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,

CNCF has three precedents of separate specs and implementations: + CNI and the CNI plugins (most prominently Calico, Flannel and Weave Net, none of which are yet CNCF projects) + OpenTracing and

I see where you’re coming from Clint, but in this case I agree with Bassam. To follow on to what he said, I’m very concerned that this would become yet another place where the interface to storage

I see where you’re coming from Clint, but in this case I agree with Bassam. To follow on to what he said, I’m very concerned that this would become yet another place where the interface to storage

+1 binding.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BthkP9OftIICEn1h9ML1F0TKXhaUxXILlcDpuz3Sjzg/edit#slide=id.g31eff88140_0_37 The best place to start here is to refer to the slide above. CSI by its name is an