Re: Proposal - the future of Sandbox


Liz Rice
 

Thanks for these thoughts, Quinton

1. Add some measures to avoid becoming a dumping ground for failed company projects. Even if a project checks all the boxes, if it has been around for a good few years already, and still has little adoption, it's probably either a bad idea, or doesn't work.

100% agree. As I don't think this is limited to Sandbox, I wonder if this would be better added in, say, the Principles doc, wytd? 

2. Add a 'public review' period of about a month. I think it's beneficial for the community to have visibility of what's heading towards sandbox, ask questions etc.

Yes, the idea is that this should be public. We need some way of holding a public comment period in a lightweight fashion. Perhaps whenever a form is submitted, it also generates an email to the TOC mailing list so that folks are aware and can reply with thoughts about it.  

3. The original thinking around TOC 'sponsors' (and there's probably a better word for them) was to have some show of support from the TOC for a candidate sandbox project (equivalent to 'yes, that seems like a good idea').  If no TOC members want a project in the CNCF, for valid reasons, then it presumably shouldn't be there, irrespective of what boxes it checks. I think you'll need some way to achieve this.  Perhaps announce at the TOC meeting the list of projects that have checked all the boxes (with a brief description of each) and are eligible for sandbox, and give the TOC public veto rights at that point? 

We're suggesting a simple majority vote from the TOC. This raises the bar in the sense that a majority, not just three TOC members, need to support a project, but hopefully the aggregate extra work for individual TOC members will be more than outweighed by having less lobbying to deal with, and it will be much clearer for the whole community. 



On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 4:38 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton@...> wrote:
Yes, this is very close to the intentions I always had in mind, but which I don't think were ever written down clearly, or particularly well executed on.  Great job ckarifying.!

Four suggestions: 

1. Add some measures to avoid becoming a dumping ground for failed company projects. Even if a project checks all the boxes, if it has been around for a good few years already, and still has little adoption, it's probably either a bad idea, or doesn't work.

2. Add a 'public review' period of about a month. I think it's beneficial for the community to have visibility of what's heading towards sandbox, ask questions etc.

3. The original thinking around TOC 'sponsors' (and there's probably a better word for them) was to have some show of support from the TOC for a candidate sandbox project (equivalent to 'yes, that seems like a good idea').  If no TOC members want a project in the CNCF, for valid reasons, then it presumably shouldn't be there, irrespective of what boxes it checks. I think you'll need some way to achieve this.  Perhaps announce at the TOC meeting the list of projects that have checked all the boxes (with a brief description of each) and are eligible for sandbox, and give the TOC public veto rights at that point? 

Hope this helps...

I can move these comments to the doc if needed. I'm not at my computer right now. 

Q

On Tue, May 5, 2020, 09:06 Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

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