FYI this is the best we can do, based on the day the data is pulled within the CFP program (it's why Helm is at the bottom instead of alphabetized currently)

If we reorder them, then, for example, anything that has been submitted as Container Networking thus far will essentially lose its data:

https://smapply.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001423873-How-to-Safely-Make-Changes-to-a-Live-Form

We will see if we can improve things in 2019 with the CFP system, thanks for the feedback.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

and of course I posted the wrong screenshot sigh: 

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

At the moment, we are limited to what the CFP tool is capable of doing, so we only have a list.

We have updated the list of projects to label their relative maturity level in the CFP system.

For future CFPs, we will see if we can do what you have suggested.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

OK, I’m suggesting the opposite – three clearly separate lists – graduated, incubating, sandbox

If I’m the only one who feel strongly on this I’m happy to step down off my soapbox.  But I remember other TOC members having similarly strong feelings on the matter.  Brian Cantril, Camille and Alexis come to mind?

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 13:28
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Luis Pabon <luis@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Question on sandbox projects

We can annotate each listing with the project maturity level, that's my proposed solution moving forward.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

This topic has already come up several times in the ToC.  We explicitly decided that a very clear distinction should always be drawn between sandbox, incubation and graduated projects in external-facing communication.  It doesn’t sound like an alphabetical list mixing all of the projects together meets that goal.

Extract from sandbox.md, which I think needs to be strengthened to meet the above goals.

Some key points:

• Sandbox projects will be listed separately from other CNCF projects (cncf.io/sandbox)
• They will not be prominently listed at our events or issued a press release

Quinton

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 13:18
To: Luis Pabon <luis@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Question on sandbox projects

I don't see an issue with listing the projects in alphabetic order outside that it should be a series of checkboxes instead of radio buttons (we will fix that soon).

The TOC list is meant for technical discussions so if you have something you'd like to change about the CFP form, please email events@... for suggestions and we can have a discussion there.

Thanks.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Luis Pabon <luis@...> wrote:

Correct.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

This is a question more for CNCF staff based on the marketing expectations of sandbox projects:

https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md#clarifying-marketing-expectations

I'm assuming you mean the alphabetical list of CNCF projects?

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Luis Pab?n <luis@...> wrote:

Hi all,

  While creating a CFP for Kubecon/Seattle I noticed that sandbox projects get first level choices in the Kubecon CFP. Does this apply to any sandbox project? Will the CNCF continue with this model if we have many sandbox projects?

Regards,

- Luis

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719