Alois.
Big thanks for bringing this up!
Some observations from me:
- there are 21 applications currently in the queue, a bunch of them are resubmissions where the TOC has a set of questions and they came back with answers.
- The process needs to be consistent (irrespective of when a project was submitted or who is evaluating it) to prevent angst/worry on the part of the submitters.
- TOC's are not particularly healthy as they are understaffed, we do push some of the submissions to talk to either TAGs or k8s SIGs for example and come back with written responses and endorsements for example.
- Getting time on calendars for everyone on the TOC is challenge, so we have/will run into quorum issues trying to schedule additional calls to get through the backlog
- "People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc." << I get it, but i'd rather not accept something that is ephemeral and doesn't really have folks who can drive things for the longer term, Sorry.
- On a good day, TOC is able to handle about 10-12 submissions. Trying to do more will be just rubber stamping instead of actually looking through, reading and watching the stuff the submitters have requested.
I do get the need for speed and I agree that we need to do better. So let's have this conversation and see how we can proceed next.
Alois, I am happy to add this to the TOC agenda and walk through the issues and work through possible solutions,
thanks,
Dims
TOC-Members,
This email is a follow up of a conversation I started with dims.
I am asking you to rethink the current Sandbox process – mostly regarding speed. The idea of having a way to collaborate across organisations under a neutral foundation is key ideal of the CNCF. However, this is proving
to get harder; mostly regarding the speed of acceptance.
Let me share an example. We have put together an industry consortium to define a common, vendor-neutral standard for feature flagging (https://openfeature.dev ) and
brought together a consortium spanning key industry players and end users (see interested parties:
https://github.com/open-feature/community/blob/main/interested-parties.md ). We submitted for sandbox early this year and given the current backlog and progress on evaluating projects it is very likely that the project will get accepted until late this
year.
Pulling these activities off, getting buy in form key stakeholder and driving momentum to move them forward is a major effort. A key part of proces is being able to operate under a neutral entry like the CNCF. If this
process is taking a very long time, it has negative impact on these initiatives. People might lose interest, change roles or jobs, etc.
The sandbox process is an essential part of evolving the cloud native landscape, but it is broken and needs to evolve.
I am proposing to make this a continuous process; maybe involving TAGs (again), who can support handling to workload and defining a set of criteria allowing project to prepare for being accepted quickly. Just some ideas
on criteria:
- Obviously, the project being cloud native
- Clear goals and roadmap
- A community engagement plan.
- A team/consortium that can the delivery on the project’s goals.
Immediate steps then should be to get the current backlog down and define a “service level” by when project should be able to expect a response.
I am willing to support on improving the process, if needed/wanted.
This email may contain confidential information. If it appears this message was sent to you by mistake, please let us know of the error. In this case, we also ask that you do not further forward the content and delete it. Thank you for your cooperation and
understanding. Dynatrace Austria GmbH (registration number FN 91482h) is a company registered in Linz whose registered office is at 4020 Linz, Austria, Am Fünfundzwanziger Turm 20.
--
