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.

I'd like to unpack this part of the thread... Multi-org governance is a graduation requirement. Sandbox is for experiments and early stage projects. Adding multi-org governance would squash the goal

Don’t we want the CNCF to be a home for good projects, not just big projects? A much stricter requirement for multi-org governance as entry even to sandbox would help avoid project dumping by a

Nit pick: “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” There are many reasons that a project may be in

Thanks for these thoughts, Quinton 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? Yes, the idea is that this should

Dear TOC members, LitmusChaos project maintainers are reaching out to you to seek sponsorship for SandBox. The project has been unanimously recommended for SandBox by App-Delivery-SIG (Thank you SIG

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.

This proposal looks awesome. Thanks for all the hard work, TOC ! Anni Anni Lai anni.lai@... 415.812.2830

While the proposal has some nuance in the details to work out, I like to the overall tone and direction. Nicely done TOC. I think this will really help with those early stage and experimental projects