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. 


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

FWIW, two ideas I've fiddled with recently: Launchpad or Runway

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:04 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

> As a co-author of this doc I want to endorse the direction as strongly
> as possible.  If you feel you may want to vote -1, please do so, but
> ideally so that we can improve the doc.

I think it's a good direction to take.

As per the discussion in the doc, the name has connotations which are
contrary to the intended meaning. That being said, I couldn't come up
with a better name; back then or in the last two days; neither could

Long story short: No need to block on this; the improved process far
outweighs any potential naming confusion.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.