that point? (I think it is, but keen to get this right).
We are intentionally lowering the bar so I am keen on "Sandbox".
from Incubation, as opposed to quantitatively.
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
Date: Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 13:58
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
others.
Long story short: No need to block on this; the improved process far
outweighs any potential naming confusion.
Richard
