+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.

"Netdata is in the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) landscape and it is the 3rd most starred open-source project. Check the CNCF TOC Netdata presentation." https://github.com/netdata/netdata/b

Hi folks Please can we stop arguing about this. Let the Sig folk draft a charter for comment and then let's argue, bikeshed, whatever. All I'm saying is that projects like cloudfoundry and Openshift a

i see app frameworks and platforms as "next tier in the stack" that should draw on foundations from the CNCF SIGs, including app delivery, security, storage, ... Plus, there will be 1000s of them. So

Doug - no, I'm just saying that both PaaS and Serverless are out of scope for CNCF SIG App Delivery.

Yep, they are.

Jeff I think the intent is already pretty broad, including app templates and so on (eg Helm), plus various pieces of the CD pipe, plus supporting dev tools. IMO stuff like PaaS & serverless is out of

Michelle and I are pulling together a SIG for App Delivery. Our next step: draft a charter. We'd love a few keen would-be SIGonauts to join our chartering efforts, please! Also, we shall figure out a

Excellent points! I'd love to see more auto transcription if that is feasible.