 You are in the Zoom meeting now. There are one participants in the meeting. This meeting is being recorded. No, I'm good. You're all right. Okay. I'm trying to figure out how to also join up for it. Why don't you join us in the Zoom here and present that window up there? Just because we did that, then the audio goes through your computer and everyone has it in your computer, which is fine. Turn it up loud enough. Are we okay? Yeah, but also the video. So last time we had six people. Yeah, we'll put a video up there. I mean, if you want to be inside the video, then yeah, we don't get that camera. Yeah. But how do you have to hang out? You can actually get a remote video input by a hangout. I guess we can wait two minutes to see if other people come. I think we can probably get started. I don't, I don't have any. Agenda that I can think of. So I was just going to see if anyone had anything that they wanted to discuss. Yeah. Well, probably not, not worth forcing it if no one has anything. I guess we could wait another one or two minutes to see if anyone pops on, but I'm, I'm guessing not. Maybe we can have a meta conversation about how to actually create these agendas and like how to line stuff up. I mean, it's just very stuff on the agenda. Do we want to try to line up? Because sort of like interesting kind of things going on. Yeah, I mean, I think most of the time people use these calls for, you know, for people in the in the general community to hop on and and ask questions. So I guess part of it is maybe that we haven't done enough to actually publicize that these meetings take place. So I guess I could, because we can send reminders, you know, a couple of days before with the agenda doc to see if people want want to add something. I mean, it does seem in general, like most people are comfortable with the with the mailing list and with and with PRs and with get off and stuff like that, which is honestly better for me too. So I don't I don't know that I personally care that much if like no one hops on and asks a bunch of questions. But but you know, I'm also totally happy to answer them. Yeah, one thing that I actually sort of realized they would be useful would be to have a more public notion of what we tagged things for, you know, the next release. And that's, I think that's that's you do pretty conscientiously. But I feel that it's unclear to some people when certain features will arrive in between. So I think we put the API but not actually in front of SDS being the example. No, yeah, I mean, it's I I agree. I think that would be great. It's not super clear to me how to build a roadmap when Yeah, I mean it like that's that's that's the problem with this type of work, you know, it's I can I do try to pretty aggressively go through and prune what's what's in the next milestone, at least with what I think people are working on. But I mean, given that, at least for me, you know, I mean, I do control some resources here, but but they're only a fraction of what is what is applied. And then, you know, I don't have any control over what anyone else works on. So it's it's it's it's really hard to come up. I feel like with the roadmap that's that that's accurate. I think that people have committed to building certain things in certain timeframes, and some may be possible like, you know, as well as well I'll do SDS but not today but I'll make sure that happens it for the end of Q one or something like that. That would feel that like on an issue by Asian Beats is like if someone is like, oh, I really need SDS, then they generally ask. Yeah, the other the other problem to is and this is just my personal experience is I don't feel that in general and this is not an on by problem. This is an industry problem that people are very good at estimating of when things will actually arrive. So I mean, saying that something is going to happen in Q one, in my opinion, is almost meaningless. So it's I mean, like it might happen, but it also might. Let me give you an example where this has been useful to me. For example, looking at Basil, they made clear that on that 1.0. Before they come up, they're going to have C++ code coverage. I think that is unless they slip off badly on that and that do you something to notice? I'm not going to expect any time soon, but I should expect you by time we hit that sort of. You know, like SDS today, you could say, well, maybe let me arrive and avoid 5.0. You know, the only the only pushback that I would give to that and this is my personal opinion so you can take it with a with a grain of salt is. I feel that they're basically two types of open source. There's corporate driven open source and then there's basically community driven open source. And even though on boy has a ton of money being thrown into it, I would actually put it in the community driven open source model like there's not a corporate backer. Basil is corporate open source and and in the sense that it's being driven by by Google primarily. And there's plenty of other examples like that. So the only the only the only reason that I bring that up is that I feel like in corporate open source, like versions have much more meaning. Like people are saying, you know, it's like we're going to have a 1.0 and then it's going to do this and it's going to be a product or something like that. And I don't know, I just don't I just don't feel that we're that we're in that situation. That's that's like, oh, I'm in doing this. No, so I'm I'm not really pushing back in the sense that like I think having a roadmap is great part of the problem. And this is something that I that I struggle with is GitHub is not great for road mapping. Right. I mean, it's like you have it. I mean, it is kind of like you have milestones. But it's it's it's very hard to have a clear thing of what's going on. You know, if there is the best you can do, I mean, I'm trying to think like Istio has a roadmap. I believe they have a clear idea of what's going to go into the next version. I think Istio is corporate open source. So I mean, I just like it's Istio has program managers, Istio has like product managers, right? I mean, I just like we don't have those resources. So I'm not saying that this is not a good idea. Like we can have a doc and I would be more than happy to have a place where, you know, maybe it's Google Doc, maybe it's a spreadsheet. We can talk about what makes sense. And for high level features, we can drag and drop them into, you know, different releases depending on, you know, if we assume that releases are are every three months. And the people find that interesting. That's totally fine. Like that sounds great to me. I'm just worried that people are going to look at that. And then it's not going to get implemented. And then people are going to be like, what, well, you said it was on the roadmap. So I don't know. It just it just feels like it feels like it might it feel like it's useful, but it also might come back to bite us. That's all. Fair enough. Well, I mean, but but like I'm I'm for it. I mean, do you think that a doc or spreadsheet would be useful? Like, is that something that we should try? I mean, I guess, you know, I just again, just think with it with my API hat on. We were a lot of things have gone into the API's and then being tagged, not implemented high grades or draft status. And it's unclear really when they're actually going to happen. And that that's I mean, in terms of the actual docs that people see, we do a good job of hiding that stuff, which isn't really, you know, firmly. How much of that is stuff that we didn't just add? I mean, we could publish our track talents. I thought most of the things we added beyond existing on the API were each thing that. Yeah, I mean, there's we've in in the beginning of the proto's, I think it was a little, I don't want to say out of control, but people were just adding things that we might one day want to implement. I think we've actually done a pretty good job at this point of either telling people, like, you can add it when you're going to implement it so don't don't want it. And we've got not implemented high tag now so actually is a lot more clear what when things are not implemented. There are, I, as far as I know, and I could be wrong, there's nothing in the public docs now that is not hidden. That is not implemented. And, you know, if that's the case, I would I would love to know so that we can hide it. So I, you know, I tend to agree that like we could, but but here's the problem is that, you know, if we go and we make a spreadsheet like let's say let's say we do a spreadsheet that that seems like the most cheap way of doing a roadmap. And let's say that we arbitrarily say that releases are every three months, we could go to the not implemented high things and say, you know, it's going to get implemented in version 1.x. But then when no one does that, then we have to go through and like, like, okay, now it's in 1.x plus one. Yeah, I think it was a simple fitting is that is a schedule for the next release or is this going to happen some time in the indeterminate future. Okay. Right now with the isn't issue tagging. Yeah, maybe that's it. Yeah, so, so, okay, I mean, one, one way of doing it might be that might be scalable is how about this. This, this sounds like potentially a good idea. What if when someone adds something to proto and they put a not implemented hide in. What if we make them put a GitHub issue ID in there. So, so, so basically everything that is not implemented must have an issue that's tracking it so that when we're looking through the proto is they can just see like it's either in a milestone it's not in a milestone it's marked help wanted. I think that's a good compromise that that sounds like a good idea. And then we could actually search the proto's for, for GitHub issues, and like see if anything got you know forgot to get updated or forgot to get documented. I'm pushing back on adding things to be. Yeah, unless they are being implemented. Yes. Yes. So, so do we think that maybe that that might be a good idea to make people add a GitHub issue to the not implemented docs. Yep. Okay. So, initial we actually use both spreadsheets and GitHub issues. And we noticed that documents and spreadsheets tend to be quickly out of date. So what we've done lately is for roadmap, big roadmap items we open an issue and we market as epic. So this is a Zen Hub thing you mark an issue and as an epic and then you can add multiple sub issues to it or subtasks. Sometimes we use the milestone or releases and we just move the, the milestone when the, when the particular feature was not being implemented in the current release we were just like tag it to the nebulous feature or something. And the advantage is that we had people like sort of thumbs up on certain issues to see I really want this feature or commenting or adding use cases. So there is a benefit in having this in GitHub. How do you like Zen Hub? Is that, is that working out for you? Is that something that we should look into? I don't, we, it actually asked for your GitHub ID and I don't know if password it can read your GitHub history, but we've been using it. So it's a bit tricky. I don't want to recommend it in particular. Okay. But what I do want to recommend is having like tracking the features in GitHub so people can comment and add to them. Sometimes it's, they are hard to find in a spreadsheet, you know. Yeah, I mean, that's, that's my, that's my feeling also, which is why I've pushed back before on like spreadsheets or docs. So I think we can be better about going through and doing milestones and historically, you know, that's just something that I've done because I'm kind of OCD and I like things to be organized. So that's something that, you know, we can spread around more if other passionate OCD people like to keep things clean. If that is you, you can talk to me and put up that work. Okay. But I guess I do like the idea. So maybe we should put it in the data plane API style guide that basically when you mark something not implemented, it must have an associated issue. Does For about 10 minutes of hacking on Proto doc, you could also enforce that as the syntax there. I guess that's true. Actually, we could just make it also have a have a URL. Yeah. Well, you had the idea. So not it. I'll do it too much. Okay, cool. Yeah, that that sounds great. I mean, I think I think there's a there's a made a conversation here kind of about about releases. And I get asked this quite a bit by people. So historically for envoy, you know, most people I think that are running on boy are kind of stereotypical larger internet companies that tend to be used to doing continuous deployment roughly. So people are mostly running master. A lot of people are not comfortable with that. So I get a lot of questions around, you know, what is going to be in a numbered release or, you know, if bugs are found, are you going to do dot releases. And so far, mostly because we just don't have resources and at lift, we don't care at Google. I doubt you care. I mean, it's like most most larger companies don't care. We all tend to run master. There hasn't been resources for, you know, like maintaining dot releases and like doing doing those types of releases. So there's a larger long term question as to whether, you know, we need to do kind of more official release cadences where we do like release candidates. And then, you know, if a bug is of sufficient badness, we would do a dot release or something like that. And it's not that we couldn't do that today. It's just that, you know, that just requires yet more resources, which we don't have. So I'm just curious if anyone has any thoughts on that or, you know, if that's something that we want to think about in the future. Well, whether the distributions like various folks from like red hats and other distributions involved with the onboard community may make this kind of thing. Can we take that best practices and drive this. Yeah, I mean, I think we could. Well, I think so I think there's two things I think the best practices are pretty well known. It's more of a resourcing problem, just in the sense that, you know, I think we can build a policy like we could actually go through and we can do release candidate drops for some period of time and ask people to test and then we can do dot releases if there's bugs found, but File an open issue for this. And again, let the community debate it. Yeah, yeah, no, I think there isn't. I think there is an issue actually for doing for doing like dot releases and stuff like that. But I can I can look and track it. So I just want to throw it out there. I don't think it's something that we have to decide right now but that that is a that is a thing I've heard is that people are not necessarily comfortable running master and they want more official releases. But that's just not something that I personally have resources for. I think that over this year, just with the increasing usage. I wouldn't be surprised if Envoy starts getting a separate from Istio Envoy starts getting packaged by the by the distro vendors. And that might be a forcing function just in the sense that, you know, if it's being provided as part of Fedora, or a bunty or something like that, you know, they will likely force the the the versioning thing. There is significant amount of work in supporting multiple versions, especially when it comes to test infrastructure and all the rest. So, even in Istio, we have like a monthly release now we switch for a quarterly release to a monthly, but we do not plan to support all the intermediate versions, right, because if it keeps like forking and diverging, there is a there is a toll on the team. So we're going to support mostly like the latest or the two previous released versions, not everything. Right. And this also like it becomes an issue with who's using the version right and how critical is the bug that needs to be double committed in a particular version. So it's a whole machinery that becomes necessary when you move from using the master to having like supporting different versions. Don't take it lightly. It's just, you know, an advice. Yeah, I mean, you're, you're kind of listing out why why I don't want to do versions at all. But but yeah, it's something that I think we'll just have to track. And it might be that if people want, want versions, someone from the community might have to actually step up and basically do that work. We added a security policy not that long ago, right, which describes what would happen if you found the serious, you know, blowing on boy, and it does describe going back and doing things. Yeah, I mean, I guess the difference is that, you know, like when we when we ship 1.5, we found that there is a but so this is actually a great example. We found that there was a few bugs in terms of we weren't, you know, we weren't parsing the the proto schema correctly or there was a few cases of configs that basically weren't being cashed. And I think in historical kind of software practices, someone that was doing a shrink wrap software would have done a 1.5.1 basically with those couple of fixes and and we didn't because we don't have the resources to do that. So I bring that up just because I think there's, there's a difference between like a like a severe security bug, which I do think that we'd have to go back and basically patch. But, you know, and kind of like a random bug where you can just say, well, it's been fixed and faster. Is it also reasonable again if we end up with a couple big users who really won't release branches to ask them to contribute resources to do this. Yes. Yeah, I think that's I think that's totally reasonable. And I think that's in general the stance that I've taken so far, which is, you know, we, we are community driven, like in as much as I would love to provide everything, you know, that people want we're not running a business. So it's like can't really justify that. So I think if people want these things, I think someone's going to have to step up. And as was said before, doing doing release management, like if you look at what, you know, gRPC and what like protobuf does just as an example of like cutting our C's and like those kinds of things. It's a very non non trivial cost. So we would need someone to step up like an actual release manager to to go and do that. Cool. Anyone have anything else. Alright, so I think the concrete actions are going to be so we'll we'll do something in data plan API where features are not implemented will force people to put in a GitHub issue for tracking. I think that's great. I will set up some type of calendar reminder so that maybe like the Friday before the community meeting, we send out a reminder email and ask people to reply back with things that they might want to put on on the agenda, just so that we make sure that people are, you know, if there's things that people want to talk about to kind of remind them about it. Sorry, what's that? Once we have a maintainer rotation. Let's make that part of the maintainer rotation. Yes, of course. Yeah. And that's something that we can talk about offline. So hold on. I see Chris and chat. Chris is saying that we can ask people to do presentation with demos. So yeah, I agree. I think that would be fantastic. So maybe seeing if people in the community want to want to give a little talks or demo would be great. Or maybe even if they have something that they would like to hear talked about and then we can find someone who can figure out, you know, short demo presentation or whatever. Sure. Yeah, sounds great. Yeah, I think there are some topics that are that that generally confuse people. So maybe if we can get a list of of those are you know that's that's actually that's another possible thing is we could go through and actually make a list of kind of the most frequently asked questions or something like that. And then maybe, you know, sign someone up to do like a like a 10 minute talk on that or something. Cool. All right. Well, have a great day everyone. Bye.