Re: [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal


Quinton Hoole
 

Aah – to be clear I was not pointing fingers at anyone in particular :-). Just advocating for unambiguous communication, even to those who may not have English as a first language.

Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 11:24
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal

Yes, please!

Also, you just called Chris British ;-)


On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
I think the proposal skirts around the due diligence issue a bit too much.
I think we need to be more direct and a little less British about it,
perhaps :). I’ll add some specific comments in the PR to clarify and offer
some constructive advice.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of alexis richardson
Date: Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 11:17
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>

Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal

Quinton

Thank-you.  Do you think the Sandbox write-up is sufficiently clear on
that point?  (I think it is, but keen to get this right).


Ruben, all,

We are intentionally lowering the bar so I am keen on "Sandbox".
IMO, secondly: we are making Sandbox somewhat qualitatively different
from Incubation, as opposed to quantitatively.

a



On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
wrote:

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
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








Join cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io to automatically receive all group messages.