After last week's TOC call, we decided to start moving forward with graduation reviews. Kubernetes was the project that motivated the creation of the CNCF, and was its first (seed) project. It has sustained a fast pace of growth of contributors, contributing organizations, and users, and now operates at massive scale. The project's governance and community-management practices continue to evolve and mature as the project grows, but the Kubernetes Steering Committee (https://github.com/kubernetes/steering) unanimously believes that Kubernetes fulfills all the CNCF incubating and graduation criteria:

- Used successfully in production by at least three independent end users of sufficient scale and quality: https://kubernetes.io/case-studies
- Have a healthy number of committers: Kubernetes is so large, with thousands of contributors and nearly 100 repositories, that we had to develop our own mechanism to manage approval permissions. We have hundreds of approvers, listed in more than 4000 OWNERS files across the project (https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=org%3Akubernetes+filename%3AOWNERS&type=Code)

- Demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merged contributions: Devstats shows that we have thousands of PRs merged per month (https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/)

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/91

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--

Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

It's a good callout, but I think it makes my point even stronger.

From https://commons.apache.org/sandbox.html

"The Sandbox is a Subversion repository for Commons committers to function
as an open workspace for sharing and collaboration."

I think we are creating confusion by calling it that. It isn't an open
workspace, it requires limited TOC support, which seems clearly intended to
nuture possible projects towards the next stage but with a lower bar. We
might ALSO need a sandbox. That seems less clear.

-Bob


On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Gou Rao <grao@...> wrote:

FWIW, I believe the inspiration for sandbox came from the Apache project,
which uses the same term.

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Bob Wise <bob@...> wrote:

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, rather than playing around and experimentation -
"sandbox".

-Bob

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...>
wrote:

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 an
expectation for things to grow up before any progression.


Richard

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 an
expectation for things to grow up before any progression.


Richard

Yes, please!

Also, you just called Chris British ;-)

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

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 PR to clarify and offer

some constructive advice.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of alexis richardson

<alexis@...>

Date: Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 11:17

To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>

Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>

Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal

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 keen on "Sandbox".

IMO, secondly: we are making Sandbox somewhat qualitatively different

from Incubation, as opposed to quantitatively.

a

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>

wrote:

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 careful of overselling

the amount of due diligence that may or may not have been applied to these

projects by the CNCF.  Although I like the intuitive cool and positive

appeal of these alternative names, those do carry strong connotations of

rigorous design, testing, pre-flight checks etc that occur before arriving

on a runway or launchpad, which is, I think, specifically the opposite of

what the sandbox is.

My understanding of the proposal is that the amount of technical or market

due diligence applied before acceptance is near-zero.  I think we need to

state that explicitly, to set expectations correctly, and choose an

appropriate name to convey that.  For all it’s flaws, “Sandbox” is accurate

in that respect.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>

Date: Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 13:58

To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>

Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>

Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal

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

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:04 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>

wrote:

As a co-author of this doc I want to endorse the direction as strongly

as possible.  If you feel you may want to vote -1, please do so, but

ideally so that we can improve the doc.

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; back then or in the last two days; neither could

others.

Long story short: No need to block on this; the improved process far

outweighs any potential naming confusion.

Richard

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 PR to clarify and offer
some constructive advice.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of alexis richardson
<alexis@...>
Date: Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 11:17
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>

Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal

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 keen on "Sandbox".
IMO, secondly: we are making Sandbox somewhat qualitatively different
from Incubation, as opposed to quantitatively.

a



On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
wrote:

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 careful of overselling
the amount of due diligence that may or may not have been applied to these
projects by the CNCF. Although I like the intuitive cool and positive
appeal of these alternative names, those do carry strong connotations of
rigorous design, testing, pre-flight checks etc that occur before arriving
on a runway or launchpad, which is, I think, specifically the opposite of
what the sandbox is.

My understanding of the proposal is that the amount of technical or market
due diligence applied before acceptance is near-zero. I think we need to
state that explicitly, to set expectations correctly, and choose an
appropriate name to convey that. For all it’s flaws, “Sandbox” is accurate
in that respect.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
Date: Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 13:58
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal

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

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:04 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>
wrote:

As a co-author of this doc I want to endorse the direction as strongly
as possible. If you feel you may want to vote -1, please do so, but
ideally so that we can improve the doc.

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; back then or in the last two days; neither could
others.


Long story short: No need to block on this; the improved process far
outweighs any potential naming confusion.


Richard

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 keen on "Sandbox".

IMO, secondly: we are making Sandbox somewhat qualitatively different

from Incubation, as opposed to quantitatively.

a

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

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 careful of overselling

the amount of due diligence that may or may not have been applied to these

projects by the CNCF.  Although I like the intuitive cool and positive

appeal of these alternative names, those do carry strong connotations of

rigorous design, testing, pre-flight checks etc that occur before arriving

on a runway or launchpad, which is, I think, specifically the opposite of

what the sandbox is.

My understanding of the proposal is that the amount of technical or market

due diligence applied before acceptance is near-zero.  I think we need to

state that explicitly, to set expectations correctly, and choose an

appropriate name to convey that.  For all it’s flaws, “Sandbox” is accurate

in that respect.

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>

Date: Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 13:58

To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>

Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>

Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal

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

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:04 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...>

wrote:

> As a co-author of this doc I want to endorse the direction as strongly

> as possible.  If you feel you may want to vote -1, please do so, but

> ideally so that we can improve the doc.

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; back then or in the last two days; neither could

others.

Long story short: No need to block on this; the improved process far

outweighs any potential naming confusion.

Richard