Re: What's the point? (or,"What's the Emperor wearing?")
|
There was a lot of discussion regarding the sandbox (especially with the k8s incubator dissolving https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/95#issuecomment-376940995) but the idea is that there was a need for a place for experimentation so projects can grow into high quality incubating/graduated projects as this process takes time if it does at all (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md#caveat-utilitor): "Encourage public visibility of experiments or other early work that can add value to the CNCF mission and build the ingredients of a successful Incubation level project" All sandbox projects get reviewed on an annual basis and may archived from the foundation. I expect to potentially see our first projects archived over the next 12 months but it's hard to predict the future. On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Alena Prokharchyk <alena@...> wrote: Sandbox is a great model that enforces collaboration and cloud native ecosystem growth. But it feels that the main CNCF goal of "fostering a community around a constellation of high-quality projects" in a way contradicts the current sandbox rule - "CNCF Sandbox projects can stay in the sandbox indefinitely". Indefinite membership - even with limited CNCF investment - is not sustainable without raising a quality bar at the acceptance level and beyond. Also the reasons why the sandbox candidate is found technically interesting/innovative, what advantages it has over similar projects (having a great community qualifies too) or/and why it is considered to be a high risk, can be delivered to the CNCF community with more clarify to reduce the chances of kingmaking blame --
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 |
|
|