 Good morning George. Hey Duffy Okay, good we got both Perfect should I just leave it like that you think that's what's that I just leave it like this Have I seen the meeting like this? What do you mean? Do you see the the toxides? Oh, yeah, okay? CNCF TOC meeting April 2nd, 2024 And last audio check. Thank you Hello everyone We will wait a few more minutes to allow more folks to join us I was gonna say Kubernetes zoom always has to be Bob always Yes, did you happen to see my cube con badge? Yes, yes it did. Yes, I had Kubernetes zoom on there for Oh, he's here. Oh, that's funny. Oh, that's how you do that. Okay. I was just asking around for like How do you actually remove them the three-day I meeting notes and it Bob? It sounds like you've run into this before Well, it Responded the message to delete it But like honestly the only way to do it for real is to remove them from the meeting and unfortunately the zoom's response on this is essentially that's Intended and if you really want to ban it you have to Send them a whole bunch of information and they will only selectively ban Like they have no way of banning just like all read AI. They will ban The specific users that are using it. So it sounds like a bot has found us just generally and specifically. Okay, cool They will join Like any like if someone joins and like subscribe to a meeting they will automatically join any meeting that they've added to their calendar Thank you for the update Emily. We've got Yeah, folks here, which is many as much as we're gonna get so yeah George go ahead and get started next slide George All right, hello everyone you've made it to the TOC public meeting your participation in this meeting in attendance means you comply with the Atlantic Foundation's anti-trust policy notice next slide You've made it here. So you've got all the zoom information next slide We have several TOC members present here today Next slide. All right. So we've got a few items on the Agenda CubeCon Paris recap updates from the TOC tag chairs meeting and TOC member status updates on projects next slide So This is our opportunity to hear from the tags any meeting update or any updates that they have going on any questions But also like what was the experience at CubeCon this time? I know tag contributor strategy did some canvassing of projects in the project pavilion I will turn it over to you all to share What you thought about CubeCon this last event and I'm not a tag but like honestly it was probably the best I've seen so far in terms of Engagement like there were people all sorts of people that were asking about various projects the project pavilion was like never not busy And people were there until like You know they essentially be kicked out of the convention center because there are people were there so late the last day Wow Lynn yeah, I'm going to add to that. I'm really really impressed with the engagement the energy from this CubeCon Emily and I and Nick Nikita and a couple of other people had a panel. I think it was like three thirty Ish on Friday afternoon and it was pretty well attended. It's just impressive Like the energy from the CubeCon What I have heard there on the first day of CubeCon the the vibes on the AI Maybe a little bit too much Given, you know, we kind of spent like the whole keynote on the first day to keep talking about AI Well, it's maybe not nearly close to Very reality for a big enterprise yet. So that's Interesting I heard about so far. I'm just so impressed with the energy, you know Everybody seems so passionate every time I went to the expo It was very well attended Compel with other CubeCons that particularly the CubeCons in the US in the past, too. So Duffy Yeah, I agree on the AI sentiments and I also I do and I actually do another shout out to the project pavilion and I was really impressed Although it took me a little while to realize that they were changing out Particularly they were changing out spaces in the project pavilion for different for different projects over time That was that was very confusing to me at first but it was really neat that that it was constantly busy and then it was Really had a good opportunity to actually connect with a few folks who are who had some questions about Projects moving levels and those sorts of things. So really really big Very very successful CubeCon in my opinion. Yep Some chatter from the chat seems like a lot more attention was around projects and community and some of the leadership groups and working groups That were in attendance We did have a lot of individuals attending the TOC panel, which was pretty insane for how many Attendees we had there the Cates meeting great ran out of space So overall it seems like we got way more attention way more interest from attendees in kind of the Other parts of CubeCon that we've been asking for for a while. So that's great. Excellent All right, any other thoughts and ideas? observations I would say the poster session. I think was a great success I was one of the co-speaker on the post session You know, they gave us all the post session like the best slot in the expo centers of people keep coming You know getting food. So it was pretty cool to you know, say hi to people and what people are interested in, you know Show them the poster The other thing I want to give a shout out is Jorge help organize the lightning talk for the project It was like super super well attended and organized. So that was so far Kathy Yeah, I would like to add that you know, I think the AI working group's work was very well received and Has, you know, a lot of interest from the community on quite some people come to ask, you know How to join that working group how they can contribute. So I think that's also a very good success and Thanks for all the people working on I mean on that white paper and also in the working group Yep, yep, so sounds like a lot of interest and attention now now the ball is in our court to follow up with everybody that we talk to and all the actions that we took to make sure that we're making progress Speaking of progress next slide So at cube con the to see in the tank chairs met there was a comment and chat that it was probably one of the better meetings that we've had so yay slide deck and agenda work So we talked through the results of the tag chair tag leadership survey that was sent out. We talked through Reons observations and analysis of the differences between all of the tag charters and where there was variants where there was similarity We talked through some of the challenges that can contributors to cloud native brand new ones coming in to the ecosystem have challenges and understanding what is the tag doing or are they doing work those kinds of things So we talked through a lot of kind of more concrete actions next steps challenges that the tags are experiencing and based off of the survey and past discussions and meetings we had proposed Exploration groups domain technical review and leadership and contributor ladder for tags. So I'm going to start from the bottom up Leo. Thank you for linking the slide doc And chat here the leadership and contributor ladder for tags. This is something that's new Nikita. Thank you so much for filing the issue earlier today. There's been a lot of discussion already on it which is fantastic This is about introducing terms for the tag leadership. We do have co chairs, but the technical needs currently don't have terms. We also want to promote rotation and emeritus status for tag leadership as well And set up a more clear path for newcomers into the ecosystem to achieve some of those leadership roles within tags. There was also a brief discussion and I don't remember if it was during the tag chairs meeting or post in one of the hallway tracks about individuals that are contributors that may not necessarily want to reach a technical leadership role They just want to do awesome work within the tag. So we need to make sure that that is also accounted for within the contributor letter. So the issue for that is linked in the slide deck. If there are individuals that are interested in participating. Nikita is leading kind of that issue in that effort. Hopefully we'll have this near complete by April 16 which I think was our target date to do a check in on some of these activities. So talk on the issue there and then I believe Nikita is coordinating kind of more asynchronous or synchronous catch up so that we can have a plan and we can get it implemented and move forward. The next thing is the domain technical review groups. This was something that was done in the past by tags although rather inconsistently it varied greatly from tag to tag some projects were getting really good feedback some projects were not getting a lot of feedback. And the TOC is often gone to the tags to ask for a domain review of a particular project whether or not it's hey does this look like it's cloud native and fits within this area should we accept it as a sandbox project. And in other cases providing an update is for due diligence support of how does this project actually fit within its domain technical area within the ecosystem. So there is an issue that Karina started. I've asked her to go in and update the issue with a little bit more action oriented kind of like. This is the work that we're trying to do and what we're trying to accomplish here. The intent of the domain technical review group is to put together a consistent framework for tags to be able to evaluate and engage in projects that is meaningful for both the tag and the project in understanding how it's how it works what it's doing like within storage or within networking, how it's compared against the best practices in that particular domain space, how it's providing some differentiator associated with that and generally how it measures up within the cloud native ecosystem. So Karina is going to update the issue later today. If you're interested in providing input insights sharing your observations and what's worked well in the past with tags. And comment on that issue. The one of the deliverables that I believe we had talked about was making sure that it's a very clear and easy to follow process for tag members to get involved and engage with a project. The next one was exploration groups. The issue is also linked on the slide deck here dims thank you for filing that issue. There's been a lot of discussion on it and there seems to be some continued confusion or kind of trying to understand where we're at with a few things. The exploration group proposal came out of the survey feedback that there are new technologies, new workloads, new areas that we have individuals in the ecosystem or outside of the ecosystem that come to CNCF and they want to do something in that space. It's either too new or there's not enough that's concrete for us to either set up a brand new tag, create an additional stream of activity associated with it. So the intent was to provide a time bound focused group that allows them to go and pursue a particular area so the AI working group is a pretty reasonable example of this they came together. They had a set of deliverables that they were looking to do. It was a new and relatively emerging space at the time. And now I believe that they have some follow on actions and plans to continue work in that group. But the intent here would be to better tightly scope and couple these kinds of exploration opportunities to determine whether or not we need a new tag whether or not we need additional work in this area. If work doesn't need to happen, meaning we don't need to provide guidance we don't need to do white papers we don't need to do outreach to projects to understand how they can safely incorporate certain technologies. So there's a lot of discussion going on associated with this. There is some overlap with the concept of working groups that exist within tags. If this is something that the tags do not want to do or don't want to kind of account for is a separate work area. That's fine just have the conversation on the issue to see if this is worthwhile to do. This is one of those things where we need individuals that are close to this level of work to provide their insights and kind of their expectations on the issue so that we can decide whether or not this is something we want to formalize within the TOC and within the tags, or if it's just something that we roll up underneath of the existing working group structure which isn't entirely clearly well defined across all the tags. Are there any questions about those proposed items that came out of the talk tag chairs meeting. Just maybe a quick point of clarification on the exploration groups and existing working groups. It sounds like largely the difference might be that one is time bound and the other one may or may not. Correct. So there is a few more things there right like. Thanks Tim. Hi. So it might not fall under attack. So we're not going to go create a tag just for the exploration group. So we might need something that is independent of a tag because of the very nature of it right like we don't have tags for everything. So then the other one is we need to think about as a strict timeline right. Working groups don't really have one and like we do still have working groups that don't want to disband. So having clear criteria here to say hey this is like a new area. We don't want to confuse it with any of the existing governance structures. I think that that is the main main focus of give it a different name and do something different and make it easy to start one. So that they can get the resources that they need and the help that they need from CNCF staff, TOC tags and working groups and essentially serve as a signpost for people to say okay I'm interested in this. So let me go hang out with those folks on this call and like collaborate. So that is the kind of idea that we are looking for here something quick to aggregate and hopefully do some meaningful work and then disband when it is done. Maybe we'll turn it into a working group or you know as part of a tag later but you know unless the idea I have right now is to say that unless the TOC gives them permission to continue. You know there is we need to have some kind of a balance there to say okay you're not meeting anymore. Let's go ahead and wrap you all up. So that is the kind of thing that I'm thinking about right now, based on all the discussion that is there in the issue so far. Yep. Okay. Anything else on those. During the course of the TOC tag chairs meeting there were other things that were talked about and proposed but due to lack of interest. They were dropped. So you'll see a couple things in the slide deck if you do if it's not on here it's because no one was interested in it. And that's fine. Trying to be very mindful of everybody's time and a lot of these activities but if we don't have individuals that show up to participate and to contribute and drive these activities home to completion, then they're not going to get done. So if you are super keen and interested in any of those areas. Please assist show up provide your ideas and perspective. It would be greatly appreciated. Right. Next slide. Alright, couple of things. George thank you you've pulled up the TOC project board. So, the TOC has a very long backlog we have 17 that are currently in the new column of projects that have applied to move levels we are keenly aware that the backlog and the queue is extremely long. They are no longer underneath of a cube con freeze and we have significantly modified the moving levels process for projects to make it more streamlined and when I say that we are the changes that were merged into the TOC repo before cube con affect all projects that are in the new column and assigned if they were already started in their due diligence their due diligence needs to finish underneath of the old process but new projects. They're kind of doing a self assessment of where they are against the graduation or incubation level criteria. We've provided significantly more clarity on the criteria with significant contributions from the moving levels task force to thank everyone for that. We're hoping that this should speed up the due diligence process overall. Thank you is so long and we do have a lot of projects that are in this like middle area. I know pixie is one of them that ones on my list. To see members need to make sure that we are updating our issues for projects moving levels to reflect the current state of where they are at. So several of them haven't been moved in a while. It might be that we've been bombarded with work or cube con activities. So please take a few moments to go in. Make sure that the assignee on the issue is correct. I know someone had volunteered to take cube OVM once Richie transitions once Richie transitioned, but it's not been updated since then. We need status updates on a lot of those and please reach out to the projects to let them know where you're at. I occasionally will get DMs directly from project maintainers that they haven't heard from their TOC member. So please please please reach out and talk to them. That being said, the next thing associated with that is the cube con freeze. So we currently have a freeze with instructions on the TOC repo that talks about certain activities cannot be performed within certain amount of weeks of cube con and then the week after cube con. Because of the change in when cube con has been occurring, as well as the increased amount of cube cons, we cannot maintain the freeze as it's currently written. So I wanted to open the floor to discussion with tags and with the TOC members about what is appropriate. George, if you could switch back to the slides real quick. One of the other challenges that we had associated with this is that cube con was often being used as a milestone for moving levels by projects. This is problematic because it puts a lot of pressure on the TOC to rush through due diligence, the projects unhappy when we can't meet a cube con goal for them of moving levels. So we need to make sure that we're addressing the misaligned incentives associated with cube con as a goalpost for moving levels. But what recommendations do folks have here? A lot of the challenges we were being inundated too close to cube con when a lot of other activities go on around that time frame, particularly within four weeks. Ideas, thoughts, opinions. Quick question, if I may. Are you folks going to do freezes for cube con China and India as well? So that that was part of the kind of discussion is cube con China had been exempted from the freeze because it was it was dual with another event since cube con India is brand new. That's where a lot of the questions are starting to come up. We have so many of these kinds of events right now we cannot possibly support a freeze for everything. The TOC still has responsibilities to projects to move levels. Dimms. Yeah, I have a feeling that we should restrict it to the two big events in the year and not do it for anything more. And maybe which to we can decide depending on like, you know, the how the events grow and like where the TOC members are coming from. Right. So, at this point, we are good or bad. You know, EU and any based to see members. So we probably need to start there for sure. Yes, Ricardo. So far. But then we should write it down somewhere why we took this decision so we are not revisiting this and that when we do revisit, we know why we took the decision. So it sounds like still yes on the EU and North America freeze. We have some of this already written down in the URL that's linked under freeze it's on the TOC repo under process. The current time point timeframes are within six weeks of the event to see doesn't take on new sponsorship of applications to move levels. So we should postpone that sponsorship until after cube con to increase the likelihood that one we don't forget to do a kickoff with the project, but to also make sure that we're focused and have the opportunity to engage appropriately with the project without being distracted with all of the different activities that happen around that timeframe. So are the weeks for the block in the activities underneath of that appropriate because there's the six weeks mark and then within two weeks of the event we don't do public comments opening. We don't do voting on projects any open voting is paused. There's no project announcements associated with that. So the six week thing was basically meant to be something you know to help kind of define the fact that there should not be a milestone right. Like that was the point of having a six week break there. Correct. And we haven't really seen a change in behavior related to that necessarily people still absolutely have that perception. Correct. So I wonder if we should reduce that to four weeks and continue with the rest of the and I think the two week prior to the event think absolutely makes sense, especially if we aim for those two, especially be picked two events a year that are going to be that Can we do. The majority. Duffy to be. Yeah, I was saying like the two weeks of the within two weeks of the event and the second week following the event part of it kind of makes sense for events where the majority of the TOC or a good amount of the TOC would be present. I don't know I mean maybe that's the language is that you know if if the expectation is that the majority of the TOC might be present at an event then we have to consider that event. We have to consider the timing around that event. But also reduce reducing the six weeks prior to the event to four weeks, because we still have meetings in those two. We still have meetings all the way up basically until two weeks of the event. I was actually going to suggest you drop the two weeks and just make it four weeks because it's so much more clear for everyone as far as like it's here it's not like and then being able to move towards like a two week afterwards as well. So when you say extended to four weeks are you talking about the two weeks prior to the event. So there is one deadline and it's four weeks before the event. And we just combine the whole thing into one four week period. Right like there's one like that like and make it a binary gate about like the if four weeks before the event rather like graduated or you're not one of the two because like there's just a lot of like lay almost awesome. Like you all can like, you know, push back on me about this but just from what I'm seeing I think four weeks probably be better for everybody. All right, so let's simplify it we'll make it four weeks. So looking at the content on the document. We just need to remove the within two weeks of the event. Merge those bullets together and then change it from six weeks to four so that we got everything together Kathy. Yeah, I think before the event. So, you know, your people can come back to you. Do you have that, like one week or two weeks after the event. That one should still stay because the week immediately so there's the cube con week where nothing really ever happens other than people are at the conference. And then the week immediately following cube con I know CNCF staff usually take that as a kind of a reprieve from all the chaos that goes on around cube con and a lot of us are either coming back and catching up on work. So we're usually busy during that timeframe so I think we'll still keep the second week following the event is when we can start picking things back up again. All right. I also think, you know, we should, we should pass information like, you know, not like as a moving level. Well, I feel quite some projects, you know, targeted it could come as a, you know, a time point that will probably be approved with some kind of conflict. So we need to make that all clear for people don't have a long expectation or planning or planning. Yep. James. James you're muted. Sorry. I wanted to touch on what Duffy was talking about. I think the individuals to see members can still specify their availability and unavailability to do the project that they are working with. This is here we are talking about like the blanket one that everybody knows about. So if you're good, some of us are going to India then we make sure that we tell the project that we're working with at that point that look, I'm traveling I'm not going to be around so you know, set your set their expectation that nothing will happen for the next two weeks, because I'll be traveling basically. That's kind of where I was headed, but I think we've also just nebulously defined that there'll be two events during which this freeze will apply. And so what I'm wondering is should should that be better defined by saying if the expectation is that the majority of the TSE will be at an event. Then this will be the event that this that this freeze applies to. So how about this. Let's focus on the two events that we talked about because we can always make adjustments to this later. I would also add in a caveat that to see members are expected to be communicating with projects, or when they're going to go dark because we're dealing with the coupon event. Whether or not that is one of the major ones if it's coupon India keep on China, maybe there's a whole series of KCDs that to see members might be attending. So, we have a few recommendations. Is there a to see member that would like to write up the proposal and submit the PR so that we can get it approved emerged in before the next cube con. I can help with that. I'm Emily I'll sync with you, you know where should this be in the GitHub. It's actually I will grab the link because I realize it's may not be parent, but the link to the area that we're talking about is in chat. So, Lynn, I'll think with you online. If you need any additional help. All right. So we talked about the freeze TSE members going to go in and update their project status on the boards. Any other updates questions. We've got 28 minutes. I don't want to have to fill the time with that error but if folks have something that they would like to talk about. Most of the TSE is on the call. So I did want to ask like who here was not in Paris. Right like at what questions that do you have a day we missed you in Paris. I was going to say I don't know if anybody else has words I wasn't in Paris. I don't know if I have a ton of questions I mean the spot if I said a whole bunch of people and I've talked to them, I think maybe the biggest thing for me is like, takeaways of TSE things that we should be doing I don't know better differently and or that people really love that we're doing super well. I think a lot of that you guys already covered I'm assuming there wasn't like super secret things you refuse to talk about on on this call that happened in Paris. So I think we probably covered that. I don't know nothing else kind of really comes to mind that stuff I need from this group from Paris. So just so everyone is aware there was no super secret chaos at cube con that the TSE was pulled into so I think this was the first cube con in a few years where we were not inundated with running around and dealing with one crisis or another. So that was certainly very appreciated. We did have a few TSE members meet with certain projects to understand where their health is at and some next steps that they were going to take. But beyond that seems pretty normal. Matt. Hi. I had a question. I was not at Paris. I had expected to be. But was there any discussion or was there any notable movement around cross foundation collaboration. I asked because I now have some more time freed up. And I've got just yesterday from Cody, for example, the track list from cube con. And I also have the full history of GitHub now pushed parquet. Right. So we can like start combining these data sets and providing some interesting visualizations and to do that I'll be using Apache things. I'll be using CNCF things I'm using open SSF things right in the context of the CNCS landscape graph project, which now actually is actually graphic has some data. So if there are any rules of the road or opportunities to kind of like test drive collaborative models in the open that are cross foundation. I'd love to know about it or if there was a hallway track on them. I don't believe there was a discussion on it at cube con and I do know that there is one sandbox application of a project that exists underneath of the Linux foundation proper. That it's applying to CNCF and we do have an open issue on the TOC repo for exploring the possibility of projects existing underneath of one or more foundations or working groups existing underneath of that. There was from my recollection, the last conversation I had with anybody about it was that there was a concern over the licensing associated with those contributions and CLA. In this case, it would be more like a solution that leverages Postgres Apache arrow and guac from the open SSF. So, for example, like so things like this that as we build a super graph of these little sub graphs some of these sub graphs are going to be things like the graph for understanding artifact composition, which is now an open SSF project. Right. So it's more like just if there's a right way to do that, or if there are certain notes or breadcrumbs along the way that would be useful to inform whatever process work is happening in the future. You can ping me directly or I'll follow. I just dropped a link to the issue in chat. Take a look at that. I don't know that there has been any kind of prior arch or any additional information beyond what's there. So I would say it's going to be project or effort specific. And as long as we're being mindful of what all is in scope and where the work is being done, we should be fine. I guess because I see a bunch of hands up, but I want to ask if any of the hands are related to Matt's query. Nope. All right. Bob Duffy and then dims. Okay, this is jumping back to something earlier regarding the ladder and all that. If I know we have time but like, if you prefer to discuss it someplace else or like on the issue happy to do that too but I had an idea when to run by folk. Okay, cool. And one of the things I see with like the sort of ladder to tag leadership and sort of going beyond that is like there isn't a, you know, big incentive to go to be a tag lead right now. Or, you know, potentially, especially when it comes to like your employer giving you time to potentially work in that tag. So I was thinking about maybe trying to extend a ladder, sort of pass that and say make one of the TOC seats specifically like one from the GB elected pool actually be basically comes from current and emeritus tag leads. And what would wind up happening is the TOC would nominate people out of that pool. And then the GB would vote on, you know, that position so they're still sort of a, the GB still has a say, but you have a pool of people that, you know, are already very familiar with the ecosystem and sort of the expectations around things. And so there should be hopefully a bit more, you know, people coming into it knowing what to expect and actually being able to help. So, I like the idea. It's not the first time that I've heard it, and it's actually been discussed quite a bit, particularly this past round of to see elections we found some opportunities to improve awareness to the governing board about the work that a lot of our tag leads have been doing. And the tag chairs so that their visibility to the governing board is potentially increased. I think we need to do some, we need to have some conversations about how we can do that in a repeatable and constructive manner for engaging with the governing board along those topics. I think it's though something that we should probably take offline and outside of that leadership discussion, although it is directly related to it. Okay. Yeah, I figured I just wanted to like float through the idea by it, but like happy to discuss out of band later. Bob, you should definitely log that in the, as a comment in the issue. So we don't lose it. Yep. We definitely revisit that. Yep. Thank you for bringing it up. Duffy and then dims. I'm going to raise again that Amy is leaving, or, you know, leaving the CNC up. And so I'm wondering like when we will have, I want to make sure that we're addressing this in the TOC meetings as we go forward, like when, like how we will fill those, how we will fill that space and what the, and what the, what the people who have to fill those shoes are going to look like because those are big shoes, you know. Okay, so I can speak to some of that. Daniel crook, who's also on the call today is kind of helping support. GV who you all know as well is helping us. And I'm here as a contractor for the next couple of months to be able to make sure the transition goes smooth. So yes, totally hear you and also like the nice things are going to happen for all of you, which are working out more details as well. There's another, another piece to this, which I will just put out there. I don't think I don't expect us to be able to make this change very quickly. But one of the things that I think the two of us have discussed is like more transparency around the legal process. And I don't know, I'm specifically curious who will drive that in your absence. Daniel and I are working on being able to do like more of a transition around how that actually works. And like you can expect to be able to have the foundation board be better updated in the future as I hand off to other people around this. Cool. Good catch. Tim is back to you. Yeah, so I have to go back to Dave. I'm updating Dave. So one of the things that happened was around the end user tab, Dave. So that's being formed and that is well fleshed out. And so there, you know, there was a lot of discussion in multiple places. Hey, let's go ask the end user tab what they think. And like, let's work together with them more. So that was one of the big things that came out of Paris as well, which you might, I don't know if you've heard. I've heard like a little bit about it. I was going to try to get more of it from the tab but I mean I'm totally happy to hear more of the TOC's view on the tab conversations. My kind of hand wavy take so far that the tab is still very largely figuring out what what it does where with who would win. So I think it's hard for us to expect a lot quickly. I totally hear you. They need to set themselves up first. I think Katie, you are bridging us both, I guess. Yes, there is me and the card on the tab at the moment. Yeah, as Dave mentioned, there's a lot of defining what the workloads for the tab are going to be and defining those responsibilities is very much still working progress. There's nothing yet precise. I think at this stage we're trying to collect expectations from different groups, what the TOC would expect us to do, what the tags would expect us to do, GB and so forth. And then I presume the responsibilities would be a combination of this, including the skillset that the tab provides. So it's still very much yet in progress. When there's going to be any updates, I'm more than happy to present them and actually share them as well. Real quick on that, actually, TOC members, you probably lost it in all the post cube con flurry, but there is a action in our channel for defining what is the end user tab priorities list from the TOC. We've had a lot of discussions around that, so I'm going to bump the thread so you all can chime in and provide those perspectives so that we can formally share them back to the end user tab. I was going to say the same. I think Dave is right. It's very early, but it's also a good time to push the feedback on what the tab could help with. We have a couple of items like selecting end users for the interviews during the diligence, things like this that can delegate some of the work we have in the TOC. Anything else? All right. So to recap, we've got three issues on the TOC repo for new work to assist the tags. TOC members are going to go through and update their issues for projects moving levels to make sure, one, they are assigned correctly, two, that they are in the correct state, and three, that they have reached out to the project to just give them a quick check in and where things are at. Anything else? Liaisons are out. Liaisons are out, yes. We have new TOC members, so we have new liaison assignments. Not a lot has changed, but we do welcome Kevin and Lynn, and their new assignments as TOC liaisons, so please make sure that you are still engaged with your tags on a regular basis either attending their meetings, thinking up with them after the fact or beforehand, and also making sure that you are reviewing and replying to the tag updates on the TOC mailing list because it is super highly visible across the ecosystem and it's important that we engage with community discussions there so folks can understand the work that the tags are doing and know where to go to get involved. Awesome. Thanks everyone. Enjoy 15 minutes back in your day. Thank you. Later.