No worries. My recommendation is simple: don't pull in REX-Ray as a separate CNCF project. Instead allow the CSI community to decide how to best deliver the tooling necessary to make it easier for

As long as we are playing around with names in a non-blocking way, might I add to the list "greenhouse"? In favor of this idea it is more aligned to selective nuturing things as they start to grow,

+1 to "playground" Cheers, Michael -- Michael Hausenblas, Developer Advocate OpenShift by Red Hat Mobile: +353 86 0215164 | Twitter: @mhausenblas http://openshift.com | http://mhausenblas.info

This might be overly colo[u]rful, but what about playground[ or kindergarten]? It implies no quality whatsoever, that breaking stuff is fine and with little consequence, and clearly carries

+1 to that!

Aah – to be clear I was not pointing fingers at anyone in particular :-). Just advocating for unambiguous communication, even to those who may not have English as a first language. Q From: Alexis

Yes, please! Also, you just called Chris British ;-)

I think the proposal skirts around the due diligence issue a bit too much. I think we need to be more direct and a little less British about it, perhaps :). I’ll add some specific comments in the

Quinton Thank-you. Do you think the Sandbox write-up is sufficiently clear on that point? (I think it is, but keen to get this right). Ruben, all, We are intentionally lowering the bar so I am

While I share some of the concerns about the name sandbox (and no, I don’t have any better proposals :-), when considering alternatives like “launchpad” and “runway" I think that we need to be

Garrett, Forgive me, I am not quite sure I follow. What is your recommendation for rexray in the context of your description below? A

If I’m taking your meaning correctly, co-evolution (where there are two independent projects that rely on each other) is precisely the situation I was arguing against. If we do this right, I think

FWIW, two ideas I've fiddled with recently: Launchpad or Runway

Thank-you Richard, appreciate the thought that you and others have put into it.

I think it's a good direction to take. As per the discussion in the doc, the name has connotations which are contrary to the intended meaning. That being said, I couldn't come up with a better name;

Clint That's promising. What do the CSI people think? BTW, the name "REX-Ray" seems designed to direct the layperson's attention as far as possible from the stated purpose of the project. Might a

Alexis, I asked the same question ahead of time and got a positive response. https://github.com/rexray/rexray/issues/1167 Clint Kitson Technical Director for {code} CNCF Governing Board Member ---

> It almost like saying there is OpenTracing, OpenTracing-Packaging-and-Tools, and Jaeger as three separate projects. #2 is actually https://github.com/opentracing-contrib/, that contains

If rexray and CSI benefit from "co evolution" then that might make sense. Is that the case? What does the community think?

Thanks Dan, I think having spec and implementation(s) in the same foundation make sense. In this case, Rex-Ray is not an implementation. If I understood it correctly, its a a set of tools, packaging,