 Hello. How you doing? Hold on one second. I'm trying to wrap some combos up so they can stop DMing me. Right. It's like everyone's trying to clear up things for the weekend or something. Yes, exactly. I think that's what's going on. They're just like, hey, how about this thing? Hey, how about this thing? Stop, please. Oh, that thing that I knew nothing about until just now. Oh, heaven. Thank you. I honestly think it's just going to be us today. That's cool. I'm with something low key. Yeah. Well, low key and recorded automatically on CNCF. So say hello to whoever. I'm always so curious, you know, so I like to drop Easter eggs sometimes and be like, hey, if you are listening, I'll give you some swag. She chops this up afterwards. Because we're, it should be not be, I kind of feel like we shouldn't be recording until we start 100% and Amy chops them up. I usually pick her afterwards and say, hey, there she is. I usually pick her afterwards like, hey, we had some tomfoolery conversation going on at the end there. She just chops that. Friends, how goes. Chatting away and we were like, I wonder who listens to this shit. Well, I can upload it and we'll find out. We're like, well, okay. So anyway, hello, Steven. Welcome to co-chairing. Welcome. We need like more votes on that. I'll check. Yeah, I think it's two more. Yeah, who do we, I cannot. Go get some votes too if we need, who do we need. I think it's like, Chef Brewer, Katie. I can, I'll pin Katie right now. So let's see what I wanted to talk about. Let me first get the freaking agenda tab out. It's in one of these 800 tabs. Boom. Lazy Lincoln it for you. Yes, thank you. One thing I want to talk about was the survey slash focus groups. And I say slash because no one wants to fill out a survey. So I'm thinking like what I, what I initially, what we initially thought was half accurate, which was a, nobody's going to fill out a survey and B, we're probably going to have to go to a lot of them. And, and whether that slack channels, like Amy saying, whether it's community meetings, like, I kind of like, for some of the projects, especially those who are like in incubation nearing graduation kind of things, we should probably show up to their community meetings, like, hello. Because right now we have one response to the survey. And we sent it to what hundreds of maintainers. And the other thing is I also think. I mean, and maybe Amy can correct me, but I also think people don't read that maintainers list. So, because I like, I talked to so many people and they were all like, what survey, what email, what do you talk and like, I talked to Amy about some of them, like, hey, like, well, the Kubernetes side, but like some of the other projects were just kind of like, what? I mean, that's hard to say as far as like the, if they're not reading email, how will you know? Yeah, yeah. So that's, they're not here, please raise your hand. I'm just like, hey, it's legitimately the problem of if you're not here, please raise your hand. And so that's why I'm suggesting being able to say the Slack channels are a little bit more active and probably a place to be able to put that up. Yeah, exactly. So I think that's what we should do because I keep people keep pinging me about like oddly enough about maintainer circle. And I'm like, hey, we have a Slack channel now. Did you see that email? And it's just like, oh, no, that's why it was just like, emails. Yeah. It's like, oh, and then that's when they like go in and like, look, obviously, it's just like, obviously signs of the time, but now, now joining the maintainer circle. Like just all. Yeah. So do you see it? So it, so it depends though, right? It's because the defining what a maintainer is and who ends up on the official CNCF maintainers list, right? There's like a, so Karen, it's possible that you're not even on that list. No, I can double check this one. But the thing is, like, if you're listed as an owner in the maintainers file, then you should be on the list. So granted, it doesn't always happen because like, this is kind of a manual process. You have to tell us that you've updated the maintainers list, but I think the bigger challenge here is really that like, we're not getting the reach for the maintainers that we thought we were getting. Yeah, no. Yeah. And I think it's like, and this is what I've discovered in Kubernetes. There's just this like black hole between CNCF and everybody else in Kubernetes. And it's like, that's why I keep like running into, I'm like, what do you mean you didn't know about TOC election? Like y'all are in other CNCF projects, a lot of these cases. And it's just like, oh, I didn't know we could vote for that. I thought that was just TOC. And it's just like, we are doing a really bad job in this project of communicating the like CNCF stuff too. You know what I mean? Like that's that like trying to like figure out how to improve that like maintainer comms with like, what would be better. Like that's the way to do things. Like literally, it's like, you have to go like, let's make sure that everyone is aware of how they're doing, being aware of what they're doing. I mean, Get a leaderboard with response times. Yeah, I know, right? We should actually shout out Brigade somewhere. Like, thanks for filling out the survey. I don't know something like one of, one of 500. We can, we can hit the, the, the tweeters and all that good stuff too. Yeah. Oh, you know what too, I need to. The other thing is I need y'all because I've done a glance over. I need to get y'all to review the blog that Julie wrote. Julie with CNCF. And then what we can do is release that, release the crack in there. So that's one. And then. Hold on. Community meetings. I really want to go to the Prometheus one. That's just me because I've never been to a Prometheus community meeting. So I feel like it would be good to reach out to them regardless because I want to get a couple of their takes. Slack channels. So you'll see me in a couple of the community meetings because I just have never been anyway and I want to go. All right. So next week I'm going to get on the horn. We're going to get on the horn with some slack channels. Community meetings. Get the blog post up. So if y'all, let me hold on. Let me get the link to that too. It's in the contributor. So I'm going to get the link to that. And then I'm going to go to the strategy channel somewhere. Scrolling up. Hold on. Scroll, scroll. Scroll, scroll. Here it is. Nope. Not it. Well, we do kind of talk a lot. I didn't think we talked that much. Sorry. Sorry. I'm late. I closed my calendar tab and so wasn't paying attention. Yeah. Yeah. Oh yeah. I don't know if Amy hadn't pinged me, I would have been like 1115 and I would have been waiting. Did I have a meeting? I had a surprise meeting land on top of my account. I was like, Oh, this will be my slot to like prep for the contributor strategy meeting and someone's like, Hey, I need to pull you in on something. Happy almost Friday. Yeah. I mean, my other point was I'm getting the sense that people have already started taking the holiday. So yeah, exactly like this. So like, yes, I totally agree. We should work on being able to get like the word out a little bit more, but I think people just stopped looking at email and general anything right now. Oh, I'm not planning on doing it today. Okay. Yeah, I'm talking about next week. Yeah. And I mean, we released it. Over a week ago, like a week and a half ago. And still only have one response. So that's why I'm like, I think we should just go to the focus group, the focus group method at this point and ping people in. Slack. And just do it verbally. And I can't find the freaking link. I'm wondering if I have no idea. I'm searching for Julie. Josh, do you have it handy? It's the blog post that Julie wrote it like went away. Oh my. Oh, I never saw the blog post. It was, it was in the contributor strategy. Put on. Did she. Are you sure that it actually went out? No, it's she sent it to us to review. It's in your DMs as well as in the contributor strategy. Slack channel. Okay. Put on. Damn it. Yeah, I don't know where that actually, you know what? I know where it is because I actually was organized. Found it. It's an all it's actually. In the chat. Awesome. Thank you. And I'll link that to the doc as well. All right. So yeah, that's something we absolutely have to review. And if we could, let's try to review that today. And then we can tell Julie to pretty much. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Whatever time is appropriate next week, whatever best blog time. So yeah, if y'all could. And then we're pretty much done with the outreach portion. All right. You want to explicitly list out any, like. Projects to want to reach out to you. If you think that's good. Okay. I mean, I can obviously reach out to all of the projects I'm already jeoparding. Yeah. Yeah. And then maybe we'll see if that's like enough to get started or, I don't know. Yeah. We just need some data to get started. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Although. At this point, there are enough Americans on those projects that I'm going to want to wait until next week to reach out to them. Oh yeah. No, we're not doing any more reach outs. We're just saying that neck. This is us planning for next week's reach outs. Okay. So, um, Josh, you have the next item, which is governance doodle. Yeah. Um, well, so that's actually already been chosen. Um, all five people who responded are able to make 10 a.m. Pacific on Tuesdays. So that is the new meeting time. So, I mean, so here's the, the problem. Uh, did we, oh, there was an email out for it, right? Yes. Okay. Email went out of the list. I need to put an email in the list saying that's the new meeting time. So, I mean, one, one thing about it is like their last, I checked there, maybe like 17, 19 people on that list. Um, they're sending out a doodle and not getting enough people. Um, because like. The people who responded to the people who have actually shown up for governance meetings in the past, except for Terrence. So, so I say that to say. Are we limiting our scope to the people that have been showing up and not giving people who have, who would potentially want to show up to governance meeting and opportunity to the, I guess I'm more concerned with the people who have already contributed than the people who might contribute, but might not, if you follow me. I had a lot of people express interest and never show up for anything. Well, I totally feel that like if I'm, if I'm doodling, I'll prioritize the times that the maintainers chose, right? There are some project owners or something like that. All I'm saying is like, I think the scope, I think where we sent it is a little short. It's not enough people on those lists. Um, if they don't show up, if like, if it's still the same time and they don't show up, then fine, but, um, that's just, just a passerby thought. Suggestion. We let this hold through this summer. Um, and see what kind of frankly, attendance you get, Josh. And then in September, um, we can revisit. As far as like, if this time is actually working. Yeah, gives us like two months. Yeah, that's fine. Um, my, yeah, my only worry is that like, especially because there are not a lot of people on the main, on the, on the, um, Contribstrat mailing list right now. And we're talking about people not really reading their emails anyway. Um, are we, are we not giving ourselves an opportunity to have more people in that, that working group is what I was thinking about. That's why I'm like stressing our outreach. Like, and that's why I'm like, we actually, I'm going to have to like get face to face and people's like, like in their, in their project. What's up? Hi. Exactly. Like I was saying. Yeah. I'm like, Hey, how are you? Like we are here directly. Hello. Like, I really think that like, unfortunately, like, I don't like that. I do like it, but obviously not cause it's 50 projects and we're only so many humans. But life. Yeah. I mean, it's, I think it's convincing. I mean, the, you know, the, the hope is that the blog posts will do some of that. And, you know, our continued, um, Twittering and jumping around our respective projects will, we'll say like, Hey, come to this, right? Because we do want it to be, um, ideally it's more, um, it's more pole polling data than, um, than coming in and, and jumping from project to project. Right. People should eventually see this as a place to go for things. Um, as opposed to, as opposed to a place that will track you down. Cause that's not sustainable for us. Right. That's why I'm like, I, that's why I want to do that initial like, hello, you're, you may not see me here again. All right. Um, so what it's 10 a.m. Tuesday, I'm taking notes 10 a.m. Tuesday. Is it in bi-weekly Tuesday? Josh. Uh, yes. Okay. Yeah. Already on the calendars. Yeah. Starting with the next meeting on July 7th. Hey. All right. And then the next item on the agenda was a charter changes. It's not something we necessarily need to dive in deep here. Um, but I'm just, I just put it as an issue. Um, just so that we can remember some of this stuff. Cause right now our charter is pretty much the bootstrap charter. And we've pretty much graduated from most of those phases. So, and most of the road map that's in the charter is done. Um, So either. Making some other new roadmap or making it more full, making it more full charter now that we know a little bit more about what the hell's going on here. I think. Sorry about that. Um, I'm just not sure what's going on. I think the charter is mostly. Carolyn also wanted to bundle in the new chair change as well. So. If there's any other charter changes that y'all suggest. Are the chairs explicitly listed in the charter? Um, Cause I don't think they should be. Or it needs to be rather some gaps on that side as well as I of SOD listed as one of our TOC liaisons. We're not listed in the TOC repo at all. Well, rather we don't have our own page thing, right? We are listed on the readme, but not as a separate readme that I guess would link out to our repo or something. All right, yeah, we are, hold on. Yeah, we are in the charter. And I think the reason why we did that is because that's what the other CNCF projects do. Gotcha. What are your concerns with that? Yeah, I don't have super strong opinions. I think that just having one less place to change, like when we do a charter update in Kubernetes, say, like we don't look at updating chairs or include chairs in the charter. It's just, yeah, from an approval side, not having to look at chairs and just having them, if they're listed in one place, then we only have to update them in one place. It's more of a laziness factor than it is a charter specific factor. And I don't think I can share my screen. I'm gonna try right now. That's what my confused face is for. Let's try it. Nope, my MacBook's locked down. Sorry, MacBook, sorry. Sorry, security, privacy at Apple, sorry. All right, so I know I was just gonna do a quick boardwalk. Any other comments about charter, Josh? Do you feel like you have anything else that you want to do charter changes for outside of the roadmap-y stuff? No, not really. Since we found out that chairs actually have to be approved by the TOC, there's, it would be nice to have a line about that in the charter, so it's explicit, to say, hey, chairs are approved by the TOC. I mean, I know that's in the TOC documentation, but it's hard to find. Yeah, and further for the TOC documentation, what it mentions is an election to appoint chairs. Basically, it sounds like it reads for the instantiation of a SIG, not necessarily for its continuing operations. So I think we should help to clarify that too. Okay, I just put that in the issue. All right. So we'll get to charter changes next week as well. And then Amy, as far as charter changes go, once we've submitted the PR, TOC will need to vote on that too, correct? I'm not sure, I need to go back and look. Okay, I mean we're not- So I'll wait for the PR to come through, and then I'll work to be able to clarify this. Actually, this would be a lovely thing to be able to put into your Tuesday slides. Yeah. Yay. Yeah. So speaking of probably our most important point that is not on the agenda yet is that we have a meeting on Tuesday with the TOC, and we have to do the presentation for it. So- Thank you, Amy. One slide, you'll be fine. We're reminding us. Yeah, yeah, no, it's only one slide. One slide, you'll be fine. It's definitely not that too serious. So we need chair vote on there. We need do we do charter vote question marks? What else should we be updating with TOC on Monday? Or Tuesday? Next step is for whatever working groups we have spun up already. So mention, I think it's worth mentioning the new time for the governance sub-project, the that we're going forward. Yeah, that we're going to pump the blog at some point, the blog post at some point, and then also that the maintainer circle will be coming soon, DM. I've said that five times already. I'm not gonna lie. We're worth repeating. I mean, honestly, I think specifically for that one that trying to do outreach across, like we said it already, but trying to do outreach across multiple projects, we have to make sure that people are aware that we exist and can come to us. So we aren't doing consistently trying to reach across multiple projects. All right. Karen, did you go to the last? Oh God, is it already Friday? Contributor growth meeting. Did you? I had a, I think it was during like camp, I made it so it was complicated. Okay, have you been to any because I have not and that's why as I've had a time conflict. What's, what do y'all, tell me about what are y'all working on in there? Cause I want to add that to the TOC thing as well. Um, I think there's like templates. Yeah, for like, like contributor guides and. Okay, cool. Thank you. And then I think as of right now, we are reconsidering our meeting time. So I don't know if he's settled on it yet, but there's a schedule. Yeah. Time and calendar. Stop. No, I'm just kidding. And we'll write that. We're trying to get you to come. I just said templates coming along, contributor guide, each E to L. And then that we're also putting together a template repo, like some kind of boiler plate, contributor, boiler plate repo. Okay, cool. Um, and then Josh, what did you, outside of like the new governance sub time, a time, what did you want to update for governance? I, so next meeting we're going to be talking about the remaining sort of governance documentation, which is the main product of the governance WG that we need to do and trying to hammer that out so that people can get working on individual pieces of it. And the other thing is, this is important, the multi-organization requirement for graduated projects is going to be one of the main agenda topics at the next TOC meeting. So that's continued to be a major item of discussion. And it's going up to the TOC and when the TOC makes final decisions, it'll be our job to actually document those and then write advice to the projects on how to fulfill the requirement. So question, is there, is there project onboarding related things that you have listed already? Yeah, if, hold on, let me, let me paste the outline that I have currently as a Google doc. Okay. I say that because now becoming a maintainer of DEX and having that moving into the CNCF and doing the process right now. So it'd be good to kind of like look at it with beginner eyes. Yeah. And it would be lovely if you can actually, because like part of it is, basically I was thinking of, well, hold on, let me find the doc. Because I have it divided out into sort of two major divisions, right? There's the stuff around the requirements and then there's the stuff that's general governance advice aside from the requirements. And, sorry, Google docs. The, and, you know, and so one of the things I know that we have been sorely missing is a document that says, so you want to become a sandbox project. Here's all the things that you need and how to actually do them. Because I'm going through this with some of Red Hat Sandbox projects. Later in. And, if you need anything, we can talk about like the sandbox stuff, like, you know, on a future meeting with me. Yeah. Well, some of it, like, one of the sore points is roadmap because what is a roadmap depends on which TOC member you ask currently. So that's something that I think we're going to need to write out, take to the TOC, have the TOC approve it because there has been differences of opinion there and it has led to projects having to rewrite things several times. I look forward to you all fixing this. Yes. And I think we're going to come across a lot of those where we're going to need that feedback loop with the TOC where we do a, hey, this is what looks sensible to us based on the existing written requirements. Yeah, like, is this crazy? Yeah, can you please approve or revise this so that the projects have detailed written requirements and they're not guessing on what they need to provide because that's the situation right now. And totally agreed that it being confusing and having to rewrite it multiple times is not great. So for me, on the sandbox level, you know, what I'm thinking about is the first set of stuff that I'm thinking about is what's the baseline requirement for us to be considered to be in compliance as a sandbox CNCF project? Because there's like that stuff and then there's a whole bunch of other stuff, right? And then how do we start looking ahead? Like what does it look like to get out of the sandbox and into incubation, right? And then drawing. Yeah. Interesting to see what a project plan looks like for that across a generic project plan, I guess, right? Yeah, and I really do want to get the sense of an idea of sort of progressive maturity because for example, right now in the sandbox requirements, it says you must have governance documentation. But it doesn't really say what that consists of and then it doesn't add any requirements aside from multi-organizational for graduated. And I really think there should be a sort of progressive maturity here, right? Because I think for incubating projects, it should be a requirement of, hey, you just have to have some documentation for how governance actually works and that structure needs to be theoretically open. Whereas for graduated, there should be a lot more scaffolding for how people progress to governance roles. So yeah, so I think that one part of that because the meaning that I was in right before this is later Karen is around sustainability, right? Because we often are kind of running at standing up these projects and then have to get to the point where we have to pull back and look at the way we do certain things. And if that's sustainable, like if you think about the way we do reviews in GitHub or the way that box work and yada, yada, yada, right? And like how do we get people looking at that stuff earlier, right? So like for DEX, it's like, okay, well, I know we need a website. We don't have a website right now. I know that there are a hundred issues or something and a few pull requests in there that need to be triaged. Like how do we appropriately do triage? Like how do we make sure that a project as they're maturing all of the process isn't strictly on the maintainers, right? How do we build things in place to make sure that they don't have to be the only ones doing a certain? Yeah, well, and one of the things that already came up in last week's governance meeting was the suggestion and we'll propose this for graduated projects that at least at the graduated level, the project should have some kind of community manager. Whether that's a staff member assigned by one of the sponsorship companies or somebody from the community or something else, but there actually needs to be a community manager role at the level of graduated project because otherwise, even if the project's in great shape at the time that they're promoted to graduated, they're not necessarily gonna stay that way. Right, that's a good point, yeah. The, and that might lead to a CNCF program where if a project is too distributed among various sponsors for anybody to assign one staff member that maybe they pay the CNCF to have a community manager. But the, I think it's something that a lot of projects haven't really thought about. So that's, yeah, and I'll keep down. Because they're not used because they come from teams who are not used to having access to community managers. And so it's just not something they even think to ask for. Yeah, when you were saying that, it got me thinking about like what does a program for that look like? And then a program of those programs, right? So if there are program managers, community managers within each of those. And I mean, maybe this is exactly what we're talking about like with maintainer circle, right? But the idea that a bunch of community managers can get together, a bunch of program managers. And maybe they're the ones who coordinate giving updates to the CNCF based on project status or something, right? So like that's kind of how I'm operating for DeX right now, right? Yeah, I mean, it has to be staged because like sandbox projects as a rule are not gonna have community managers unless they're only in the sandbox because, I mean, there are some larger, better funded projects but I can tell you for a lot of the sandbox projects I deal with, like their total engineering staff is three people. And so they're just not gonna have a community manager person. Yeah, I mean, for me, it's really like bolstering. I would see like the first step bolstering maintainership, right? Providing means of, because there are lots of things to do on that list of onboarding for the CNCF but probably the biggest one is like, do we know who adopts our project today? And do we know like, because those are ideal opportunities to bring in maintainers, right? And do we know who'd be willing to be a maintainer? Do we know what's required? Because once you start getting to that larger project level, I mean, we deal with it in Kubernetes, right? The, you know, who's a reviewer? Who's a prover who can be that stuff? Do we understand a clear path to get to that point, right? So establishing that stuff early on is I think is really important. Each, I wanted to actually, I'm actually thinking about doing a manifesto. Ooh. My first one in my life. Hey. Like, and the funny thing is now that I'm not a goob, I'm like, ready to do the manifesto and goob is all about the manifesto. So I'm just like, life. It's all timing, right? You know, when it's right, it's right. All right, I also have officially wrangled in Karen to help out with maintainer circle too. I told her that one of my biggest problems right now is we have some of the content, we have the goals, we know what we wanna do. My blocker right now is that I don't want it to be another Zoom meeting. Like, but at the same time, like maybe our first one should just be like that to get us off the ground. But anyway, Karen's really good at helping out with, like, obviously like the camp cloud native, like just being a little bit more creative on the like meeting side. So I asked her. Nice in general. Yeah, I mean, like coordinating. Creative here because I can always run a Suborin Zoom meeting. Like I can do that right now and like whip us up an inclusive language Zoom meeting. But like me. No, I really, I really don't want. And I think I probably speak for a lot of people saying that like another meeting is not to play. Another meeting that doesn't like derive the right amount of values is not a good plan. I think that what I would like to see out of the maintainer circle is that you just, you feel it. Like you feel supported, right? And that doesn't need to be on a meeting. I don't think that trying to get all of our maintainers in a room on Zoom is going to be effective anyway, right? But I want you to feel that presence. Know that you have people that you can reach out to to bounce ideas off of. So I think that maybe even as the first start is getting more people on that mailing list, right? Because if it's only like 17 to 20 people right now, we can do better, right? We can, so that could be a first start. And if we're just picking ideas around on the mailing list to start, SIGARCH has an idea where the way they run their meetings is essentially you don't get onto the agenda unless you've discussed it on the mailing list first, right? And it's a little bit like, for SIG release, my meetings are a little bit more loosey-goosey. Freeform, there are a few top level agenda items, but we can talk about literally anything during those. But I do like on the architecture side, like you're forced to have a deep discussion about some of the stuff before we say, all right, let's bring it to a meeting and make a decision, right? So we could... Smaller groups, like under 20 people, and then they would just like fill up, but like, kind of like what we do for the chairs and tech leads where there's the same theme each month. Obviously there's gonna be different conversations based on the different people there, but we're all talking about similar things. So like for instance, July, if it wasn't July already, July we could do like 10 mini-maintainer circles on inclusive language, but we give them all the same materials and then we kind of somehow like combo all of that knowledge in like a place. And like obviously this is all like TVD, this is just in my head. But some kind of way for us to do this smaller chunk thing, because I like what you're saying, I don't want 100 people to show up to this Zoom meeting. And honestly, we could probably get over 50, honestly. Yeah, yeah, that's what I mean. Across all of these projects, like if we're actually pumping this stuff everywhere, yeah, we could end up with a bunch of people on these. So for me, ultimately, I would love to be able to, to this mini-maintainer thing, I would love to be able to like review a doc and then be like, okay, done. That's the aggregate of those 10 conversations or something, right? And then produce the larger, you know, the top level doc to say like, okay, well, this is our policy for that thing. So I mean, you look at naming and so for working group naming, which for people on the recording, that's just formed on the, for as one of the Kubernetes working groups that's dedicated towards, you know, determining what inclusive language looks like in the project and moving, moving towards eliminating some of the non-inclusive language that may be in the project today. The, we made a strategic choice to work with the people that we're working with right now. So the, you know, if you look at the makeup of the chair section, right? You've got, you've got representation from a contributor experience and docs as well as the COC or the COCC, Code of Conduct Committee. And, but also looking deeper at that, you've got representation on the LF and the CNCF level, right? So the idea with Celeste and Zach was to also work on doing this on the CNCF level. So that it's not just information that we produce as a project that can potentially be used for CNCF projects, but more so dog-fooding and information that can be used as a template to define policy on the CNCF level that is enforceable across all projects, right? So we're trying to think bigger there. So definitely getting maintainer ideas. I saw that Derek had mentioned, you know, Red Hat has a doc out about inclusive language. I think Google has one too. But like, yeah, getting everyone, getting everyone grouped together and figuring out how to do this as a team makes a lot of sense. All right. So I feel like a good goal for us would be to launch in August. It would have been really great to launch around KubeCon, but like, I don't, like, now we have- Which what? Well, I mean August, KubeCon, the Europe slash August. But we don't really have any- Yeah. How we could still do this without being on the schedule. Well, I think that, you know, as long as it's happening in the background and we're still pushing it, then it's fine. If we want to say that it's a post-KubeCon launch, I'm just trying to think of, like, from the perspective of people that might be working on something for KubeCon or pushing towards KubeCon, I don't want to add another task to their list. I know that, like, keynote prep is in the works for me and people are starting to, like, get their deadlines for recording talks for KubeCon. And, yeah, so I think a few things going on where we don't, we shouldn't necessarily add to people's plates, but I do think that it does give us an opportunity to get the message out. We just have to think about how to do that in a, I don't know, in a nice way. Yeah. I definitely want to take advantage of... Kind of a critical mass of a con. Could Nancy add something about the maintainer circle in her comms about the intros and stuff for the community groups? Yeah, probably. And, I mean, this could even be... Yeah, this could even be slipped into keynote as project updates or something like that, right? Just we've, we can, I think we can figure out a clever way to do it. Let's, let's chat more secretly later. All right. Well, did anybody else, anything else to talk about today? I mean, we definitely have at least a 10 minute update for TOC, so as long as we have 10 minutes, then we're fine. Oh, actually, I did want to say one thing, and I do need eyeballs on this one. This is about, I think, Q-Bedge. Okay. Folks pinged me, and where is it? I'm going back to my Slack. He's like, Q-Bedge, is that the right one? Am I saying the right one? There's too many cubes, y'all. Yeah, Q-Bedge. Yeah, Q-Bedge. I'm still waiting for Q-Bert to be a project. Yeah, Q-Bedge. Weekend week in training. I don't know what it'll do, but it should make a loud clunk whenever you shut it down. It's like, I could have sworn I'd turned my speakers off, and yet, Q-Bert. So they made references in their due diligence that the community is growing, and people pinged me and said, what do you think about this group? What do you think about their contributor strategy? And I have not read it. So, and then Josh, if you want to just take a brief look at their governance, we don't need to give some huge due diligence. We weren't asked for that. It was just a glance over kind of thing. I don't think we should give due diligence unless the TOC officially asks us for due diligence, but at the same time, I feel like we can say, hey, good job, or hey, why are you doing it this way? I would say we could, is a person a maintainer? Or they just passerby of Q-Bedge? Like what's the status? It was a passerby, and then it was somebody on TOC. It was a passerby TOC comment. It wasn't a, that's what I'm saying. And I told them specifically, hey, you should get TOC to tell us these things officially. So, this is not an official TOC ask. This is someone on TOC that was a little confused. Check it out. Yeah, I would love to see the doc. It would be cool if eventually we got to a place where, because for me, we're not TOC, but for me, I see this as almost like a presentation, right? Like, come to one of our meetings, like we block out some time, come to one of our meetings and check out, and talk to us a little bit about what you're doing. And maybe the folks in the room can get ideas, and maybe that becomes something, part of something official that we do. Right, and I think the concern that a lot of folks had in the beginning, what we were talking about when we were trying to form our charter, is that we didn't want to do it for a million projects, or that we just don't have the people yet for a million projects, kind of thing. Yeah, so staring at this really quickly, I mean, I think about this, I'm looking at this issue, and I'm looking at thinking about the way we do onboarding for like release managers or something, right? And they have an onboarding doc now for onboarding issue template, I think, for Sandbox projects and so on and so forth. But I want that to be a checkbox thing, right? Like what does consideration for incubation look like? Cause it's great to read stuff, but it's even better to be able to make the stuff that you're reading actionable. You're like, oh, we already did that, done, right? And it makes you feel like you're making progress across it. So let's see. Some of these graphs that they give are just like, who cares? Sorry, Cube Edge. And that's why I'm like, I don't know if that's TOC telling them that they need these certain graphs, but like, why wouldn't you care about commits per repo? I think they're strictly trying to show activity, right? Because one of the expectations is that there's consistent activity across time. But show that in 800 million different ways, though. You know what I mean? It's like... Well, but again, this is one of the problems with not having detailed written requirements. As in the TOC has said, you must show activity and they haven't said what specific metrics will fulfill that. And so the people who are proposing these just say, well, I'm going to give you a blizzard of every measure of activity we have and you can pick out what it is you want to see. Like, I don't want... Sorry, no, no, go for it. There you go. Okay, all right. I don't want a project to have to do that, right? Like we provide... Yeah, it should be, again, to Josh's point, like if you give me a requirement and you don't tell me exactly how to do it, I'm going to do one of two things. I'm going to ask you exactly to do it and if we don't have the time to do that, I'm going to bring you my interpretation of your ask, right? So one, to have a very clear ask about how to do these things or two, make it not even necessary for you to need to do those things, right? We have dev stats, right? That's dev, like what I'm seeing is a stripped down, stripped down JPEG of what could be that doesn't work for sandbox proposals though because those projects are not in dev stats yet. Gotcha. So are they not allowed to be in dev stats or are they not in dev stats? Well, for any project to be added to dev stats, that's a manual step by a CNCF staffer, so it's not going to happen until they are already accepted. Okay, so I mean, they are... But this is due diligence for Q-Bedges are already a CNCF project, right? Yeah, so if you're already a CNCF project, then that totally works. Anything sandbox on up should be already in dev stats. Right, right. So for sandbox and low, well, for pre-sandbox, right, then the requirement is whatever it is. It's much lower and I don't think we need to prove any contribution. What I'm saying is for a CNCF project, we should leverage the resources that we have. So if we ask people for contributions, it should be appointing someone to a dev stats dashboard. Well, honestly, we shouldn't even have to ask them to do anything, right? If dev stats is there, the SIG should already know that, right? Q-Bedges wants to review. I'm going to click on their dev stats. That's what I mean, yeah, yeah. This should not be work, additional work. Well, what I wanted to say too is like, honestly, they're interpreting this as this, right? Like, this meaning the CNCF requirements is this. And my thing is I'm kind of okay with that as long as they tell us why. Like, why is this chart important to you? Like, what is this showing me? It's almost like a, if you're going to give us a chart, then at least say, why is this important? Why is this impactful? Why is this, you know what I mean? Like kind of like, I mean, to be fair, if you look at the contributor commits thing immediately above it that says like, demonstrate a substantial ongoing flow of commits and merge contributions, and then they show the chart. So I mean, they are... I didn't see that one. I saw... And are you, you're looking at the DD doc? Yep, and I'm seeing... Go to page layer, go to page seven. Oh, I'm actually, I'm doing line by line. Hold on, I was just doing the rich diff. Wait, okay. So I was looking at QBedges general document. Oh, here it is. Got it. Yeah, like so it says, we are seeing a consistent stream of improvements and features from the maintainers in the community. Oh, sorry. You know what I'm looking at? I'm looking at, if you scroll to the bottom, there's a DD doc. Oh, yeah. I didn't see that one. Yeah. I thought this was, I actually thought this was an issue, not a PR, but the DD doc is stronger. Okay, yeah. See, I was looking at the line by line PR. That's why I was just... That's why I'm like, it would be, because like they kind of set it in their PR where it was like, yeah, look, this shows maintainer improvement. Yeah. But it's still kind of like, but what does that mean though? You know? So hold on, let me, I'm gonna read the DD right now. I mean, it's 14 pages. Oh, wow. So maybe not what we're waiting for. But I mean, the general idea is like, this is something that we can definitely take a look at and see if, you know, does this... I figure if they're doing a DD, it's because someone has looked over this and given them a template of some sort. Right. I think if you consider the, like submitting a sandbox proposal itself, right? And trying to figure out what you need to put in there. Like they give you an idea, but I think that what we initially wrote up for like DEX was kind of off the cuff, right? So yeah, short version, I agree. So... I feel dumb right now, I'm sorry. Hold on, that was probably not the right word I should use either. For this, the word dot, or if God, not word dot, the Google doc that I'm looking for right now. Is this the template that all the due diligence get? This is a template. I have a feeling because they've got, they've got like points, right? CNCF graduation criteria specifies point and then cube edge answer, right? Yeah. I didn't know if this was, I can ask her obviously, but I didn't know if this was like Elena's document. Like I didn't know if this is like a TOC document. That's what I was thinking. Well, it's being, it looks like it's being run by Elena as the... Yeah, so there's a general template, but a bunch of the SIGs have modified it for their individual SIG. Because for example, if it's a SIG networking review, there's a bunch of stuff they want to know about how it integrates with other network layers of cloud native networks that is not going to be present for other kinds of projects. Yeah, so look, they do that. Yeah, now I'm on the page. I think are you on the same page, the open governance is that where you were looking at? Yeah. And I was actually poking around their repo and honestly, I would green light them on governance based on looking at their repo. They have pretty clearly documented governance and from what I can see that has resulted in vendor independent running of the project. So, I mean, I could delve into it some more to see if there's sort of a hidden imbalance, but I don't know that's enough reason to block it. Yeah, I mean, this just... Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, so just the speed read of the DD, like, it looks pretty strong. Yeah. That's why I'm thinking that too. It might be nice for one of us to comment on the issue too and say that like... Looks dope. Like, it's not like we don't say, hey, this is some official thing, but we've just done a glance over and like, hey, that's actually a really good idea. Like, we'll say, hey, we've done a glance over, but if y'all wanna come and give us a little update or a presentation on what y'all are doing, that we would be totally down for that. You know what I mean? Kind of saying like, hey, we've done a glance over, but if you wanna come talk to us more about contributor strategy and or governance topics, we'd love to hear how y'all are running it. You know? I mean, I would love to do something almost more asynchronous, right? Like if we can... And not from the perspective of like, what can y'all present to us, but maybe even like, what can we do to help you, right? So our VP of engineering has a forever email that he sends, like there's a feedback form included, right at the bottom in his signature, right? And he's like, if you ever wanna chat with me, or you wanna submit anonymous feedback about how we're doing stuff, you can just submit it, right? So I think a feedback form could be interesting for like, what would you fix about this process, right? Are you having a good time trying to submit for incubation? Like where are the gaps, right? And then doing a comparison across multiple submitters, whether it's in the form of feedback, feedback, quick sheet or full-on survey, right? I ultimately, I just wanna make sure that we are, like do we need to pull them in for a presentation? I know I mentioned presentation earlier. No, I'm saying that as like an option to them of like, it doesn't need to be like, I'm saying like, hey, if you wanna come, give us like a presentation or if you wanna come talk to us or ask us a question, like just kind of opening the door of like, we're here and we wanna know more about you and if you wanna know more about us kind of thing. So just kind of like a friendly olive branch. But yeah, I mean, I'm looking at it. I don't, like I haven't seen one flag at all. And my, but my other thing is too, like, how do we really know though? Like obviously, you know, we've got, and we're like so close to time, I'm sorry. Like obviously we've got this block of things, like, hey, they've got 14 maintainers and yeah, we can go and look at that. But like, you really don't know about like, what's going on until you're like, legit in the project learning. Like, so like even on the Kubernetes side, sometimes it's hard to see like, oh, we've got blockers in certain areas and you don't necessarily see that from like a blurb of me talking about it, you know? And it's also like, it's also size overall too, right? Cause if you look at, you look at Kubernetes compared to like maybe any other project and the CNCF, right? It's like, we've got macro and micro issues, right? So if you touch something on the sub project level, if you touch something on the working group or SIG level, might be very different than your consideration if you were touching something as a steering member, right? Looking at how all of these things interconnect, right? You might not necessarily be doing that. So I think like someone's ingress point to your project is important too, right? And if the project is like a singular repo, then it's fairly easy to craft that experience, right? But for Kubernetes where we're like 200 repos or something, 200 plus repos maybe even, it's a little trickier to like, make sure that that's a good experience for everyone, assuming that they, if they don't have the right pointers to canonical docs like K-Community, right? Yep, sure or false? You know what? What? I don't think it's the case of not being open, but I'm actually looking at, because we have dev stats, that Q-Bedge definitely has an issue with being dominated by who away in terms of who's writing the actual code. Are we looking at commits or contributions? And also we, I don't think we need to get into this now or anything. Yeah.