 Hey guys. Hello. How's it going? I started typing and I was worried that I might, my audio thing didn't work. No, I just try to get myself organized. Was that Nikko was saying hello back there? Yep, good morning. Good morning. And I'm going to butcher your name, I apologize. Thiago? Thiago? Okay, maybe they walked away. So, Clemens, did you, I apologize, I was in phone calls, but did you get a chance to see anything from your side relative to the demo? Let me see. Okay, I'm still seeing failures. I don't know whether, I haven't had a chance to debug it yet, so I was hoping maybe it was on your side. Well, I can put it this way, do you actually see the incoming messages? Like until, yeah, I haven't looked at the logs for the stream logs for. Okay, hold on. They make sure, they make sure I have the right URL because I had to typo in it before, so. Yeah, what's the, Well, actually, no, it's what I sent you before, so. Yes, no. The, the, you have some artifact at the end of the URI? Oh, what the heck is that? I don't know where it comes from. Oh, you know what, I bet it is. Okay, hold on a minute. Let me see if getting rid of that fixes it. Yeah, I think I added it to the stuff that was there before. So what's the tail end of the URI supposed to be? Is it dash dash? Okay, I'm still getting a failure. What failure? Because I'm looking at the logs from here and it's, it's not, it's not ending up inside of my. Really? Okay, so if you're not even getting called. I'm just disturbing. Let me overfill it again so I can see. Let's go with a browser. Should I get a 400 or should I get something different? You should not. You should not get anything. Okay, well, okay, let's, let's take this offline. Something's obviously going wrong. Don't know what side we'll see. All right, let's see who else is on. Hi, Bert. Hello. Thiago, are you there yet or Thiago? I got a very full agenda today. Hi, Rachel. Hi. How's it going? Okay. Cool. And Victor. Oh, Victor, that might get in my. Victor, are you there yet? Yes, I am. Excellent. And what about Kristoff? I'm here. Hi. Hello. And I apologize. Hi. Hi. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, no, I can't. Excellent. Thank you. Which company are you with by the way? I'm sorry. Is this your first time on the call? Yes, this is my first time. I work with not strong. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. And welcome. Thank you. Hinds, are you there? Yes, I am here. Excellent. Thank you. All right. How about person, T H I a G O Thiago Thiago. I have to sync up with them later. Hope everybody had a good vacation, at least for the US folks. Although it is. It is all kind of a vacation when the US is on vacation. And everybody else gets to have less work, I assume, or less chatter. Or finally gets it done. There you go. Exactly. I think is convinced that it's like a mini vacation for her when I go on a business trip So I think it's the same kind of thing for you guys All right, Steve. Oh, are you there? Hello, everyone. Hello and ginger Hello, and what about the room? Yep, I'm here. Excellent Think I got everybody I assume most of you guys are gonna be at Koopcon, right? Yep Excellent, let's see Roberto. Are you there? Yeah, I'm here Good morning. Good morning. Someone else go flying by Good morning. This is John Mitchell John Mitchell. I should know your phone early now Yeah, there was someone else I saw hi, that's it Sonya welcome. Thank you Is this I can't I apologize is it this isn't your first time on the call is it it is my first time on the call Oh, it is excellent. What company are you with twist lock? Twist lock. Okay, cool. Thank you. Thanks For are you there? fraud Rachel you're on there twice Yeah, my internet went out so I do Okay, for art. Are you there? Yeah, I'm here representing Cathy also excellent. Okay Thank you. Yep, and what about Tiago Tiago th I a GO. Are you there? Yeah, I'm here. Okay, and which company you with by the way? I'm from I'm sorry. What was that again? Excellent Yes, like that. Yeah, excellent. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you All right, is there anybody on this thing? We'll give another 30 seconds or so to three past the hour. Mr. Curtis. See you there Jim. Yes, I'm here. Excellent We have a low attendance today that's unusual for us as soon as my clock flips over to three past what gets started I nail you there Neil or Klaus? Okay, we'll catch up with you guys later. All right Klaus Not a problem Neil you look off me for a sec Okay, say what we'll catch up later with these guys. Let's go and get started Do-do-do you've got a very full agenda. Let's see how much we can get through so Community time so this is a quick time for people who may not normally join the call to bring up any topics They'd like to Mention or have a short discussion on I Know a couple of new people Any other any new topics you want to bring up? All right in that case moving on Okay, SDK We did have a phone call yesterday our weekly call Good news. We now have a C sharp implementation. Thanks to Clemens and Microsoft For the most part you guys can look at the meeting minutes, which is in this link right here I think the only thing kind of worth mentioning is that From a versioning perspective and I sent that under about this last night We will not be versioning the SDKs at the same level as the spec themselves Meaning the SDKs will be able to change their version over as they see fit or as necessary The way people will then know what version of the SDK goes with which version of the cloud of inspect is by checking the documentation So we just need to make sure that the docs are up the data and all that stuff If you have any concerns about that, please go ahead and respond back to my note or join the weekly call But that was the decision that they made yesterday So just want to bring that up for you guys because I think everything else is pretty standard, but that was the only thing That's kind of exciting All right any questions on that All right, I don't see Kathy on the call and I don't believe anything's happened with the workflow stuff So I don't think there's anything to say there relative to kubecom As of right now, I don't think we have any new slides. We just have the Shanghai ones I was gonna take the action item to convert the slides over to the To the Seattle template that they have I assume they have a different template. I haven't checked yet But I assume it's out there. So I was gonna do that conversion But I what I really wanted to do though was to open the option up for anybody else on the call or part of the group itself If you would like to have a speaking role or you know do part of the presentation because we have an intro and a deep dive Please speak up and reach out to us offline I think the default is probably going to be that it's either gonna it's gonna be Clemens Kathy and myself Between the three of us handling the intro and deep dive like we did in Shanghai But that doesn't mean other people can't participate if they if they want to So, please just speak up and after the call just drop me a note and we'll figure out some way to get you in there If you do if you really do want to present and of course As soon as I do the conversion of the slides over to the new template I will make you make that available to you guys to look at to review and if you feel like there are any Changes you'd like to make about anything. Please speak up or go ahead and make comments in the presentation itself Okay Are there any questions or comments about that? All right. Cool. Thank you So the interop demo we are planning on doing showing this In Shanghai we showed it very briefly during the intro Whether it stays with the intro or we do it in a deep dive or a little bit of both We don't know yet. We don't need to talk to Clement and Kathy about that But the demo is still it is there. I think we have five or six different endpoints right now If you'd like your endpoint, I'm sorry if you'd like to put up an endpoint that included in that They look at the working back in this link right here under work There's you have Obviously until the day of to get your endpoint up there. It's not a very large endpoint relatively easy to do But there are you know, we the sooner you get up to the better so we can do some debugging if things do go wrong But you do have time to get it up there. The only thing worth mentioning from my point of view is as of right now The endpoint uses version 0.1 next I should fix that's not there's nobody in there. We're using 0.1 as the Version string for the spec version field and obviously that's not right. We're not doing 0.1 Everybody's doing the latest version of the spec, which is some undefined thing Well, we what I'd like to propose is that we switched to 0.2 Anticipation of us doing 0.2 in the relatively near future. Hopefully before kubecon But even if we slip it's I think 0.2 is more accurate than 0.1 because 0.1 is basically a flat out lie so what I'm proposing to the Demo guys that are working on it and I'm not hearing any pushback yet But I wanted to mention it to you guys so that you're aware of it and give you guys a chance to raise any concern About the fact that 0.2 will appear in the message flows that we demo at kubecon itself Okay, any questions or concerns about that? Or any questions about that you're not demo at all. Yes Just make the the version change soon so that we can make sure everything's working Yeah, I would yeah for those of you who are not in the demo slack gentle I was gonna make the change to the controller tonight So hopefully at some point during the evening if you change your function over to support the 0.2 Then everything should work by tomorrow morning, but I was gonna make the change tonight on my side Okay Yeah, the problem I ran into is that spec version is an invalid header in 0.1 Yeah, so we have to do it. We have to do it. It's it's really required Yep So like I said, I want to get out there tonight All right, cool. Let's move on to the more fun stuff the PRs. Okay, so let's see first up is Clemens Okay, would you like to quickly talk to this one Yeah, there were there were some Confirms raised in issue 185 but there was some some lack of clarity about how some of the data types work and how do you Deal with I'm trying to get some clarity in them. So first of all Making clear that either your eye reference and the type stamp are not just strings, but they are following a particular scheme and then I've also added some Explanatory text that says that you can defectively Infer either from the mapping table If you know so for instance for date for sorry for time You know that it's a date and even though it shows up as on the wire as a string You know that you have to do a conversion into a native type Whatever your SDK is the same is true for The URI reference and for instance in the in the CRC sharp SDK actually I surfaced that as a URI type and the daytime type So that's basically Explaining and that you use should use inference and then at the bottom I further clarify this if you find in the data in the data attribute you find a string but the data the string is a Is basing before encoded And you are not expecting something that's that's a text or it's it's a it's a content type that you don't understand then your effect is decoding that as Into binary from basic before if it's basic for And I believe that you're not changing semantics this is just clarifying what the intent was all along right? There's no There's no There's no change of rules here That's effectively and I'm for instance in implementing. So now that I've actually coded ones through the whole thing It's something that is is fairly automatic Okay, any questions or comments for Clemens all right not hearing any is there any objection to adopting this done or proving it Cool. I like easy ones. Cool. Thank you Clemens Rachel I believe yours is relatively easy as well. Give me a sec. All right Rachel you want to quickly talk to this one? this change this adds the media types that Jim day asked for when we accepted the program and Then you and then you pointed out that we were missing a must in the JSON format as well to say which type is that one? Yeah, I just have to even to be the same system Okay, any questions or comments on this one for Rachel? All right, any objection to approving that one Excellent. Thank you. Now Next one is from Jim. Unfortunately, I don't believe Jim is on the call. I mentioned to me. He wasn't gonna be able to make it today, but I believe This is just fixing the protobuf To align with the property change that went in last week as before camera when I guess two weeks ago Hopefully, this is more of a typo type change, but I want to give people a chance to look at it Anybody see any problem with these changes Rachel in particular? No, they seem good to me. Okay. Anybody else have any questions or comments on this one? Okay, any objection to approving this one? Excellent. Thank you guys. All right next this one's from me. So We've made a lot of really critical decisions as we've been developing this back and Some of them would could use some explanation in a non-normative document So for example in this particular case, I decided that it might be useful to add some Explanation about why we chose to do the extensions the way we did into the primer itself And so basically this PR just adds some additional text Mainly to the primer just explaining some of the reasons why we did what we did I All I tried to do was just to summarize the discussions we had in the past and explain it I then also Added a pointer to it Actually, I had a little bit of clarity saying extensions need to be placed as top-level things But they can be the extension themselves can be nested meaning they could be Structures not just single property kind of things just for clarity's sake and then add a pointer to the new primer checks This in no way changes any semantics whatsoever It's just my first pass is trying to allow people who are new to the group to understand why we did what we did And that's that's basically it obviously if there are additional changes later on people want to make this text We can make those but I just wanted to get an initial pass out there for people to understand the initial thinking I think that's been out there for a little bit of time. Are there any questions or comments on that? Okay, any objections or approving? Cool. Thank you guys What was this one this one's for me as well trying to remember what I was oh Yeah, this one actually was been open for a while originally I think Austin made a comment about How it'd be nice if people Use versions in some of our properties in particular which one was this in like for example the type People may want to put a version string in there the same way we expect them to do it on this scheme of URL And it was a relatively minor change, but then I think Clemens made a comment about how People need to be careful when they start changing that version string in there because it's gonna be viewed as a As a breaking change by consumers So I added some text to the primer to give some background on that thought and Clemens I think you said you reviewed this text and you're okay with it. Yeah Okay So hopefully people had a chance to look at that Are there any questions or comments about this one, I think it's been out there for at least a couple of days for review I don't think this makes any normative change whatsoever. It's just explanation text All right, any objection then to adopting this one? All right, cool. Thanks All right, so next one now this one I opened up today And I know like I said in the comments typically for non typo changes we want them to be out there for a little while I do actually kind of consider this to be a bit of a typo It's not quite a typo, but it's awfully awfully close. I Notice this morning while talking to Clemens that we never actually say in the spec What the exact string is to use for the spec version property in other words Is it zero point one? Is it v zero point one? Is it something different? We never actually say and this is actually very important So you get in our ability and the the demos and SDKs have all been assuming zero point one At least for the the current version of the spec So all I really want to do was to add this little bit of text here that says if you're going to be compliant to this version of The spec that you must use zero point one Obviously the minute we approve zero point two this will have to change with everything else in the spec relative to the version number But I thought it was important that we get this out there Because we never actually say what the version string looks like so hopefully you'll Accept the my apologies for this being a little bit bigger than a typo, but not much more Anybody have any questions or comments on this? Any objections to adopting it if you feel like if you like you want to wait a week I'm okay with that, but if no one has any concerns, I'd rather get it in there Okay, not any objections. Thank you guys very much. Whoops What did I do? All right, cool now. I sent out a note. I think a day or two ago Saying that we have three different issues that are right now officially tagged at zero point two But they're kind of in a holding pattern because the original authors have not gone back to us on the feedback that we've given them So rather than just closing it for lack of activity I'd rather give them a little more time to think about it or to respond back to us However, I don't want to I don't want that to actually block us from going to zero point two So I would like to do is propose that we move these out of the zero point two milestone I don't believe any of these are Breaking and obviously since we're not talking about a one point. Oh, we could always make changes as we go along Anyway, but I didn't want to make the decision unilaterally I wanted to give you guys a chance to say no you think some either of these three need to stay in zero point two So does anybody think any of these three must stay in zero point two? Okay? So we'll move those out. Thank you guys All right now for another fun one so Kevin I apologize camera Kevin's last name of Kevin way when He is proposing that we change spec version to cloud events version Let me just stop there and open the floor What do you guys think so I just dealt with that Yes as we had Because you were using in the sample in the in the in the demo you were using spec version with 0.1 and that combination is invalid Because we introduce spec versions after zero point one However, the way I've solved that in in the esteem. So the C sharp SDK now kind of works with with either And if it takes spec version it basically sets It's zero point two Even if it contains zero point one it basically overrides it Since we're since we're moving off a very experimental version and we want to land that spec version I have not really had any problems with doing the implementation in a way that it's tolerant of zero point one but then otherwise is Basically light with zero point two. So it doesn't there's no change necessary for for From my application perspective Right. I think he's asking a different question. I think he's basically says one This is a breaking change for people that adopted zero point one and obviously it is because it's a property name change But I believe also he's claiming that Spec version itself is not descriptive enough and he'd like it to switch back to cloud events version because it's more descriptive And I wanted to basically open the floor that people Say whether they think we should change it back change it to something else because I know version itself as a word is also been proposed So I'd like to hear I have the same opinion, but I don't have a good argument for it. I just think that's more descriptive Which is more descriptive the cloud events version. Okay, the more verbose one. Okay Yeah, this is Roberto so I we discussed this extensively when When we made the changes recently to remove event from all the prefixes and I think we should leave it at this I mean, we had opportunity to discuss it and I don't see a good reason to change it again to tell you the truth Yeah, and and so let me jump in here just from a procedural perspective I know we've never formally I don't think the governance back formally says this so maybe it should at some point is the idea reopening issues is obviously something it's always a possibility and In other groups that I've been in usually we only allow people to reopen issues when there's sort of new information to be presented That maybe wasn't considered before But simply reopening it because someone felt like we made the wrong choice without new information usually is frowned upon Um, I this may fall that category I'm not sure but I just wanted to mention that, you know, I don't think any of us wants to necessarily reopen this can of worms, but I Did want to at least give the opportunity Yeah, I just think this introduces churn into the spec unnecessarily. I mean this really doesn't have anything to our spec And I think it's just Unnecessary Okay, but I would argue. Okay, this back version itself is not see right word We are well potentially change it again in the future to versioning somebody else will read the question Okay, it's the back version is Not the right choice, right? Either way, give it away. This is Kevin. Yeah. Oh, you're oh hi Kevin Hi, cool. I just joined in yeah, sorry. I'm in office Yeah, so I would prefer either we take one step further to Use a version or we take one step back with a more descriptive for cloud events version Yeah, so take one step back definitely I have benefited on my side. I I don't have to Change my code But if we want to make it okay simpler and that's verbose then we should take a version instead of spec version Okay, thank you Kevin and thank you for joining the call appreciate that When we discussed this previously, I don't remember exactly, but I thought we left it open to possibly changing versions and someone was gonna make a Poor request to discuss that separately But I thought we decided definitely not to do cloud events I think this brings up some possible new information, but we did discuss that This will be a breaking change and we knew it'd be a breaking change And we accepted that because we're only at zero dot one So I don't know that it introduces much new information, but I do I thought we left it open Making it version instead of spec version Okay, I don't remember whether we did that or not you could be right. My memory is horrible It could have ended differently than what I remember But I thought at some point we discussed that right Okay, thank you Anybody else want to chime in here? Yeah, right here. So I also feel like either we keep it simple it just version or we keep it how it was earlier Like cloud events were done like a spec word and also doesn't look like very good name to me as well Okay, thank you Anybody else want to Hi, this is Vladimir. I prefer to leave it as is if you Consider from the point of view of the user. So they are looking into some events. They see a property This is a spec version. So they know that this relates to the version of the specification I understand that there might be some rework done on the side of who implemented 0.1 in code, but I feel we are so early in in our understanding and learning about events that change in this level at 0.1 We should not go with the legacy code as Being the foundation for the specification at such an early stage and I think over time Changes like this will become smaller and smaller and we'll have them less and less. So I prefer to leave it as is. I feel it is descriptive enough The version refers to the version of specification. So I feel there is no confusion there Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yep Anybody else want to chime in before I start picking up people to try to get them to speak up? Okay, I'm gonna take on Klaus Just because I like your name Klaus you have an opinion on this one Well, I also like spec version. I think I mean cloud events is already evident as it's either part of a map or Prefixed depending on the car on the transport but spec is somehow A bit more descriptive because there could be other things that would be version like the event type or whatever And this could create misunderstandings, but spec version is short and descriptive enough Okay Um, I have an idea of a proposal but before I put it out there. Is there anybody else that would like to say something? or voice an opinion Okay, so based upon what I'm hearing so far. It seems to me That the argument for going to or going back to cloud events version because of the breaking change is something that I think Not everybody but most people seem to not necessarily accept as a valid argument basically Saying hey, we're not at 1.0 yet The backwards credibility thing is just a fact of life. It's a it's a 0.1 So that that's not part of the argument is what I think I'm kind of hearing So I think the the question before us really comes down to Do we want the current spec version or do we want it to be just version? and I think that's really the question in front of us So I guess my question for the group is if you if you accept that as the as the real question is Do we want to basically open this door up to Have another vote. I think that's what it's probably going to come down to because I'm not hearing anybody give a a An argument that seems to be swaying one side or the other And I do kind of get the sense that maybe we are kind of 50 50 about whether it should be version Give that simpler versus spec version because yeah, it's simple, but it's still a little descriptive Both seem to be about 50 50 from what I'm hearing so far And I'm not quite sure how to resolve that other than to take some sort of vote at some point But to me we first need to ask the question of Do we want to reopen this at all because we did make a decision? And I don't want it as again the habit of reopening previous decisions But this is kind of a big one So I'd like to hear whether people think nope It's sort of an out of order thing and we should accept the decision until there's new information Hi, this is John Mitchell. Yeah, I think I agree with that I haven't heard anything to justify like reopening the whole discussion Yeah, I agree with that. This is Roberta I agree with Vickler Is there anybody who strongly feels like this is worthy of reopening of the discussion? Or they feel like there actually is new information either one of those, okay Um, I guess does that imply that our decision is we're going to leave it as is I don't want to force this on people because I know for example Kevin you feel strong enough to open up the issue in the pr And that who was it was it dan or no john Mitchell I think you've made it mentioned that we actually did leave the door open for this change in the future And I don't want us to feel like we're we're reneging on that on that promise But at some point we have to be able to as a group say yes, we're going to reopen this or not Does anybody feel like we're being hasty about this or they want to raise another point? I'm not quite sure how to go here other than Not sure where to go next with this other than to say is there any objection to not making this change If I don't want to force that on people It's at some point anybody who's making changes to attributes also needs to change all the SDKs Yes So you're saying there's going to be an uber pr that's going to hit like five different repos That's what the cost is right? I I just I just spend whatever five days Dealing with spec version and cloud events version and splitting those up and and snapping to the reality of this so That makes me revisit the code which means making that change at this point now has real cost yeah Yeah, that's what I was referring to when I said this just introduces unnecessary term Okay, so I'm not hearing any any huge objections um Kevin since you're on the call Are you okay with the decision to leave it as is? I know you're not thrilled with it because you open the pr but That's fine. Yeah, that that is a group decision. That's fine I just wanted to warn the group that in the future we should reduce such a break and change we At least Should have at least one thing stick with us So we can smooth them You know Maintain the forward and the backward Compatibility the good thing about the version zero two is that okay? You guys are now the Extensions as an envelope. So that means I can still keep using the cloud event version as an extension in my spec Yes, you can That's funny, but yes, you can we made we made two major changes here Uh in this version first of all everything is lowercase and second we Renew the majority of the property. So It's not just the version. It's it's it's mostly everything Okay, I think we I think we're circling around. This is it. I'm sorry. Go ahead Yeah, I also just want to like add a little bit to what kevin said because uh, we at oracle are Little bit early adapter for this and the problem is not like uh for us to change something It's like if we change it then all of our clients like we have multiple internal teams Which are going to use it. So if we change something all of them also have to change so the I agree that it's early phase. We should be like ready to accept changes But if we can kind of like minimize the breaking change, it will be like good for everybody Yep, I think everybody would hear that Yeah, I think I think what we're doing now with the sdk work And that we're actually writing code that's part of the project that will cause inertia in In elementary things like like attribute names, etc So I think that's fairly automatic because otherwise literally whoever makes that change He needs to go through all the code to make sure that it all works Yep Okay, so I think we're circling around the decision of Closing this pr and the associated issue with no action Is there any Objection to that Okay, thank you very much and thank you kevin for taking the time to open up the issue forever and Having or forcing us to have the discussion because it is a good discussion to have Um Okay, cool. Thank you very much All right So um according to my estimation, we have two other issues that are candidates for 0.2 milestone um This issue wanted to clarification around the jason section or the i'm sorry the um Did the jason data or the jason civilization of the data attribute? And clemens and the author went back and forth a little but since then The actual doc has been changed and there's some new text in there and according to clemens and I figured this It sounds like this actually new text removes the problem Because the the objection or the concern was around the use of the word object in the old text and that's no longer there As you can see by the text here So I think we can actually close this issue now. However, I before we actually close it. I'd like to wait for read To confirm that it actually is okay, but either way, I don't think this is necessarily a blocker because it is just a very minor change Um to the to the spec if we do it I don't think it's a blocker for two point though, but I wanted you guys to take a look at it and confirm that yes, it is not a blocker and or Did you take on whether we can actually close this? Any questions or comments on that? I guess to be more clear. I'm proposing that we close this with no action Once you get confirmation from the original author Okay, I'm not hearing any objection The last issue. I think we had was this person was suggesting that we have a Another transport for web push protocol um Since that time I've asked the person if they'd be interested in writing a pr I've also asked if someone else would like to volunteer to write it. I haven't heard anybody jump up and down saying yes um now I'm don't necessarily I'm not necessarily proposing that we close this with no action because it could be that people haven't had time to Look at it yet. However, like the other issues that have been sort of Stale for a while. Um, I want to move it out of the zero point two Bucket and that way it's not blocking us from looking at a zero point two milestone So is there any objection to moving this out of the zero point two? milestone With the assumption that we could always add it add in the transport later, obviously It's just not it's not it's just removing it from being a blocker I'm not a hundred percent sure of what I'm going to say right now, but Since this is just htp I believe that htp htp to push Is just using the normal htp's message semantics for Push which means it sends a normal htp message with headers and a An entity body, which means that is effectively already covered by our htp mapping because htp mapping maps at the level of rc 32 72 31 The htp2 maps that to a different wire protocol in its own spec But that's effectively what it does and I think that also covers htp to push The question there is whether we need to have a Spec that is An equivalent to our webhook spec And there I don't think it's more necessary than being specific about Not how to do an htp request with our without htp mapping. So I'm not sure that spec is actually necessary Okay, so it sounds like You're you might actually be advocating to close it with no action, which is a valid choice But but the more important question for me right now is you're then agreeing that it's not a blocker for zero point two If right, I certainly don't think so Right, okay So is there anybody on the call who thinks that this should be a blocker for zero point two? And we could save the discussion about whether it's a valid request at all for for another time Okay, not hearing any objection that I'd like to move it out of zero point two and we can have the discussion later And so clemens could you possibly put a comment in here? Basically restating what you just said And see what they're Okay, cool. Thank you Okay, so with that I believe we've actually addressed all of the Requirements for zero point two in terms of open issues. I think we have the main Known requests for For mandated properties. I know there are still some properties some optional properties that are under discussion But I think zero point two milestone just basically says, you know, try to nail down the the required ones We have this list of core protocols I'm not hearing anybody jump them down saying we have to have any brand new ones I mean, we have some things like rocket mq and by zero point two We don't have to decide to have it in or out We just have to have sort of an initial list of ones we want to consider and I think we have that list already So at this time what I'd like to do is to propose that We get everybody one week A review time and I guess I do could call it a voting period as well So one week to review all the current documentation. So that's The main spec itself all the transport specs and the primer With the goal of Within this one week people saying yes or no to approving it as a zero point two With the final deadline for the or the final Taleling of the vote happening on next week's call. So one week review slash voting period What do people think? Any concerns with hey in that direction before I formally ask the question Okay, any objection then to basically starting the one week review and voting period That means we should be able to get to assuming everybody approves it to zero point two in time for kubcon Which would be very exciting. Cool. Thank you very much And I will send a note to the knowing list to ask to for those people who cannot make the call to do the review And hi gem. I see you on the call. Thank you um, all right Moving forward Uh, we had a rocket mq transport binding. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah Go ahead. Um, can you close? 329, please Um, hold on wait because that's we had a we had a We had a uh Commit that we messed up jointly Oh, so this one's already been done. Um, it's done. It's just that we closed it because you and me we kind of messed And I think Yeah, you're being generous. I think I messed it up. But yeah, hold on That wasn't perfect enough for you to just easily work. Yeah, okay. Um Okay, I'll close it after the call, but I'll add a reference to the pr. So we want people understand why we closed it Okay, so Just remind myself Cool. Thank you, sir All right rocket mq so This person would like to add a rocket mq transport. All right, isn't there a pr that goes with this? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong one. Do I It is the pr All right, so this person is proposing a rocket mq transport binding What do people think about this? I think about that the exact same way. I think about it Patrick Polzler And that is rocket mq is choosing to have its own wire protocol for one project Well, the rest of the world tries really hard to either In the messaging world at least tries really hard to either go in a line of mqp or mqbt um Or kafka So that's the three big ones and rocket mq wants to do its own thing and My my argument keeps being That um, we're trying we should try not to bless Um project preparatory protocols Anybody else have a comment So have we not established a president's by Don't we have a gnats binding today? We do have a gnats binding. Yes So does that set a president for doing these sort of um Doris a custom I think there are multiple implementations. I think we had that discussion. There was there. There are multiple implementations of gnats Okay Yes, oh Let me just double check. He made some comments I'll make sure I'm remembering correctly Okay, yeah, he said he's been adopted by hundreds of companies He I don't think he says there are multiple implementations and if I hear you correctly clements I think that's your biggest concern is the multiple implementation aspect. Is that right? Yeah, it's it's effectively So so that's the that's my concern is Is in the messaging space There is conversions towards a single protocol, which is all great um and There's a few outliers and starting to um, you know, help the outliers I'm I'm not a fan of that But that's, you know, that's my that's that might be my my My stance or trying to you know, bring peace and harmony to messaging space Um, that might be my attitude there Um, and might not be the right one for this project, but I just don't believe we should go and um And help proprietary protocols to get blessing of interoperability projects Right, so I could so let's be very explicit then um Does rocket mq satisfied these two points? It does not Does anybody else have an opinion on that? I would just say that I thought of those as Being ordered together not added together So it would only need one of those and we can argue about that Let's point to either. Okay. I agree with you Rachel that it is an order So Cummins, you don't think it satisfies either one of those, right? No, it doesn't No, this is times. I agree. It it really doesn't satisfy either one of them Okay Does anybody on the call think that it satisfies either one of those? Okay So what I would recommend I'm sorry. Go ahead, Clemens. So so that said um, I want to have this I really want to have a debate with The open messaging project on how we can probably go and align things better And so it's not that I'm that I'm just categorically saying hey, we should shut the door in that entire effort because the open messaging proposal also came from I think from that same group of people So it's not that I want to you know, shut them out But it's I think I think we can do better in terms of our probability than then You know trying to push proprietary approaches so We have some immediate we have some initial discussions in our talk before our talk in china And I think it's well worth having a debate about how we can go and align both the open messaging effort and the rocket mq effort with You know the greater interoperability effort that efforts that exist um, and that's worth That's a discussion worth having and I realized that rocket mq and open messaging our efforts are coming out of china and there are You know communication barriers and For some folks also, you know time zone barriers, etc So we should go and have a have a conversation how we can go and align those things on standards Yeah, I think that'd be a good idea. I'm just trying to think Of the best way to move forward to actually make that happen because I think I think they'd be very open to the idea obviously Yeah, that was also my impression it's too sad This so by the rules that we've set it doesn't meet the bar And I think that needs to have a it needs to have it's a broader discussion needs to be had in terms of How we can go and align those how we can go and align those efforts. I would rather Frankly, I would rather have for rocket mq to go and snap to a protocol that everybody speaks And also open messaging to be something that kind of is a higher level api project That helps interoperability rather than kind of build another jms effectively right jms was built for um A world where everybody kept their product protocol proprietary And we should not you know promote that again. What we're doing here is real wiring rock And that's what we're aiming for and we should stay true to that so Okay, um, I'm wondering Whether it would make sense to reach out to these guys because I suspect at least some of them will probably be a kook on Um, clements, would you be open to me initiating a face-to-face conversation with these guys to try to to get that alignment that you're talking about? Yeah, I think that would be useful if we had that Okay, is there anything else on the call who would like to participate in that conversation? That way we can try to align schedules Okay, if you guys would actually Hi, it's okay. Hold on Hold on You guys can see what I'm typing Sorry there it was on mute. No, not a problem. Okay, so I'm seeing that and seeing that really from the dual dual hat perspective of both From the a B P oasis a PTC committee perspective as well as from here Okay, if there's somebody on the call Who would like to join the conversation? Um, just ping me offline. I'll I'll loop you into the chat But I'll I'll take the action to sort of reach out to those guys and see if they'll be a kook on and we have a conversation there um Okay, so relative to the pr itself It sounds like The action is to write back to them saying that the group does not believe it meets the minimum bar of one of those two requirements listed in the primer I mean in these two points I don't mind taking that action item to put that in there I'll leave the open. I'm sorry. I'll leave the pr open Just so they can reply back if they think that we're wrong and they can explain why he actually does meet one of those two bars But other than that unless they come back and convince us otherwise We'll eventually close it But I wanted to give them a chance to to reply back, but I'll take the action to let them know what our just current decision is Is that okay with everybody? Okay, cool. Thank you guys very much Okay, um what time we have left. Okay 12 minutes. So we have I was looking through the list of open issues or prs um There's a there's a couple that are outstanding that need updates. Um Um Rachel, do you know if thomas is going to have a chance to come back to this one? Or do you think he's looking for someone else to take ownership of it? I have not heard from him that it's on his reader. Okay Um Do you think he'd object if someone else took a took a pass at it? Probably not Okay, we'll see. Maybe I'll find somebody or try to find time myself to work on it. Okay Um, I think the other ones. I think this one's still being up or being discussed I think the this one is being discussed as well because it's related to that one um Now that we had these two prs from sara I believe there is open comments on there or or questions and I know sara's been busy with other things like the safe stuff But she hasn't replied back to us on those and I My general sense is I don't as I think these are necessarily needed And I commented on those both of those prs that we don't hear back. I was going to propose That they be Closed with no action and I haven't heard back from you from her any of the one of those So my proposal for the group here is to close these two prs here With no action. I would suggest that the idea like the proposal for more asynchronous participation Is about like those are about letting us vote not in the meeting because it takes up so much time in the meeting when we have to vote So I think that's a good change. Has that change already been adopted? Like do we now just like do voting asynchronously? We do we allow for we do allow for asynchronous votes. Um I'm trying to honestly I can't remember if I have to go back and look at the governance doc, but I think for PR approval type votes, obviously we do those in calls that we did today For votes where it's a formal voting, but we didn't have a vote today. We didn't have no it's no you're right It's more it's more of what's the phrase i'm looking for. Um lazy consensus Yeah, kind of that kind of thing. It's just something like that. But yes, you're right for formal votes We do allow for a week long process So this is this is a proposal to say let's just vote like when we have to vote let's just vote like that so that it doesn't take up all of our time Yeah, I think it's a good change to make. Yeah, but I think we already have that in the governance. Like I will double check though Okay, if it's in the governance doc, I'm okay closing and if it's not the governance doc I would like for the like I would be willing to push these ahead because I just want like smoother. Yeah Okay, those like since we have a whole nine minutes See voting Um So that last bullet point seems to have it the voting process is that you comment on the pr Are a guess vote a no vote or an abstain. Yeah, so I think between these two things between the section right here. I think it's probably covered Okay Okay Sounds good. We can close those docs then. Okay, cool All right This would be my idea first we reach the end of the agenda. Are there any other topics people would like to bring up before I do final roll call Wow, cool. Okay. Um Neil I don't like I've heard you yet. Are you there? Hi, yep. I'm here. Excellent Dan Barker Yep, okay. I think I heard real hit uh dug m. Are you there? Here Excellent. Thank you. Uh, Fabio I'm here. Okay, Joe Sherman Excellent and I heard gem. Is there anybody on the roll call that I missed? I think I got everybody I got Vladimir All right In that case last chance any topics you guys would like to bring up. We have a whole eight minutes left Cool. Okay. And just remind me all Afterwards if you would I'm sorry. Say that again. Can you stay on the call for five minutes? Oh, yeah. Yeah, of course Okay, for everybody else just a quick reminder One week review period slash voting period for the specs itself to go to 0.2 Please look those over when you get a chance And um, with that, I think we're done. Thank you guys very much. Okay. Bye everybody. Thank you Yep. Thank you. Bye Thank you Not for secrets, but for debugging Oh, you want to do that? Okay. Well, tell you what because this is going to be recorded. I let's not annoy everybody else Let me send you a link. Let me send you a link to my private zoom and we'll hop on that. Yes, sir Okay. Talk to you over there. Bye everybody