 All right, we are currently rolling. Let's go ahead. All right, so starting at the top with vineyard and I think this was the one where we just wanted to check whether they truly believe that CNCF was the best time for them. Harry, did you have any conversation with them about that? Yeah, so I have reached out to the team and they also have another presentation with a six storage. I think they already got some feedback from six storage. So my personal view is that this project has a independent reason and a field but it's actually allied with the clonative ecosystem where we will just like the QV flow like the other AI infrastructure. So it's a complementary to the existing 12 states. And I also think the feedback from the six storage is same with me and Ville. I think they also view this project as a complementary to these current CNCF landscapes. I think it's actually has a good alignment with our reason. Yeah, I'd like to have other feedback. I don't know. I'm not sure if the six storage of folks is here and maybe can have more input on that. Maybe Salad or Erin have any thoughts about six storages opinion on this? Sorry, what was the project? Vineyard. I unfortunately don't have any context on that one. Erin, do you? Erin might have stepped away for a bit. So maybe we revisit this one. Okay, yeah, we can come back, fine. So the next one, don't let us forget that one. The next one was SSVM. And I think SSVM, we were slightly worried about the name and then it- We have put in a new name as well and I dropped that one into email. Right. Just bring it out over here. They would like to be able to change towards a wasm edge time. Say that again, Salad, in here. Here, there you go. Wasm edge runtime. Wasm edge runtime. I've put it in the chat. Ah, I beg your pardon. Erin is now available. We can move back to Vineyard. Bouncing back and forth this morning. Sorry, I've been continuous meetings and lots of coffee so we know what that means. That's what I'm talking about. Good morning. Question is Vineyard. Let's jump back to Vineyard. Yeah, we heard that they've presented to you six storage and wondered if that- Yeah, it's, I don't, our initial thoughts, both Alex and I felt like it was more something that would be under kind of the umbrella of like an Apache project or like analytics. There isn't really a good pillar within Kubernetes that is very data centric and big data related. But I don't know, it'd be interesting to see, I guess, where it goes from, because it's just sandbox, right? If it can get traction and evolve into something else. It is, it does run in cube. It's utilizes a lot of the functions. It's different. I mean, that's, I think, has it going forward. It's not yet another project with the same flavor. We just don't really seem to have a very data centric SIG, I would say in cube yet today. Yeah, but I don't see why we shouldn't have going forward. And I mean, maybe we do need to have a working group on something or a SIG. I mean, I think there was another project as well in that space as well that we come into. Yeah, and I agree. I truly believe like that's the next evolution of Kubernetes is, you know, data governance, data security, where it came from, how it's being managed, how it's being archived and all that done automatically. I think there could be a whole new flavor of projects. It just, where does that belong today? Does it belong in storage or does, like you said, is there another working group that maybe should be more focused on that? Cornelia, did you wanna ask something to add? Nope. Yeah, I mean, this project is not a very storagey project, given it's about not storing things. It's a serialization. If it's more with GRPC in a sense, although not really either, but. I wonder whether we should have some kind of machine learning kind of SIG or something. I think it would be a good idea to start. Yeah, I also mentioned that before, that we are missing a machine learning working group, but this is actually very important, actually fielding the clonative ecosystem. I know that we missed the Kubey flow sample, it's fine, but I think there will be more projects coming. I also thought we see around time folks, they are poking these data breaks. I think they also have some candidate project there, including, of course, Vanguard and more. I will say we should have something like machine learning working group to handle this project in future. Yeah, Dave's put in chat. We didn't hear you. I'm gonna guess you're on mute or something. The Data and AI Foundation. I mean, I think it's fine for us to overlap with them in the same way that we have some overlap with the CDF. Yeah, it's the same issue. But I don't think as we truly know, stop doing right things just because they're overlapping, just like CDF thing animation. We have a lot of DDoP's project in CNCF. We have CGAP delivery, but they are overlaps with CDF, but we still need to do the right thing. That's my opinion, I don't know if you could correct me, I have an idea of that. I'm gonna say, actually, conversation with Harry did kind of slightly focus my mind a bit on the fact that a lot of machine learning is being done, all the model training is being done in the cloud. It's like an ideal application for using cloud resources to deal with these giant amounts of data for a short period of time. So it seems like a very natural cloud native application. So yeah, I would lean towards saying we should have a seek to kind of or probably a seek to look in that area. So we start with this project and then see if the leads here can form the seek. Is that what you're thinking, Liz? There might be other people in the community as well. Yeah. Is that our first project in the sandbox of this kind? Do we have anything that belongs to the similar space? I think there might be... Yeah, I think we might have something else. I think we might have something. And I think there's another one in this spreadsheet as well. I'm looking at Pravega, Jess, I remember you did that, you deleted it. Yeah, Pravega is a little bit, it's a little bit, yeah, there's some overlap. It's a spark-ish thing. So it's in that kind of space. Yeah, maybe it would be nice to do the analysis of all the sandbox projects that we have to see what belongs in the space. But yeah, I don't think we should stop Wyn Yard from applying just because it overlaps with other foundations. All right, should we do votes for Wyn Yard? Okay. And moving back again to the project formerly known as SSVM, which is now wasn't edge runtime. That is a mouthful. Is it going to just end up being called wasn't edge? Or were? Yeah, W13-y. Wet. I mean, I guess we can't really comment too much on the aesthetics of the name. And we did talk about this last time, if I recall, and I think it was really that kind of separation of the project from its parent company that we were concerned about and the name being a very key element of that. So Chris, when you spoke to them about it, did that kind of highlight any? They were open to the change. They get it. They understand the kind of concern of trademarks and overlap between company name, project name and product. So they were cool. They were reasonable to work with. It doesn't really have that many dependencies too. So it's fairly, fairly lightweight. Any other comments or concerns before we start on a date? No concern. W13-y smiley face. Yeah, I think it's fine. Okay. Moving on to Chaos Blade next. I think we need a Sig Alibaba. Alibaba if he's super active. Yeah. I was wondering if we need a Sig Chaos and Sam, because Sam already has like three, and that's three more hair. So I think we'll have six Chaos Sandbox projects. We did say it was going to be an area of a high-profile area. I actually reached out to the Chaos Blade team at Will. It's not my team, of course. It's another team. But I think the interesting part is Chaos Blade is a new thing because it is trying to create a control plan for Chaos tools. So if you look at their presentation, they have integration with the existing Chaos Mesh and Litmase project. So they are building a control plan for all of these Chaos Blade and Chaos tools. They have dashboards so you can see what's happening with Chaos systems. I think that is a new idea actually. Of course, they also have their own Chaos tool and they all, there is overlap. It's important, but I see they are doing some adding value in the Chaos engineering part. That's why also I agree that we should have some kind of working group for that maybe in the future. This will be very interesting field. More project will come. Yeah, I think it currently sort of sits on the runtime, but yeah, sick testing. There's an idea. We've got to start calling it tags. From next week, they're tags. Testing, testing, maybe testing and conformance. Something that would hold the test frameworks and conformance frameworks under it's umbrella. Maybe Amy could put on the TOC like agenda working document that we should talk about. New six, because it seems new tags. New tags. New tags, new tags. I think that's fine. Simply because it's been one of those things that we have talked about as something that should be rising and hasn't, but focus. We only have a few minutes in here. All right, thanks for chaos blade. The next one on the list is yet another reverse proxy. I think this is the first dot net project to submit to this. Yeah. Yeah. And I had to actually go and look up the fact that apparently dot net is in a foundation and. It's a large community, surprisingly. I didn't just looking at it now. Do we think it's sufficiently diverse community? Not kind of entirely. It's 48 contributors. I don't know if they're where they will come from. Any comments or they don't actually have. I can't see in there. Am I looking in the wrong place, but I can't see in there. Repo, I can't see like an owners or. Maintainers. I don't know if you've ever seen anything like that. I'm just a kind of question. Is it entirely obvious from. The description. Whether it's whether we. You'd counter as cloud native. I mean, it's just says it's a reverse proxy, which is. They're just working on, on, on their community. Singers controller, I believe. But then I don't quite understand like what would be their from, from other ingress controllers in the space. Based on the, based on the YouTube presentation. Yeah. The other one was in the read me itself. It says we expect your to ship as a library and a project complex. So basically the idea is other people would include the, in their applications, I guess. Yeah, that is, that is what present. I watched their YouTube presentation, something that you included as a library. And then you can see how it's useful for C sharp projects, but once it becomes like a Kubernetes micro service. I don't quite understand like what makes them. Unique and different from, from other ingress controllers. Hmm. Okay. Chris saying that also have to change the license from MIT to a patch. I imagine that's not a huge. No, there's a Microsoft CLA. So it'll be fairly easy for them to do so. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. How does the library. How many people have.net experience here? I think this is the thing. I mean, if you look at that, why do they want to contribute for their point C is we think yarp shows.net as a capable platform for building cloud native acts and infrastructure to run on both windows and Linux. And they want to get more exposure to a wider ecosystem of customers and contributors beyond the.net ecosystem. I sort of feel like I would. I think the way that they're doing this is really, really important to. I'm wanting to. Yeah. It just feels like a very separate community to me. But they do have a very large ecosystem around. I personally think it we should consider. Have something from the. The ecosystem. It's super large. And it's growing very fast. It's more like alternative world. We barely have any connection with. If you have something from that community, it may actually, be a little bit more. I think it's a little bit more. Project in that field. And that is my personal consideration, but I'm not sure what is this project. I'm not sure the position of this project in the. The ecosystem. Maybe it's just a small tour. It's already a. You know, right. Technology. I'm not sure about that because I'm not expert in this field. But I personally think that. It's something that we want to. Keep eye on and have some connection with them. Yeah, I don't, I don't sort of feel anti.net per se. It just feels. I don't know whether whether this is. A good fit with CNCF or whether that should be a. You know, is it, is it basically just a.net library that should be part of some bigger ecosystem of the libraries. Right. Right. We need to look at what is really trying to start. I mean, I think that, yeah, I mean a reverse proxy is. Great, but I'm not sure I would count it as a native. I think they have, they seem to have. Aspirations to have closed that ties with Kubernetes. But they're currently all aspirational rather than. Real as my concern is that. It's. I mean, like I, I'm not sure that. Like engine X per se is a cloud native project, even though it's used in quite a lot of environments for the same, you know, as a reverse proxy is like. It's not, it's not by itself. Got the characteristics, like it's not, not to say it's not useful in the context, but it's not. I've kind of. Doesn't seem fundamentally. Without doing something else, like envoy has done and become it and. Have the kind of. Program model and everything. Yeah. Do you have any other projects that are libraries? Yes, I'd say we, I mean, primarily libraries, I guess, like distribution is primarily a library, although you can run as an application. And I'm sure there are others that primarily libraries. Although I feel like with distribution that, you know, it's. It's a giant piece of fundamental cloud native kind of. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. But, but it is kind of architect is architected to be used as a library. All right. Do we want to. Vote on this one. Do we want to suggest that they go back to that foundation? Do we want to. What information would you need from them to make a decision? I guess there's one way to. Think about it. Also, we need some information about what is this project. How is project a lot of the same safe region. That is a common question I have because of course I think. I don't have enough experience to look into the project deeply. So I think to have some input of feedback from their folks will be really helpful. I think we can send them to signal. Seems reasonable. Okay. And what we're saying we're, we're asking SIG network for their opinion on whether this is a specifically cloud native. Solution and whether. It's offering something. That are existing kind of. That are existing kind of. That are existing kind of. That are existing kind of. That are existing kind of. Projects don't already offer. Above and beyond being. Yeah. I mean, what I like to know is how it relates, you know, differs. Differentiates with envoy. H a proxy engine X. That's which is. Those are the similar projects. Just, just at least have some besides the fact that it. It's written in C shop. Yeah. I'm sure they, they, I mean, given it's so modern. It's a little bit, a little bit different. I think that's the design decisions I think it would be good to know that. Yeah. All right. Moving on to Cuban Vaders. Question from AV presentation to SIG network to review. Is this cloud native and how is this different from existing CSF project? Yes. I think that sounds good. Perfect. We can move on. Cuban Vedas. Which I think is basically written by one person. of why do you want to come to the CNCF? I think it's a great community and I'd like to be part of it. That is actually a good reason. I don't know if I can add some value to the existing landscape. It's something fun. It's fun. Is it going to, I mean, is it a serious, I kind of like it in a way, you know, I love it as a kind of demo or something, you know, that's who doesn't like having space invaders in a project. But is it, I guess, two things, is this going to be a seriously useful contribution to the cloud native community? And the second thing is, is this potentially opening the floodgates to a absolute boatload of kind of demo fun projects that? I'd also kind of, I mean, we turned down a bunch of projects of this kind of maturity and number of contributors last time because they were just too young. It's not had a lot of contributions. And I'd say that from our experience with Docker, we had things that were fun projects like the Docker Minecraft thing that were great fun and great demos, but they didn't attract contributors in the long term because it's not clear what you can do so much for a fun project. Like what the kind of scope of what it should be is compared to a more useful project. So I kind of feel a bit concerned about how many contributors it would actually attract, given it doesn't have any kind of non-trivial number of commit people contributing now. All the commits are done like directly to master, not through the PRs. So it's like, yeah, just one person pushing code to master. And it would also be nice to kind of like see how they differentiate themselves from other key projects in the sandbox. Like what extra do they add? They add space invaders, don't they? They add a cool name. They add more to the cares. Yeah. Yeah. Do we need to vote on this one or are we going to say, thank you, but we, I hate voting no on things. It's like a policy of like no demo software. Simple. Yeah. They trigger looking for other ones like there's one called Wacapod as well. There's a couple of other fun projects like this. Yeah. Yeah. I think fun though they are and much so we love them, love to, you know, I think actually pulling them into the, into the CNCF is not the right, not the right decision. No, Kubernetes. I was actually dims. There's no place for like demo projects and Kubernetes. I guess that was the incubator is just a much, much of random stuff there for a while and that's been killed off. Right. Okay. And the next one is. Okay, got it. All right. Should we move on to Q plus? I think I had a comment on this one as well. I think this is just one developer as well. I recall it. Yeah. It's, I mean it does have 295 stars, which is something, but it's a very, very small set of contributors. Yeah. I mean, given what it's trying to do, I think you'd kind of expect. Some contributors who were kind of. I mean, you know, I think we had a lot of software vendors and things to. At this point in it. I mean, I think at the point when we've wanted to, we'd be interested in it would be because there were people actually using it. To shape applications, which is not clear that there are at the moment. Agreed. And it's been, I think it looks like it was started a couple of years ago. So it's had quite a lot of time to, to pull. Yeah. And I feel like maybe it just doesn't quite meet the. Community interest bar. Anyone want to comment further or should we move on? All right. So the next one is service mesh performance and there's also meshery. And I feel like maybe we should talk about both of those at the same time. Because they're both kind of. Well, service mesh performance is. Figuring out how to test service mesh performances and it's coming out of the SIG network. Service mesh working group. Meshery is. Conformance testing tool. I believe that the SMI project has just. I mean, it's all kind of tied up with Lee. Calco and, you know, the roles that he's playing in these different. Groups, but I think Meshery is. Now adopted by SMI as the conformance testing tool. I am all for conformance testing tools that kind of. Establish whether or not something is, you know, like the way that Kubernetes has Kubernetes conformance tests and then we know that a distribution of Kubernetes is. Really Kubernetes. This seems like a really good thing. But I just want when we were talking to. So Dave and I had a SIG network liaison meeting with Lee earlier today. I feel like there's. Scope for getting alignment between the SMI. This SMP and Meshery. So that we can say, you know, as a CNCF this is. Kind of how we go about understanding whether something is a service mesh or what capabilities a service mesh has and what performance characteristics it has. So sort of feel like this. We might want to accept or reject these projects separately, but I think. There is also. A kind of bigger. Consideration of whether we want to try and get these three projects to align a bit more. How many. SMP itself is a specification. And the Meshery is an implementation of the specification. The way I read it before. Meshery isn't. Test framework as I understand it to test. Whether or not a service mesh. Meets that. SMI specification. And what it tests is basically what is in the spec, which is SMI. It says here it's both a canonical implementation of SMP and a conformance tool for SMI. Yeah, I got the impression that Meshery is kind of more than. It's like a combination of all of that. It's almost wants to be like a control plane for service meshes. So it's like a control plane for your control plane. It lets you deploy multiple ones and do these tests and measure their performance and all of that. My question is. Do we need to do both at the same time? I think that's part of the question, isn't it? Is like, well, are these things truly independent? I mean, we do have. A precedent for things like notary and tough. Notary being the implementation of tough and they were treated separately. But this feels slightly different to me because it isn't the. Like we were just saying, it isn't the implementation of the interface. It's the way you conformance test the interface. So yeah, it also is the canonical implementation for SMP, which generally we've put a canonical implementation with the spec project. So tough has a canonical reference implementation and some of the other ones do I think so I would have thought that from that point of view, measuring an SM should be with SMP, but then when it's also the conformance tool for SMI, I think it should be with SMI. So I would tend to think that all three. We should ask SMI if they would want to adopt. Measuring and or SMP. First. Yeah, I think I lean to the same. Conclusion. I mean, I don't have any doubt that they're, you know, cloud native projects and they should somehow be inside the CNCF, but I'm not sure they, they, not sure it makes sense for them to be three separate things. Yeah. I think it should be two or one things probably. Turn to lean towards one. At the very least, I think we need sign off from the existing SMI folks that they like this idea and they want to. Like welcome this group to what they are doing together. Right. Yeah. And I think there's quite a lot of overlap between them and, and you know, there is a blog post from Lee on the SMI blog post talking about measuring. So. He's wearing multiple hats. Right. Yeah. I'd like to kind of see it all aligned a bit, you know, and a bit clearer. Yeah. So I don't know whether that means we need to take a vote or whether we just say, please work to try and turn these all into one thing, ideally under SMI. Well, I think we should. Yeah. We should ask if that makes sense. Or another alignment of them as. As one, these two as one project or something. I mean, I think we should definitely get an opinion from SMI. And a kind of set of options that we could pick from. Yeah, makes sense. I'm supposed to be on, on another thing. So if I drop off. There are several. We'll still have quarrelment. It's fine. Yes. Okay. I will, I'm going to move on. I'm going to drop in quickly what I think my votes would be for the other things. If that makes sense. Or actually is there anything I was worried about? We have. You know, just go ahead without me. All right. He's awesome. It's awesome. Oh, no, I do have a, there was some, there's some issue about dependency in Pixie. Yeah. Yes. No, I know for Pixie. It is not clear to me whether this is just the client parts and whether they're also. So it's essentially. You know, observability using ebpf to collect. Metrics and observability data, which is awesome. But it's not clear to me whether this is just the client stuff and it's dependent on a. Server. You know, component that may not be included. That wasn't clear to me. Okay. So that makes sense. They make presentation to six. And if not, shall we ask them to. Would it help us to understand the project better? Yeah. From my perspective, yeah. That would be a good idea actually. It's pretty cool, but it would be interesting to understand how it. How the components really fit. All right. I really, really need to drop off. Sorry. Take care everyone. All right. I am marking Pixie as the presentation requested so we can move back to fluid. Floor is open and fluid. Yeah, this was the other big data one. So. It's an academia project as well. And it seems to be pretty active. A lot of contributors. Yeah. Has a lot of. A lot of contributors. Yeah. It's definitely a collaboration to Alina. I remember talking to the person who submitted this. Proposal. I know him from IBM days. And it looks like they are doing it. Because they are facing some issues. And they came up with the solution. So. There are other end users with similar requirements. Yeah. The one thing that I couldn't figure out here was like, which SIG would it fall under? Like we were talking before other than that. I'm a plus one for this. Would this idea of machine learning one cover also. Like data analytics. Yeah, I think so. I think we just want to. Cause then this would be a good. If there was one question I had here, it would be like, you know, they are using Alexio which is not really CNCF. So if they, they, if they need Alexio and can't be replaced, you know, how much of a, if Alexio changes license and what happens to us, right? That's the thing that I can think of right now, given all the AGPL stuff going on. The risk for a lot of projects. I wouldn't hold it against them. No. We've already got the issue with Grafana. No, I spoke with them this morning. It was lovely. Call for a vote on this then. Yeah. All right. Our next one is Submariner. It's a rancher project or I'm confusing it with something else. It's a very big flag back yesterday. When I looked at it. Yeah. It was, I think now we have more red hat, much more red hat folks work. Yeah. Yeah. It did. And then it kind of evolved. Okay, cool. So, so the good thing is we have a community. That's good. Yeah, it seems pretty active. I like the fact that there is a good interaction with the. Cluster, so I'm happy with that. I agree. I think they've been very good about taking. In kind of requirements and driving it from that perspective to. To support multi clusters. And not just networking per se. All for a wood then. All right, the vote is open. And our very last one is. I think I'm saying it right. Did we close on Pixie? Let's once it more. Okay. So we should just say we do a presentation. Yeah. Moving on. And what they're contributing. Yep. Andrea is from my employer. Thank you for the pronunciation correction. Appreciate it. How was it pronounced? I didn't hear the right one. I don't know. Come on. Do you have all the answers? Andrea. It's an open V switch thing. Okay. Yep. I think our next internal project should be a naming thing that just random generator of project names. They have a Slack channel on the Kubernetes Slack and. They seem to be recruiting folks to do like. Microsoft Windows stuff as well. They are looking at like telco use cases and things too. It's been around for a few years since 2019. And it's been around for a few years. To have got a lot of contributors. Time. The thing I like about this project is the leads are like. Deep into this. They don't have, they are not. Open source background. Like, you know, some of us. But they really want to do the right thing. And like, it's really good to see somebody who is putting in effort by like looking at other projects, what they do and trying to adopt it and things like that. So the only question I would have is like, how many of see my projects will we end up with, right? But given that some of the projects are not doing so well. That would be the thing to look at here. Yeah, I see this as mostly supporting a lot of telcos. Essentially that we use an open V switch as kind of primary use case. So helping them adopt cloud native. Technology. Yeah, I think it's good. It's a, you know, it's kind of a little bit like the cool OVM project, which I think we also admitted into sandbox. I like definitely like to see more experimentation around, you know, low level networking for Kubernetes. There hasn't been a whole lot of projects in that area. So even compare with storage. So that's, that's kind of good to see. We're actually going to have a whole bunch more. Kubernetes networking project projects than a while ago, fairly soon. We need a separate foundation. Call forward. All right, that wraps us up for the day. Unless anybody else has things they want to be able to put on the public recording for this.