+1, NB From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Dave Zolotusky via lists.cncf.io" <dzolo=spotify.com@...> Reply-To: "dzolo@..." <dzolo@...> Date: Sunday, November 15, 202

What would the mechanism used to be sure that a “plan” for a community controlled roadmap becomes a reality? At present, holding graduation as the milestone for that is, imho, one of the most critical

The chasm statement is interesting in the abstract. The well-deserved implication is “production use” is far to broad a term for a huge variety of situations, and I withdraw the question. Has the proj

To me, this does not feel like either of those two upstream projects. Characterizing k3s as packaging only or tooling used to manage Kubernetes is not addressing: The forking issue, e.g. not using etc

-1 non-binding. I’m deeply concerned about the idea that CNCF is accepting what appears to be a Kubernetes fork into sandbox. The statements about “encouraging upstream” seem like good intentions only

There are two types of Sandbox projects. There are those “experimental” projects or places where a little-s sandbox is needed on neutral ground. There are projects that are clearly headed towards incu

Don’t we want the CNCF to be a home for good projects, not just big projects? A much stricter requirement for multi-org governance as entry even to sandbox would help avoid project dumping by a single

+1 non-binding From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Thor Anker Kvisgård Lange <thanl@...> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 7:45 AM To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@list