Sandbox entry should spell out infra asks. And infra can say no based on capacity. I’m hoping infra can develop a “no brainer” menu for Sandox that includes AWS resources the sandbox technology group can self service.
Part of this has to be making infrastructure requirements explicit so the group bringing the technology forward can find/develop the right infrastructure sustainability coverage with them.
I’m also hoping that if we do this correctly, the infra team is able to mentor a group through the curation stage if there are special infrastructure needs to get to fully integrated. Not do the work, but to mentor in people who have been self servicing in the sandbox so they can fully integrate.
First let me also state, the sandbox itself will have to have capacity limits.
I placed fesco in specifically to ensure it was clear that ultimately the gate between curated and integrated needs to have fesco sign off. What I want is for that decision to be as ceremonial as possible… but that means fesco technical or policy concerns at the sandbox exit need to be surfaced then so the curation stage can be used to address those concerns. So we need to make sure there is some engagement point where concerns can be surfaced so they can be addressed in curation.
Chicken and egg problem. The best question that could be asked right now is what would have gone better in the past if this were a process available? The next best question is, what was never attempted to be integrated into Fedora that would have been attempted if this were available as a process? The third best question is what ideas are out there in people’s heads that are big enough to benefit from access to self-service time boxed sandbox starting point? I can beat the bushes a bit and try to encourage people to answer that third question. But I’d be asking them to be a little vulnerable with concepts for ideas they haven’t been public with, and I don’t want this to be a pile on on ideas that aren’t ready to be submitted.