I meant the monthly public TOC meetings (1st Tue of the month, the ones that aren't dedicated for project reviews)

I'm going to assume that folks didn't respond because they think it's a good idea :-) Amye, please could you coordinate with the SIG chairs and get them onto the agenda for the next public TOC meeting

Hi everyone, I’d like to suggest that every SIG should have a space on the TOC open meeting agenda to present an update. I’m picturing a summary of recent SIG outputs, upcoming plans, maybe a brief di

+1 binding, with thanks to everyone who contributed to rkt over the years Liz

Agreed, this is an important point, and good to expose to sunlight. I like Alexis’ authorship statements and the point about listing authors and their affiliations. Sometimes people’s biases might not

Hi everyone, We held a closed TOC meeting this week and made progress on the project proposal backlog. The meeting notes are now added to the working doc. Liz

Hi Quinton, This is in large part down to me! The chairs asked me for guidance on their priorities at the point where they were formally accepted as a SIG. I suggested focusing on getting some assessm

Hi Dmitri, here’s a write-up: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/cncf-sigs.md To everyone: there was a similar-ish question a week or two ago about the roles of user groups, TOC, working gro

Hi Erin, hi Frederick, I hope it goes without saying that I’m all for people coming together to collaborate! And there is precedent - for example the group of folks who got together as SAFE has now ev

Actually copying Cheryl this time

Hi Erin! My first question would be what the group wants to achieve, and what it is about being a SIG that would help them achieve those goals? Hello Frederick! I think the main difference is that CNC

I wasn't clear - I was thinking about the criteria the CNCF has for adding projects to the landscape (where one of the criteria is some number of github stars, if I recall correctly).

Maybe we (or GitHub) could build some kind of “realstars” count which only counts stars from folks who have also done some number of other activities (raising PRs or issues, making comments, maybe eve

Thank you Dan I must say I'm a bit sceptical about stars. I wish it were more like stack overflow or discuss, so that you have to earn the right to give them out.

I don't think we need to tightly couple the submission of projects and the creation of a SIG to deal with them :-) I get the intention to have SIGs to cover all known projects, but in the absence of a

I think it's in scope of some theoretical future SIG, when we have projects / active discussions in that area. That future SIG could even be this SIG-App Delivery in some future incarnation that wishe

I am not sure we do ourselves any favours by separating Serverless into its own vertical. Would you expect serverless / function security to fall into the remit of SIG-security? I would. Given that, w

Thanks Alexis! This helps a lot, but also highlights the need to get the docs to match the reality so that projects know what is going to be asked of them. We need to get that full questionnaire for I

Hello TOC folks, We have some slightly conflicting / ambiguous documentation which I’d like to get tidied up (partly inspired by this issue). It seems odd that Sandbox requires two sponsors but other

Very good point! Suggestions on this (or pointers to existing examples) would be welcome and super-helpful