profile
viewpoint
Zach Corleissen zacharysarah @kubernetes Chair Emeritus Victoria, BC https://corleissen.com/ I can explain!

cncf/mentoring 296

👩🏿‍🎓👨🏽‍🎓👩🏻‍🎓CNCF Mentoring + CommunityBridge + Summer of Code

grpc/grpc.io 202

Repository for the gRPC website and documentation

cncf/hugo-netlify-starter 9

Static site boilerplate for CNCF projects

cncf/cncf-branding 4

🖼 Color codes and logos for all CNCF projects

cncf/techdocs 4

CNCF TechDocs Team

dengyi1996/kubernetes.github.io 0

Kubernetes website and documentation repo:

zacharysarah/bonebreaker 0

Soothing my own irritation

zacharysarah/community 0

Kubernetes community content

zacharysarah/deconst-drc-control 0

Deconst control repository for a prototype of hosting developer.rackspace.com with deconst.

zacharysarah/deconst-drc-docs 0

Sphinx content decoupled from the developer.rackspace.com repository.

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.+- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people.++#### Is the term overtly racist?++Examples include “master/slave”.++#### Is the term overtly sexist, transphobic, or pejorative about a gender identity?++Examples do _not_ include “transclusion” of dependencies, or “binary” operators. ++#### Is the term overtly ableist, or pejorative to neurodiverse or disabled people++Examples include performing “sanity checks”. ++#### Is the term overtly homophobic? ++Examples do not include “homogenizing” or “homogenous” data. ++### Second-order concerns++Second-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Ambiguity: outside the context of code or technology, language might have connotations related to harmful scenarios like war, militarization, or policing, but the actual etymology of the term is not related to harm of a specific identity+- Lack of identity-specificity: concerns in this category do not target specific identities, or do so in a non-overt way.++#### Is the term violent?++Examples include “KILL” commands in Unix systems.++#### Is the term militaristic?++Examples include “marshal/unmarshal”.+++### Third-order concerns++Third-order concerns are characterized by:++- Language focus: is the language in use a metaphor that could be described more precisely using different words?+++#### Is the term evocative instead of descriptive?++Examples include “PetSet” (evocative) versus “StatefulSet” (descriptive). ++#### Is the term ambiguous?++Examples include the use of ABORT/STOP/KILL in Unix-like systems, where they map to specific behaviors, versus general usage in programming languages, where they map to different behaviors or are used interchangeably. ++## Footnotes ++### The element of time++In general, strong democratic societies become more progressive and accepting as time passes. This is a feature, not a bug. ++The result of this, for your work, is that terms that were once deemed acceptable may, at some future point, be deemed unacceptable. ++We recommend:++- Placing a date at the top of any documents/recommendations related to naming, language inclusivity, or harm reduction +- Expecting that some of your work will need re-evaluation at a later date+- An openness to reversing decisions 
- Openness to updating language as readers and cultures change
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.

Punctuate bullets consistently.

- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework
## Using the framework
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.
This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. The intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community; let harm reduction guide your decisions.
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.+- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people.++#### Is the term overtly racist?++Examples include “master/slave”.++#### Is the term overtly sexist, transphobic, or pejorative about a gender identity?++Examples do _not_ include “transclusion” of dependencies, or “binary” operators. ++#### Is the term overtly ableist, or pejorative to neurodiverse or disabled people++Examples include performing “sanity checks”. ++#### Is the term overtly homophobic? ++Examples do not include “homogenizing” or “homogenous” data. ++### Second-order concerns++Second-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Ambiguity: outside the context of code or technology, language might have connotations related to harmful scenarios like war, militarization, or policing, but the actual etymology of the term is not related to harm of a specific identity+- Lack of identity-specificity: concerns in this category do not target specific identities, or do so in a non-overt way.++#### Is the term violent?++Examples include “KILL” commands in Unix systems.++#### Is the term militaristic?++Examples include “marshal/unmarshal”.+++### Third-order concerns++Third-order concerns are characterized by:++- Language focus: is the language in use a metaphor that could be described more precisely using different words?+++#### Is the term evocative instead of descriptive?++Examples include “PetSet” (evocative) versus “StatefulSet” (descriptive). ++#### Is the term ambiguous?++Examples include the use of ABORT/STOP/KILL in Unix-like systems, where they map to specific behaviors, versus general usage in programming languages, where they map to different behaviors or are used interchangeably. ++## Footnotes ++### The element of time++In general, strong democratic societies become more progressive and accepting as time passes. This is a feature, not a bug. ++The result of this, for your work, is that terms that were once deemed acceptable may, at some future point, be deemed unacceptable. ++We recommend:++- Placing a date at the top of any documents/recommendations related to naming, language inclusivity, or harm reduction +- Expecting that some of your work will need re-evaluation at a later date+- An openness to reversing decisions +++### Dealing with trolls++In the handful of months since this work began, both Kubernetes as a whole and WG Naming have dealt with a number of issues and comments from trolls. We anticipate anyone using this document to guide their own work will receive the same kind of attention. ++Kubernetes is a large enough open source project that we mostly see [sea lions](http://wondermark.com/1k62/) (concern trolls), who seek to debate false concerns with us legitimately to use up our energy and time.
In Kubernetes we mostly encounter [sea lions](http://wondermark.com/1k62/) (concern trolls), who seek to legitimize debate over false concerns in order to use up contributors' energy and time.
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.+- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people.++#### Is the term overtly racist?++Examples include “master/slave”.++#### Is the term overtly sexist, transphobic, or pejorative about a gender identity?++Examples do _not_ include “transclusion” of dependencies, or “binary” operators. ++#### Is the term overtly ableist, or pejorative to neurodiverse or disabled people++Examples include performing “sanity checks”. ++#### Is the term overtly homophobic? ++Examples do not include “homogenizing” or “homogenous” data. ++### Second-order concerns++Second-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Ambiguity: outside the context of code or technology, language might have connotations related to harmful scenarios like war, militarization, or policing, but the actual etymology of the term is not related to harm of a specific identity+- Lack of identity-specificity: concerns in this category do not target specific identities, or do so in a non-overt way.++#### Is the term violent?++Examples include “KILL” commands in Unix systems.++#### Is the term militaristic?++Examples include “marshal/unmarshal”.+++### Third-order concerns++Third-order concerns are characterized by:++- Language focus: is the language in use a metaphor that could be described more precisely using different words?+++#### Is the term evocative instead of descriptive?++Examples include “PetSet” (evocative) versus “StatefulSet” (descriptive). ++#### Is the term ambiguous?++Examples include the use of ABORT/STOP/KILL in Unix-like systems, where they map to specific behaviors, versus general usage in programming languages, where they map to different behaviors or are used interchangeably. ++## Footnotes ++### The element of time++In general, strong democratic societies become more progressive and accepting as time passes. This is a feature, not a bug. ++The result of this, for your work, is that terms that were once deemed acceptable may, at some future point, be deemed unacceptable. ++We recommend:++- Placing a date at the top of any documents/recommendations related to naming, language inclusivity, or harm reduction +- Expecting that some of your work will need re-evaluation at a later date+- An openness to reversing decisions +++### Dealing with trolls++In the handful of months since this work began, both Kubernetes as a whole and WG Naming have dealt with a number of issues and comments from trolls. We anticipate anyone using this document to guide their own work will receive the same kind of attention. 
In the handful of months since this work began, both Kubernetes as a whole and WG Naming have dealt with a number of issues and comments from trolls. We anticipate that anyone using this document to guide their own work will receive the same kind of attention. 
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.+- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people.++#### Is the term overtly racist?++Examples include “master/slave”.++#### Is the term overtly sexist, transphobic, or pejorative about a gender identity?++Examples do _not_ include “transclusion” of dependencies, or “binary” operators. ++#### Is the term overtly ableist, or pejorative to neurodiverse or disabled people++Examples include performing “sanity checks”. ++#### Is the term overtly homophobic? ++Examples do not include “homogenizing” or “homogenous” data. ++### Second-order concerns++Second-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Ambiguity: outside the context of code or technology, language might have connotations related to harmful scenarios like war, militarization, or policing, but the actual etymology of the term is not related to harm of a specific identity+- Lack of identity-specificity: concerns in this category do not target specific identities, or do so in a non-overt way.++#### Is the term violent?++Examples include “KILL” commands in Unix systems.++#### Is the term militaristic?++Examples include “marshal/unmarshal”.+++### Third-order concerns++Third-order concerns are characterized by:++- Language focus: is the language in use a metaphor that could be described more precisely using different words?+++#### Is the term evocative instead of descriptive?++Examples include “PetSet” (evocative) versus “StatefulSet” (descriptive). ++#### Is the term ambiguous?++Examples include the use of ABORT/STOP/KILL in Unix-like systems, where they map to specific behaviors, versus general usage in programming languages, where they map to different behaviors or are used interchangeably. ++## Footnotes ++### The element of time++In general, strong democratic societies become more progressive and accepting as time passes. This is a feature, not a bug. ++The result of this, for your work, is that terms that were once deemed acceptable may, at some future point, be deemed unacceptable. 
As a result, terms that were once deemed acceptable may, at some future point, be deemed unacceptable. 
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. 
When complete, consider questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be replaced. 

If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language. 

If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language. 
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.+- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people.++#### Is the term overtly racist?++Examples include “master/slave”.++#### Is the term overtly sexist, transphobic, or pejorative about a gender identity?++Examples do _not_ include “transclusion” of dependencies, or “binary” operators. ++#### Is the term overtly ableist, or pejorative to neurodiverse or disabled people++Examples include performing “sanity checks”. ++#### Is the term overtly homophobic? ++Examples do not include “homogenizing” or “homogenous” data. ++### Second-order concerns++Second-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Ambiguity: outside the context of code or technology, language might have connotations related to harmful scenarios like war, militarization, or policing, but the actual etymology of the term is not related to harm of a specific identity+- Lack of identity-specificity: concerns in this category do not target specific identities, or do so in a non-overt way.
- Lack of specific identity: concerns in this category do not target specific identities, or do so in a non-overt way
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.+- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people.++#### Is the term overtly racist?++Examples include “master/slave”.++#### Is the term overtly sexist, transphobic, or pejorative about a gender identity?++Examples do _not_ include “transclusion” of dependencies, or “binary” operators. ++#### Is the term overtly ableist, or pejorative to neurodiverse or disabled people++Examples include performing “sanity checks”. ++#### Is the term overtly homophobic? ++Examples do not include “homogenizing” or “homogenous” data. ++### Second-order concerns++Second-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Ambiguity: outside the context of code or technology, language might have connotations related to harmful scenarios like war, militarization, or policing, but the actual etymology of the term is not related to harm of a specific identity+- Lack of identity-specificity: concerns in this category do not target specific identities, or do so in a non-overt way.++#### Is the term violent?++Examples include “KILL” commands in Unix systems.++#### Is the term militaristic?++Examples include “marshal/unmarshal”.+++### Third-order concerns++Third-order concerns are characterized by:++- Language focus: is the language in use a metaphor that could be described more precisely using different words?+++#### Is the term evocative instead of descriptive?++Examples include “PetSet” (evocative) versus “StatefulSet” (descriptive). ++#### Is the term ambiguous?++Examples include the use of ABORT/STOP/KILL in Unix-like systems, where they map to specific behaviors, versus general usage in programming languages, where they map to different behaviors or are used interchangeably. ++## Footnotes ++### The element of time++In general, strong democratic societies become more progressive and accepting as time passes. This is a feature, not a bug. ++The result of this, for your work, is that terms that were once deemed acceptable may, at some future point, be deemed unacceptable. ++We recommend:++- Placing a date at the top of any documents/recommendations related to naming, language inclusivity, or harm reduction +- Expecting that some of your work will need re-evaluation at a later date+- An openness to reversing decisions +++### Dealing with trolls++In the handful of months since this work began, both Kubernetes as a whole and WG Naming have dealt with a number of issues and comments from trolls. We anticipate anyone using this document to guide their own work will receive the same kind of attention. ++Kubernetes is a large enough open source project that we mostly see [sea lions](http://wondermark.com/1k62/) (concern trolls), who seek to debate false concerns with us legitimately to use up our energy and time.++When possible, we work with our GitHub and other moderation teams to shut these down at the source and delete issues. ++In cases where it’s unclear whether the poster is a legitimate user or a troll, we direct the work back to them: because they’re clearly “legitimately interested” in this topic, we ask them to join us in the WG Naming mailing list, drafting a formal suggestion (attached to an email address and identity we can track) and suggesting replacement terminology. Most trolls do not want to put in the effort.+

Rather than be discouraged by trolls, consider it a heartening sign that you are engaged in meaningful work. 
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.+- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people.
- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.+- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people.++#### Is the term overtly racist?++Examples include “master/slave”.++#### Is the term overtly sexist, transphobic, or pejorative about a gender identity?++Examples do _not_ include “transclusion” of dependencies, or “binary” operators. ++#### Is the term overtly ableist, or pejorative to neurodiverse or disabled people++Examples include performing “sanity checks”. ++#### Is the term overtly homophobic? ++Examples do not include “homogenizing” or “homogenous” data. ++### Second-order concerns++Second-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Ambiguity: outside the context of code or technology, language might have connotations related to harmful scenarios like war, militarization, or policing, but the actual etymology of the term is not related to harm of a specific identity+- Lack of identity-specificity: concerns in this category do not target specific identities, or do so in a non-overt way.++#### Is the term violent?++Examples include “KILL” commands in Unix systems.++#### Is the term militaristic?++Examples include “marshal/unmarshal”.+++### Third-order concerns++Third-order concerns are characterized by:++- Language focus: is the language in use a metaphor that could be described more precisely using different words?+++#### Is the term evocative instead of descriptive?++Examples include “PetSet” (evocative) versus “StatefulSet” (descriptive). ++#### Is the term ambiguous?++Examples include the use of ABORT/STOP/KILL in Unix-like systems, where they map to specific behaviors, versus general usage in programming languages, where they map to different behaviors or are used interchangeably. ++## Footnotes ++### The element of time
### Changes over time
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.+- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people.++#### Is the term overtly racist?++Examples include “master/slave”.++#### Is the term overtly sexist, transphobic, or pejorative about a gender identity?++Examples do _not_ include “transclusion” of dependencies, or “binary” operators. ++#### Is the term overtly ableist, or pejorative to neurodiverse or disabled people++Examples include performing “sanity checks”. ++#### Is the term overtly homophobic? ++Examples do not include “homogenizing” or “homogenous” data. ++### Second-order concerns++Second-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Ambiguity: outside the context of code or technology, language might have connotations related to harmful scenarios like war, militarization, or policing, but the actual etymology of the term is not related to harm of a specific identity+- Lack of identity-specificity: concerns in this category do not target specific identities, or do so in a non-overt way.++#### Is the term violent?++Examples include “KILL” commands in Unix systems.++#### Is the term militaristic?++Examples include “marshal/unmarshal”.+++### Third-order concerns++Third-order concerns are characterized by:++- Language focus: is the language in use a metaphor that could be described more precisely using different words?
- Clarity: is the language in use a metaphor that could be described more precisely using different words?

- Anthropomorphism: does language unnecessarily humanize components or processes?

- Idiomatic: Is language unclear to someone outside a specific culture?
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.
Answer all questions for each term evaluated.
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.
First-order concerns are language where harm is egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are language which is problematic but with a less definite impact. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement but does no demonstrable harm.
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. ++In general, first-order concerns are egregious, overt, and clearly problematic. Second-order concerns are things which indicate problematic language, but are less clearly provable. Third-order concerns indicate language that could use improvement.++For each term under evaluation, answer all questions.+++When complete, look at the questions answered in the affirmative: in general, the more questions answered “yes” or “possibly”, the more likely it is that the language in question needs to be erased. If any first-order concerns are a “yes”, replace the language in question. If a significant number of second- or third- order concerns are a “yes”, strongly consider replacing the language in question. ++This framework is intentionally non-prescriptive. Bear in mind that your intention in this work is to reduce harm for the community first and foremost, and let that guide your decisions.++### First-order concerns++First-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Overtness: regardless of its use in the context of code or technology, there is little to no ambiguity outside of technology as to whether the language in question indicates harm.+- Identity-specificity: language in question specifically unambiguously identifies a group of people.++#### Is the term overtly racist?++Examples include “master/slave”.++#### Is the term overtly sexist, transphobic, or pejorative about a gender identity?++Examples do _not_ include “transclusion” of dependencies, or “binary” operators. ++#### Is the term overtly ableist, or pejorative to neurodiverse or disabled people++Examples include performing “sanity checks”. ++#### Is the term overtly homophobic? ++Examples do not include “homogenizing” or “homogenous” data. ++### Second-order concerns++Second-order concerns are characterized by: ++- Ambiguity: outside the context of code or technology, language might have connotations related to harmful scenarios like war, militarization, or policing, but the actual etymology of the term is not related to harm of a specific identity+- Lack of identity-specificity: concerns in this category do not target specific identities, or do so in a non-overt way.++#### Is the term violent?++Examples include “KILL” commands in Unix systems.++#### Is the term militaristic?++Examples include “marshal/unmarshal”.+++### Third-order concerns++Third-order concerns are characterized by:++- Language focus: is the language in use a metaphor that could be described more precisely using different words?+++#### Is the term evocative instead of descriptive?++Examples include “PetSet” (evocative) versus “StatefulSet” (descriptive). ++#### Is the term ambiguous?++Examples include the use of ABORT/STOP/KILL in Unix-like systems, where they map to specific behaviors, versus general usage in programming languages, where they map to different behaviors or are used interchangeably. ++## Footnotes ++### The element of time++In general, strong democratic societies become more progressive and accepting as time passes. This is a feature, not a bug. ++The result of this, for your work, is that terms that were once deemed acceptable may, at some future point, be deemed unacceptable. ++We recommend:++- Placing a date at the top of any documents/recommendations related to naming, language inclusivity, or harm reduction +- Expecting that some of your work will need re-evaluation at a later date+- An openness to reversing decisions +++### Dealing with trolls++In the handful of months since this work began, both Kubernetes as a whole and WG Naming have dealt with a number of issues and comments from trolls. We anticipate anyone using this document to guide their own work will receive the same kind of attention. ++Kubernetes is a large enough open source project that we mostly see [sea lions](http://wondermark.com/1k62/) (concern trolls), who seek to debate false concerns with us legitimately to use up our energy and time.++When possible, we work with our GitHub and other moderation teams to shut these down at the source and delete issues. 
We work with our GitHub and other moderation teams to shut down trolling behavior at the source and remove trolling content. 
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework
# A framework for evaluating harmful language
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.++## The framework++### Using the framework++The framework is divided into 3 sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential for harm the language could cause to the community. 
The framework is divided into three sections: first-, second-, and third-order concerns, ranked in order of potential harm to the community. 
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

WG Naming: Add language evaluation framework

++# Language harm evaluation framework++## About++The language evaluation framework is a guidance document developed by the Kubernetes Naming Working Group. It outlines a structured framework for evaluating language and terminology for harm to the community. This enables the community to navigate divisive conversations with a measure of clarity.++While the document was created for an open source technology project, we feel the principles outlines are applicable to other fields as well.
The framework was created for an open source technology project. The framework may be applicable to other fields as well.
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

PullRequestReviewEvent
PullRequestReviewEvent

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

[WG Naming] Add recommendation template

+# Recommendation: Old Term -> New Term++**Status:** Accepted|Draft|Other++## Recommendation ++- Formalize recommendation in title +- Provide a brief, 1-3 sentence summary of reasoning behind this change+- Provide alternate recommendation(s) to the one in the title if needed 
- Provide alternate recommendation(s) if needed 
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

[WG Naming] Add recommendation template

+# Recommendation: Old Term -> New Term++**Status:** Accepted|Draft|Other++## Recommendation ++- Formalize recommendation in title +- Provide a brief, 1-3 sentence summary of reasoning behind this change+- Provide alternate recommendation(s) to the one in the title if needed ++## Context/Precedents ++If existing, provide any research, links to PR(s) from other communities, etc. that provide precedent for this decision. 

@spiffxp I looked for the framework you mentioned but couldn't find it through casual searching. I support adding it in principle!

Provide any research, links to PR(s) from other communities, etc. that provide precedent for this decision. 
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

[WG Naming] Add recommendation template

+# Recommendation: Old Term -> New Term++**Status:** Accepted|Draft|Other++## Recommendation ++- Formalize recommendation in title +- Provide a brief, 1-3 sentence summary of reasoning behind this change+- Provide alternate recommendation(s) to the one in the title if needed ++## Context/Precedents ++If existing, provide any research, links to PR(s) from other communities, etc. that provide precedent for this decision. ++## Consequences
## Impact
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

[WG Naming] Add recommendation template

+# Recommendation: Old Term -> New Term++**Status:** Accepted|Draft|Other++## Recommendation ++- Formalize recommendation in title +- Provide a brief, 1-3 sentence summary of reasoning behind this change+- Provide alternate recommendation(s) to the one in the title if needed ++## Context/Precedents ++If existing, provide any research, links to PR(s) from other communities, etc. that provide precedent for this decision. ++## Consequences++Starting with a [Hound](https://cs.k8s.io/) keyword search, note any major changes that will result by making this change.
Link to the results of a [Hound](https://cs.k8s.io/) keyword search. What impact will this change create? 
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

PullRequestReviewEvent

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

[WG Naming] Add recommendation template

+# Recommendation: Old Term -> New Term++**Status:** Accepted|Draft|Other++## Recommendation ++- Formalize recommendation in title +- Provide a brief, 1-3 sentence summary of reasoning behind this change
- Provide a brief, 1-3 sentence summary of the reasoning for this change
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

[WG Naming] Add recommendation template

+# Recommendation: Old Term -> New Term++**Status:** Accepted|Draft|Other++## Recommendation ++- Formalize recommendation in title 
- Make the recommendation the title of the PR. For example: "Change default repository branches from 'master' to 'main'"
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

Pull request review commentkubernetes/community

[WG Naming] Add recommendation template

+# Recommendation: Old Term -> New Term++**Status:** Accepted|Draft|Other++## Recommendation ++- Formalize recommendation in title +- Provide a brief, 1-3 sentence summary of reasoning behind this change+- Provide alternate recommendation(s) to the one in the title if needed ++## Context/Precedents 

Make context its own section.

## Context

- Provide information about the recommendation. Why does this proposal matter? Who does it affect? How will it help?

## Precedents 
celestehorgan

comment created time in 3 days

PullRequestReviewEvent

pull request commentkubernetes/website

Set code owners for /.github

@sftim Thanks for this. Approving with a hold, in case you need https://github.com/kubernetes/org/issues/2276 to merge simultaneously. Feel free to /hold cancel at your discretion.

/approve /hold

sftim

comment created time in 5 days

push eventzacharysarah/public

zacharysarah

commit sha 4e18d8d18f2b829308b1af35a3c9c963bb24c7ba

Update sample contents

view details

push time in 6 days

pull request commentkubernetes/website

Hacktoberfest readme update

Thank you, @jimangel!

/lgtm /approve

jimangel

comment created time in 23 days

pull request commentkubernetes/website

Delete sitemap.md

/lgtm

roshnaeem

comment created time in 24 days

pull request commentlonghorn/website

[WIP] Adding Knowledge Base page, including content example

Deploy preview: https://deploy-preview-198--longhornio.netlify.app/kb/

hackabletype

comment created time in 25 days

delete branch zacharysarah/envoyproxy.github.io

delete branch : add-envoycon-banner-2020

delete time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/org

membership: Add irvifa to reference-docs-maintainers

/lgtm /approve

irvifa

comment created time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/org

membership: Add irvifa to reference-docs-maintainers

@irvifa Please add yourself here also: https://github.com/kubernetes/org/blob/master/config/kubernetes-sigs/org.yaml

irvifa

comment created time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes-sigs/reference-docs

SIG Docs chair transition

@irvifa Yes, this repo is how SIG Docs currently generates API reference docs. (Hopefully not for too much longer.)

zacharysarah

comment created time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes-sigs/reference-docs

SIG Docs chair transition

@irvifa 👋 Looks like you need to open a PR in kubernetes/community to add yourself to the kubernetes-sigs repo.

zacharysarah

comment created time in a month

PR opened kubernetes-sigs/reference-docs

SIG Docs chair transition

ref: https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/23797

🟢 OK TO MERGE 🟢

Don't merge this PR until all conditions are true:

  • [x] all governance pieces of #23797 are approved
  • [x] Date equal to or later than September 15th, 2020

Description

This PR updates repo permissions and contacts for @irvifa becoming a chair and @zacharysarah transitioning to chair emeritus.

/assign @irvifa @jimangel @kbarnard10

+3 -3

0 comment

2 changed files

pr created time in a month

create barnchzacharysarah/reference-docs

branch : chair-emeritus

created branch time in a month

fork zacharysarah/reference-docs

Tools to build reference documentation for Kubernetes APIs and CLIs.

fork in a month

PR opened kubernetes/k8s.io

SIG Docs chair transition

ref: https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/23797

🟢 OK TO MERGE 🟢

Don't merge this PR until all conditions are true:

  • [x] all governance pieces of #23797 are approved
  • [x] Date equal to or later than September 15th, 2020

Description

This PR updates repo permissions and contacts for @irvifa becoming a chair and @zacharysarah transitioning to chair emeritus.

/assign @irvifa @jimangel @kbarnard10

+1 -1

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in a month

create barnchzacharysarah/k8s.io

branch : chair-emeritus

created branch time in a month

fork zacharysarah/k8s.io

Kubernetes files for various *.k8s.io sites

fork in a month

PR opened kubernetes/test-infra

SIG Docs chair transition

ref: https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/23797

🟢 OK TO MERGE 🟢

Don't merge this PR until all conditions are true:

  • [x] all governance pieces of #23797 are approved
  • [x] Date equal to or later than September 15th, 2020

Description

This PR updates repo permissions and contacts for @irvifa becoming a chair and @zacharysarah transitioning to chair emeritus.

/assign @irvifa @jimangel @kbarnard10

+1 -1

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in a month

create barnchzacharysarah/test-infra

branch : chair-emeritus

created branch time in a month

push eventzacharysarah/test-infra

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha bb2ce7b8db2a21ee4e09607fc022241b27edab8b

Merge pull request #18756 from andyzhangx/blobfuse-rename rename blobfuse repo

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha e7c24e8db26c292e4a11fc982189a3977ee1c5c2

Update prow to v20200808-0caff2cd1b, and other images as necessary.

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha 7ada03969d444ea084935fd465e50605b45d9284

Merge pull request #18727 from k8s-ci-robot/autobump Update prow to v20200808-0caff2cd1b, and other images as necessary.

view details

Sascha Grunert

commit sha 28485bbb13091b0c9500c60bb66c505079de19f3

Use rebase merge method for k-sigs/seccomp-operator We decided that we wanna use the rebased merge approach for prow to enforce a linear git history. Signed-off-by: Sascha Grunert <sgrunert@suse.com>

view details

Peter Rifel

commit sha e7338ff425240e862953187ff2f22adfa723b775

Skip additional jobs that are known to be unsupported

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha 8afb5590f89054539972d3aefe96765ab6896ead

Merge pull request #18754 from aledbf/gherkin Fix ingress-controller-conformance pip dependency

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha 4794b5f2db4de01ec899be698c1ac31ffe7482d6

Merge pull request #18668 from RobertKielty/18595 Sets sig-node-presubmit Pod QoS to Guaranteed

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha 7d6c3cf4d285c3515b4557c7568087566e8968a1

Merge pull request #18764 from rifelpet/kops-grid-skip Kops - Skip additional jobs that are known to be unsupported

view details

Michael Kolber

commit sha b7c80fb917ab2c863f0a6496c8391d15b3bdd691

Store job object build numbers as strings rather than ints

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha 9dd1a52ff3cf02516bf26ed34e2afdf42e10baeb

Merge pull request #18667 from saschagrunert/merge-method-rebase Use rebase merge method for k-sigs/seccomp-operator

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha 467e80f605690290e1729fb85731b96450d314a4

Merge pull request #18772 from michaelkolber/fix-invalid-date Fix "Invalid Date" constantly coming up on Triage Go results page

view details

Michael Kolber

commit sha 8d66e1093d5c6faeba1842b8d87ba0289e76bf8d

Add tests for package summarize

view details

Michael Kolber

commit sha 6531641ceffd4b85bbc57b5dd78efc3d19e3d935

Add test for summarize() with no "owners" arg

view details

Michael Kolber

commit sha 1c01a5b64310305f86f03dc24b9a59f7ef4e6938

Modify types to match #18772 (b7c80fb)

view details

Alex Pavel

commit sha 52afa351421da5757c3856c1a59128844ea99972

bugzilla plugin: do not run bugzilla actions on non-bz cherrypicks

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha dc642d02782501497376083e77f7cc8db043f722

Merge pull request #18490 from michaelkolber/triage-port-summarize-test Port tests for triage/summarize.py

view details

Aaron Crickenberger

commit sha eaeea811198d9a7707a006506d458fb4142fd687

Trigger pull-test-infra-gubernator on job changes The previous attempt at trigger via bazel test //hack/... didn't work because: - the script was mispelled... - actually bazel doesn't invoke verify-all.sh - actually gubernator isn't in bazel's view of the world at all Rather than tackle that last problem, let's just trigger the job that ends up failing more often

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha e2cb1fbbdd58c106de70f2255955eddc7eae6c00

Merge pull request #18773 from AlexNPavel/non-bz-no-cherrypick bugzilla plugin: do not run bugzilla actions on non-bz cherrypicks

view details

andyzhangx

commit sha e972a7564859143feadd7a0696b00670f9bf47b2

azure blobfuse driver rename

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha e2a6ba0b0f66e40391a71b3eaf77b4564db6cbbe

Merge pull request #18775 from andyzhangx/blobfuse-rename2 azure blobfuse driver rename

view details

push time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/kubernetes

SIG Docs chair transition

/kind cleanup /priority important-soon /sig docs

zacharysarah

comment created time in a month

PR opened kubernetes/kubernetes

SIG Docs chair transition

ref: https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/23797

🟢 OK TO MERGE 🟢

Don't merge this PR until all conditions are true:

  • [x] all governance pieces of #23797 are approved
  • [x] Date equal to or later than September 15th, 2020

Description

This PR updates repo permissions and contacts for @irvifa becoming a chair and @zacharysarah transitioning to chair emeritus.

/assign @irvifa @jimangel @kbarnard10

+1 -1

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in a month

create barnchzacharysarah/kubernetes

branch : chair-emeritus

created branch time in a month

push eventzacharysarah/kubernetes

Sally O'Malley

commit sha 01e344feb6368647dc1a48c7a3a27b5852f9b89d

get: -o yaml, json set ServerPrint false

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha 6704af40d471e1000e2249cbee52512c9a263bdd

Merge pull request #93916 from justaugustus/base-images build: Update to debian-base@v2.1.3 and debian-iptables@v12.1.2

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha b1d89d67a199c60712d0d2c0f45a1f6ede562a29

Merge pull request #93939 from justaugustus/go115 [go1.15] Update to go1.15

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha f4e9c3fd2745695308edd1fd725911fa564efe83

Merge pull request #93867 from apelisse/update-smd Update SMD to v4.0.1 and kube-openapi

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha 68168541ea1f9ea21640971a799cf1309a6bcc5a

Merge pull request #93869 from Jiawei0227/namespace-collision [e2e]Bind csi driver namespace to test namespace to avoid namespace collision

view details

lixiaobing1

commit sha 7920de5b57618f03920d5138369e31083fb41f5a

remove some notes about scheduler/algorithm

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha fa76242bba388348a891a1611940e79d8dc8d02c

Merge pull request #93730 from adtac/MixedSchedulingBasePod scheduler_perf/MixedSchedulingBasePod: label nodes for pod affinity

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha b1b93e30131986319f1d46a62771feb9c0f097ae

Merge pull request #93908 from robscott/endpointslice-err-return Updating EndpointSlice controllers to return if error encountered

view details

RobertKielty

commit sha 737548a6b263f8ac0f4fffcec6d2a10cf179f360

go fmt fix

view details

Paulo Gomes

commit sha 8f8f1bad7219a952d32ba6f33cd2639872859f10

Update yaml files to use seccomp GA syntax

view details

Anago GCB

commit sha d60c72f2144523e81456a0d86c385ed997bd047a

CHANGELOG: Update directory for v1.16.14 release

view details

Davanum Srinivas

commit sha 5c88b7f25b0781d60fea6017d3a939c0e962316c

Add sigs for root folders Signed-off-by: Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com>

view details

Eddie Zaneski

commit sha 522cba454b69c80d8a336026d6bc92a93955cbe1

Update client-go out of cluster example Signed-off-by: Eddie Zaneski <eddiezane@gmail.com>

view details

Miciah Masters

commit sha 7ef8fa720782a02eb14ceda1a16c0cad856c4574

Verify that an ingress with empty TLS is valid Add a test that verifies that an ingress with an empty TLS value or with a TLS value that specifies an empty list of hosts passes validation. * pkg/apis/networking/validation/validation_test.go (TestValidateEmptyIngressTLS): New test.

view details

Anago GCB

commit sha 09a48c2316608d2f36602c8c1304866a9775a533

CHANGELOG: Update directory for v1.17.11 release

view details

Jiawei Wang

commit sha 0ce86eb5531bd187458f24799272a60a0ad690b6

Make CSI mock driver log parse more flexible

view details

Jordan Liggitt

commit sha bdcffdced38d0e692e81e7dbc0df444639e4ca5b

[go115] Require go1.15 in build helper scripts

view details

Anago GCB

commit sha b497fa1d34ec15c4219d591e541c2cf811271357

CHANGELOG: Update directory for v1.18.8 release

view details

Aldo Culquicondor

commit sha 16d7ecfa45b191d85592c93ee8a7dd62228f5274

Remove direct accesses to cache's node map Signed-off-by: Aldo Culquicondor <acondor@google.com> Change-Id: Iebb22fc816926aaa1ddd1e4b2e52f335a275ffaa Signed-off-by: Aldo Culquicondor <acondor@google.com>

view details

Aldo Culquicondor

commit sha dfe9e413d9fab9037a4c8b62ce3bdddd7b0d58da

Keep track of remaining pods when a node is deleted. The apiserver is expected to send pod deletion events that might arrive at a different time. However, sometimes a node could be recreated without its pods being deleted. Partial revert of https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/86964 Signed-off-by: Aldo Culquicondor <acondor@google.com> Change-Id: I51f683e5f05689b711c81ebff34e7118b5337571

view details

push time in a month

PR opened kubernetes/org

SIG Docs chair transition 2020

ref: https://github.com/kubernetes/website/issues/23797

🟢 OK TO MERGE 🟢

Don't merge this PR until all conditions are true:

  • [x] all governance pieces of #23797 are approved
  • [x] Date equal to or later than September 15th, 2020

Description

This PR updates repo permissions and contacts for @irvifa becoming a chair and @zacharysarah transitioning to chair emeritus.

/assign @irvifa @jimangel @kbarnard10

+4 -5

0 comment

3 changed files

pr created time in a month

create barnchzacharysarah/org

branch : chair-transition

created branch time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/enhancements

SIG Docs chair transition

/assign @jeremyrickard

👋

zacharysarah

comment created time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/community

SIG Docs chair transition

/assign @mrbobbytables

👋

zacharysarah

comment created time in a month

delete branch zacharysarah/website

delete branch : chair-emeritus

delete time in a month

push eventzacharysarah/community

Evan Anderson

commit sha 3a2c17b4956e91d7ec08faeaf6413890ac0e1254

Update Condition guidance

view details

Evan Anderson

commit sha f0fdf1c9145760a246d38dfed5119a9c78b0f521

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into unconventional

view details

Evan Anderson

commit sha 5cab966cc53280e68213b428d1a146dc10e2b470

Drop positive-polarity exception for Ready

view details

Evan Anderson

commit sha 511866abaf19033e29b723fc7cd3d18b521f076c

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into unconventional

view details

Evan Anderson

commit sha 49d3a5aad7d2d98ecf5272301f7c2021c0cfec56

Clarify language thanks to liggitt

view details

Evan Anderson

commit sha 5f972cff41c67e4c60528ab409ae22510ceebb52

Updated with general consensus around resource naming, removed positive-polarity preference

view details

Evan Anderson

commit sha 305d8d8ac0e5f4785539170a012a63b290aea7f7

Fix typo

view details

Carlisia

commit sha ea82d1e702bc7f73c0adf05c34278c6a6cc2fcd0

Add Stephanie to the Velero user group Signed-off-by: Carlisia <carlisia@vmware.com>

view details

fedebongio

commit sha 4efb9a9028e9fb7ad5984e62c41e7e2261d8c38b

Adding my BIO PR Update fedebongio.md

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha f3dcf4e5b31d6e144d97dd2daef003a47a8ff273

Merge pull request #5109 from fedebongio/master Add Federico Bongiovanni BIO for Steering election

view details

Mayank Kumar

commit sha f5b04fe2f15b6fef04996c0d0c1c8c6d91f02a21

add mayanks bio for 2020 steering election

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha b43d5a2cc31dc3c960758e57df2ae5f2d3d489f3

Merge pull request #5103 from krmayankk/bio add mayanks bio for 2020 steering election

view details

Carlos Panato

commit sha 824964e2723cae13914f1de0f6442d637a09edf7

meetings: add CAPDO Office hours

view details

Aaron Crickenberger

commit sha 09e466539f3f119e0ef465a7a139d2bee3992eca

Update SIG Testing zoom meetings

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha c8fbd002dd26e348ae11291d770b891e99305491

Merge pull request #5130 from spiffxp/sig-testing-zoom-update Update SIG Testing zoom meetings

view details

wojtekt

commit sha 7bd4b048e92bca2e28e869dad02ab33f33129d9f

Update SIG Scalability zoom link

view details

wojtekt

commit sha 6b3ce08dfc5436529403b38456066b0c7fc1ce0d

Create WG Reliability

view details

Matt Farina

commit sha ad5ce29edc66d0d9bdd8bd676fc76ed667de1a10

Updateing SIG Apps chair companies

view details

Josh Berkus

commit sha 89bd0d33ddca3481d0a7c98a8395a040453a280c

Fix voters list to included previously approved voter. Voter was intended to be added on 9/3, but was omitted due to a paste-o

view details

Kubernetes Prow Robot

commit sha 9d17148c03696a6eefc2b582a24ba2272d15dac0

Merge pull request #5133 from jberkus/sc-election-2020 Fix voters list to included previously approved voter.

view details

push time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/website

Update for chair emeritus

@jimangel 👋 Rebase complete!

zacharysarah

comment created time in a month

push eventzacharysarah/website

zacharysarah

commit sha 3a9615d2c7f3b8c7ed01ddd772a38eaea7091258

Update for chair emeritus

view details

push time in a month

push eventzacharysarah/website

Dery Rahman Ahaddienata

commit sha 13516045d352f814f335775dcc1a521efd64a845

Add docs/tutorials/kubernetes-basics/deploy-app ID translation

view details

Aris Cahyadi Risdianto

commit sha 83c4b6096679eac1d70910bf86c30c63b242ffaf

ID localization for administer cluster - sysctl

view details

Philippe Martin

commit sha 71d6fb6d97d29a34026642872371907ff03530e2

Start translation

view details

Philippe Martin

commit sha 6558ca888a89af93cdef93fa2560b800ff7020a2

end of translation

view details

Philippe Martin

commit sha 23e979e5f01985693221ef2d98efbea02bf551bf

Add examples

view details

Keita Akutsu

commit sha d38aa54efab970c7e8108fa69c9b6bd6c977faeb

ja-trans: Translate concepts/cluster-administration/manage-deployment.md into Japanese #19280

view details

Keita Akutsu

commit sha 02c055e4d7b93d8e5c830e61a367274b83852176

ja-trans: Translate concepts/cluster-administration/proxies.md into Japanese #19281

view details

Keita Akutsu

commit sha fe29370afb0255ac1f2af9ffbc5849b6cffab390

ja-trans: Fix Japanese translation in ja/concepts/cluster-administration/manage-deployment.md #19280

view details

Keita Akutsu

commit sha b497eb0463d0202024ab43afea92c7118eb91b4f

ja-trans: Fix Japanese translation in ja/concepts/cluster-administration/proxies.md #19281

view details

Takaaki Fujii

commit sha 60ba92c12f51a24a66577263a1d20a8909d5513a

completed translating

view details

Takaaki Fujii

commit sha 1c06e3763cbe036c9fe7bc285ebcf4bba9d49296

fix list-centence and concept

view details

Dery Rahman Ahaddienata

commit sha efe9e55d17cbe5deab5e662999f4115a619fa4b4

Update content/id/docs/tutorials/kubernetes-basics/deploy-app/_index.md Co-authored-by: Aris Cahyadi Risdianto <aris.risdianto@gmail.com>

view details

Dery Rahman Ahaddienata

commit sha 346979402ba21dc269202cbe6b8579dacef37d39

Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Aris Cahyadi Risdianto <aris.risdianto@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Yudi A Phanama <11147376+phanama@users.noreply.github.com>

view details

Dery Rahman Ahaddienata

commit sha 53ec8d14f5f650ba3b085fe00217ba53cc035232

Deploy -> menyebarkan & summary -> ringkasan

view details

Dery Rahman Ahaddienata

commit sha f85e732ad6501c6c9512fb75e6e5f3552145e507

Kubernetes master -> Kubernetes control plane

view details

TAKAHASHI Shuuji

commit sha 32e0ff51d6a1506389584e811b501d514f4f93e0

Copy contribute/style/content-guide.md from en/ directory.

view details

TAKAHASHI Shuuji

commit sha 0e7433b99cbb434591e4b6c93dd1776cb8765e07

Translate contribute/style/content-guide.md into Japanese.

view details

TAKAHASHI Shuuji

commit sha 3085bbde0210af02b5d5cde8064c3b75ceddd542

Copy contribute/style/content-organization.md from en/ directory.

view details

TAKAHASHI Shuuji

commit sha 385c9ab606ea3728ddf8f42901095979733c6a90

Translate contribute/style/content-organization into Japanese.

view details

Tim Bannister

commit sha fb127402c6329b23eb7e085b5a39d3b6da11810b

Add cncf-landscape shortcode and adjust /partners/ to use it.

view details

push time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/website

Update config.toml to prepare 1.20 branch for the release

@annajung Thanks! Feel free to /hold cancel when you’re ready to merge.

/lgtm /approve /hold

annajung

comment created time in a month

Pull request review commentkubernetes/website

clarify the execution contexts of hook handlers with different action

 Resources consumed by the command are counted against the Container. ### Hook handler execution  When a Container lifecycle management hook is called,-the Kubernetes management system executes the handler in the Container registered for that hook. +the Kubernetes management system will execute handler according to the hook action,+`exec` and `tcpSocket` will be executed in the container, and `httpGet` will be executed by the kubelet process.

Use present tense:

`exec` and `tcpSocket` are executed in the container, and `httpGet` is executed by the kubelet process.
Cweiping

comment created time in a month

Pull request review commentkubernetes/website

clarify the execution contexts of hook handlers with different action

 Resources consumed by the command are counted against the Container. ### Hook handler execution  When a Container lifecycle management hook is called,-the Kubernetes management system executes the handler in the Container registered for that hook. +the Kubernetes management system will execute handler according to the hook action,

Use present tense:

the Kubernetes management system executes the handler according to the hook action,
Cweiping

comment created time in a month

PullRequestReviewEvent
PullRequestReviewEvent

push eventzacharysarah/envoyproxy.github.io

zacharysarah

commit sha 524a718b66faff9a2d7cc47bd598f50f367abf90

Add a banner for EnvoyCon 2020 Signed-off-by: zacharysarah <zach@corleissen.com>

view details

push time in a month

PR opened envoyproxy/envoyproxy.github.io

Add a banner for EnvoyCon 2020

This PR adds a banner for EnvoyCon 2020 registration to the site header. It implements a CSS class introduced in #56, and is essentially a retread of that PR. (Thanks, @dansipple. 👋 )

/cc @celestehorgan @caniszczyk

Preview screenshot

Screen Shot 2020-09-24 at 5 11 41 PM

+17 -11

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in a month

push eventzacharysarah/envoyproxy.github.io

zacharysarah

commit sha 6df7224e45d080fb788e6d2866770bb7daf0be4d

Add a banner for EnvoyCon 2020

view details

push time in a month

create barnchzacharysarah/envoyproxy.github.io

branch : add-envoycon-banner-2020

created branch time in a month

PR opened cncf/techdocs

Add zoom link to README

/assign @caniszczyk

+7 -1

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in a month

create barnchzacharysarah/techdocs

branch : add-calendar-link

created branch time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/website

Optimize Chinese localization owners

/lgtm /approve

tengqm

comment created time in a month

PR opened cncf/techdocs

Add zoom info, meeting links

/assign @caniszczyk

+4 -14

0 comment

2 changed files

pr created time in a month

create barnchzacharysarah/techdocs

branch : add-zoom-info

created branch time in a month

PR opened cncf/techdocs

Add team info and office hours

/assign @caniszczyk

+30 -2

0 comment

2 changed files

pr created time in a month

create barnchzacharysarah/techdocs

branch : add-team-info

created branch time in a month

MemberEvent

issue commentkubernetes/website

Please consider leaving politics out of documentation websites

/committee steering

damusix

comment created time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/org

add tanjunchen to sig-docs-zh team

/lgtm /approve

tanjunchen

comment created time in a month

delete branch cncf/techdocs

delete branch : master

delete time in a month

create barnchcncf/techdocs

branch : main

created branch time in a month

fork zacharysarah/techdocs

CNCF TechDocs Team

fork in a month

Pull request review commentkubernetes/org

add tanjunchen to sig-docs-zh team

 teams:     - SataQiu # L10n: Chinese     - seokho-son # L10n: Korean     - sftim # L10n: English+    - tanjunchen # L10n: Chinese

Please remove this line. Enough L10n team members have write access.

tanjunchen

comment created time in a month

PullRequestReviewEvent
PullRequestReviewEvent

pull request commentkubeedge/website

[WIP] Return Hugo code to the footer

/assign @anvithks

zacharysarah

comment created time in a month

PR opened kubeedge/website

[WIP] Return Hugo code to the footer

Per https://github.com/kubeedge/website/pull/88#discussion_r486773495, this PR restores Hugo code to the footer removed in #88 and shifts the copyright statement into config.toml to conform to the site's previous Hugo configuration.

+23 -17

0 comment

2 changed files

pr created time in a month

push eventzacharysarah/website-kubeedge

zacharysarah

commit sha 4dbd6045a5b5f88830498e1a05e77fee432aca48

Add CNCF logo and trademark language to footer

view details

KubeEdge Bot

commit sha 63962988604c98673d0835a042e34ff9722503fe

Merge pull request #88 from zacharysarah/update-footer Add CNCF logo and trademark language to footer

view details

zacharysarah

commit sha 3e5823dfdb6a80e633b7e9ffefaa6082bb8cf25f

Return Hugo code to the footer

view details

push time in a month

create barnchzacharysarah/website-kubeedge

branch : return-hugo-code

created branch time in a month

push eventzacharysarah/website-kubeedge

zacharysarah

commit sha 4dbd6045a5b5f88830498e1a05e77fee432aca48

Add CNCF logo and trademark language to footer

view details

KubeEdge Bot

commit sha 63962988604c98673d0835a042e34ff9722503fe

Merge pull request #88 from zacharysarah/update-footer Add CNCF logo and trademark language to footer

view details

push time in a month

push eventzacharysarah/website

Rémy Léone

commit sha f1ec7a4a545f51b272aeb88db395f02f0ab6266f

Add an slack invite link on README

view details

Aris Cahyadi Risdianto

commit sha 83c4b6096679eac1d70910bf86c30c63b242ffaf

ID localization for administer cluster - sysctl

view details

danninov

commit sha 57fe47cb183c48654615b27502f8253d00b51c1d

Add ID localization task configure volume storage

view details

danninov

commit sha 15e2140286c96ef3b2c024be10e33068c670d73a

Add ID localization of force delete stateful pod

view details

TAKAHASHI Shuuji

commit sha 34d805df7280f40c93a3c832f117caa7ec964c76

Fill the search input form with the current search keywords.

view details

Qiming Teng

commit sha badeab324bbd5bb17486b5459f3ef1d51217a80b

[zh] Tune translation for debug service task

view details

Qiming Teng

commit sha 0836d67ef6434d1b164e26fac5e53cf64eab9e2a

[zh] Tweak localization for stateful set task

view details

Qiming Teng

commit sha e073ac38f85ad4720b1401311901a0cefe5ea902

[zh] Rework kubectl patch tasks The file location has changed in English site, with two new sections added.

view details

Qiming Teng

commit sha 6e90a5bda226155654db491f50d618247639e403

[zh] Rework kubectl install translation The English version has changed a lot.

view details

Qiming Teng

commit sha 9c718eb06656d6edc168ad788c638d614b8480a5

[zh] Resync config PV storage task

view details

Qiming Teng

commit sha 4de8e2964f126cf066a613769baa8138df8ac4a1

[zh] Tune KMS provider task Issues fixed: - The word secret should not be translated due to its special meaning; - The indentation of contents in a enumeration context was mostly wrong; - Some links are pointing to English version; - The way English context was commented out is making future tracking difficult.

view details

Aris Cahyadi Risdianto

commit sha dd1c2cd33092c581fefc45857226698a36ac4f75

ID localization for debug application cluster Add nginx-with-request yaml for debug application cluster

view details

Qiming Teng

commit sha 1d05d2cba2c367df3a43de146d43723a31150d6b

[zh] Rework cloud controller The English version has been drastically revised.

view details

Qiming Teng

commit sha 193edd36cf2bf31043c052598f9a14ef34adec35

[zh] Translate tasks/manage-kubernetes-objects/kustomization.yaml

view details

Qiming Teng

commit sha e753e5525706b4b936a925dab17e7443b58c91d1

[zh] Translate tasks/configure-pod-container/security-context.md

view details

Qiming Teng

commit sha cd47cf8820cde6cc2c02e4d562d0c19614616472

[zh] Translate concepts/security/pod-security-standards.md

view details

Takaaki Fujii

commit sha 3a044c18d6fe40de56eb095d3c39ce5ba765473a

finished translate

view details

Cédric Roger

commit sha 5737c8bce17d5d624b5b25f5aef52388a590a49d

Update install-minikube.md

view details

Takaaki Fujii

commit sha b676bf3f537106cd17bfa7807b83f7a94f9469d0

fix some kubernetes resource display name

view details

didier

commit sha 17807023cc74a511f8d803824d9664ce8126362e

fixing spelling errors Signed-off-by: didier <durand.didier@gmail.com>

view details

push time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/website

translate subscribe button

/approve

Arhell

comment created time in a month

pull request commentkubernetes/website

Update style guidelines for API object capitalization & formatting

@cmastr Great, please squash your commits so we can merge. /approve

Explicit hold for squashing: /hold

cmastr

comment created time in a month

delete branch zacharysarah/website-kubeedge

delete branch : update-footer

delete time in a month

pull request commentkubeedge/website

Add CNCF logo and trademark language to footer

@celestehorgan 👋 ☝️

zacharysarah

comment created time in a month

PR opened kubeedge/website

[WIP] Add CNCF logo and trademark language to footer

fixes #87

Congratulations on your incubation status! 🎉

Description

This PR adds some lightweight CSS, adapted from the Falco website:

  • Adds the CNCF logo and incubation statement
  • Adds a CNCF/LF trademark statement to the footer

Notes

It looks like the site used a Hugo theme in the past and contains some leftover CSS. I cleaned up the footer and added a class for displaying the logo, and did my best to avoid imposing anything that can't be easily removed or adapted if you add a new theme in the future.

+32 -19

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in a month

issue openedkubeedge/website

Add CNCF/LF logo and trademark to the site footer

To prep for incubation, the site needs to follow CNCF website guidelines:

  • Display the CNCF logo
  • Display a trademark statement for the Linux Foundation

created time in a month

more