Re: Sandbox projects and timing requirements

Chris Short

The solution here provenly isn't a time limit but a more rigorous sandbox review process. If it looks apparent that a project will incubate quickly (has the backing of a known member and/or is a strategic priority, for example) it might be best to skip the sandbox and go straight to incubation. Additionally, CNCF should be very diliberate about the sandbox. Whether wanted or not sandbox helps project noterity.

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 03:29 Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
I'm not sure I see why a minimum period of time is necessary. There's a set of criteria that a project need to meet in order to cross into Incubation; if it meets those criteria quickly then why artificially hold it back? 

You could say that the very nature of going to Sandbox gives a project extra exposure, through which it gains more adoption, and therefore makes it easier to meet the criteria - but then isn't that acceleration a good thing? Assuming the TOC is only accepting projects that meet the mission and the criteria of the various stages, why would it be a bad thing to help a good project reach the next level of maturity and readiness?

If there is some sense in which this is giving unfair advantage to Sandbox projects over external projects, why not turn the question around and wonder why a new project wanting to join CNCF would aim straight for Incubation if it's not ready - why not apply for Sandbox stage? 

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:44 AM Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...> wrote:
If Sandbox is for early-stage projects I find hard that after 3 months is not longer in that stage (maybe that term needs to be corrected?) . If a project joined Sandbox and after 3 months is ready for Incubation, should just go to Incubation from the beginning and not hit Sandbox.

On this diagram would be good to clarify the scope and intention of "annual review": 

I think that a project that joined Sandbox must be there a minimum of time, liked or not, joining Sandbox gets a lot of attention and external marketing (despite CNCF is clear about restricted exposure of Sandbox projects). I don't see the benefit of going from Sandbox to Incubation in a really-short period of time. 

About my previous comment of "difficulty" to get into Incubation, I used the wrong words; the unexpected short period of time gave me the wrong perception.

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 7:43 PM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
I don't think it's a loophole. It appears to be by design. The Sandbox guidelines ( 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. 


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 <>
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.


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:

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: 

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

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


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

Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data



Join { to automatically receive all group messages.