Date   

Re: TOC meeting today

Kohsuke Kawaguchi
 

Am I supposed to have the host code to start this zoom meeting? If so, I'm afraid I don't have the credentials setup --- I didn't even realize until now that that's needed, but I guess Dan Lopez must have been doing that for us.

Does anyone else have the host access to get the conference bridge gooing?

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:44 AM Kohsuke Kawaguchi <kk@...> wrote:
Today is our TOC regular TOC meeting. 15 mins from now to be exact:

https://zoom.us/my/cdf.toc

The agenda is at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uBHar55fTInWF9Li4t0lyG3tTC8BRLU0FfBfsgk_Jrs/edit

--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi



--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi


TOC meeting today

Kohsuke Kawaguchi
 

Today is our TOC regular TOC meeting. 15 mins from now to be exact:

https://zoom.us/my/cdf.toc

The agenda is at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uBHar55fTInWF9Li4t0lyG3tTC8BRLU0FfBfsgk_Jrs/edit

--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi


Re: [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Dan Lorenc <dlorenc@...>
 

And I'm obviously also a +1 binding on this, given that I wrote it :)

That leaves us with 6 votes in favor, so this should be good to go! Thanks everyone.

Dan Lorenc

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:32 PM Yoav Landman via Lists.Cd.Foundation <yoavl=jfrog.com@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 3:53 Kay Williams via Lists.Cd.Foundation <kayw=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

This proposed edit makes sense to me.

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Michael Winser via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 5:49 PM
To: cdf-toc@...

Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

 

+1 non binding 

 

I would suggest a future edit to change "Durations for a Working Groups should be <6 months" to "Durations for a Working Groups must be <6 months"

 

I think that once a working group has established itself and is showing ongoing traction then more timeline flexibility is reasonable but during the early days of both the foundation and the inevitable flurry of working group proposals I think that shorter initial timelines will be best.

 

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:49 PM Kohsuke Kawaguchi <kk@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 8:07 Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:09 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:

The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

 

Dan Lorenc


 

--

Tara Hernandez

Engineering Manager Google Cloud

 

 

--

Kohsuke Kawaguchi

--


CD Summit NA - Call for program committee members

Tracy Miranda <tmiranda@...>
 

Hi all,

We are ramping up to CD Summit North America which will be in San Diego on Monday November 18th.

Christie Wilson & I will be co-chairing the program committee and we would like some folks to join us in selecting talks and overall helping ensure we come up with a great conference programme. 

So we are looking for volunteers to be part of the program committee. We are looking for individuals who:
- intend to/ are planning to attend the summit (which as is a colocated event, they will be attending KubeCon NA)
- are involved with CDF either as members, project contributors or contributing at the Technical Oversight Committee level
- can dedicate the time over next 3 months to review & rate proposals as well as meet virtually as necessary and discuss the program with fellow pc members.  

We'll be looking to have a good mix of folks representing different perspectives and viewpoints. 

If interested, please reply to mailing list or respond offline if you prefer (tmiranda@...) by end of the day Tuesday 13 August. 

Any questions please let me know - and look out for call for papers opening in the next week or two. 

Regards,
Tracy



Re: [VOTE] Screwdriver.cd

Kohsuke Kawaguchi
 

So Tara's point, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the project in the incubation phase is expected to have a growth plan. The idea here is that there should be a consensus and transparency around what the project is seeking. I agree that that should be captured (and missing this is a failure on our part, because the project proposal requirement section doesn't list it!)  I think this is something we need to hear from Jithin, the product owner.  I'd imagine it could be somewhere around more user adoption, more contributors, etc.

The next question from there is how the project is going to achieve those goals. I don't think it should be just "we can achieve those goals by coming to the CDF." I'd really love to see it go a step further. For example, if more contribution is a goal, then I think the growth plan could call out more open governance and decision making process. Or if the acceleration of the development is the goal, the growth plan could call out identifying and reusing common parts with other CDF projects.

I think calling out more active engagement with other CDF projects would be really exciting. My perception, though I could be wrong, is that there are a considerable overlap between what Screwdriver does and Spinnaker/Jenkins/Tekton/JenkinsX do. There gotta be libraries/subsystems/microserviecs that we can refactor out of those projects so that we don't keep reinventing wheel. I think Screwdriver could be a great driver because it has modest adoption and thus hopefully more amenable to compatibility breaking change.


On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:08 PM Kohsuke Kawaguchi <kk@...> wrote:
I'm a little late to the party as I was on vacation. Looks like this topic needs more discussion before we call a vote.

I hear the point from Andy & Tara that, in my understanding, basically boils down to "how does this new project fit with all the other projects?" It's a perfectly legitimate question. I'm imagining that that question is coming from a natural desire of having a portfolio of projects that are complementary and non-overlapping. I certainly share the goal that we amass such projects, so that collectively we can tell a bigger story and make a bigger impact.

That said, in my past experience with open-source projects, it doesn't work very well trying to hand-pick a curated portfolio upfront. One reason is that a healthy competition and chaotic breeding ground is actually pretty crucial to sustain the ecosystem as a whole, aka creative destruction. Another reason is that we cannot predict a winner. Only a market can.

I'm an old timer so I'll start with XML parsers at Apache. Originally IBM donated its code as Xerces, then Sun donated its code as Crimson. There was a period in which they were both actively maintained as separate projects. They had different pros and cons, such as footprint, modularity, etc. Then they decided to do a joint rewrite, which later became "Xerces 2," which learnt from both Xerces 1 & Crimson. I think overall this was great. Because Xerces 1 and Crimson were both under Apache, they knew each other. Features, ideas, and code cross-pollinated. I'm pretty sure that helped building a common sentiment of "why are we duplicating this work?"  After all, every time something changes in XML, they had to do very similar work twice.  If Crimson was not allowed into Apache because it was overlapping with Xerces, then Sun probably would have taken that project somewhere else, and this kind of collaboration wouldn't have happened.

Apache data projects are another great examples. There are so many projects with considerable overlap. That's collective eyeballs of developers at work to kill any blind spots. If there is a master mind committee of Apache data projects that decide who gets in, I don't think the ecosystem would have been as robust as it is. At smaller scale, I see the same thing plays out in the Jenkins plugins. There have been many times where similar, overlapping plugins were produced. We choose quite consciously not to reject duplicates, and instead we chose to encourage those people to meet, talk, and work together. 

I'm a firm believer that the CDF should adopt a similar mindset. We should welcome projects that might disrupt some of our existing projects. And to reiterate the first point, I'm also a firm believer that we should actively recruit projects that are complementary and non-overlapping. Those two goals aren't mutually exclusive.

Tara has the other point around the growth goal. I'm going to look at that next and respond separately.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 6:29 PM Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
-1 binding 

(as a 'defer' not a 'deny')

To Andy's point, I also feel like we need better details and transparency around the goals of the existing projects so that we can quantify how any new projects fit into that picture.  Additionally, I'm not sure Screwdriver fits the current descriptions for new projects as defined in the project lifecycle doc around growth goals, at least as currently written.  I'd like to see us get clarify on both of those points before moving forward.

All that said, Screwdriver is a very neat tool with what appears to be a strong core team that is still very much worth of consideration, so it behooves us to figure this out sooner rather than later.  It may well be the perfect project to help us work out the kinks, if you will...

-Tara

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:51 PM Avi Kessner <akessner@...> wrote:
+1 non binding.
I saw the screwdriver presentation and it looked really impressive. After the fundamentals are agreed upon I think it could be a great asset.  



On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 14:37 Andy Glover via Lists.Cd.Foundation <aglover=netflix.com@...> wrote:
I am a -1. We (the CDF TOC) haven't (yet) formalized an interoperability plan/strategy for the existing member projects. I think we should clarify how all these projects fit together for the benefit of end users before accepting new projects. I think Screwdriver is interesting and we could all learn from that community, but I'd love to defer adding it (or other projects) until we have a clear story for the founding projects. 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:07 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
The screwdriver.cd project has been formally proposed for inclusion in the CDF. The proposal information can be found here: https://github.com/cdfoundation/toc/pull/22

And the team's presentation to the TOC can be found here.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc



--
Andrew Glover
Director of Delivery Engineering
Netflix, Inc.



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud





--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi



--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi


Re: [VOTE] Screwdriver.cd

Kohsuke Kawaguchi
 

I'm a little late to the party as I was on vacation. Looks like this topic needs more discussion before we call a vote.

I hear the point from Andy & Tara that, in my understanding, basically boils down to "how does this new project fit with all the other projects?" It's a perfectly legitimate question. I'm imagining that that question is coming from a natural desire of having a portfolio of projects that are complementary and non-overlapping. I certainly share the goal that we amass such projects, so that collectively we can tell a bigger story and make a bigger impact.

That said, in my past experience with open-source projects, it doesn't work very well trying to hand-pick a curated portfolio upfront. One reason is that a healthy competition and chaotic breeding ground is actually pretty crucial to sustain the ecosystem as a whole, aka creative destruction. Another reason is that we cannot predict a winner. Only a market can.

I'm an old timer so I'll start with XML parsers at Apache. Originally IBM donated its code as Xerces, then Sun donated its code as Crimson. There was a period in which they were both actively maintained as separate projects. They had different pros and cons, such as footprint, modularity, etc. Then they decided to do a joint rewrite, which later became "Xerces 2," which learnt from both Xerces 1 & Crimson. I think overall this was great. Because Xerces 1 and Crimson were both under Apache, they knew each other. Features, ideas, and code cross-pollinated. I'm pretty sure that helped building a common sentiment of "why are we duplicating this work?"  After all, every time something changes in XML, they had to do very similar work twice.  If Crimson was not allowed into Apache because it was overlapping with Xerces, then Sun probably would have taken that project somewhere else, and this kind of collaboration wouldn't have happened.

Apache data projects are another great examples. There are so many projects with considerable overlap. That's collective eyeballs of developers at work to kill any blind spots. If there is a master mind committee of Apache data projects that decide who gets in, I don't think the ecosystem would have been as robust as it is. At smaller scale, I see the same thing plays out in the Jenkins plugins. There have been many times where similar, overlapping plugins were produced. We choose quite consciously not to reject duplicates, and instead we chose to encourage those people to meet, talk, and work together. 

I'm a firm believer that the CDF should adopt a similar mindset. We should welcome projects that might disrupt some of our existing projects. And to reiterate the first point, I'm also a firm believer that we should actively recruit projects that are complementary and non-overlapping. Those two goals aren't mutually exclusive.

Tara has the other point around the growth goal. I'm going to look at that next and respond separately.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 6:29 PM Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
-1 binding 

(as a 'defer' not a 'deny')

To Andy's point, I also feel like we need better details and transparency around the goals of the existing projects so that we can quantify how any new projects fit into that picture.  Additionally, I'm not sure Screwdriver fits the current descriptions for new projects as defined in the project lifecycle doc around growth goals, at least as currently written.  I'd like to see us get clarify on both of those points before moving forward.

All that said, Screwdriver is a very neat tool with what appears to be a strong core team that is still very much worth of consideration, so it behooves us to figure this out sooner rather than later.  It may well be the perfect project to help us work out the kinks, if you will...

-Tara

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:51 PM Avi Kessner <akessner@...> wrote:
+1 non binding.
I saw the screwdriver presentation and it looked really impressive. After the fundamentals are agreed upon I think it could be a great asset.  



On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 14:37 Andy Glover via Lists.Cd.Foundation <aglover=netflix.com@...> wrote:
I am a -1. We (the CDF TOC) haven't (yet) formalized an interoperability plan/strategy for the existing member projects. I think we should clarify how all these projects fit together for the benefit of end users before accepting new projects. I think Screwdriver is interesting and we could all learn from that community, but I'd love to defer adding it (or other projects) until we have a clear story for the founding projects. 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:07 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
The screwdriver.cd project has been formally proposed for inclusion in the CDF. The proposal information can be found here: https://github.com/cdfoundation/toc/pull/22

And the team's presentation to the TOC can be found here.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc



--
Andrew Glover
Director of Delivery Engineering
Netflix, Inc.



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud





--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi


Re: [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Yoav Landman
 

+1 binding

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 3:53 Kay Williams via Lists.Cd.Foundation <kayw=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

This proposed edit makes sense to me.

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Michael Winser via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 5:49 PM
To: cdf-toc@...

Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

 

+1 non binding 

 

I would suggest a future edit to change "Durations for a Working Groups should be <6 months" to "Durations for a Working Groups must be <6 months"

 

I think that once a working group has established itself and is showing ongoing traction then more timeline flexibility is reasonable but during the early days of both the foundation and the inevitable flurry of working group proposals I think that shorter initial timelines will be best.

 

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:49 PM Kohsuke Kawaguchi <kk@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 8:07 Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:09 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:

The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

 

Dan Lorenc


 

--

Tara Hernandez

Engineering Manager Google Cloud

 

 

--

Kohsuke Kawaguchi

--


Re: [VOTE] Screwdriver.cd

Tara Hernandez
 

-1 binding 

(as a 'defer' not a 'deny')

To Andy's point, I also feel like we need better details and transparency around the goals of the existing projects so that we can quantify how any new projects fit into that picture.  Additionally, I'm not sure Screwdriver fits the current descriptions for new projects as defined in the project lifecycle doc around growth goals, at least as currently written.  I'd like to see us get clarify on both of those points before moving forward.

All that said, Screwdriver is a very neat tool with what appears to be a strong core team that is still very much worth of consideration, so it behooves us to figure this out sooner rather than later.  It may well be the perfect project to help us work out the kinks, if you will...

-Tara


On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:51 PM Avi Kessner <akessner@...> wrote:
+1 non binding.
I saw the screwdriver presentation and it looked really impressive. After the fundamentals are agreed upon I think it could be a great asset.  



On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 14:37 Andy Glover via Lists.Cd.Foundation <aglover=netflix.com@...> wrote:
I am a -1. We (the CDF TOC) haven't (yet) formalized an interoperability plan/strategy for the existing member projects. I think we should clarify how all these projects fit together for the benefit of end users before accepting new projects. I think Screwdriver is interesting and we could all learn from that community, but I'd love to defer adding it (or other projects) until we have a clear story for the founding projects. 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:07 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
The screwdriver.cd project has been formally proposed for inclusion in the CDF. The proposal information can be found here: https://github.com/cdfoundation/toc/pull/22

And the team's presentation to the TOC can be found here.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc



--
Andrew Glover
Director of Delivery Engineering
Netflix, Inc.



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud




Re: [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Kay Williams <kayw@...>
 

This proposed edit makes sense to me.

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Michael Winser via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 5:49 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cdf-toc] [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

 

+1 non binding 

 

I would suggest a future edit to change "Durations for a Working Groups should be <6 months" to "Durations for a Working Groups must be <6 months"

 

I think that once a working group has established itself and is showing ongoing traction then more timeline flexibility is reasonable but during the early days of both the foundation and the inevitable flurry of working group proposals I think that shorter initial timelines will be best.

 

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:49 PM Kohsuke Kawaguchi <kk@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 8:07 Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:

+1 binding

 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:09 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:

The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

 

Dan Lorenc


 

--

Tara Hernandez

Engineering Manager Google Cloud

 

 

--

Kohsuke Kawaguchi


Re: [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Michael Winser
 

+1 non binding 

I would suggest a future edit to change "Durations for a Working Groups should be <6 months" to "Durations for a Working Groups must be <6 months"

I think that once a working group has established itself and is showing ongoing traction then more timeline flexibility is reasonable but during the early days of both the foundation and the inevitable flurry of working group proposals I think that shorter initial timelines will be best.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:49 PM Kohsuke Kawaguchi <kk@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 8:07 Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:09 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud



--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi


Re: [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Kohsuke Kawaguchi
 

+1 binding

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 8:07 Tara Hernandez via Lists.Cd.Foundation <tarahernandez=google.com@...> wrote:
+1 binding

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:09 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud



--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi


Re: [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Tara Hernandez
 

+1 binding

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:09 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc



--
Tara Hernandez
Engineering Manager Google Cloud




Re: [VOTE] Screwdriver.cd

Avi Kessner
 

+1 non binding.
I saw the screwdriver presentation and it looked really impressive. After the fundamentals are agreed upon I think it could be a great asset.  



On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 14:37 Andy Glover via Lists.Cd.Foundation <aglover=netflix.com@...> wrote:
I am a -1. We (the CDF TOC) haven't (yet) formalized an interoperability plan/strategy for the existing member projects. I think we should clarify how all these projects fit together for the benefit of end users before accepting new projects. I think Screwdriver is interesting and we could all learn from that community, but I'd love to defer adding it (or other projects) until we have a clear story for the founding projects. 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:07 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
The screwdriver.cd project has been formally proposed for inclusion in the CDF. The proposal information can be found here: https://github.com/cdfoundation/toc/pull/22

And the team's presentation to the TOC can be found here.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc



--
Andrew Glover
Director of Delivery Engineering
Netflix, Inc.


Re: [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Rick
 

+1 non-binding

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 5:38 AM Andy Glover via Lists.Cd.Foundation <aglover=netflix.com@...> wrote:
+1 binding. 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:09 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc



--
Andrew Glover
Director of Delivery Engineering
Netflix, Inc.




Re: [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Andy Glover
 

+1 binding. 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:09 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc



--
Andrew Glover
Director of Delivery Engineering
Netflix, Inc.


Re: [VOTE] Screwdriver.cd

Andy Glover
 

I am a -1. We (the CDF TOC) haven't (yet) formalized an interoperability plan/strategy for the existing member projects. I think we should clarify how all these projects fit together for the benefit of end users before accepting new projects. I think Screwdriver is interesting and we could all learn from that community, but I'd love to defer adding it (or other projects) until we have a clear story for the founding projects. 


On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:07 PM Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation <dlorenc=google.com@...> wrote:
The screwdriver.cd project has been formally proposed for inclusion in the CDF. The proposal information can be found here: https://github.com/cdfoundation/toc/pull/22

And the team's presentation to the TOC can be found here.

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc



--
Andrew Glover
Director of Delivery Engineering
Netflix, Inc.


Re: [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Kay Williams <kayw@...>
 

Got it. Thanks. :-)

 

+1 non-binding

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 1:25 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

 

As an example, you can reply "+1 non-binding" if you aren't on the TOC and "+1 binding" if you are on the TOC.

 

In your case, "+1 non-binding" or -1 "non-binding" would work :)

 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:50 PM Kay Williams via Lists.Cd.Foundation <kayw=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

I think I may have missed something. What is the process for voting? (Sorry if this is a newbie question.)

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 12:10 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

 

The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

 

Dan Lorenc


 

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Chris Aniszczyk
 

As an example, you can reply "+1 non-binding" if you aren't on the TOC and "+1 binding" if you are on the TOC.

In your case, "+1 non-binding" or -1 "non-binding" would work :)

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:50 PM Kay Williams via Lists.Cd.Foundation <kayw=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

I think I may have missed something. What is the process for voting? (Sorry if this is a newbie question.)

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 12:10 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

 

The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

 

Dan Lorenc



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Kay Williams <kayw@...>
 

I think I may have missed something. What is the process for voting? (Sorry if this is a newbie question.)

 

From: cdf-toc@... <cdf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Dan Lorenc via Lists.Cd.Foundation
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 12:10 PM
To: cdf-toc@...
Subject: [CDF Technical Oversight Committee] [VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

 

The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

 

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

 

Dan Lorenc


[VOTE] Working Groups and SIGs

Dan Lorenc <dlorenc@...>
 

The working group and SIG process proposal is ready for a vote. The full proposal can be found here:

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

Dan Lorenc

681 - 700 of 858