Hi TOC, In the documentation on the incubation stage it notes that 3 independent end users need to be using the project in production. The definition of an end user is documented elsewhere to provide

I think there is some nuance in here but it's worth discussing. For example, if a project is using SemVer there are a couple parts of the spec that come to mind... If a project doesn't have a 1.0.0 ye

Sorry for the confusion. I've asked multiple people at Google about this and I was told it wasn't possible. Thank you for not only clearing up the confusion but pointing out the project-migration docs

From what I have been told, it's not technically possible to transfer the project. To add some context about cost and history... We have seen numbers on what it would cost to host these through Google

Josh, You ask a good question. There are two things worth noting... Many of the charts people use have been slower to move out of the stable and incubator repos than expected. We are still finding the

I thought this would be news worth sharing here. The Helm project has had the Helm Hub to help people discover charts. This year the Artifact Hub has come into existence and become a CNCF Sandbox proj

Since we have been talking governance, I just noticed a new catalog of FOSS Governance documents launched. It's at https://fossgovernance.org/. It has pointers to many governance docs on many open sou

We discussed OpenKruise in Kubernetes SIG Apps. I can now answer questions asked of SIG Apps. In the meeting what OpenKruise is building was discussed along with how things could operate between SIG A

OpenKruise has reached out to Kubernetes SIG Apps and we will discuss the project. For context, why would the TOC suggest OpenKruise fall under k8s instead of being it's own CNCF sandbox project?

If a steering committee is recommended then the reasons for it need to be well documented and articulated. There are a lot of assumptions and they are not shared. That is ripe for miscommunications. G

Thanks for bringing this up Stephen. I would suggest that the structure (which includes SC or not) can't fix problems that may be cultural. For example, knowing ones audience is important. Taking the

The Helm project has a similar model in its governance. There is a separation between Org Maintainers and Project Maintainers. The Org Maintainers are responsible for the project but not the technical

The artifact hub already has a "real" use case. That is to make it easier to discover cloud native artifacts for those end-users who consume them. These artifacts are often distributed and hosted all

I can speak to some of this... The CNCF describes projects in terms of crossing the chasm. You can find that here. Sandbox is labeled as being for the innovators. A production recommendation really de

I expect there are many people in this thread that lack some context. So, I figured I'd try to add some. If someone has more to add or a correction please do so. These are intermixed with some of my p

+1 nb I appreciate that the TOC took the time to talk with the Kubernetes Steering Committee prior to calling for a vote. I can't imagine a vote moving forward without their blessing. It's great that

Congratulations Priyanka. Dan, best of luck in launching the new foundation.

Erin, Might I suggest a 3rd alternative reason. The sandbox process used to be fairly simple for the TOC and those bringing the process in. It had it's pitfalls (e.g., finding TOC members as sponsors

Angel, I'll give my 2 cents in reverse order.... What makes something a sandbox project is different from the process to be accepted. So, this touches on something semantically different. The process

Alois, I'd like to dig a little deeper on one thing you brought up. Specifically: Sandbox is defined in https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md. What is missing from the definition