+1, binding. - Bryan

Matt, Thanks so much for gathering this -- I agree with all of it. I would like to add a couple of points. First, I really enjoyed the Monday "co-located" conference that I went to (I went to the Obse

+1, binding. - Bryan

Chris, Thanks for the quick resolution, and for communicating it to promptly to CNCF members! - Bryan

I don't think that that's correct -- or rather, I don't see any grammatical way that "each individual (entity or member) eligible to nominate a TOC member may nominate..." can possibly refer to 6(e)(i

Chris, I'm a little confused about the nomination process. In particular, I can't see where in the charter it describes who many nominate candidates for the TOC. In section 6(e)(ii) it says: But I can

I think it's disconcerting (if somewhat comical) that the concern that the ideas shared here would get rebuttals -- a concern that I and I think many members of the TOC also likely share -- itself got

One per vendor might be too acute, as some vendors are doing much more than others. But having some system that limits the number of submissions per vendor (and therefore force the vendors to adopt so

On the call yesterday, Dan asked me to send out my thoughts on double-blind reviewing. My e-mail quickly turned into a blog entry: http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/10/03/should-kubecon-be-double-blind

I agree with Jessie -- and for whatever it's worth, here were my reasons to be involved with the CNCF during its inception over three years ago: http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2015/07/21/the-foundation-o

Sorry -- I, too, am out: due to the Monday holiday, I have my Monday morning schedule this morning. Sorry for not having seen the scheduling conflict earlier! - Bryan

Just to follow up on this: after speaking with the Cortex team, I'm happy to co-sponsor them as a CNCF sandbox project! - Bryan P.S. Thanks, too, to the team for educating me as to the surprising subt

+1 (binding) - Bryan

+1 binding - Bryan

The stars seem to be aligning in exactly the wrong way, but I am also unavailable tomorrow morning... - Bryan

+1 binding - Bryan

I'm sorry to have missed the call this week, but I think the term "Sandbox" is great -- in addition to its positive connotations of fun and play, it's also dirty and filled with sniffling toddlers, br

With my apologies, I am in Korea this week and won't be able to attend -- though if I find myself awake at that hour, I reserve the right to dial in. ;) - Bryan

Wow, I really like Justin's (and Kris's) definitions. As I read Brian's proposed attributes, it occurred to me how much software we have that is indisputably cloud native and yet doesn't exhibit the a

+1 (binding) - Bryan