Thanks Quinton, you raise good points. The SC is indeed meant to add value to the project and not introduce bureaucracy or 'interference'. Most projects are pretty good at running themselves. We shoul

Josh Thanks! I would like to keep this at top level (TOC) for now, to maximise the attention on it. Once the foundational principles have been established (or rejected) by the TOC, I would be very hap

Hi all Please see below a link to a public document that describes a proposed charter for projects wishing to establish a Steering Committee. https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Hiz1dGYRS7GcjedpRVnSl

+1 nb

+1 nb

+1 nb <marc.boorshtein@...> wrote:

Congratulations Priyanka, welcome!

If a big production user will provide a testimonial for DD purposes, it is acceptable for them to request that it not be made public. If so then the TOC (who vote) can see it to verify that the criter

+1 nb <michael.h.payne=jpmchase.com@...> wrote:

Please read the definition and state whether you are confused by it, or think someone else would be. Then please suggest changes. https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md For instanc

Yes - this. We do have a definition, but Sandbox is still a source of many misunderstandings. Only the Landscape causes even more confusion.

Delegation is good but not transfer of accountability

-1 The TOC should NOT step away from shepherding projects at any stage. The SIGs are an essential HELP but not a substitute for the TOC. The 'sandbox' is not "a playground for ideas". I'm sorry Erin b

Busy people just don't pay attention to Github notifications until it really matters? <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

I see no reason to move to one week if the meetings are two weeks apart. This is like an auction "asking once, asking twice..."

Ok so if that's the goal then age of project isn't relevant IMO

What are we trying to achieve with this initiative? How to weed out dead sandbox projects? Let's weed them out.

This is great!

+1 nb

Applause!