[VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal


Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
 

'sandbox' has the connotation of 1) the island of broken toys and 2) incomplete, disposable, non-serious ideas or projects

My 2c

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
What do you not like about the name, and what other name would you prefer?

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:46 PM, Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
> +1 non-biding on the spirit, -1 non-binding on the naming.

Same.






Mark Coleman <mark@...>
 

+1 non-binding


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:51 AM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
'sandbox' has the connotation of 1) the island of broken toys and 2) incomplete, disposable, non-serious ideas or projects

My 2c

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
What do you not like about the name, and what other name would you prefer?

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:46 PM, Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
> +1 non-biding on the spirit, -1 non-binding on the naming.

Same.





--
+31 652134960
Marketing Chair www.cncf.io


Daniel Bryant
 

+1 (non-binding)

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
There’s been a desire within the CNCF TOC and community to provide further clarity around project maturity levels in CNCF and this has resulted into the CNCF Sandbox proposal after a month of discussion: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/92

When we initially created the Inception project level, it was intended to provide an avenue for technically interesting early-stage projects that were beneficial to the cloud-native community. We are transitioning Inception projects to the Sandbox. When we say that Sandbox projects are "early stage" this covers the following examples:

- New projects that are designed to extend one or more CNCF projects with functionality or interoperability libraries. In the case of Kubernetes, the Sandbox is intended as a home for projects that would previously have started in the Kubernetes Incubator.
- Independent projects that fit the CNCF mission and provide potential for a novel approach to existing functional areas (or are an attempt to meet an unfulfilled need)
- Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and "experimental" projects
- Any project that realistically intends to join CNCF Incubation in future and wishes to lay the foundations for that

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/92

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support! Note, if the proposal passes, CNCF staff will make updates to website and all other marketing collateral regarding this change.

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



Sam Lambert <samlambert@...>
 

+1 binding.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Daniel Bryant <db@...> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
There’s been a desire within the CNCF TOC and community to provide further clarity around project maturity levels in CNCF and this has resulted into the CNCF Sandbox proposal after a month of discussion: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/92

When we initially created the Inception project level, it was intended to provide an avenue for technically interesting early-stage projects that were beneficial to the cloud-native community. We are transitioning Inception projects to the Sandbox. When we say that Sandbox projects are "early stage" this covers the following examples:

- New projects that are designed to extend one or more CNCF projects with functionality or interoperability libraries. In the case of Kubernetes, the Sandbox is intended as a home for projects that would previously have started in the Kubernetes Incubator.
- Independent projects that fit the CNCF mission and provide potential for a novel approach to existing functional areas (or are an attempt to meet an unfulfilled need)
- Projects commissioned or sanctioned by the CNCF, including initial code for CNCF WG collaborations, and "experimental" projects
- Any project that realistically intends to join CNCF Incubation in future and wishes to lay the foundations for that

Please vote (+1/0/-1) by replying to this thread; the full proposal located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/92

Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support! Note, if the proposal passes, CNCF staff will make updates to website and all other marketing collateral regarding this change.

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




Richard Hartmann
 

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


alexis richardson
 

Thank-you Richard, appreciate the thought that you and others have put into it.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:45 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



Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
 

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 Hoole
 

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





alexis richardson
 

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 Hoole
 

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
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








alexis richardson
 

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








Quinton Hoole
 

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 Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 11:24
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal

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









alexis richardson
 

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
Just advocating for unambiguous communication, even to those who may not
have English as a first language.
+1 to that!



Q

From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Date: Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 11:24
To: Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal

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










Richard Hartmann
 

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


Michael Hausenblas <mhausenb@...>
 

+1 to "playground"


Cheers,
Michael

--
Michael Hausenblas, Developer Advocate
OpenShift by Red Hat
Mobile: +353 86 0215164 | Twitter: @mhausenblas
http://openshift.com | http://mhausenblas.info

From: Richard Hartmann <richih@...>
Reply: Richard Hartmann <richih@...>
Date: 4 March 2018 at 20:18:38
To: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...>
Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:  Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] CNCF Sandbox proposal

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




Bob Wise
 

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





Bob Wise
 

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


"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







alexis richardson
 

Bob, All,

Thank-you all for your feedback on the Sandbox doc.

Please don't send any more new names as suggestions. While all
feedback is always welcome, I think the TOC settled on "Sandbox"
already.

We *can* share some nomenclature with other OSS foundations. That is
a Good Thing. But, sharing nomenclature does not imply that each
stage is identical. For example CNCF and ASF share "Incubation" but
use it differently. Both express an idea of relative immaturity. At
CNCF, Incubation stage is a straight up precursor for Graduation.
Incubation and Graduation let us express CNCF values and operating
principles: https://www.cncf.io/projects/graduation-criteria/ Do also
please note that maturity criteria may evolve. For example, the
number of independent maintainers has been raised as a metric for
"community". The CNCF certainly values community.

HOWEVER: If there is still confusion about the meaning of the Sandbox
stage, then let us make the document clearer.

alexis

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Bob Wise <bob@...> wrote:
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



Gou Rao <grao@...>
 

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