 Hi this is Solomon. Hey Solomon. We'll get started in about five minutes. All right. Hey Alexis are you on? Hi Chris I can see you. Okay perfect I see Ben I see Camille trying to get people logged in here. Are any of the Brian's on Grant or Cantrell? Okay I got you Cantrell you're chopping up a little bit but I got you. All right we'll get started in a minute. Is Brian Grant, John Bull or Ken Owens on? I don't see them. We'll ping him really quick but we'll get started in a minute. All right let's let's get started. We have quorum with six out of nine folks attending. I'll kick it off to you Alexis. Hey everybody thanks Chris. So I'm just going to try and crack through the slides again. So going to the agenda slide we're mostly reviewing some votes here and talking about some working group stuff. On slide six in case you missed it Dan and Chris and the CNCF staff have produced an annual report which is essentially a shiny pictorial artifact with nice stats in it about cloud native computing foundation that is a good thing to share with people who might have heard that you're involved in the CNCF but don't quite know what it does. Go look at that. At the same time also the website is being updated go check that out. If you have feedback on the website please send it to Dan, Chris and Dee who is now owner of all the marketing for CNCF. Slide number seven we have now got our first graduated product project which is also the first project to join CNCF in March of last year at Kubernetes which is fantastic congratulations unanimous vote and I believe that Prometheus is next up for the graduation vote. Is that correct Chris? Sorry I missed that last sentence of yours. Confirming that you're expecting the next graduation though to be. Correct Prometheus will be up next I'll queue that up probably next next week. Okay so now I'm going to move on to slide number eight and I would like us to have a little bit of discussion around this slide please. So we have now run a vote because Chris is very keen as was I to get a quick response on the changes to the institution tier and there was some discussion about this in pull requests and on the list and there was also some discussion at the governing board meeting yesterday and I think that although I'm very happy that we have a document that has been voted through I feel that we still have a little bit of unfinished business to tidy this document up and I want to talk about that because I believe there are still some misconceptions out there. So first of all people are still fuzzy about what is the purpose of the sandbox and why it is called sandbox and I've heard a lot of different things about this including that sandbox the name is negative and that you know serious projects would not want to be in something called sandbox I have to say I find this very very very very surprising and weird but I don't think there was any malicious intent when the TOC really converged very quickly on the name sandbox during our call last time. For me it means an area where a range of different early stage projects can exist. We've had demands for collaboration venues from early stage projects that are just not ready for incubation however serious they may be in the long run. We've also got a Kubernetes incubator which has very similar conceptual framework around it which essentially is shutting down and we were hoping with Brian to have the CNTF sandbox be a place where Kubernetes incubated projects could live these could these could have been invented yesterday and literally just have had their GitHub repo created. The people building them might have a very well resourced and very serious intent to be successful but the projects are still just immature and we believe that other CNTF projects such as Prometheus, Envoy etc may want may wish to have experimental or more incubated components as well and the CNTF sandbox is supposed to be a catchall for all of these things and therefore serves a number of purposes. We also were worried that people would get confused as they did with inception about whether there was a difference between the inception and incubation stage. Some concerns were raised which I think were valid that very early projects were coming in at inception and then marketing as if they were incubated or graduated and we've tried to say some words about that in the document. The projects themselves may wish to market themselves just if they want to have CNTF support the CNTF is not going to make claims that they're production ready ahead of time pretty straightforwardly and it's going to reserve the most marketing budget for the more mature projects. On the point of marketing several people yesterday did not like the fact that this draft logo has a spade and is in a sand pit I agree that that is a little bit unclassy I would love to see that go but I do think that saying that you're in the cloud native sandbox should be a good thing and not seen as somehow that the project is amateurish. In terms of the language in the document I think the pull requests are very good. I think we still have a few more things that we need to say. I think we need to make it very clear that our belief is that these projects are proper projects they're just early and we may need to say a little bit about the purpose of the sandbox as an incubation area for other projects as well as for things that are early stage and independent. Also I think there was a concern which I understand around projects sprawl you know will the sandbox be a place where there are many projects that are somehow unworthy and will we maintain a high quality bar for new projects and I think the solution there is just to be very clear that the incubation bar is pretty high the sandbox projects are there to get into incubation when they are ready and not before and the you know the projects that do not succeed in the sandbox will be pruned out pretty pretty unsparingly. So I think those things need to be stated more clearly otherwise we will continue to have some confusion although I believe that the sandbox as is has already moved us forward from the inception stage which is kind of mini incubation. So with those things in mind I would like to ask people if they have any comments on that any major burning questions any violent objections does anybody want to hurl themselves in front of a train at this point because now is the time I'm worried that people will bottle up their concerns and we'll hear them in three months time. No strong concerns I'm wondering if the name is does the name have any like cultural implications that we may not understand or like is that where that feedback might be coming from a place where you know of that kind of area do you think or do you think it's just a a knit. I would like to speak with the person who I'm not going to name because it would be unfair to name them but who specifically I pointed out that for example I pointed out another open source project that has a sandbox concept for initial immature components and these were described as experimental and if you know the comment was well if it's experimental and it can't be serious and you know I just I think experimental scientists to work at universities and do you know CERN or or NASA would probably disagree with that statement I don't think experimental connotes a lack of seriousness at all but I do think that yeah you've got this kind of elision of concepts between early stage experimental and sandbox as a word which applies you know a separate segregated area and I think that may have you know raised a few hackles which wasn't intended at all yeah I'm one of the people just imply that also with the logo involved it it can be you know at the child sandbox where people play I wonder if that's I to agree that the logo isn't quite right sorry folks who created the logo so I suppose the name is stuck now I wonder if lab it might convey that there's like it's experimental but serious because labs are serious and expensive I like labs I didn't want to just do the person who started like I don't I don't want to be the guy that just come in and start like let's rename this but just as an open idea there I think sandbox just carries over from the Apache Foundation because that's what they call it but I I think labs definitely sounds more sophisticated than sandbox I'll throw myself into this once more one more time which is that I believe from I believe that the intent is a little different than the Apache sandbox and because it's different the reuse of the name is confusing but I'll I'll also again say like two two things come to mind with the word sandbox and one of them is children and the other is cats and I don't really think either of those is quite what we intend all good names are taken unfortunately I actually prefer labs as well but it's also different from the Apache labs because I don't imagine these would be as short of experiments as what seems to be implied there labs is good so I like sandbox the labs is fine it does imply kind of a more advanced kind of thinking as opposed to earlier thinking and there's I mean there is there is actually an important difference and we are trying to capture work that is actually potentially more immature and that's not merely work that is more experimental or work that is thought-leading but work that is that is actually just not that mature and if we want to include those we need to have a term that I think accurately has this connotations I personally like sandbox because of its makes connotations and I find it somewhat I'd be curious to know what projects think about it I'm I find that a little bit suspicious projects bridle at that tells me that they want to abuse or I'd be concerned that that would be an indicator that they are trying to abuse becoming a CNC project so I think labs is labs is fine too although labs to me is not perfect either anyone else surely we have people with opinions today there's 40 participants but let me let me respond to Brian's comment a little bit and just an area of sensitivity especially for larger companies where groups want to put some effort into something that really is a serious effort I think the sandbox probably does them in injustice with regards to explaining to folks in management about like the fact that they're doing something serious it could be experimental but serious and so again I'll take another another another moment to say sandbox just doesn't sound serious enough and honestly if we didn't order to use the term incubation would be pretty good for projects that are immature and we want to help them grow I don't know if we want to continue with that metaphor but yeah I just think there I'm not sure we'll find an ideal term I think we should move ahead with the concept and figure out the naming unfortunately I think the nomenclature really matters the nomenclature's a very in that I mean because we already had the concept to a degree with inception and that was it was the nomenclature that was causing confusion it wasn't just the nomenclature and we could actually you know put a bunch of these new rules in place and with the inception name and I think that would be a big improvement already but if we can settle on the name that's clearly better just as a point of process Chris could we could we do a new round of name this week I know it's a pain in the neck but I believe that people deserve to be heard there was a lot of the Q&A about different names being suggested last week I don't want to go down that road but you know several people have said that there are some should we say cultural connotations around sandbox and we should respect that I'm personally for the record completely happy with sandbox I think it's an awesome name but I you know don't want to feel like people have been sort of culturally antagonized especially cat owners but you know in all seriousness I'd be totally happy with labs I don't think we need to get wrapped down the axle in this but I do think we should resolve the name before we tell people this is a done deal and I don't think everybody's on this call so we probably need to put it onto the TOC list and I'm willing to have a numerical vote and just say by majority we'll go with what the majority votes for we could even open it up to members of the list I don't I don't really care as long as we have a limited number of names and people feel like they have a say and we respect the result and to be clear I think labs is also fine it might be a better name I think there's consensus that that's a better name we should change the name but I think we just we don't want a name that I think conveys more than what we're trying to convey and I think that nobody really does matter yeah yeah I mean I think you know there's there's two different groups of people who are worried about the naming and just to be clear one is people for whom the sandbox name itself has the cultural has some cultural connotation and two a smaller group of people for whom the very concept that there is a category in which projects might be deemed experimental is problematic and I just don't see how we can satisfy the need for bringing experimental projects into CNCF alongside other early projects without running running this risk I mean the alternative is to say to people well then you should just come in at incubation level but as we saw last year some projects just aren't ready for that because they don't have enough users we're trying to set a high quality bar on incubation that's tied to use not to just to the opinions of a few people so you know we might end up losing a couple of projects here but that that that would be too bad is it is it worth circulating labs back to those people who have the concerns Alexis to see if labs alleviate some of the experimental concerns I'm actually in real time doing that one or two people okay good okay that is why I made the point that whilst I think for example calling it labs would address Bob Weiser's point calling it labs and having any stage one early stage bucket that connotes the idea that some projects may be experimental will upset people who don't see their projects as experiments but actually as I don't know serious business endeavors or something and I'm just you know I think we're kind of reaching the limits of who we can make happy concurrently and I would like to propose that we you know bring this particular phase of the dialogue to an end pretty soon does anyone else want us to make a serious suggestion for any other name now other than labs or sandbox and then Aaron had one in the chat workshop or generator I mean I like labs I'm just kind of googling synonyms for that the other thing is to try and take a name without intent off of it and just say it's a stage one project like some like number of the stages and you're in a certain stage being in a certain stage means why is there's no connotation to that it's your add a specific stage with us so I'm really worried about that because I think we'll go back to the problem we have with inception there where the natural tendency of early stage projects especially sometimes these have people who've quit their jobs to bet their life bet the farm bet the house on a startup that is tied to this early stage project and you know they will go and do marketing and the rest of the community and the end users will not understand the difference between stages one two and three that's fair I like workshop actually that's a that's got the right academic connotations as well all right well I think three three candidate names is frankly enough so let's call it sandbox and workshop do you think we can run some kind of open vote that is that brings in you know maybe TLC contributors who signed up already and TLC people with votes sure some seems a bit you know that is opening it up to everybody on these and pick the one with the most votes I'm sorry so like I said I know we we just want to close off names but can I just throw out a couple so I think actually reason I like workshop is because you are making things as opposed to discovering things and we're not in the we're not really discovering things we're actually making artifacts in that vein and I'm sure this will rub a lot of people the wrong way but prototype would be another possibility that that implies something that is in the process of being built but is not yet completed that might be something I don't know if that's going to make people more or less upset but that's another one that's right okay okay I will throw a vote out to the TLC and TLC contributors on this and then my suggestion is the next meeting based on those results the TLC come to a conclusion and then we move forward yeah is anyone unhappy with that plan because I think we need to do this pretty quickly and I think it's it's fair it's open it's reasonable sounds good yeah sounds good cool now I just want to make one final point which is you're not off the hook from putting full requests into correct the document if you see specific things in there that need so do please continue to do that all right thank you very much everybody now we move on to slide number nine TLC elections this this process is ridiculously complicated so maybe someone else can explain it sure I'll take a quick stab on this one so last meeting you know it kind of went over that the TLC the two TLC seats are up for election again we started the nomination process and last time I checked we have eight nominees I believe the nomination process closes today which is great the one thing I left out that I was dutifully informed by our legal counsel is we have this qualification period that I originally thought only applied to the bootstrapping of the TLC but applies for you know every seat essentially here so for two weeks the TLC has the option to reach out and talk to the potential TLC nominees and then there is a vote of the TLC and the governing board to qualify these things and each qualified each nominee needs at least 50 percent of that vote to be officially qualified and pass and then we do a formal vote after that so it's basically a vetting process that was originally put in the charter to assume that the TLC and the board would be happy with the folks that get nominated if that makes sense but hopefully that makes sense for folks but I've updated the schedule to reflect the qualification period which will start essentially tomorrow and my goal is to hopefully announce the new TLC slots early April April 6 does anyone have any questions here all right thank you let's let's move on Alexis thank you Chris so we're now on slide number 10 we have a number of proposals coming over the line we're going to start a vote on NATS very soon so if you're a TLC contributor and you haven't had a look at NATS yet please go have a look as the sponsor I am happy with NATS as a project for CNCF incubation we use it ourselves it's been in use for some time it's not such a well-known project for a number of reasons but it is a good lightweight messaging implementation OPA and SPIFI as you know are very oriented towards specifications as well as implementations do please reach out to the sponsors and to the owners of those projects and encourage them to interact with the community around moving forward here I think that this whole you know sandbox workshop labs thing has been a bit dislocating for them and I think that it's good if you show them your support please okay and to move on to slide number 11 now the interactive landscape Dan do you want to tell us about this I think you're on the call Dan I can see your face in the slides hi I think you can hear me now so I think yeah folks are familiar with this document and the positives for the the existing landscape what we now call the static landscape is that it's ubiquitous everybody talks about it people use it a lot and send it around it has really that shows the power of collaborative editing has over 2000 stars on the negative sides it's been described as the hellscape it makes adopting cloud native seem much harder than it should be you have a tyranny of choice the small logos are getting hard to read and it's it's too difficult to learn more about each product or project so the cnc team's been working on this for several weeks and we have two responses to it one is a much deeper deep dive and I really do encourage you now it's yeah this is I'll make this a link landscape.cncf.io it just went live a few minutes ago and it lets you filter and sort and kind of understand the space much more easily than you could before and then going to the next slide 12 this is the cloud native trail map and I will say this is just the first iteration of it I do think we're going to improve it and and change it over time but this is a way of trying to understand the 14 cncf graduated and debating projects and how they fit together how which ones you might choose and a path you might take through them and so I think marketing documents like this are very challenging for a big group like cncf that nobody is is ever completely happy with them but I am hoping that these are going to have a pretty positive impact and to the degree that you can see edits and changes you'd like to make I'd really encourage you to to reach out to me and suggest them and then specifically on the interactive landscape it's please file a pull request we're really eager to fix the things that are there that's it thank you very much does anyone have any questions about the landscape or any of the other stuff around here like the trailhead trail map sorry yeah you forgot to discuss the trail map then yeah I had a quick question excuse me it's quinton here how do we decide which kind of logos and things get onto and don't get onto those things it seems so the trail map is pretty easy because it's just since it's become a cncf incubating or a graduated project for the landscape we have a real specific set of rules that we put together over time and I am pasting those into the zoom window by no means am I claiming that these are a perfect recipe and you could basically file a pull request on this as well if you want to suggest different rules but the simplest one is 250 stars github stars on your project and I really do appreciate how arbitrary that is but it's just as a basic level of our other people interested in it but there is a whole process on there also about choosing logos and such okay that sounds great thank you okay and in terms of the particular text I mean in particular the the test as a distributed database is overselling at the tad the how do you want suggestions on the language because I do think on on that particular one we need to turn it down on that one just an email to me would be ideal and I mean I my only request would be if you could just say what you think the perfect sense is because I do appreciate that this needs iteration and is not there yet yeah I mean I think you're I think we're close I just there are that's the only thing I saw in there that might raise some actuals so I'll send you some already thanks very much Dan so we'll come back to the this landscape in a minute when we talk about the working groups but I forgot to mention something about the projects which is that under our new rules since we are expecting Spiffy and OPA to come in at the entry stage which will be named either workshop or labs or sandbox in the future then under the new rules they will need two TOC sponsors so I think it would be extremely good if people in the TOC could step forward and be cosponsors of Spiffy and OPA if you want to think about that and say so to me and Chris afterwards that would be great but please please do give that serious consideration because you will be needed I'm happy to cosponsor OPA yeah I'm happy to cosponsor Spiffy thank you could you Chris could you facilitate an intro to the people already know yeah we'll do don't worry about it thanks okay so on the project review backlog I'm not sure if we Chris I think this is really a slide for you because this is about the next set of reviews all I'm gonna stay here is uh I should have updated this sorry about that so Prometheus is up next for graduation so look forward I'll probably kick off the vote next week on that and then after that Fluent D has a proposal to also graduate which I would like the TOC and wider community to make comments on that one before we formally put it forward to a vote right okay okay so now I'm jumping ahead to slide number 16 CNTF WG updates and in particular actually going to talk about the cloud native definition can we have a person who was involved in that say what the status is I've forgotten who was the primary owner of writing down the definition uh yeah Camille Justin and I were working on that I haven't had any time to spend on it in the past two weeks so we need to get back together and do another iteration Camille wanted to retain some of the language or concepts from the current definition in the new definition okay thank you I'm gonna go on to slide 17 I talk about the reference architecture and I also talk about the landscape at this point so I think that the from from my point of view the landscape is a good marketing tool but has of course become ridiculously complicated with so many logos added for whatever reason and that kind of reduces its value as an opinionated educational tool I think the reference architecture group around can has an opportunity to offer a set of opinions which could produce you know simplified pictures stacks suggestions diagrams really whatever you think is most useful um which is both concrete and meaningful and can be used in a you know wider context so if you believe that the landscape needs to be simpler or the trail needs to be shorter please join Ken's effort in the reference architecture group so Ken over to you yeah thanks Alex so um you know on on this we we talked about this two weeks ago I've had a couple of people sign up and I'm going to schedule a kickoff call for next week so if you're interested please between now and next Tuesday try to sign up any questions about that or about the slide pictures on slide 17 or 18 for Ken okay great we didn't cover the networking and storage working group just on the storage front I am trying to figure out with some of the other folks in the TSE how we can kind of now accelerate storage now that we started to add some projects so if you're in the storage working group and you want to keep up the momentum please could you send me and Chris an email about you know how we can talk to you about moving things forward more quickly and we'll put you in touch with various folks who've volunteered to help okay and on the on the network front Alex I can give a quick update if you want that would be great actually thank you sure so um on the networking front we've had a couple of fast starts just beginning of the year and trying to get the working group moving forward again we sort of identified three areas we wanted to kind of look at like sort of services that are needed for for networking and maybe you might consider like firewall and low balancing not a networking service but we're sort of using that as a general bucket to kind of capture some of these value added type of services that needed in a cloud native reference design we've been you know working with CNI team to kind of understand what part of those should we just do a pull request against CNI and whether things are kind of outside of CNI scope that we need to either work with the CNI community to add to the scope or we need to come back to the CNCF with you know projects that may help complete sort of the networking aspect some of the things in the landscape for instance are being looked at within the group we had Microsoft present last week and they gave a good kind of view of in terms of like how customers are trying to implement containers and Azure at least here are the types of network connectivity issues that running into that aren't covered by CNI that's we have a small list of things that we're looking at and that we're publishing on the networking workgroup page I haven't updated it yet but I will hopefully today or tomorrow just sort of one of the main areas we're focusing on right now the second piece is around IPv6 and sort of the need for the expectation that some organizations have around IPv6 and as of you know some of you guys know that a lot of the you know a lot of the larger enterprises have needs for IPv6 and a lot of the services out there that are cloud native do not support IPv6 completely or need a door stack type of implementation and so we thought it might make sense to have networking work come up with a kind of a statement not not so much a reference architecture but maybe more of some statements around what are some of the needs in a cloud native model for IPv6 and what type of capabilities we want to have in place around IPv6 and cloud native deployments so if you're wanting to join those discussions feel free to join that working group it's we meet every couple weeks on on Tuesday thanks very much Ken somebody was talking my IPv6 on the Kubernetes dev list today there was a blog posted about it that might amuse you good um all right so thanks for the working group updates and I will just add that I know it's a bit slow but I think we're trying to come up with some slightly more formal frameworks around what working groups do what their scope is how empowered they are I think that will still take a bit of time to figure out okay um events slide 19 uh Dan or Dee do you want to tell us about what's on him or Taylor um I will so the the key thing is just that uh this week the prices go up for KubeCon Copenhagen and so if you have been thinking about going the schedule is live I really encourage you to take a look I think it's going to be an amazing event we're expecting it to be almost as large or larger than Austin and uh then Shanghai is our first ever event in China in November and Seattle will be our biggest event ever and if your company's interested the sponsorship information is at that link for all three events thank you very much and um we're not planning a TOC face-to-face or anything at the EU conference no it's not on the schedule but you could do it if you wanted to yeah I mean we could have it I think we might just have TOC drinks and then we could all you know commiserate all right um I think upcoming new things the next one is two weeks from today if you've got any burning agenda items please send them to me and Chris or post them on the TOC list I think we are also hoping to you know finally finalize that the initial tier okay anyone else got any other business for today nope okay thanks very much and see you next time cool take care take care everyone thanks bye