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:

https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/12/06/cncf-toc-governance-structure-elections-2020/

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 Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem

ginger@...

www.nats.io

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

nova@...

--

Kris Nova

Chief Open Source Advocate

85 2nd Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

nova@...

--

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

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:

https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/12/06/cncf-toc-governance-structure-elections-2020/

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 Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem

ginger@...

www.nats.io

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

nova@...

--

Kris Nova

Chief Open Source Advocate

85 2nd Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

nova@...

--

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

--

Kris Nova

Chief Open Source Advocate

85 2nd Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

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 Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem

ginger@...

www.nats.io

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

nova@...

--

Kris Nova

Chief Open Source Advocate

85 2nd Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

nova@...

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 Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem

ginger@...

www.nats.io

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

nova@...

Thanks, Alexis. 

-g

Ginger Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem

ginger@...

www.nats.io

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
>
>

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 Collison | NATS Community & Ecosystem

ginger@...

www.nats.io

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

nova@...

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
>
>

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

+1 binding 

--

Liz Rice

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

On 23 Mar 2020, at 13:47, Alena Prokharchyk via Lists.Cncf.Io <aprokharchyk=apple.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding

On Mar 19, 2020, at 7:19 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@...

+1 binding

 

zouyee

Katie Gamanji <gamanjie@...> 于2020年3月20日周五 上午5:39写道：

+1 binding 

Looks great! 

Katie 

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020, 11:15 Erin Boyd, <eboyd@...> wrote:

+1 non-binding

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 12:45 PM Suresh Krishnan <suresh@...> wrote:

+1 (non binding). This looks good.

Thanks

Suresh

On Mar 12, 2020, at 9:55 PM, Paris Pittman via Lists.Cncf.Io <parispittman=google.com@...> wrote:

Hi TOC:

We are ready for a vote. I know many of you gave +1s when we initially proposed this with the last iteration of TOC, but we are now ready for the final vote with the new crew. 

https://github.com/cncf/sig-contributor-strategy/pull/2

Matt Klein as TOC Liaison (others?)

thank you!

contributor strategy crowd

--

Paris Pittman Kubernetes Community Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud 345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105

--

Erin A. Boyd

Senior Principal Software Engineer, OCTO

Red Hat

eboyd@...   

Hi TOC:

We are ready for a vote. I know many of you gave +1s when we initially proposed this with the last iteration of TOC, but we are now ready for the final vote with the new crew. 

https://github.com/cncf/sig-contributor-strategy/pull/2

Matt Klein as TOC Liaison (others?)

thank you!

contributor strategy crowd

--

Paris Pittman Kubernetes Community Open Source Strategy, Google Cloud 345 Spear Street, San Francisco, 94105