I'm on vacation today and tomorrow and will miss the TOC and App Delivery SIG.

sorry, am on vacation I am supportive but don't feel technically strong enough to sponsor kubevirt, also I think we need to look at some kind of strategic home for these kinds of tools + liz can you s

The second one is better. The one thing that the TOC want to avoid is "lobbying" in which projects get pre-rolled.

Fabian Have you asked all the TOC yet? alexis

Doh. 12th is Monday.

Hi all Following a steer from Liz: Michelle and I have agreed this schedule for getting to a vote on the charter for CNCF App Delivery SIG. 12 Aug (Tuesday) Close TOC / community comments on draft cha

thanks Sarah!

+1 binding

+1 for "review", +1 for learning from ACM & academia I still think we cannot pretend to be unbiased. Even algos are biased.

Thanks for posting this Gareth. IMO it is better to be open about bias than to pretend it away. We could state that documents coming from CNCF TOC & SIGs are marked as "Authored by members of the CNCF

I am happy to sponsor Thanos for CNCF Sandbox. <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Costa The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor Netdata. Had a sponsor stepped forward, Netdata would have been invited to initiate the DD process for incubation, with Github

+1, the TOC felt the same way when the voting happened. <markpeek=vmware.com@...> wrote:

Matt, Yes, indeed, we do have the Definition. The TOC worked on this along with the layered stack (architecture) and landscape (which fits into the stack). You are 100% right that there should be grea

Josh, please see my reply to Matt which expresses why it is so diminished. <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:

Matt OK, but: We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native" landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have an opinion about what is cloud native and what

Josh I created the landscape, so I feel I have a dog in this race. a <josh.michielsen@...> wrote:

When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where they live in that structure. Now, it has everything in it. So it

Costa "Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?" After you presented to the TOC

The site doesn't say "applied for CNCF and was rejected". This is an example of "lying by omission". It is not OK.