Re: Comment on Increase Sandbox requirement to three sponsors from the TOC

Liz Rice
 

Oh I see the conversation you mean, about Contour. I’ll reply on that thread. 

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145



On 10 Jan 2020, at 08:57, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Sorry, I am missing something - which projects are proposing to skip the process? And (bearing mind the TOC have to sponsor / vote) do you see support from TOC members for them skipping the process?

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145



On 10 Jan 2020, at 03:57, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

Combining a few messages here -

The motivation for the increase makes sense. From a multi-vendor control standpoint, I will move to +1 NB on this particular issue.

That said, I'm sitting on a draft of collected thoughts, of which I will refine and post tomorrow - but in short I feel like change does need to be made, especially in light of other projects that proposed in the past days to skip the process demanded of projects included in the CNCF. This felt like a very clear violation of responsibility to the members that make up the CNCF, it's governing bodies, and those rely upon their decision making processes - and it's been made clear that without someone concerned about it, existing processes are potentially too easy to short-circuit.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:36 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
To add a little more context...

The TOC is expanding from 9 to 11 members and a single company (or group of companies under the same umbrella) can have 2 members on it.

The current sandbox process only requires 2 TOC members to sponsor a project. This means a single company with two members is able to add any sandbox project they want.

The CNCF charter notes:

The Cloud Native Computing Foundation seeks to drive adoption of this paradigm by fostering and sustaining an ecosystem of open source, vendor-neutral projects

If the CNCF processes allows a situation for a single vendor to have the ability to add any sandbox projects they like is this enabling vendor neutrality and the charter would like?

An argument has been made it's not so the TOC sponsors should expand to 3 to require multiple organizations to be involved in sponsoring. This is what expanding to 3 TOC sponsors gives us.

Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

This must be frustrating for the people working on those projects.

I would like to see the TOC make some changes to address this problem. A clear documented processes and methodology. Something people on the projects can understand, follow, and depend on.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, at 11:42 AM, Vinod NA wrote:
-1 NB ( I am not in favor of sponsoring concept at all )
 
I think sponsoring will lead to "King Makers" situation which is against the TOC principle.

I don’t agree that the CNCF sandbox entry barrier is low. Many projects are waiting almost a year to get a “Sponsor”, and others get rejected after a year without getting a “Sponsor”.

I don’t fully agree with the concept that all sandbox projects should graduate. Sandbox then won’t be the ideal name for this stage then. Ideally, all projects should graduate and the CNCF should build sustainable ecosystems for it but there are many other factors that the TOC or CNCF can't control. Projects may go to archives from any stage. The "rkt " project is an example of it.
 
I agree that the TOC review shouldn’t be a tick-the-box exercise. TOC should make the judgment based on facts, not based on what they like or dislike. A TOC member won’t necessarily get enthusiastic about a project if he/she knows very well about that project's domain and technology stack. Also, the TOC does not pick a “winning stack” as per the TOC's operating principles document.

I have opened an issue in the TOC repo with more details, feel free to comment your thoughts there.



On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 16:24 Liz Rice, <liz@...> wrote:
Hi Gerred, 

I wanted to follow up with a few thoughts on your comment here. 

Although the barrier to entry for Sandbox is intended to be low, we want to make sure that the projects that come in have a good chance of making it to incubation and graduation. Potential sponsors from the TOC should have confidence that the project is on the right path towards those criteria. It would be doing a disservice to a project if we were to accept it without that confidence. 

Acceptance to the CNCF at any level should never be just a tick-the-box exercise. The TOC should always be able to exercise their judgement and discretion. At the Sandbox level, if there aren’t enough TOC members with the confidence and enthusiasm in a project to step forward as sponsors, then it doesn’t get accepted. 

I hope that helps,
Liz

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145


On 28 Dec 2019, at 06:07, Gerred Dillon <hello@...> wrote:

-1 non-binding

i'm not thrilled with how the sandbox has already changed without a controlled burn rate, i disagree with this motion without other changes to the sandbox process happening. kudo has already been given -1s on sandbox inclusion based on incubating/graduating requirements in private as negative votes for inclusion -- despite communication that these weren't requirements. sandbox is either inclusive or it's not, and i'd rather inclusion at this stage, given there are no marketing expectations or official endorsement of these projects by the CNCF.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Thomas Mclennan <Thomas.mc@...> wrote:
+1 non-binding









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