Which parts, specifically? I think we need consensus on a direction before we, potentially, start new/updating processes. Agreed. At the same time, we need to take Goodhart's law[1] into account. A mo

Replying top-level as my thoughts jump across the thread. I didn't run the numbers, yet I believe that the pace of submissions has picked up. That alone can increase backlog. We tried SIGs (now TAGs)

+1 binding

Thanks a _lot_, Alena! Welcome (back), Katie :)

+1 binding <ascavarda@...> wrote:

+1 binding. I like this DD format. It's a lot cleaner than copying the various, partially overlapping, DD snippets together.

+1 binding. I still have some thoughts around overall velocity, but after talking to h01ger off-list, I am confident in changing my vote. The rest of this email is more about Debian than CNCF, feel fr

Thank you for the quick & detailed response. Also, again, I am still getting up to speed with this new hat on. Sorry, for being unclear; the DD doc referred to Debian as a company. The rest was me try

+0 binding Still getting up to speed for TOC, sorry. Some questions: Debian is not a company. I couldn't find Lukas on Debian Developer search[1] nor Debian Maintainer search[2]. In a section below, D

+1 binding

+1 binding Extra bonus points for delivering reproducible builds!

+1 NB

+1 NB

Dear all, I really wanted to make that TOC call when I saw this on the agenda, but sadly CVE-2021-39226 got into the way. With my project hats on, this initiative is great to see. In particular a wide

+1 NB Sent by mobile; please excuse my brevity.

Hi Cheryl, sad to see you leave. Thank you for your work. Having seen CNCF from the inside since its inception, I do think you did make a lasting impact on end users and beyond. Best, Richard

Forgot to add my own +1, so: +1 NB :)

Left one nit inline and think it should be expanded even more, but it's definitely a large step in the right direction. As such, +1 NB.

+1 non-binding

+1 non-binding