Greetings all, The Brigade 2020 Annual Review PR has been posted at https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/449 per Sandbox project processes. Thank you in advance for your time and energy! Cheers, Vaughn

How do you want feedback? email here or edit the form? scary that it appears i can edit :-) thanks -Doug _______________________________________________________ STSM | IBM Hybrid Cloud | OM

Busy people just don't pay attention to Github notifications until it really matters? <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Maybe the weeks feel extra long these days but it seems just an extra unnecessary amount of time. All the work and review happens in the open so it's not like people will be surprised. -- Chris

I see no reason to move to one week if the meetings are two weeks apart. This is like an auction "asking once, asking twice..."

Brendan, As someone who has a sandbox project to submit, this looks good to me. The form does need some cleanup (like a thing listed as optional is marked as required). Otherwise, this looks doable. -

This sparked a few thoughts I figured I would share... 1. If someone goes on vacation for a week they could miss a public comment period in its entirety. As someone who went through the 2 week period

Many apologies for the delay in getting this together. Here is the first draft of the sandbox

Chris is suggesting reducingthe comment period after a vote is called from two weeks to one week. I can see the attraction,because in practice if people are going to comment it seems they’re

I like the ideal to revamp the process. Being on both sides of the process I had to learn that it is far from ideal. I would suggest to add a section which projects should join the CNCF, what they

As far as I understand the requirement the goal is to avoid pure OpenCore projects to be CNCF projects. Additionally, having multiple organizations as maintainers will ensure project continuity of the

Contour has applied to join as an incubating project, https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/330. Matt Klein of the TOC has been handling due diligence and has called for public comment.

SPIFFE/SPIRE has requested to move to Incubation. https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/382 Justin Cormack of the TOC has asked for the public comment period to open,

Spiffe/Spire has requested to move from sandbox to incubation, see https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/382 Having reviewed this,I am now opening the public comment period. Please comment here (or on the

Harbor has been reviewed by Xiang Li of the TOC, this is now in the Public Comment period as per the TOC's graduation process. The PR is here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/311 All SIGs, end

FWIW I am uncomfortable making multi-org governance/maintainership a requirement of incubation, since this requirement has been contentious even at graduation level, and I know that several of our

"Sandbox is for experiments and early stage projects" Isn't that part of what we are debating here? I wouldn't agree that multi-org projects are incapable of innovation and experiments. It might even

Ok so if that's the goal then age of project isn't relevant IMO

Sandbox is for early stage and experimental projects. In crossing the chasm it's the innovators (pre-early adopters). Or, that's what the docs currently say about sandbox. Right now it's difficult to

What are we trying to achieve with this initiative? How to weed out dead sandbox projects? Let's weed them out.