Date
1 - 8 of 8
Incubation discussion
|
alexis richardson
Today we had some verbal +1s for the following suggestion:
1. The time when becoming a CNCF Project is irrevocable is when a project is promoted from Incubation 2. Prior to this a project may choose to leave, or be asked to leave. The TOC might change this rule in the future but for now it has a clear rationale: it enables new projects to have a safety valve. Before the TOC has finalised its modus operandi and how we help CNCF projects, we want projects to join CNCF and help us shape our model. So we are asking projects to join despite this uncertainty. In return we provide a safety valve. In effect we are saying to projects "tell us when you are ready to leave Incubation". Comments please. Feel free to rewrite this. Indication of support will not be taken as a formal vote. This email thread is for discussion only & towards creating language that we can put to a vote in the future.
|
|
|
|
Rob Lalonde
seems very reasonable.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
R
|
|
|
|
Mark Peek
One thing this implies to me is we will not be transferring any project assets to the CNCF until the project exits incubation. Otherwise it would be harder to disentangle the project should either side decide not to join. Is this the right assumption?
If so, are we ok with having incubation projects in the CNCF but without asset ownership?
Mark
From: <cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of Robert Lalonde via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Reply-To: Robert Lalonde <rlalonde@...> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 12:00 PM To: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Incubation discussion
seems very reasonable.
R
|
|
|
|
alexis richardson
Mark Yes that would be implied: so full transfer isn't obligatory on entering Incubation. At least for now. In my view no project would exit Incubation if the project leads were opposed to continuing. So this rule is arguably an explicit version of a hidden assumption. A
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:22 Mark Peek, <markpeek@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
This proposal is fine in itself, but just to round out the other points made in the discussion: it doesn't quite address the issue of how projects might deal with decisions made by the TOC post-incubation. Something maybe to table now but discuss in future as it becomes clearer what a project being in CNCF means and as the first projects look to leave incubation. +1 on 1) and 2), anyway.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Today we had some verbal +1s for the following suggestion:
|
|
|
|
Brian Grant
One thing that occurred to me: CNCF may invest significant resources in a project while it is in incubation. Are we ok with projects walking away after such investment?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...>
I agree with the rationale and you captured it very accurately, thank you.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Today we had some verbal +1s for the following suggestion:
|
|
|
|
alexis richardson
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 08:18 Brian Grant, <briangrant@...> wrote:
That would be a bad outcome that should act as an incentive to exit Incubation positively. Factors like this mitigate in favour of keeping things simple. Eg we could set ourselves a goal of getting projects out of Incubation within N months. Also once we have developed our approach in more detail then we could have a slightly different Incubation model. I think this safety valve is most useful while we are all figuring out the approach.
|
|
|