Re: [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal
|
Quinton Hoole
While I share some of the concerns about the name sandbox (and no, I don’t have any better proposals :-), when considering alternatives like “launchpad” and “runway" I think that we need to be careful of overselling the amount of due diligence that may
or may not have been applied to these projects by the CNCF. Although I like the intuitive cool and positive appeal of these alternative names, those do carry strong connotations of rigorous design, testing, pre-flight checks etc that occur before arriving
on a runway or launchpad, which is, I think, specifically the opposite of what the sandbox is.
My understanding of the proposal is that the amount of technical or market due diligence applied before acceptance is near-zero. I think we need to state that explicitly, to set expectations correctly, and choose an appropriate name to convey that. For
all it’s flaws, “Sandbox” is accurate in that respect.
Q
From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
Date: Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 13:58 To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal
|
|
|