I don't think it's a loophole. It appears to be by design. The Sandbox guidelines (https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md) clearly state that one of the goals of Sandbox is to: 

"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."

Additionally the guidelines state that the Sandbox is for early stage projects, defining early stage as:

"Any project that realistically intends to join CNCF Incubation in future and wishes to lay the foundations for that"

Projects entering Sandbox might have different gaps they need to fill before they can move to Incubation. Some might have more gaps, some less, and thus projects will exit at different speeds. 

Michael

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:18 PM Lee Calcote <leecalcote@...> wrote:

Yes, that’s how I read Eduardo’s question as well - one of ensuring a loophole doesn’t exist. 

- Lee

Sent from my mobile

---

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:44:43 PM
To: Quinton Hoole
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements

 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:59 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

To add to what Chris said, and responding directly to:

"since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  “

The above is not the intention at all.  Is there any reason you believe that getting to incubation via sandbox is more difficult?  If so, we might need to clarify our communication around that.

I think Eduardo's point is that it looks like getting to incubation through sandbox is easier than just entering directly via incubation.

I don't think that should be the case.

 

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 15:10
To: Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Sandbox projects and timing requirements

We decided not to put any timelines on anything in the beginning as each project is going to be different at its maturity stage. There are projects that may have decent adoption but low maintainer diversity and so on. The maturity levels are outlined pretty well here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/graduation_criteria.adoc

The particular line "since these metrics can vary significantly depending on the type, scope and size of a project, the TOC has final judgement over the level of activity that is adequate to meet these criteria" was put in place to give the TOC some flexibility in decisions making as they are the final arbiter of maturity level decisions.

IMHO I don't think having a minimum time to bake is a bad idea but that is going to be different for each project as some are quicker to mature than others.

You're welcome to propose improvements to the sandbox process and discuss it in a PR: https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/sandbox.md 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:25 PM Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:

Hi, 

Why Sandbox projects don't have a minimum time of requirement before to try to move to incubation ? I see that Harbor joined as a Sandbox project on July 31 and just after 3 months moving forward to incubation ? 

To be clear, this is not something against Harbor, but I see a potential "gray area" since it would be easier to go with sandbox and then jump into incubation, than do direct to incubation (which is harder).  

comments ?

--

Eduardo Silva

Open Source, Treasure Data

http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 

--

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