Date   

Re: [cncf-gb] KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned

Liz Rice
 

I agree with the idea of having some plan B in place - or at least understanding the consequences - in the event that cancellation becomes necessary. If the EU were to impose similar restrictions as Switzerland currently have, this decision would be taken out of the hands of the CNCF anyway. Looking into some sort of live-streaming / virtual conference option as a.back-up plan seems like a wise idea.


--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 29 Feb 2020, at 10:00, Vineet Gupta <vineet.scm@...> wrote:


I also support the idea of making the plan to have all options in place considering that cases in Italy skyrocketed as well as companies have put complete travel ban and not allowing the entry in some European states as well. I firmly believe that march is already ongoing and situation is deeply concerning , it would be good to re-evaluate and confirm the final plan before the end week of the march so this can be planned better. I would sincerely request to reconsider if possible to postpone or make it a virtual option if somehow possible.

Just my 2 cents on keeping it open and do a close watch so we are safe as a community as well as ensuring the foundation is well served.

Thanks.

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 1:38 AM Shannon Williams <shannon@...> wrote:

Dan – if the situation doesn’t improved, I’m concerned we might need to reconsider this in the next few weeks. As we discussed privately, I’ve been getting a number of notes from people letting me know they won’t be attending, and it sounds like a few sponsors have decided not to participate.   Given all of that, I’d like to understand the financial implications to the foundation if we reached a point where we did need to cancel the event, or turn it into a virtual event.  

 

I’m concerned it could be quite financial impactful for the foundation.

 

Best Regards,

 

Shannon Williams

Rancher Labs

shannon@...

+1 650-521-6902

 

From: cncf-gb@... <cncf-gb@...> On Behalf Of Dan Kohn via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 12:10 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: cncf-gb@...
Subject: [cncf-gb] KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned

 

Given the understandable anxiety around COVID19, I wanted to confirm that KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned.

 

Please see https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe/attend/novel-coronavirus-update/ which was just updated with additional information and will remain the source of all updates from CNCF regarding the impact of COVID19 on the event. Please see the flowchart there around travel and flu-like symptoms and that we developed these rules in consultation with an epidemiologist formerly with the CDC, to ensure that we implement best practices.

 

I look forward to seeing many of you in Amsterdam.

--
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


Re: [cncf-gb] KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned

Vineet Gupta
 

I also support the idea of making the plan to have all options in place considering that cases in Italy skyrocketed as well as companies have put complete travel ban and not allowing the entry in some European states as well. I firmly believe that march is already ongoing and situation is deeply concerning , it would be good to re-evaluate and confirm the final plan before the end week of the march so this can be planned better. I would sincerely request to reconsider if possible to postpone or make it a virtual option if somehow possible.

Just my 2 cents on keeping it open and do a close watch so we are safe as a community as well as ensuring the foundation is well served.

Thanks.

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 1:38 AM Shannon Williams <shannon@...> wrote:

Dan – if the situation doesn’t improved, I’m concerned we might need to reconsider this in the next few weeks. As we discussed privately, I’ve been getting a number of notes from people letting me know they won’t be attending, and it sounds like a few sponsors have decided not to participate.   Given all of that, I’d like to understand the financial implications to the foundation if we reached a point where we did need to cancel the event, or turn it into a virtual event.  

 

I’m concerned it could be quite financial impactful for the foundation.

 

Best Regards,

 

Shannon Williams

Rancher Labs

shannon@...

+1 650-521-6902

 

From: cncf-gb@... <cncf-gb@...> On Behalf Of Dan Kohn via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 12:10 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: cncf-gb@...
Subject: [cncf-gb] KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned

 

Given the understandable anxiety around COVID19, I wanted to confirm that KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned.

 

Please see https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe/attend/novel-coronavirus-update/ which was just updated with additional information and will remain the source of all updates from CNCF regarding the impact of COVID19 on the event. Please see the flowchart there around travel and flu-like symptoms and that we developed these rules in consultation with an epidemiologist formerly with the CDC, to ensure that we implement best practices.

 

I look forward to seeing many of you in Amsterdam.

--
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


Re: [cncf-gb] KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned

Shannon Williams
 

Dan – if the situation doesn’t improved, I’m concerned we might need to reconsider this in the next few weeks. As we discussed privately, I’ve been getting a number of notes from people letting me know they won’t be attending, and it sounds like a few sponsors have decided not to participate.   Given all of that, I’d like to understand the financial implications to the foundation if we reached a point where we did need to cancel the event, or turn it into a virtual event.  

 

I’m concerned it could be quite financial impactful for the foundation.

 

Best Regards,

 

Shannon Williams

Rancher Labs

shannon@...

+1 650-521-6902

 

From: cncf-gb@... <cncf-gb@...> On Behalf Of Dan Kohn via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 12:10 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Cc: cncf-gb@...
Subject: [cncf-gb] KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned

 

Given the understandable anxiety around COVID19, I wanted to confirm that KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned.

 

Please see https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe/attend/novel-coronavirus-update/ which was just updated with additional information and will remain the source of all updates from CNCF regarding the impact of COVID19 on the event. Please see the flowchart there around travel and flu-like symptoms and that we developed these rules in consultation with an epidemiologist formerly with the CDC, to ensure that we implement best practices.

 

I look forward to seeing many of you in Amsterdam.

--
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


Re: KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

We are sending an email to all registrants shortly that requires them to log back into the registration system and attest that they're following those guidelines. 
--
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 Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:38 PM Lorenzo Fontana <fontanalorenz@...> wrote:
Hi Dan, I just booked my flight for the 26th this morning trough MXP which is an airport in Lombardy, I don’t live there however.

From what I understand, I can’t take that flight anymore because of this plan.

Did I understand it correctly? 

I can find a flight trough Switzerland, but I think that 90% of Italian Kubecon attendees will be from Lombardy. May I suggest that we give some heads targeting specifically them?

Maybe a targeted email here will be useful, I doubt that many of them will pay attention on the mailing list or even to the conference website.

In the meanwhile I’m trying to reach the others here who might have this problem in this thread 


Thank you
Lore 

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 21:10 Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Given the understandable anxiety around COVID19, I wanted to confirm that KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned.

Please see https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe/attend/novel-coronavirus-update/ which was just updated with additional information and will remain the source of all updates from CNCF regarding the impact of COVID19 on the event. Please see the flowchart there around travel and flu-like symptoms and that we developed these rules in consultation with an epidemiologist formerly with the CDC, to ensure that we implement best practices.

I look forward to seeing many of you in Amsterdam.
--
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


Re: KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned

Lorenzo Fontana
 

Hi Dan, I just booked my flight for the 26th this morning trough MXP which is an airport in Lombardy, I don’t live there however.

From what I understand, I can’t take that flight anymore because of this plan.

Did I understand it correctly? 

I can find a flight trough Switzerland, but I think that 90% of Italian Kubecon attendees will be from Lombardy. May I suggest that we give some heads targeting specifically them?

Maybe a targeted email here will be useful, I doubt that many of them will pay attention on the mailing list or even to the conference website.

In the meanwhile I’m trying to reach the others here who might have this problem in this thread 


On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 21:10 Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Given the understandable anxiety around COVID19, I wanted to confirm that KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned.

Please see https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe/attend/novel-coronavirus-update/ which was just updated with additional information and will remain the source of all updates from CNCF regarding the impact of COVID19 on the event. Please see the flowchart there around travel and flu-like symptoms and that we developed these rules in consultation with an epidemiologist formerly with the CDC, to ensure that we implement best practices.

I look forward to seeing many of you in Amsterdam.
--
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


KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

Given the understandable anxiety around COVID19, I wanted to confirm that KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Amsterdam is taking place March 30 to April 2 as planned.

Please see https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe/attend/novel-coronavirus-update/ which was just updated with additional information and will remain the source of all updates from CNCF regarding the impact of COVID19 on the event. Please see the flowchart there around travel and flu-like symptoms and that we developed these rules in consultation with an epidemiologist formerly with the CDC, to ensure that we implement best practices.

I look forward to seeing many of you in Amsterdam.
--
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


Re: Nominations for TOC Selected Seat, open through March 2

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

One clarification: 11 TOC members can nominate up to 2 people, at most 1 of which can work for the same company. 
Nominations are open until Monday at noon. 

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:00 PM Amye Scavarda Perrin <amye@...> wrote:
Hi all, 
We have our final TOC seat open for this year! 


Call for nominations: Noon PT, E-21 days  - Wednesday, Feb 26
End of call for nominations: Noon PT, E-16 days -  Monday, March 2, 2020
Qualification period: Noon PT, E-16 days  - Monday, March 2, 2020
End of Qualification period: Noon PT, E-9 days - Monday, March 9, 2020
A ballot will be distributed on: E-7 days  -- Wednesday, March 11, 2020
The election will be completed on: Noon PT, E-day and election results are announced -- March 18  

To nominate: this seat is TOC selected, so an existing TOC member needs to nominate anyone who's seeking this seat. Please reach out to a TOC member (https://github.com/cncf/toc) and have them nominate you by emailing me by 12pm Pacific time on Monday, March 2nd.

Thanks! 

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


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


Nominations for TOC Selected Seat, open through March 2

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Hi all, 
We have our final TOC seat open for this year! 


Call for nominations: Noon PT, E-21 days  - Wednesday, Feb 26
End of call for nominations: Noon PT, E-16 days -  Monday, March 2, 2020
Qualification period: Noon PT, E-16 days  - Monday, March 2, 2020
End of Qualification period: Noon PT, E-9 days - Monday, March 9, 2020
A ballot will be distributed on: E-7 days  -- Wednesday, March 11, 2020
The election will be completed on: Noon PT, E-day and election results are announced -- March 18  

To nominate: this seat is TOC selected, so an existing TOC member needs to nominate anyone who's seeking this seat. Please reach out to a TOC member (https://github.com/cncf/toc) and have them nominate you by emailing me by 12pm Pacific time on Monday, March 2nd.

Thanks! 

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


Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations

Brendan Burns
 

+1, looks good to me.

--brendan


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Matt Klein via Lists.Cncf.Io <mattklein123=gmail.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 7:57:21 PM
To: Sarah Allen <sarah@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations
 
+1, thank you!

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:43 AM Sarah Allen <sarah@...> wrote:
Quick clarification -- we're seeking a vote on filling three Tech Lead slots, not asking TOC to choose between them!

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 6:02 PM Sarah Allen via Lists.Cncf.Io <sarah=ultrasaurus.com@...> wrote:

Dear Technical Oversight Committee,


In January, the SIG-Security co-chairs along with then TOC liason’s Joe Beda and Liz Rice, agreed to nominate three Tech Leads for SIG-Security: Justin Cappos, Emily Fox and Brendan Lum. Due to the TOC election vote freeze we held off on submitting the nomination till now.


“Tech leads are assigned following a 2/3 majority vote of the TOC and a 2/3 majority vote of SIG Chairs” — cncf-sig elections


See below for more details on each of the nominated tech leads.  Liz suggested that an email vote would be fine, though if anyone wants to suggest alternate process or has questions, let us know.


Thank you!

Sarah Allen

SIG-Security Chair


———-

SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations:


Justin Cappos

Emily Fox

Brendan Lum

  • SIG-Security highlights

    • Triage team, Meeting Facilitator 

    • Security reviewer on both initial assessments (in-toto and OPA)

    • Security reviewer conflict of interest guidelines PR#247

    • Presented SIG-Security session China June 2019, San Diego Nov 2019

    • Organized in-person meetup DockerCon, May 2019 issue#151

  • Professional affiliations: 

  • Github: @lumjjb

  • CNCF Projects: n/a

  • SIG-Security commits


Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations

Matt Klein
 

+1, thank you!

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:43 AM Sarah Allen <sarah@...> wrote:
Quick clarification -- we're seeking a vote on filling three Tech Lead slots, not asking TOC to choose between them!

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 6:02 PM Sarah Allen via Lists.Cncf.Io <sarah=ultrasaurus.com@...> wrote:

Dear Technical Oversight Committee,


In January, the SIG-Security co-chairs along with then TOC liason’s Joe Beda and Liz Rice, agreed to nominate three Tech Leads for SIG-Security: Justin Cappos, Emily Fox and Brendan Lum. Due to the TOC election vote freeze we held off on submitting the nomination till now.


“Tech leads are assigned following a 2/3 majority vote of the TOC and a 2/3 majority vote of SIG Chairs” — cncf-sig elections


See below for more details on each of the nominated tech leads.  Liz suggested that an email vote would be fine, though if anyone wants to suggest alternate process or has questions, let us know.


Thank you!

Sarah Allen

SIG-Security Chair


———-

SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations:


Justin Cappos

Emily Fox

Brendan Lum

  • SIG-Security highlights

    • Triage team, Meeting Facilitator 

    • Security reviewer on both initial assessments (in-toto and OPA)

    • Security reviewer conflict of interest guidelines PR#247

    • Presented SIG-Security session China June 2019, San Diego Nov 2019

    • Organized in-person meetup DockerCon, May 2019 issue#151

  • Professional affiliations: 

  • Github: @lumjjb

  • CNCF Projects: n/a

  • SIG-Security commits


Re: Project presentations meeting

Matt Farina
 

I have filed an issue with specific questions and a specific case. These questions have all been asked of Amye who has tried to find answers. She does a wonderful job working with us and trying to help. From what I can gather, she needs members of the TOC and possibly SIGs together to work out answers and has been unable to get that so far. This is why I suggested the meeting.

Regards,
Matt Farina

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
Project folks: please feel free to reach out on this mailing list or directly to Amye with questions as the new process beds in

I'm also happy to have this on the agenda for next week's TOC meeting, but we need *concrete examples* to discuss that have arisen since the new process. There is no benefit in raking over the coals of things that went wrong last year - it's just burning cycles that could be put to better use actually talking about projects.

Folks are always welcome to raise issues / PRs on the docs to suggest improvements and clarifications. 


--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 25 Feb 2020, at 06:25, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Liz,

Some of the projects and potential projects are trying to use the new process and running into problems. There are either bugs in the process or details that are undocumented or unclear in the docs. I bring this up after asking questions in other venues were I have been unable to get clarification. I know others are in the same situation.

What about having a working meeting in the time slot to solve problems in the process and get questions answered?

Regards,
Matt Farina

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, at 12:44 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
We've only just agreed the new process, and it has taken months to get there. The point of it is to enable SIGs to help out the TOC and spread some of the workload. Please let's give it a chance to see whether it works. 


--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 24 Feb 2020, at 15:40, Vinod NA <vinod@...> wrote:

Hi,

I appreciate that you guys might be busy, but could any of the TOC please address the questions from Matt? The problem he is describing makes sense to me and I think it's important to address these before adding more red taping within the process. Even with the current situation, the projects have to wait more than one year to enter as a sandbox project.

Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks,

Vinod

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Liz,

I know the members of the TOC are busy. They are executives, lead projects, and have a lot going on. Do y'all think you will take the time to watch SIG recordings? I've been chairing Kubernetes SIGs for years and I've found this only happens when someone has a reason to watch it.

How are SIGs going to make the recommendations? Is that in meetings or is the discussion going to happen elsewhere? For example, if it happens in the issue queue what will drive the TOC members to the issues to be looped in?

My big concern is for the potential projects. If people know TOC members or know people who know them to get in touch a change in the process isn't so bad. But, for people who don't have an in with TOC members this looks like it makes the process more difficult.

Consider this, it's TOC members sponsoring projects not SIGs sponsoring them. Adding hurdles or extra elements between those sponsoring and those with something needing a sponsor is going to increase difficulty for those who don't have another known route to get to the sponsors. This is a problem for projects that don't have existing social connections.

Does the problem I'm describing make sense?

- Matt Farina

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
Hi Matt, 

The idea is that the TOC can watch the SIG recorded presentation, and/or read the slides, and the recommendation from the SIG. And of course we can always reach out to the project if we want to discuss. 

We'll see how well this works and if we need to, we can adjust. 

Liz 

--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 14 Feb 2020, at 22:06, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Liz,

Sandbox projects now require 3 TOC sponsors to get in. Presenting to the SIGs are great but there are rarely 3 TOC members in a SIG meeting. Presenting to the whole TOC provides an opportunity to showcase projects looking for sponsorship and let the TOC interact with them.

How will proposed sandbox projects get TOC member time to find sponsors if they don't get in front of the TOC itself? What will the new flow look like?

Thanks,
Matt Farina

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Liz Rice wrote:
The third-Tuesday-of-the-month public TOC meeting has been for project presentations, but now that the SIGs are handling those project presentations, let’s cancel that meeting. I’m sure we can all find good uses for the extra time we'll get back! 

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








Re: Project presentations meeting

Liz Rice
 

Project folks: please feel free to reach out on this mailing list or directly to Amye with questions as the new process beds in

I'm also happy to have this on the agenda for next week's TOC meeting, but we need *concrete examples* to discuss that have arisen since the new process. There is no benefit in raking over the coals of things that went wrong last year - it's just burning cycles that could be put to better use actually talking about projects.

Folks are always welcome to raise issues / PRs on the docs to suggest improvements and clarifications. 


--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 25 Feb 2020, at 06:25, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:


Liz,

Some of the projects and potential projects are trying to use the new process and running into problems. There are either bugs in the process or details that are undocumented or unclear in the docs. I bring this up after asking questions in other venues were I have been unable to get clarification. I know others are in the same situation.

What about having a working meeting in the time slot to solve problems in the process and get questions answered?

Regards,
Matt Farina

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, at 12:44 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
We've only just agreed the new process, and it has taken months to get there. The point of it is to enable SIGs to help out the TOC and spread some of the workload. Please let's give it a chance to see whether it works. 


--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 24 Feb 2020, at 15:40, Vinod NA <vinod@...> wrote:

Hi,

I appreciate that you guys might be busy, but could any of the TOC please address the questions from Matt? The problem he is describing makes sense to me and I think it's important to address these before adding more red taping within the process. Even with the current situation, the projects have to wait more than one year to enter as a sandbox project.

Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks,

Vinod

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Liz,

I know the members of the TOC are busy. They are executives, lead projects, and have a lot going on. Do y'all think you will take the time to watch SIG recordings? I've been chairing Kubernetes SIGs for years and I've found this only happens when someone has a reason to watch it.

How are SIGs going to make the recommendations? Is that in meetings or is the discussion going to happen elsewhere? For example, if it happens in the issue queue what will drive the TOC members to the issues to be looped in?

My big concern is for the potential projects. If people know TOC members or know people who know them to get in touch a change in the process isn't so bad. But, for people who don't have an in with TOC members this looks like it makes the process more difficult.

Consider this, it's TOC members sponsoring projects not SIGs sponsoring them. Adding hurdles or extra elements between those sponsoring and those with something needing a sponsor is going to increase difficulty for those who don't have another known route to get to the sponsors. This is a problem for projects that don't have existing social connections.

Does the problem I'm describing make sense?

- Matt Farina

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
Hi Matt, 

The idea is that the TOC can watch the SIG recorded presentation, and/or read the slides, and the recommendation from the SIG. And of course we can always reach out to the project if we want to discuss. 

We'll see how well this works and if we need to, we can adjust. 

Liz 

--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 14 Feb 2020, at 22:06, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Liz,

Sandbox projects now require 3 TOC sponsors to get in. Presenting to the SIGs are great but there are rarely 3 TOC members in a SIG meeting. Presenting to the whole TOC provides an opportunity to showcase projects looking for sponsorship and let the TOC interact with them.

How will proposed sandbox projects get TOC member time to find sponsors if they don't get in front of the TOC itself? What will the new flow look like?

Thanks,
Matt Farina

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Liz Rice wrote:
The third-Tuesday-of-the-month public TOC meeting has been for project presentations, but now that the SIGs are handling those project presentations, let’s cancel that meeting. I’m sure we can all find good uses for the extra time we'll get back! 

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







Re: Project presentations meeting

Matt Farina
 

Liz,

Some of the projects and potential projects are trying to use the new process and running into problems. There are either bugs in the process or details that are undocumented or unclear in the docs. I bring this up after asking questions in other venues were I have been unable to get clarification. I know others are in the same situation.

What about having a working meeting in the time slot to solve problems in the process and get questions answered?

Regards,
Matt Farina

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, at 12:44 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
We've only just agreed the new process, and it has taken months to get there. The point of it is to enable SIGs to help out the TOC and spread some of the workload. Please let's give it a chance to see whether it works. 


--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 24 Feb 2020, at 15:40, Vinod NA <vinod@...> wrote:

Hi,

I appreciate that you guys might be busy, but could any of the TOC please address the questions from Matt? The problem he is describing makes sense to me and I think it's important to address these before adding more red taping within the process. Even with the current situation, the projects have to wait more than one year to enter as a sandbox project.

Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks,

Vinod

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Liz,

I know the members of the TOC are busy. They are executives, lead projects, and have a lot going on. Do y'all think you will take the time to watch SIG recordings? I've been chairing Kubernetes SIGs for years and I've found this only happens when someone has a reason to watch it.

How are SIGs going to make the recommendations? Is that in meetings or is the discussion going to happen elsewhere? For example, if it happens in the issue queue what will drive the TOC members to the issues to be looped in?

My big concern is for the potential projects. If people know TOC members or know people who know them to get in touch a change in the process isn't so bad. But, for people who don't have an in with TOC members this looks like it makes the process more difficult.

Consider this, it's TOC members sponsoring projects not SIGs sponsoring them. Adding hurdles or extra elements between those sponsoring and those with something needing a sponsor is going to increase difficulty for those who don't have another known route to get to the sponsors. This is a problem for projects that don't have existing social connections.

Does the problem I'm describing make sense?

- Matt Farina

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
Hi Matt, 

The idea is that the TOC can watch the SIG recorded presentation, and/or read the slides, and the recommendation from the SIG. And of course we can always reach out to the project if we want to discuss. 

We'll see how well this works and if we need to, we can adjust. 

Liz 

--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 14 Feb 2020, at 22:06, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Liz,

Sandbox projects now require 3 TOC sponsors to get in. Presenting to the SIGs are great but there are rarely 3 TOC members in a SIG meeting. Presenting to the whole TOC provides an opportunity to showcase projects looking for sponsorship and let the TOC interact with them.

How will proposed sandbox projects get TOC member time to find sponsors if they don't get in front of the TOC itself? What will the new flow look like?

Thanks,
Matt Farina

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Liz Rice wrote:
The third-Tuesday-of-the-month public TOC meeting has been for project presentations, but now that the SIGs are handling those project presentations, let’s cancel that meeting. I’m sure we can all find good uses for the extra time we'll get back! 

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







Re: Project presentations meeting

Liz Rice
 

We've only just agreed the new process, and it has taken months to get there. The point of it is to enable SIGs to help out the TOC and spread some of the workload. Please let's give it a chance to see whether it works. 


--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 24 Feb 2020, at 15:40, Vinod NA <vinod@...> wrote:


Hi,

I appreciate that you guys might be busy, but could any of the TOC please address the questions from Matt? The problem he is describing makes sense to me and I think it's important to address these before adding more red taping within the process. Even with the current situation, the projects have to wait more than one year to enter as a sandbox project.

Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks,

Vinod

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Liz,

I know the members of the TOC are busy. They are executives, lead projects, and have a lot going on. Do y'all think you will take the time to watch SIG recordings? I've been chairing Kubernetes SIGs for years and I've found this only happens when someone has a reason to watch it.

How are SIGs going to make the recommendations? Is that in meetings or is the discussion going to happen elsewhere? For example, if it happens in the issue queue what will drive the TOC members to the issues to be looped in?

My big concern is for the potential projects. If people know TOC members or know people who know them to get in touch a change in the process isn't so bad. But, for people who don't have an in with TOC members this looks like it makes the process more difficult.

Consider this, it's TOC members sponsoring projects not SIGs sponsoring them. Adding hurdles or extra elements between those sponsoring and those with something needing a sponsor is going to increase difficulty for those who don't have another known route to get to the sponsors. This is a problem for projects that don't have existing social connections.

Does the problem I'm describing make sense?

- Matt Farina

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
Hi Matt, 

The idea is that the TOC can watch the SIG recorded presentation, and/or read the slides, and the recommendation from the SIG. And of course we can always reach out to the project if we want to discuss. 

We'll see how well this works and if we need to, we can adjust. 

Liz 

--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 14 Feb 2020, at 22:06, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Liz,

Sandbox projects now require 3 TOC sponsors to get in. Presenting to the SIGs are great but there are rarely 3 TOC members in a SIG meeting. Presenting to the whole TOC provides an opportunity to showcase projects looking for sponsorship and let the TOC interact with them.

How will proposed sandbox projects get TOC member time to find sponsors if they don't get in front of the TOC itself? What will the new flow look like?

Thanks,
Matt Farina

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Liz Rice wrote:
The third-Tuesday-of-the-month public TOC meeting has been for project presentations, but now that the SIGs are handling those project presentations, let’s cancel that meeting. I’m sure we can all find good uses for the extra time we'll get back! 

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




Re: SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations

JJ
 

+1
Excited to be working with these folks!
Justin Cappos, Emily Fox and Brendan Lum as SIG-Security Tech Leads

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM Dan Shaw <dshaw@...> wrote:
+1 for Justin Cappos, Emily Fox and Brendan Lum as SIG-Security Tech Leads

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:43 AM Sarah Allen <sarah@...> wrote:
Quick clarification -- we're seeking a vote on filling three Tech Lead slots, not asking TOC to choose between them!

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 6:02 PM Sarah Allen via Lists.Cncf.Io <sarah=ultrasaurus.com@...> wrote:

Dear Technical Oversight Committee,


In January, the SIG-Security co-chairs along with then TOC liason’s Joe Beda and Liz Rice, agreed to nominate three Tech Leads for SIG-Security: Justin Cappos, Emily Fox and Brendan Lum. Due to the TOC election vote freeze we held off on submitting the nomination till now.


“Tech leads are assigned following a 2/3 majority vote of the TOC and a 2/3 majority vote of SIG Chairs” — cncf-sig elections


See below for more details on each of the nominated tech leads.  Liz suggested that an email vote would be fine, though if anyone wants to suggest alternate process or has questions, let us know.


Thank you!

Sarah Allen

SIG-Security Chair


———-

SIG-Security Tech Lead nominations:


Justin Cappos

Emily Fox

Brendan Lum

  • SIG-Security highlights

    • Triage team, Meeting Facilitator 

    • Security reviewer on both initial assessments (in-toto and OPA)

    • Security reviewer conflict of interest guidelines PR#247

    • Presented SIG-Security session China June 2019, San Diego Nov 2019

    • Organized in-person meetup DockerCon, May 2019 issue#151

  • Professional affiliations: 

  • Github: @lumjjb

  • CNCF Projects: n/a

  • SIG-Security commits


Re: Project presentations meeting

Vinod
 

Hi,

I appreciate that you guys might be busy, but could any of the TOC please address the questions from Matt? The problem he is describing makes sense to me and I think it's important to address these before adding more red taping within the process. Even with the current situation, the projects have to wait more than one year to enter as a sandbox project.

Looking forward to your reply.

Thanks,

Vinod


On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 4:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Liz,

I know the members of the TOC are busy. They are executives, lead projects, and have a lot going on. Do y'all think you will take the time to watch SIG recordings? I've been chairing Kubernetes SIGs for years and I've found this only happens when someone has a reason to watch it.

How are SIGs going to make the recommendations? Is that in meetings or is the discussion going to happen elsewhere? For example, if it happens in the issue queue what will drive the TOC members to the issues to be looped in?

My big concern is for the potential projects. If people know TOC members or know people who know them to get in touch a change in the process isn't so bad. But, for people who don't have an in with TOC members this looks like it makes the process more difficult.

Consider this, it's TOC members sponsoring projects not SIGs sponsoring them. Adding hurdles or extra elements between those sponsoring and those with something needing a sponsor is going to increase difficulty for those who don't have another known route to get to the sponsors. This is a problem for projects that don't have existing social connections.

Does the problem I'm describing make sense?

- Matt Farina

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Liz Rice wrote:
Hi Matt, 

The idea is that the TOC can watch the SIG recorded presentation, and/or read the slides, and the recommendation from the SIG. And of course we can always reach out to the project if we want to discuss. 

We'll see how well this works and if we need to, we can adjust. 

Liz 

--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 14 Feb 2020, at 22:06, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Liz,

Sandbox projects now require 3 TOC sponsors to get in. Presenting to the SIGs are great but there are rarely 3 TOC members in a SIG meeting. Presenting to the whole TOC provides an opportunity to showcase projects looking for sponsorship and let the TOC interact with them.

How will proposed sandbox projects get TOC member time to find sponsors if they don't get in front of the TOC itself? What will the new flow look like?

Thanks,
Matt Farina

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Liz Rice wrote:
The third-Tuesday-of-the-month public TOC meeting has been for project presentations, but now that the SIGs are handling those project presentations, let’s cancel that meeting. I’m sure we can all find good uses for the extra time we'll get back! 

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




Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] [cncf-special-issues] Special issues process proposal

Brendan Burns
 

fwiw, I will only be able to make the first 0.5hr





From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of alexis richardson via Lists.Cncf.Io <alexis=weave.works@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 2:38 PM
To: Matt Klein <mattklein123@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cncf-toc] [cncf-special-issues] Special issues process proposal
 
I made a couple of "meta" comments that I hope are helpful.  Please
ping me if more clarification is needed.

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:42 PM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
>
> I updated the doc again after the latest round of comments in our call. I think this is ready for a final pass. PTAL.
>
> The goal is to submit this for a governing board vote at the EU meeting.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 6:32 PM Lisbeth McNabb <lmcnabb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Matt.  I will be on the call.
>>
>> Liz.  Hope your day away is a break for you.
>>
>> Warm Regards,
>>
>> Lisbeth McNabb
>>
>> m:  214.632.6729
>> o:   415.419.7964
>> LisbethRMcNabb@...
>>
>> Pardon my typos. Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 19, 2020, at 18:24, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
>>
>> Apologies, I am on PTO so won't make it.
>>
>> (And for some reason I don't have the call in my calendar anyway!)
>>
>> --
>> Liz Rice - sent from my phone
>>
>> On 19 Feb 2020, at 10:52, Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Ahead of our special issues meeting tomorrow morning, I have updated the document based on feedback I have received so far. PTAL.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Lisbeth McNabb <lmcnabb@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Excellent Matt.  I will be able to provide input Feb 7 and ahead of our next working call on Feb 20th.
>>>
>>>
>>> Warm Regards,
>>>
>>> Lisbeth
>>>
>>> Linux Foundation, CFO/COO
>>> e:  lmcnabb@...
>>> m:  214.632.6729
>>> @lisbethmcnabb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:42 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi TOC community,
>>>>
>>>> As part of our working group on how to better handle project "special issues," I have put together a draft process document that I would love your feedback on:
>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F16NCbcC-2N2GFqnA2FxHKZeNnv2grkLIeLrs37IMHU0c%2Fedit%23&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbburns%40microsoft.com%7C7e884bce0919465b35dc08d7b8b12214%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637180943236172953&amp;sdata=etuZ7mLEdjN%2FyAFIO5q6pLtcze9Y5dteMMGVxcIJJrs%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>>>
>>>> This is part of the general work steam around improving the services that we provide to member projects (see also https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1HLRFOCgSleHX5ZHu3PQRTAVQB-KNjxggZxc6CFLLQxQ%2Fedit%23heading%3Dh.wb9r8ykfgpr1&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cbburns%40microsoft.com%7C7e884bce0919465b35dc08d7b8b12214%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637180943236172953&amp;sdata=iMQecgLxRqKmMTjXRfQzDrt02r7cVo7qi7n0Ue396nk%3D&amp;reserved=0).
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to your feedback!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Matt
>
>




CNCF TOC Survey 2020 H1 is now open, closes March 6

Amye Scavarda Perrin
 

Hi all,
We're opening our TOC survey for the first half of 2020. 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TOC-2020-H1 

We'd appreciate your feedback, I'll send another reminder before this survey closes on March 6. 
Thanks!
- amye 

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


Re: [cncf-special-issues] Special issues process proposal

alexis richardson
 

I made a couple of "meta" comments that I hope are helpful. Please
ping me if more clarification is needed.

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:42 PM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:

I updated the doc again after the latest round of comments in our call. I think this is ready for a final pass. PTAL.

The goal is to submit this for a governing board vote at the EU meeting.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 6:32 PM Lisbeth McNabb <lmcnabb@...> wrote:

Thanks Matt. I will be on the call.

Liz. Hope your day away is a break for you.

Warm Regards,

Lisbeth McNabb

m: 214.632.6729
o: 415.419.7964
LisbethRMcNabb@...

Pardon my typos. Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2020, at 18:24, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Apologies, I am on PTO so won't make it.

(And for some reason I don't have the call in my calendar anyway!)

--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 19 Feb 2020, at 10:52, Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:


Hi folks,

Ahead of our special issues meeting tomorrow morning, I have updated the document based on feedback I have received so far. PTAL.

Thanks,
Matt

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Lisbeth McNabb <lmcnabb@...> wrote:

Excellent Matt. I will be able to provide input Feb 7 and ahead of our next working call on Feb 20th.


Warm Regards,

Lisbeth

Linux Foundation, CFO/COO
e: lmcnabb@...
m: 214.632.6729
@lisbethmcnabb




On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:42 AM Matt Klein <mattklein123@...> wrote:

Hi TOC community,

As part of our working group on how to better handle project "special issues," I have put together a draft process document that I would love your feedback on:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16NCbcC-2N2GFqnA2FxHKZeNnv2grkLIeLrs37IMHU0c/edit#

This is part of the general work steam around improving the services that we provide to member projects (see also https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLRFOCgSleHX5ZHu3PQRTAVQB-KNjxggZxc6CFLLQxQ/edit#heading=h.wb9r8ykfgpr1).

Looking forward to your feedback!

Thanks,
Matt


Re: SIG TOC liaisons

Liz Rice
 

(SIGs readme is updated)

--
Liz Rice - sent from my phone

On 14 Feb 2020, at 13:46, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:


Thanks Justin (SIG Security) & Katie (SIG App Delivery), sounds good to me!


On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 11:03, Katie Gamanji <gamanjie@...> wrote:
Hello, 

I am happy to volunteer for SIG  App Delivery alongside Michelle Noorali if possible. 

Katie

2961 - 2980 of 7192