 PM Brendan Burns via Lists.Cncf.Io <bburns=microsoft.com@...> wrote:
Folks,
As the ToC Liason, I'd like to call a vote on creating SIG-Observability.


Re: Vote on SIG-Observability Charter

alexis richardson
 

+1 nb

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:12 PM Brendan Burns via Lists.Cncf.Io <bburns=microsoft.com@...> wrote:
Folks,
As the ToC Liason, I'd like to call a vote on creating SIG-Observability.


Vote on SIG-Observability Charter

Brendan Burns
 

Folks,
As the ToC Liason, I'd like to call a vote on creating SIG-Observability.


Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-sig-observability] SIG Observability has a TOC Liaison!

Brendan Burns
 

I believe we can call a vote on the public mailing list by sending a mail to the main CNCF list.

I will do that now.



From: Bartłomiej Płotka <bwplotka@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 6:51 AM
To: cncf-sig-observability@... <cncf-sig-observability@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>; Brendan Burns <bburns@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-sig-observability] SIG Observability has a TOC Liaison!
 
Awesome! What would be the next steps for us? (: Vote means, vote on next CNCF TOC meeting?

Kind Regards,
Bartek

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 05:56, Matt Young <myoung@...> wrote:
Hello!

We're happy to announce that Brendan Burns has agreed to be the TOC Liaison for SIG Observability.  That means... 

The SIG Observability Charter is now ready for a vote! 

Matt


Re: [Vote] Argo Project Proposal

Steven Dake
 

+1, NB.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 7:20 AM Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
The Argo project is being proposed as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Michelle Noorali from the TOC: https://github.com/argoproj/argo

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full project proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/299

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...


Re: [cncf-sig-observability] SIG Observability has a TOC Liaison!

Richard Hartmann
 

I think "next" is up to TOC's discretion, but "soon" sounds realistic.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:51 PM Bartłomiej Płotka <bwplotka@...> wrote:

Awesome! What would be the next steps for us? (: Vote means, vote on next CNCF TOC meeting?

Kind Regards,
Bartek

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 05:56, Matt Young <myoung@...> wrote:

Hello!

We're happy to announce that Brendan Burns has agreed to be the TOC Liaison for SIG Observability. That means...

The SIG Observability Charter is now ready for a vote!

PR: https://github.com/cncf/sig-observability/pull/1
Pretty: https://github.com/cncf/sig-observability/blob/sig-observability-charter/observability-charter.md
Slide from recent TOC Meeting

Thanks!

Matt


Re: Helm Graduation public comment period

Justin Cormack
 

Reminding people that the public comment about Helm graduation is open, please add any comments about the
Helm graduation here.

Justin


On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:13 PM Justin Cormack via Lists.Cncf.Io <justin.cormack=docker.com@...> wrote:
Helm has requested to graduate.

The graduation proposal is here https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/384

Under the new process there is not a ToC presentation, but the ToC may decide to schedule an ad hoc meeting to discuss issues raised during the process, or proceed to a vote. The process is detailed in https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/project_proposals.adoc#graduation-process

The public comment period is now open, and will remain open for two weeks from today. Please reply in this thread.

Justin Cormack


SIG Observability has a TOC Liaison!

Matt Young
 

Hello!

We're happy to announce that Brendan Burns has agreed to be the TOC Liaison for SIG Observability.  That means... 

The SIG Observability Charter is now ready for a vote! 

Matt


Re: [VOTE] Dragonfly Incubation Vote

Michelle Noorali <michelle.noorali@...>
 

+1 binding

On Mar 31, 2020, at 12:54 PM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

+1 binding

If Dragonfly does indeed move to incubation, it would be great to have SIG Security do an assessment and give recommendations to the project (the related issue is currently marked inactive)

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145



On 26 Mar 2020, at 20:01, Daniel Kleuser <daniel.kleuser@...> wrote:

+1 nb
 
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via Lists.Cncf.Io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...>
Reply to: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Date: Thursday, 26. March 2020 at 17:42
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Dragonfly Incubation Vote
 
+1 binding 
 


On Mar 13, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
 
Dragonfly has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/276

Sheng Liang from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/276#issuecomment-585431207
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/276#issuecomment-598923143

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread. 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
 
-- 
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
 



Re: [VOTE] Dragonfly Incubation Vote

Liz Rice
 

+1 binding

If Dragonfly does indeed move to incubation, it would be great to have SIG Security do an assessment and give recommendations to the project (the related issue is currently marked inactive)

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145



On 26 Mar 2020, at 20:01, Daniel Kleuser <daniel.kleuser@...> wrote:

+1 nb
 
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Alena Prokharchyk via Lists.Cncf.Io" <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...>
Reply to: "aprokharchyk@..." <aprokharchyk@...>
Date: Thursday, 26. March 2020 at 17:42
To: Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Dragonfly Incubation Vote
 
+1 binding 
 


On Mar 13, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Amye Scavarda Perrin <ascavarda@...> wrote:
 
Dragonfly has requested to move to the incubation maturity level:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/276

Sheng Liang from the TOC has performed due diligence and called the vote:
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/276#issuecomment-585431207
https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/276#issuecomment-598923143

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread. 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!
 
-- 
Amye Scavarda Perrin | Program Manager | amye@...
 



Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Kris, that's not the way the organization works by design which is covered well in this blog post: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/12/06/cncf-toc-governance-structure-elections-2020/ and there is legal risk in doing so. Any kubecon related updates will be shared on the kubecon site like always and we plan on making a decision on going virtual by June: https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe/

We are in the midst of an unprecedented worldwide crisis, with even some of our staff dealing with family members suffering and passing away from COVID-19. We will keep the community updated as we always have, from updating the kubecon website to sharing information in our annual reports: https://www.cncf.io/cncf-annual-report-2019/

Thanks.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:29 PM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Another option would be sharing our budget in the same way we share our source code? 

We need to foster a healthy community here. We are all caught off guard by this - if we can share and receive forgiveness now is the time. 

Just let us know what you are doing? We all have a lot of money riding on this and hiding is extremely cowardly. Share the numbers. Pretty please, with sugar on top. 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:43 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
Kris, I will bring up the issue of potentially offering abridged minutes or opening a part of the meeting:
https://github.com/cncf/foundation/issues/82

You have an opportunity to run for the GB in the future if you desire along with anyone else from the community: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/maintainers-election-policy.md#developer-representation-on-the-cncf-gb


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:22 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
An idea might be to keep the option of having a few topics stay private.  The TOC found this much easier to share thoughts candidly at times and hence form a collective view quickly.  At the same time almost all matters benefit from being publicly aired. 





On Mon, 30 Mar 2020, 18:16 Kris Nova, <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Yeah I see that you documented hiding the GB meetings  - but can we open this up? This is an open-source foundation after all - and given the state of the world right now it might be wise to encourage sharing instead of hiding. I am wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are? Can we share the GB slides right now? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:08 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The CNCF GB meetings are private to the GB only: https://www.cncf.io/people/governing-board/ as End User Meetings are only for End User community: https://www.cncf.io/people/end-user-community/

Here's the structure of CNCF summarized:

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there. 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Hi,

I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison <ginger@...> wrote:
Thanks, Alexis. 

-g

Ginger CollisonNATS Community & Ecosystem

Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.




On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers.  I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV).  We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'.  They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation.  Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors.  Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom.  This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals.  That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs.  We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation.  For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project.  Is it then risk-free?  NO.   So what are we trying to
achieve?

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate.  I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.

alexis







On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Kris, I will bring up the issue of potentially offering abridged minutes or opening a part of the meeting:
https://github.com/cncf/foundation/issues/82

You have an opportunity to run for the GB in the future if you desire along with anyone else from the community: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/maintainers-election-policy.md#developer-representation-on-the-cncf-gb


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:22 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
An idea might be to keep the option of having a few topics stay private.  The TOC found this much easier to share thoughts candidly at times and hence form a collective view quickly.  At the same time almost all matters benefit from being publicly aired. 





On Mon, 30 Mar 2020, 18:16 Kris Nova, <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Yeah I see that you documented hiding the GB meetings  - but can we open this up? This is an open-source foundation after all - and given the state of the world right now it might be wise to encourage sharing instead of hiding. I am wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are? Can we share the GB slides right now? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:08 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The CNCF GB meetings are private to the GB only: https://www.cncf.io/people/governing-board/ as End User Meetings are only for End User community: https://www.cncf.io/people/end-user-community/

Here's the structure of CNCF summarized:

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there. 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Hi,

I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison <ginger@...> wrote:
Thanks, Alexis. 

-g

Ginger CollisonNATS Community & Ecosystem

Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.




On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers.  I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV).  We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'.  They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation.  Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors.  Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom.  This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals.  That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs.  We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation.  For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project.  Is it then risk-free?  NO.   So what are we trying to
achieve?

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate.  I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.

alexis







On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
 

Yeah I see that you documented hiding the GB meetings  - but can we open this up? This is an open-source foundation after all - and given the state of the world right now it might be wise to encourage sharing instead of hiding. I am wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are? Can we share the GB slides right now? 


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:08 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The CNCF GB meetings are private to the GB only: https://www.cncf.io/people/governing-board/ as End User Meetings are only for End User community: https://www.cncf.io/people/end-user-community/

Here's the structure of CNCF summarized:

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there. 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Hi,

I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison <ginger@...> wrote:
Thanks, Alexis. 

-g

Ginger CollisonNATS Community & Ecosystem

Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.




On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers.  I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV).  We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'.  They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation.  Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors.  Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom.  This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals.  That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs.  We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation.  For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project.  Is it then risk-free?  NO.   So what are we trying to
achieve?

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate.  I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.

alexis







On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

alexis richardson
 

An idea might be to keep the option of having a few topics stay private.  The TOC found this much easier to share thoughts candidly at times and hence form a collective view quickly.  At the same time almost all matters benefit from being publicly aired. 





On Mon, 30 Mar 2020, 18:16 Kris Nova, <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Yeah I see that you documented hiding the GB meetings  - but can we open this up? This is an open-source foundation after all - and given the state of the world right now it might be wise to encourage sharing instead of hiding. I am wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are? Can we share the GB slides right now? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:08 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The CNCF GB meetings are private to the GB only: https://www.cncf.io/people/governing-board/ as End User Meetings are only for End User community: https://www.cncf.io/people/end-user-community/

Here's the structure of CNCF summarized:

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there. 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Hi,

I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison <ginger@...> wrote:
Thanks, Alexis. 

-g

Ginger CollisonNATS Community & Ecosystem

Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.




On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers.  I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV).  We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'.  They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation.  Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors.  Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom.  This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals.  That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs.  We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation.  For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project.  Is it then risk-free?  NO.   So what are we trying to
achieve?

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate.  I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.

alexis







On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

Chris Aniszczyk
 

The CNCF GB meetings are private to the GB only: https://www.cncf.io/people/governing-board/ as End User Meetings are only for End User community: https://www.cncf.io/people/end-user-community/

Here's the structure of CNCF summarized:


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there. 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Hi,

I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison <ginger@...> wrote:
Thanks, Alexis. 

-g

Ginger CollisonNATS Community & Ecosystem

Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.




On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers.  I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV).  We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'.  They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation.  Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors.  Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom.  This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals.  That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs.  We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation.  For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project.  Is it then risk-free?  NO.   So what are we trying to
achieve?

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate.  I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.

alexis







On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
 

Any way we can share them? I would be interested in seeing what happens there. 


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:52 AM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Hi,

I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison <ginger@...> wrote:
Thanks, Alexis. 

-g

Ginger CollisonNATS Community & Ecosystem

Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.




On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers.  I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV).  We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'.  They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation.  Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors.  Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom.  This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals.  That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs.  We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation.  For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project.  Is it then risk-free?  NO.   So what are we trying to
achieve?

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate.  I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.

alexis







On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

Kris Nova <kris.nova@...>
 

Hi,

I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison <ginger@...> wrote:
Thanks, Alexis. 

-g

Ginger CollisonNATS Community & Ecosystem

Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.




On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers.  I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV).  We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'.  They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation.  Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors.  Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom.  This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals.  That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs.  We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation.  For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project.  Is it then risk-free?  NO.   So what are we trying to
achieve?

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate.  I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.

alexis







On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

Apologies, those GB slides aren't public, but Liz's TOC slides are:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kris Nova <kris.nova@...> wrote:
Hi,

I am unable to access those slides. Can we please share? 

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ginger Collison <ginger@...> wrote:
Thanks, Alexis. 

-g

Ginger CollisonNATS Community & Ecosystem

Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.




On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers.  I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV).  We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'.  They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation.  Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors.  Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom.  This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals.  That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs.  We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation.  For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project.  Is it then risk-free?  NO.   So what are we trying to
achieve?

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate.  I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.

alexis







On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>





--
Kris Nova
Chief Open Source Advocate


85 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105


Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

Ginger Collison
 

Thanks, Alexis. 

-g

Ginger CollisonNATS Community & Ecosystem

Maintained by the good people of Synadia Communications, Inc.




On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers.  I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV).  We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'.  They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation.  Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors.  Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom.  This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals.  That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs.  We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation.  For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project.  Is it then risk-free?  NO.   So what are we trying to
achieve?

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate.  I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.

alexis







On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
> --
> Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
> dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY
>>
>> Hope everyone is staying well,
>> Liz
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice
>> @lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145
>
>




Re: [cncf-gb] GB-TOC joint meeting

alexis richardson
 

Please can I put in a word for Nats, and its backers. I think many
others are in a similar situation or could be.

Some projects have a core that is driven by a single vendor (ISV). We
need to make sure that ISVs have a happy path all the way through CNCF
- and an 'end game'. They are a vital source of innovation, software
support, community creation. Their posture to OSS projects can be
different from Big IT, eg it can be less inhibited.

Historically foundations have been good at creating a way for big
vendors to work on one codebase, alongside a community of individual
contributors. Long may this continue.

More recently CNCF and to some extent CFF have worked hard to bring in
End Users, as we call large companies who are not in the business of
selling software or SaaS, but who can make it (much) better through
their use of that software and iteration therefrom. This is Fantastic
and for me a key step forward CNCF has taken eg with great projects
like Prometheus, Envoy and now Argo that come from end user tech
firms. Innovation can now come from end users *and be driven into the
mainstream*.

But there is a fourth "leg of the table" in this new level playing
field of Big IT, Big End Users, and individuals. That leg is ISVs
(and SIs) who may be backed customers and/or VCs. We need these ISVs
and their backers to be actively investing in the foundation, or they
will find a way to exist independent of the commons. Our loss is our
community's loss.

Let's make sure that we are super clear on *what and why* we want from
multiple maintainers at graduation. For me the outstanding
consideration is that a project should survive wipe out of the team.
An ISV could get "more maintainers" from end user firms, and graduate
its project. Is it then risk-free? NO. So what are we trying to
achieve?

I'm just throwing this out here to start the debate. I have failed to
find a clear set of answers on my own or in conversation with others
who care about this.

alexis

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:

Thanks. Added as slides 127-128 of https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JnK8XKxFV2xQJT_fumzUedLhscP-w0CZ-Qs8URjbCG4/.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...> +1-415-233-1000
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation cncf.io
dankohn.com or book on my calendar: dankohn.com/c


On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:51 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Hi everyone,

Looking forward to meeting with you all tomorrow. We have two slides (minimalist design!) highlighting the TOC priorities we'd like to discuss in the joint GB-TOC session: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xhuwdKfkh1ROGk_JE6n0mf9xHOWKNFeKeRFGFirHHoY

Hope everyone is staying well,
Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145

2721 - 2740 of 7189