 Okay, I think it's a small set of people, but perhaps we can still have a useful short discussion. I think the first thing we wanted to talk about was, with regards to the storage white paper that we did, I think we wanted to draw a line under it and say it's done because we haven't had any major comments for a few weeks and we had presented it at KubeGum in Seattle as well as in Shanghai and I think we're in a place where we think it's done and we're happy with it. So I was going to propose putting this onto the storage working group GitHub so that it's recorded there and I'll speak to Chris and Jack and get them to maybe do a little bit of marketing and beautifying on it. I think the serverless working group, when they put their white paper together, I think the CNCF sort of put a bit of branding around it and it's a marketing PR and things like that and maybe that would be a useful next step there. Oh, hi Quinton. Hello. Sorry I'm late. No problem. We were just saying that we were going to put the storage white paper onto the GitHub page and ask the CNCF to do some marketing and sort of publicize it officially. And then in terms of the next steps, what we had discussed when we were in the sessions in Shanghai and Seattle is that we were going to look at options to discuss real-life use cases preferably from end users so that we can put together some more useful patterns in terms of how people consume storage with some real-life examples. And I wanted to pull the audience to kind of see if there were any strong preferences on the next items to do sort of which patterns of use cases to look at. Bearing in mind that the white paper covered a large variety of options covering sort of the different types of volumes covering sort of block devices and fast systems, etc. as well as the API-driven methods of accessing storage. So things like key-value stores and object stores as well as databases. So there's a huge variety of things we could cover. I was wondering what your thoughts were. So I'll kind of open it up to the call. Hey, Alex. I was wondering, should we put together some kind of survey and ask the user questions just based on the white paper? What type of storage are they using? And what's the reason they choose those? That's good idea. I think the key is how do you get the list because if we send it out to just the members who show up here, that's a pretty selective audience. What we want is maybe even including somehow people who don't know this group exists if there's a list we can get. So what I was going to suggest is, I was going to suggest speaking to Cheryl Hung who runs the CNCF ecosystem. She's the director of the ecosystem for the CNCF, but she runs the end-user forum where the CNCF end-user members sort of live. I was wondering if she could either submit a survey to them to ask what they want, or perhaps we could get a slot in their next meetings where perhaps we could join for five to ten minutes and kind of pass the panel and have a discussion as to what the end-users actually want to see. That sounds like a great idea. Right. So I'll take an action to reach out to Cheryl. Yeah, I think broadly speaking, the end-user bunch of people and the contributors and there's obviously some amount of overlap between the two groups, but we can probably reach out to them somewhat separately from each other. The end-users tend to hang out in some places and the contributors hang out in other places. And I think both of the inputs are probably valuable, but we need to just make sure we understand whose input we're reading when we read the input because they're quite distinct groups. A good point actually. I think the list of contributors, there is a mailing list and there's a list of contacts in GitHub for that. So if we agree the question that we're going to ask, we can send it to both sides in parallel. Yeah, and there's actually another working group that I am involved with, the long-term support guys, and they just put such a questionnaire together. And as much as the subject matter is quite different, just the structure of such a questionnaire and there are a bunch of introductory questions that kind of all questionnaires need to have. Who are you? Do you consider yourself an end-user or contributor? How big are your clusters? Blah, blah, blah. So we could perhaps take that as a starting point and replace the long-term support-specific questions with storage-specific questions, but there's a fair amount of that that we could reuse. Yeah, that's really useful. How can we get hold of that questionnaire? Tim Pepper is the main guy. I can send you the link. Okay. Right, so that sounds like a good thing. I'm hoping that's on the end-user side of things if a few of us can join the end-user regular monthly thing that they have for maybe a 10-minute slot or something. We can actually have a little bit of a discussion and get some sort of oral feedback as well, because not all of those guys will have the time for the patience to fill in a questionnaire. Yeah, totally agreed. One other brief point on the topic of questionnaires and versions of the paper. We have a kind of a logical, I won't call it a deadline, but a potentially logical endpoint, which is KubeCon Europe, which is mid-May, I think you recall. So we should probably figure out what we're going to have done by mid-May. So we're going to start with getting all the input from the questionnaire and producing the second version of the white paper based on that input and presenting it at KubeCon Europe or just the former or any various permutations of that. But it's probably a good idea to decide now what exactly our goals are for KubeCon Europe in May. Yes. I believe if you're going to put on sessions one or two that the deadline is coming up in a week or so. That's right. Yeah, so I'm going to send those in any way. I've in fact drafted them and nearly sent them in this week, but they're fairly generic. It's like we're the working group. We'll tell you what we've been doing and we'll give you an update on yada yada. And closer to the time, we can reword that based on what we actually decide to present. So that's less of a problem. But I think what's more pressing from our point of view is actually having a clear goal that we set in the next week to say this is what we want to have done by that date and work backwards from there. Because that usually means that we need to have the questionnaire published by date X and we need to present to the end user group on date Y and we need to have a draft of the paper on date Z, whatever it is. And I think you'll find out that we don't have like that much time. Whereas if we don't decide those things now, we probably won't have anything ready for if we like it. Yes, that is a very good point. My preference, and I'd love to hear everybody's feedback on this, is not to do a white paper style document as a second phase, but to focus on use cases and sort of end user patterns for where they use storage and cloud native environments and kind of keep it to a relatively straightforward short thing, which is maybe a couple of pages long, plus maybe some sort of examples and the ammo files and things like that, which we can include in GitHub as well. And maybe if we drop like a simple template to follow, we can collect the same information for a number of different use cases and it won't be such a donor's task to put the content together, perhaps. Yeah, I think that sounds reasonable. Something else to bear in mind is that the... So a couple of things to bear in mind. One is that the CNCF elections are going on right now. And so I may or may not be on the TOC next time around, who knows, in which case my role in this group is maybe... I could continue or not, but currently I'm here as the TOC representative. If I'm not on the TOC, that wouldn't make sense. So we should sort of plan as if I may or may not be here. Secondly, the TOC is in the process of, and Alex knows about this, about formalizing a SIG structure and there will almost definitely be a SIG storage for the CNCF and broadly speaking its responsibilities will be, you know, looking after the health of all storage-related projects in the CNCF as well as identifying gaps in our storage portfolio and finding additional CNCF storage projects, et cetera, et cetera. So that's going to be a significant amount of work for somebody. I would imagine that either this group will expand to become a SIG or at the very least some of the people on this group will serve in the new SIG storage. Either way, we will have some amount of work bandwidth removed from this group in the next while. Yeah, so that's a very good point. And that was partly my sort of reasoning for keeping the contents to be smaller blocks that we can do a bit more autonomously because I think one of the things that's part of the evolution of the SIG will be that we'll probably need to put some focus into both soliciting information from different projects and potentially we might be given tasks from the DOC to actually review potential projects, right? So we need to factor that into... And I must say if I were to have to make a choice between making significant progress towards storage SIG by SIG, I mean a group that looks after all storage-related stuff in CNC and publishing a second paper of some sort along the lines of what you described, I would say the former is more important probably than the latter. Nobody's been screaming for this second paper. We thought it was a good idea, but I think if it didn't produce it by May, it would probably be fine. I think if we didn't make any progress towards a storage SIG by May, that would be less fine. Okay, I think that's good guidance. How about this? If we put together a survey or questionnaire and maybe attend the end user sessions as our next steps, at least we can get sort of both quantitative and qualitative data as to what the end users are interested in and should also be... That's a useful data point for a content point of view, but it's also a very useful data point on what... Maybe we can shape the priorities of the upcoming SIG on the type of projects we look at first and those kind of things. Absolutely, yeah. I think that's a good idea. All right. Okay, so that sounds like Dan. In terms of action points then, Quinton, you'll forward on the link to that questionnaire. We probably need somebody to reshape our questionnaire into a more of a storage type of thing. And then... So somebody needs to take that action on if possible. I'm happy to take on the action to work with Cheryl to get a session with the end users and maybe plan out that agenda and put a couple of slides together to facilitate the discussion. Is there anybody who wants to help with the questionnaire or with the survey? I can help with that. Awesome. Thanks, Jane. Okay. I think those were the main points... I think those were the main points we had. I can take the action to put the rest of the article and convert the doc into a markup for GitHub. I'll speak to Chris and Manashek in terms of getting the publicity put together. Is there anything else, any other business or any other things that we wanted to discuss? What are you? Overwhelming silence. Yeah, nothing for me. Quinton, was there anything else from your point of view? No, I think we've done well. If we can get what we discussed today in the next few weeks, I think that will be great. Good stuff. All right. Thanks, everyone. Thanks. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.