Re: Sandbox process needs to evolve to support cross industry collaboation
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I agree on quite a few points :) Replying in line with some thoughts
> We tried SIGs (now TAGs) doing due diligence for projects. The level> of scrutiny, and the closeness to the guidance material available, was
> different across TAGs. In effect, this meant inconsistent processes
> which is arguably unfair. And in cases of disagreements, TOC is pulled
> in automatically anyway.
The TOC is the approval body and should be involved in DD, but I do think delegating portions of it to the TAGs is still a good idea and could play a large role in scaling the process. If there have been issues with varying levels of scrutiny in the past, this could be a mentorship and/or documentation opportunity. Think "ride-alongs" for reviewing DD, calling out what to look for, etc. I also don't necessarily want to volunteer them, but TAG Contributor Strategy would be an excellent resource to pull in to review areas of governance and community health.
> What TAGs could provide is an initial proving ground, though: Projects
> could give a presentation and go through questions and feedback in a
> more limited scope, allowing them to polish their submittal.
+1 to involving them early, an initial consult would likely help with firming up applications before applying to Sandbox.
> While I know that the current sandbox process is designed to be very
> low barrier, I am still not convinced that this is an obviously
> desirable design goal. It is true that a neutral playing field is good
> and helps some projects grow. It is also true that "CNCF project"
> holds immense marketing value and many efforts are ephemeral, in
> particular if largely driven by perf & marketing.
> Back when sandbox criteria were relaxed, I was of the opinion that
> they should remain more stringent.
I have held the same opinion - I thought they should, to a degree, remain more stringent. While Sandbox does not have any formal marketing support from the CNCF, that doesn't mean companies or other groups can't market them as a "CNCF Project." Smaller or independent projects that might not have those sorts of resources will have a harder time climbing the ladder.
> I have come to wonder if four
> levels wouldn't be more appropriate: An initial runway on which
> projects can be put; but also pruned more aggressively if they do not
> show growth/adoption/the usual. E.g. once submitted they have three?
> six? twelve? months to show certain progress or are removed outright.
I was literally talking with a co-worker about this thought yesterday as a potential idea :)
I don't know if it's the answer, but I do really like the idea of a timebox with explicit criteria for exiting. It should not require a deep dive into the project to determine if they are ready to move up to sandbox. I'd also like to see restrictions on the branding/marketing of "CNCF Project" at this level. A potential alternative might be "Cloud Native Inception Project" or something along those lines.
> Another would be to rework the process & documentation; e.g.
> Incubation had distinct requirement docs which TAGs copied together
> and deduplicated back during the DD trials.
+1 to firming up requirements/docs. While I think there needs to be some room for TOC discretion, I think being more explicit with requirements will help reduce the toil involved with the DD process.
I have a slew more thoughts, but this subject might be a good discussion during a TOC meeting :)
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 7:38 AM Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
Replying top-level as my thoughts jump across the thread.