 Are you ready? Okay. I'm sorry. Are you Emily? I am. This is the best number for the best person. Thanks. Are we going to dial in so Amy can. We're already dialed in. I can hear all of you. What is perfectly fine. I don't know what to do. She's the only one there. I wanted to make sure that someone is making sure she was joined. Yeah. They know that she's the only one there. So. I have a new mic just for me. You all have one for the table now. I would be up here. Are we working? Yeah. Okay. We're going to play musical chairs first. To make it easier for Amy who is unfortunately incapable of being here with us. So everybody that's over here, please come over here. So we're on screen. She can see our happy smiling, lovely faces. And can talk to us. Ray. Okay. As long as you're on screen, that's the most important thing. So maybe back table. I can see all of you. Over here. I'm going to let you all figure it out. I can't see the screen very well. You all are just fine. Keep going. And then we've got inception of all of me. Hello. And it looks like we got infinite Amys. It sounds like you can't hear me at all. I don't need to be on video. I will just watch from behind here. Okay. While we wait for Amy to join us. Welcome to the tag and talk meeting. We try to do these at every cube con because you know, once a month hearing from you fabulous folks and all the great things that you're doing is clearly not enough. You're doing a lot more than we realize and we want to hear from you more about that. But first, I wanted to talk through a little bit more about the project moving levels task force and some of the recommendations that have come out of it. We do have a few of those folks here, but to kind of give the tags a little bit more situational awareness, the TOC still has to actually formally adopt the recommendations from that group. We might do some implementation specific tweaks to it, but overall, I think the recommendations were solid and they reflect a lot of what you've been doing and evaluating projects. But one of the important things, and this is kind of where you all come in is we would like to see the tags engaged with the projects more. And I know you all are starved for contributors and so are the projects, but we really see a lot of potential happening with more engagement between those. So we want to see projects come to you all and not only just present and talk about what it is that the project is, how it's working, but actually talk through the mechanics of the sub domain that those projects are operating in. So you all have a higher degree of confidence in the quality of their execution in that area for a security project, making sure that they got their secure development practices down perfectly, maybe going through and doing an architecture discussion with them for other domains. I'm not going to try to talk through your expert areas, but there's a lot of potential here and our tags, our groups, our projects, everybody needs all the support that we can get. So one of the things within that new moving levels kind of program is we're expecting to get recommendations from the tags again back into projects, whether or not you feel that they're doing things correctly within the domain. Now in the past, we've had a lot of inconsistency in what those recommendations look like and we're looking to you all to work together to figure out how do you become consistent amongst yourselves and between all the tags. So I just, I'm going to throw that out there and I want to know what are your thoughts, what are your opinions, what are some of the questions that you have on that? Mike's are on the table. Don't be afraid. Hi. So again, I think, I think it's a good call out that the tags should be more deeply involved with the projects and having, you know, regular conversations. The, the question is, you know, again, how much right is, is enough and how much is too much, right? So I think that is typically the larger projects operate, you know, in their own ecosystem and, you know, frankly, they really feel that they are their own world, you know, and cross collaboration is typically, it really doesn't happen across the projects unless there are engineers or, you know, contributors to both project, both projects who are working on both projects, whether it's a project or multiple projects at the same time. The question though is that how do you facilitate that and would making the landscape, you know, definitions or landscape categories to be more updated with what the feature set of the projects is at this point of time help them. What are you kind of a two-faced, two-sided question. What do you all think? So I have pretty strong opinions about this. Can you guys hear me? All right. So I think what we're doing is we started a draft at our face to face meeting in September and talking about really the tags being an extension of the TOC. I think we've kind of worked in these weird siloed environments where to our users, the community, it's been a little bit of whiplash and unsatisfaction of, well, I went to the tag and now I go to the TOC and now you've sent me back or you've sent me to a different tag. And it's just, we're not working as one machine. And I think it's not really serving the community. And so I think the way we can serve the community is, is working together as a community and having the tags. I actually have some authority and ownership in what they do. And I think I mentioned this to someone yesterday in the talk, but you know, we don't always have perfect representation on the TOC of all the technologies that are out there. And so when we're asked to do due diligence or asked to even look at sandbox, we may not have that expertise. It would be really great as well as we could expand out and scale out where people can go to these tags. They can, the tags can ask the right questions. They can help people get the help that they need. But, you know, honestly, it's just, it's not written down. It's not codified. Emily's done a fantastic job helping as a TOC was expected to us. And I think the next step is what I would like is some help. You know, I want to own this from all of you of what is expected out of the tag chairs. What do they do? What are their duties? What, how do they work with the TOC? How do they work with the community and write that down and talk about that? I would love to see that at Paris. Like this is your community. You can have a leadership position. You can have ownership and drive these things, but it can't just be at the TOC level. It has to be at every level underneath. So, you know, and with that comes an expectation of time. I think we don't talk a lot about, we're all volunteering here, right? We all have other jobs, but, you know, we need to be electing people to these chairs that can dedicate the time. We need to be saying what's expected of them. So when they sign up for this, they know, and they're serving the community and the capacity that they believe they need to be doing. So I have a draft out there. It's very drafty. So, you know, maybe after this meeting, we can get it on the mailing list when we can start kind of chipping away at it with the goal of Paris. We do an announcement on stage of just how different it is, how we're going to do elections on tags. Some of the concerns just candidly that have come out from people served on the TOC before is, you know, they don't feel like we have enough accountability in the tags. And so they don't want to extend that authority. And I think that's something we can fix. I think that's something we can fix together. So I've spoken a little too much. Yes. Other people's opinions. So, I mean, Aaron and I worked with Quinton and a bunch of other people at the very beginning when we were, what was called sex at the time, putting the original charters together and shaping them. One comment that happens. The charter at the time was by design. In the sense, creating some of these problems, right? We, the initial charter said the tags where. Advisory only the TOC have to make all the decisions. The tags couldn't make any decisions and all of those kind of things were kind of codified into the charter, right? And I think what we're saying now is it's time for tags 2.0 and kind of. Iterate and improve what we've done. As the tags have become more mature and are probably more capable right to work with the TOC and act as an extension. So I think that's a good kind of extending things, Marlowe. So at the sustainability tag, we started a green reviews working groups that we can start evaluating the sustainability of various projects. I know six security has similar ways of, of looking at, you know, base, base functionality for products within security. I'm assuming tag networking has ways of testing that maybe aren't public, but maybe should be published. I would. So every tag has its own ways of evaluating a particular product for a particular purpose, right? So I'd like to see maybe some support by the community for us getting those processes underway so we can do better analysis of the tooling, because if we don't have those in place, it's hard to review for functionality. Okay. So I've heard expanding. I've heard better processes, better expectations, making sure that we're, we're having these conversations and bringing the community alongside. What else? Yeah. Oh, sorry. Sorry. After you. Go ahead. Oh, I was just going to say that. And it came out from what Marlowe just said that transparency, if we can work together the tag chairs and share like, oh, this got categorized wrong or. You know, here's the practices that we're doing. Like, I, I, I feel like I would like to talk to the other tag chairs more. I almost want to say we should have a monthly meeting of tag chairs that focuses on, you know, what we're doing in the tags and learn from each other. So yeah, I was just going to say that transparency and sharing with each other could, could help out a lot. I agree. It's a good point. I think one thing that could help us work better together is to some consensus around what are the kinds of open source project communities like characterized by how they behave and their activity, right? The stripe book working in public calls out two axes, one high versus low contributor growth and versus maintainer contributor versus user growth. So clubs, stadiums, federations and toys, right? Or the four sectors of that. Those are for urban source project. There are also, if we wanted to identify cohorts, you know, while protecting privacy, of course, of what are the kinds of contributors are there? They're, you know, are they drive by, you know, you see them once or are they vocal and active in discussions, but not really in get per se as code contributors, but, but instrumental. So, so if we could, if we could come to a shared vocabulary around what are the kinds of things, even if it's imperfect, that would at least give us a tier to your point, a common framework and a mental model to assess these projects and their sustainability, which is really a function of their community, not just their technical positioning. So that's one. And then the second brief one is I would like to understand what ideas you all have around ensuring that those that are first to make an idea and grab an open X, X, X open and then rather project title or something and not really have a community, but first in line to present to a tag, right? That this happens all the time. But then when you look behind it, it's somebody with a very good idea, but not a community that's coalesced around that idea and can sustain it to the point where we would want to even pay the opportunity cost necessarily to assess it. And that's it. If I could strip the arrogant sounding tone to that, but I mean, we all have a very limited amount of time. And so I suspect we're all making these determinations and good faith. And we're probably at a consensus mostly already, but I think it would help us to be transparent if that was codified. And I have a draft I can put to the tag chairs channel. Hi. So one thing I'd love us to all do is we all have very limited time, right? To your point. And we kind of need to put aside stuff that can be done offline or asynchronously like status updates and stuff like that and actually use the time that we have together to actually make change and drive these sort of decisions and changes and process that we actually want to do, right? It's kind of silly, in my opinion, but the only time we get to have these constructive conversations is up to QCon. And we meet every couple of weeks on the TOC calls. And we all hash through, you know, a dozen pages of slides, which let's face it, could easily have been done offline and very often doesn't actually lead to productive conversations or just, you know, hashing a state's update. It's kind of like if you were working in a large bureaucratic organization and you're doing your red, yellow, green status at the end of the month, which is extremely boring. I'm glad you mentioned that. And I'll put a pin in that because I want to bring that back up, Josh. I was just going to say in response to this comment is we do already have a tag that's been working on defining the sort of trajectory of projects towards growth and sustainability, particularly. We had a long conversation about sustainability, which is not over around the project's moving level task force, because one of the things we want to replace is the two work requirement, which we feel like is not fulfilling its purpose in terms of making sure that projects are sustainable. So one of our requirements currently in the books is if a project wants to make it graduated, there has to be people working for two different organizations on the list of maintainers. And that was intended to be a sustainability check, but it doesn't, in my opinion, depending on several people in task force, it doesn't really work. And so one of the things that spun out of the task force is that we need to finish that discussion of, okay, we want to replace this, but figuring out what to replace it with is actually a complicated bit of thinking about it. Maybe jumping to some things that are actually working well. I think the project reviews, now the annual reviews, now the tax for my experience are a good way to get in touch with them and have some of these discussions. I find it kind of interesting we do it for Sandbox, but we don't do it for incubation and graduation. And it's even more work. We complain that it's not enough work, but we give actually give them a more higher stamp of approval. But like the check-ins are less that kind of feels to some extent, but I think that is helpful. Engaging there out of this, I think sometimes conversations think that's been up and like on the tech app delivery, Josh was doing a great work. Like having our dedicated side with white papers, blocks actually helps us also help us bring up discussions that we want to have with the wider community that they can chime in. Obviously we don't want to be kingmakers, but we want to have certain discussions like this week for just to give a great example. We had a couple of projects talking about how do you define applications in a cloud native way and like four ways doing pretty much the same thing. I mean, this is something we as attacked and also want to be able to address and try forward. So that's helpful like having this dedicated space that we can use for communication. That was super helpful that we can drive that everybody's kind of up to and like this forced almost like forced engagements with projects, but also to like other levels. It's like almost like once you're at incubation to kind of take to whatever you want. I think that's not the way it actually should be. Yep. So I want to talk through a couple of things. The first thing that I want to do is what do you all think about changing that first meeting of the month where you usually give us updates and we just turn that into the tag chairs and the talk meeting. We can do updates asynchronously, but clearly we need to be doing a better job of having more meaningful discussions with each other about where some of these problem areas are. I'm seeing some head nods, Katie. I'm sorry. I was just going to say, if we did that, I would like to at least maybe record a one to two minute lightning video of, you know, talking through the slide that we could view offline. Right. So that might be a way to have both because I find it useful to hear someone explain the context behind what's in the slide. So I don't think that they could just be email, but I do think that I'd rather use the time collaboratively versus just one to many. I think I want to echo that. And I think this is not just, okay, so when you're talking about the meetings, I don't think we're using the time very efficiently to begin with because we're going for the slides. The slides, most of us, the TUCs, at least me, I'm going for them before the meeting. So for me, this is more like going for the things that I know again. So usually in entity meetings, I find useful when we can actually chat about some of the blockers or something that we actually need to spend our time on and get things moving forward because we're not doing that. It's for us, it's just a status update. And I think it's going to be more worthwhile for us to have some kind of asynchronous update from the tags, but in a way, they're still going to inform the TUCs of what is going on. So we actually have to be diligent about that. But at the same time, I'm going to bring it a step forward. I think we need it at the TUC level as well because we do a lot of work at the TUC level. I think this is yesterday, maybe, when we had the GB session yesterday, there was a lot of work that the TUC does and it's only visible for all these KubeCon and these meetings. And perhaps we need to take that at the TUC level as well. And maybe the GB can do that as well. They want to perhaps for us to understand what is their backlog and agenda, what they're working on as well. But transparency at that level is completely missing. We need to be using our time more efficiently considering that all of us have full-time jobs. I think this has been mentioned many times for all these KubeCon. And we need to use our face-to-face time for a Zoom or virtually to move us forward rather than stay on the same spot. Erin? Yeah. I mean, we talk a lot face-to-face about automation. So I think if we did have more consistency between the tags, you know, just a little history, when we created the tags and there were six, we let everyone decide what their own charter would be. Like, really, we said, go off, create your own SIG. You decide what your charter is going to be. You decide how you're going to work. And so to your point, Matt, when people have projects that are cross-corpfolio, I don't know what the word would be in the community, but, you know, security, networking, storage, all those things that touch lots of different things, then it's very hard because you seem to go from like country to country talking to each one of these six. But what we could do is utilize the time for operational concerns between the talk and the tags. And instead, figure out a way that we can automate status of projects that we know might be in trouble. So can we create, you know, I think, Matt, I've talked about this a long time, some sort of time boxing on these things that hit an alarm that this isn't being addressed. That also helps with transparency. We know when we're failing on our face and we haven't addressed something. And so then that can also create a report of, hey, we haven't, it's been eight months and we haven't finished the due diligence on this project. That's not acceptable, right? And so it keeps all of us accountable on what we need to be doing, but we're not just, you know, death marching through slides of updates that everything's going great. That meaning should be more like, here's what's on fire. Here's what I need help from the talk from, and in, you know, to your point, Matt, I mean, I don't know how we get updates of things that we need to know more about, but I feel like that's something we could try to manage asynchronously. Marlo and then Alelida. I have a strong request because I have a hard time making those tag meetings that are all the tags because of the time. And if there is a way to do asynchronous, because I'm sure I'm not the only one in this boat. I'm not asking anyone to move the meeting if it's working for everybody else, but I am asking for those of us who cannot make that time for there to be any synchronous channels that we can contribute. So we've got the tag chairs channel, but we can, we need to do better at making good use of it. Alelida and then Alex. So I was just going to suggest. Oh, so I'm sorry. Sorry. I mean, I was just going to suggest that maybe we could have reduced the number of many to many and actually focus the talk liaisons with the tags to actually meet more formally and more regularly, because that also doesn't happen that much. And therefore, I think in a many to many scenario, it's often harder to talk about the problems and the things that are on fire and how to unblock them. If the talk liaisons have a session once a month with the tag, I think we can have more open conversations and probably resolve problems quicker. Yeah, so I think I wanted to bring the conversation back to something Erin said, and Katie highlighted transparency. I think this ties back into having a clear definition of what the tags are helping the TOC with and also in one sense legitimizing their role because what has happened in actuality is that the projects, you know, who are really over the reason for our core existence are very disconnected from the TOC or the tags and they only come to us, you know, in the tags or the TOC when there is a problem. They actually never come otherwise because they just don't know how to interact with the TOC or the tags. The other part which is also kind of leading to this disconnect, you know, and getting the gap is increasing over time is that two things. One, that, you know, this standard process of having CNCF service desk stuff has completely failed. It doesn't work for any project because the CNCF does not respond back. There's no SLA for anything, right? It just goes into a black hole and the projects never hear back. And the other part is that, you know, if you go back to the tag there, the tags don't have the responsibility to go and, you know, help there or facilitate there and the TOC certainly doesn't have the bandwidth. So they're as Erin highlighted, there's some, you know, operational aspects which, you know, processes can build, but there's also the other aspect that is their confidence in the system, if you will, for the projects to interact with these bodies and actually have a more holistic feedback cycle. I mean, it's just not working today. Yep, Matt and then Josh. So I, you know, I want to actually talk about both of the points you brought up here, right? First, the service desk. And so I've maintained two projects, Sandbox and graduated and one was incubating and became graduated. And I actually had a very different experience where everything was addressed. I've gotten answered on both of those. And so there means there's a disconnect where some projects are having a different experience there than others. And I think that's something that should probably be addressed and looked into. And maybe it's the type of requests, you know, those kinds of things, but I, what I see in this is there's a very different experience for certain projects that we probably need to dig deeper into. But then there becomes projects interacting with the tags. And, you know, as a maintainer, I've talked to a lot of other maintainers about this. And I mean, if you look at it, we've added more projects to the CNCF, but our overall contribution numbers have gone down. And a lot of maintainers on these projects there, they've got companies using this stuff. They've got requests coming in. They're doing good work, but they've got fewer maintainers than before. And now you're asking what are often very technical people to now step into more responsibilities with less going on and so showing up at tag meetings. And when it's not a fire, going to them and trying to be productive is more work on top of the more work they're trying to do. So that's where it's hard to get maintainers to show up there. So what do we do to help those maintainers have an easy time with the tags? How does the interaction with the tag benefit the projects and being success going forward? And part of that may be how do you help them to grow more maintainers or more contributors in a better support system? So the people who are core on those projects who know the ecosystem and the ideals, they have the freedom and the time to engage with the tags because right now it's very difficult for them to find the time. And then when they show up to have something that's relevant for them to engage in. And that's what I've heard from a number of the maintainers. Josh and then Richie, Lynn and Alelita. Not Richie. Okay. Yeah. Building on both of those points. I'm really, I really also want to find ways to get the projects to stay involved with the tags and figure out how to keep them present. I mean, we just as an aside, maybe there's a top down opportunity to say somehow have them check in once a year or something. But I think to like, like Matt was saying, really, we need to give them some what's in it for them. Something that's going to, you know, make them want to participate. I mean, so we should think about what those in it for them things are a couple of them might be well, we can highlight synergies with other projects because we are talking, I mean, that'll take time to build up that muscle. Other ones are like, and I've been wondering about this are end user engagement, like do tags engage end users and can we tell them this is the feedback we're hearing from end users or sometimes in my tag, when end users show up, we ask them to present for five minutes and share their story so then they could benefit from that. So I just wanted to encourage us to think about what's in it for the projects that will draw them, keep them drawn in. I just had another spot idea here. Sorry. So right, the end users, right, one of the things we haven't done as a TOC, which lets us be a little bit neutral is to come up with, you know, architectures of how the different projects work together. It's hard for us not to king make and also connect that. And it's really good for our end user community to say this is what we're using. But once they have this, this is what we're using and it was radars before who knows what will come next. The tags could facilitate, let's take these projects that are end users and get them talking to each other so the integration gets even better there for those end users. That may be a useful place for the tags to start stepping in the middle of and facilitating. That's useful for the projects and useful for the end users. Yeah, I just want to say I really love the discussion here. So I'm actually come as two sides, right? I'm one of the top contributor on the Israel project. And recently I've been involved with tech network to help lead to run the tech network. So, so I'm really coming through both lands, right? Because I spend a lot of time contributing to Israel project and honestly nobody from Israel project show up in tech network other than me who's trying to run the meetings. So my feeling as a project maintainer is there's no value right now. The tag is providing to me as a graduation project. Why would I attend the tag meeting and wasting my over to, you know, go there and I'm not learning anything other than, okay, I'm seeing this maybe a sandbox project growing in the ecosystem. But there was no idea to me how it's relevant to a big branding project like Israel or LinkedIn, right? Who are graduation project. So now that I'm wearing both hats, I really think you are nailed down, right? As a maintainer to Israel, I'm thinking loud here, you know, what would be valuable for tech network to provide to me, right? So first of all, I'm starting to mentor a young woman through Linux foundation mentor program and she just told me today she taught she's a speaker at KubeCon and she is doing like speaking to 50 people about Israel ambient. I'm like, geez, I wish I knew this program earlier, right? So that's a value we can provide to the project, right? If I knew this program earlier, I could potentially involve more maintainers on the Israel project to take mentee and, you know, leverage CNCF to, you know, evangelists of our projects. So that's value number one. Number two is our users are super confused about like the service mesh projects out there, right? There are a couple of them. How do we position, you know, what are the value, you know, what's shining on which one? I think that's a value the tag could provide some guidance. And honestly, as a maintainer, I would go to a meeting where LinkedIn team or Celine team talk about what's new, what's exciting in there and sitting next to this wonderful lady. She's just educating to me. Her tag suspensability was doing like demo day every month. I was like, that's an interesting idea. We should do that for tech network, so and then I think the end user comments would spot on because on Tuesday I was on a panel with all the service mesh expert and LinkedIn has a survey user survey running and it still has a survey running and Celine has a user survey running. I think it would be super valuable for project maintainer to not only see the survey for your own project to actually make it available to other projects. I would love to see service from other project as well. I think it's just going to be really attractive, make the tech attractive by providing value to the maintainers and I was asking them to do more to increase their contribution because they are already overworked and overwhelming. Yeah. Okay. I'll leave it and then in the back and then I want to make sure that we got five minutes because I want actions. We got to make changes. Yeah. So I think to your point as well as the other points on maintainers not finding direct value at least in tag observability what we have tried to do is get experts who may be maintainers to come and present as guest speakers because I think that knowledge sharing is very important and as you said when there are four solutions across four projects what's the best one for the end user and there is a lot of end user participation at least in observability as a tag where a lot of the end users come in and are starting to share use cases or areas where they are trying to find solutions and they really are interested in understanding from each other in the tag discussions how they can actually at least learn from each other if nothing else right even if the projects are not there how do you learn from each other so I think that it's really also defining a value of how you're educating and also involving maintainers and respecting their time. So I just wanted to share my perspective as someone who's worked a bit on a tag and also as a maintainer of a few projects at several levels of maturity I think one of the things we could do immediately is to create a critical path that makes it very obvious how a project should progress. I also think the tags aren't necessarily represent the domains so much as they did five years ago especially when you think of the confluence of machine learning and many other projects it's now very difficult to understand whether it fits into run time observability or networking and that problem is only in the compound over time and so what I would welcome as somebody who's also putting a sandbox project in now is a tag community or something where I could see what does it take to be in the cloud name of community because really that's the advice I need not how to do my networking stack or not to do the due diligence that I would probably do it as well and I think that's a really good vein to mind that the idea of what is the first thing that we provide to these project folks who want to donate or want to go through the progression that makes incentivises them to do so how do we create a pit of success for our future contributors and projects I know Katie you have one thing right? An observation mainly so I think we really need to ask ourselves why we are on the TOC and why we are on the tags because I think in the last couple of years there has been a lot of expansion within our landscape and we have been always under pressure to either evaluate projects very quickly move them very quickly to the next level there's always been pressure around that around us and I think we definitely learn how to say no and this is definitely because we had so many initiatives or so many proposals to create new tags and working groups especially tags people want tags, people want new communities and I think we learn to kind of say no and actually start small and grow because it's not sustainable for us to increase the number without having enough traction so I think it's really to go to the reason of why we are so I think for the TOCs it's important for us to make the tags successful and actually provide them or equip them follow the processes and governance for them to operate successfully if there's any blockers that TOCs need to have a decision around or vote on it then we will be able to do so at the same time on the tag level they need to think about making projects as successful and actually understand why the project should come to us and why we should engage them and how we can engage them and I think these are different discussions that should be had as well because the focus group is different but I think this is the time when we can actually crystallize all of that information actually have action items and I'm going to move towards that point okay so what I want to do is we've had a lot of discussions I want to bring us into more action oriented things because some of this we still got to figure out the TOC repo now has discussions turned on there's a few different categories in there let's take advantage of it what I would like to see from all of the tags is a little bit of internal self reflection go through your charter figure out if your charter actually describes what you want to do because right now we have tags that do different things we have tags that reach out to projects to invite them to come into the ecosystem we have tags that just do presentations with projects we have tags that are turning out papers we have tags that are doing evaluations of projects to advance a particular domain area think about what it is that you want to do and the value that you want to provide the ecosystem does your charter and bold you to do that so think about that also I want you to consider what are the subdomains of each of your tags are they the right ones are you overwhelmed do you not have enough are there technical areas that we're missing in the ecosystem there's a lot of new discussion going on we've got an AI working group there was a compliance working group presentation from tag security not too long ago I know there's an application development one that's being discussed think about what's within your domain and even outside of your domain and see where we need to actually have resources and groups to come together maybe it's cross-tag functionality I don't know what that looks like the next thing that I want to ask you always for those of you that either represent an end user organization or maybe you're a maintainer of a project you've got a buddy that's maintainer on a project ask them what the value is that they could get out of a group of subject matter experts and consulting or providing guidance on that project in that particular domain if any maybe it's different maybe it's helped me build a community how do I do that how do I get people involved how do I build that ladder so I want to funnel those conversations to the discussions on the TOC repo we can have some of the tag chairs channel but think through that I want to see some proposals from the tags what changes you would like to make to the charter and your reviews I know that was a topic that was brought up we're looking to automate a lot of the manual data collection that information still needs to be presented but there still needs to be a human quality associated with it and I'm thinking that the tags might be in a good position to not only check over time what that data collect differences but also engage with them and see that you answered a number three on this question last year and you're still a number three or maybe you went down to a number two how do we get you up to the next level because it's not always necessarily about the domain expertise that we're providing to those projects it's also here's how we get you to be mature here's how we get you more adopters in that ecosystem how do you all feel about that and I know I missed a bunch of action items but Amy's done an excellent job taking notes Alex let's first make it clear what the tags are here for and sort out the charter because we have two buckets of roles we have the roles that we do for the CNCF project reviews papers and other things like that and then we have the things that we're doing for the projects and I think that bit is a bit of a disconnect when we say subject matter expertise we're often not contributing subject matter expertise to the projects we're providing subject matter expertise to the TOC and actually what a lot of projects are taking out of this would be something like that community or type contributor strategy and those are the things that's what's in it for them maybe but we need to figure out what's in it for them I have had two maintainers from two graduated projects actually tell me and it was the same comment which is why it kind of resonated was is the TOC sorry is the CNCF going to fund us to do these animal reviews like why do we what do we gain out of doing the animal review I had a biggest comment on this one day maybe I'm wrong but I feel the projects are more engaged when they need to move levels so what's in it for them is the maturity that then they advertise to the end users it's not only that but that's a big thing so maybe we should think about that to keep them engaged in some way yeah but but then if they have to keep those levels they will have to remain engaged Marlon, Max I think it's a good idea to discuss the tags and maybe categorize what's in there what's not in there to get like to the standard charter think what's also helpful for the tags and what you would do or what you're actually doing in every larger organizations like define key goals like also top down from the TOCs and then ask the tags how we can contribute whether it's the biggest problem that we have too few contributors on projects how can tags help out there or that we have maybe in some area a convoluted type of ecosystem where we see too much overlap they're doing it actually both ways and then see where we meet because for different tags priorities might be different if we see a great idea we have like a lot of projects we see adoption but we see low contributors so some tags might take on more responsibility in that area I just might see why we want to do something over there but we don't even know what ecosystem looks like they would go more out scout so I think doing it both directions might actually help us is for something that you see to present back where you see the biggest opportunities challenges in the cloud native ecosystem and then try to meet in the middle Yep Marlo So we give opportunities for projects to advertise so we have blogs we have the landscape and then we have demos once a month and in that way people can show up and show off what they're working on talk to similar people and try to pull in people to the projects at the same time we often have people on those projects that help us with documentation I asked them to contribute to the landscape because I'm not going to write it for them and when they are told they can be in landscape doc but they have to do the work for it once they've done that it's like a beginning where they have already contributed so then they are more likely to come back to us that isn't to say that we are overflowing with helpers we would always love more but it is to say that it means that the projects that people are working on we know what they are everyone in the community knows what they are we are all engaged Richie? so one thing which I noticed just as part of the discussions here and let me restart naming is hard naming is important framing is even more important I was pretty much against when tax or six were named to tax for reasons whatever but I did see a little bit of a tendency in the discussion here of how can we give advice to projects is not part of the initial charter of the six. But I do think that over time we have maybe felt a little bit in this trap of needing to give advice to the projects. I would question if that's the case, because if they're successful, they're going to be successful. If they're not successful, they'll just die. And no kingmaking, so let them do their thing and fail or succeed. So maybe this taking a little bit of a step back and seeing what is the actual intention behind the groups. And I don't believe it is telling projects what to do on a technical level. That's fair. But I do think channeling feedback from end users through tags is helpful. And I think the tags should are very end user facing. They're helping the users understand the landscape of projects. Rishi and then Alelida. I mean, this is literally what a SIG is, not what a tag is. Also, now we have the end user thing. But my point is again, giving feedback from the users and channeling feedback from the users. I mean, on the one hand, at least from my project perspective, users come and talk to us directly. But even if they don't, this is not technical advice. This is them having a special interest and being in the same group for lack of a better word. So I think that, so I'll give you an example of end users participating both at the project level, as well as at the tag level, right? Because open telemetry where I contribute as well as I'm on the GC, we actually created a end user SIG where the project itself actually pulls in a lot of the end users who are working or using open telemetry. And again, it's a very interesting phenomenon because it's unusual for a project to run an end user SIG. But given the complexion of open telemetry where, you know, all the vendors on the planet are involved in it, it really is that the vendors have teams, developer advocates or whatever they have on their teams who actually are part of this end user SIG. And that's right, because you're really treading into conflict of interest where, you know, they're using that end user SIG for even extension of their own interests, right? But the point is that at that point, you have, you know, very large projects, you know, trying to do this on their own because there's really no guidance clearly of what the tag could do there, right? Because tag actually can support them on that. And they can easily participate in the tag and leverage it. So again, it's a definition of a charter as, you know, folks were calling out is something that actually would empower that area and make it clear. Because again, it can run on all levels, but you know, what works and what makes those projects successful? I kind of agree and disagree with what you hear. I think we could not be the ones giving project guidance how to run their project. I think that's not our job also as the name implies. At the same time, what I found helpful talking to projects, they're like very, very narrow focused on what they want to do. I think where we can actually the technical level, like not on the community building level, you know, there's like three other people working on something similar, or they're doing something that you're trying to build that kind of already exists and like pointing this in the direction. I think there we can help because in an ideal world, we're talking and we try to talk to more projects. And again, like if you're in the project, you're already tight on people's time that you can spend on something like having this external input, hey, there's something else going on, you might be interested. I think that is something we could do. That's also why we need like this involvement, like regular involvement with projects. But I found this sometimes very helpful. Sometimes you send them really, okay, you're working on this, you know that this actually exists. Not that you can't build it like not the king making one, but I aware that this actually exists already. What you're trying to build here. Maybe there is something else there. All right, Matt, and that's going to have to be the last one because I want to make sure we all have time to eat. All right. Yeah. So I actually want to build on this real quick. Years ago, somebody taught me a saying always be connecting dots. And so when I look at projects, if they need governance help, they can go, we've got to seek for that, right? When it comes to most of them, it's not how do they run or how do they code? You've got people who are down in a funnel of what they're working on, whether it's Istio and I'm down in the networking or, you know, working on helmet package management. But when you step back and look at the broader picture of the solutions and the problems, so often the developers, there's dots they don't see connected because they're not looking at that broad view. They're way down. And so I think a lot of really useful advice is taking a step back, looking where things connect with other things and then helping them understand that, which ultimately makes their project more useful. So it's not governance. It's not how they build things or down into the code or advice like that. It's that, you know, I work with a boss who would always ask what he called dumb questions. And he knew the answers. But by doing it, he helped people get deeper insights and connect those dots. And I think that's a great place for tags to step in and help projects that's really useful, but it doesn't require you to tell them what to do or give them specific advice on that. It just helps them grow. Okay. I want to thank you all. Like, I will see you in December at the first monthly meeting. We're going to have more of these conversations. We'll work on doing the updates asynchronously. But I want to try these in small incremental steps. Let's start making smaller changes, making sure that they work, that they stick, that they make sense and learning along the way. So let's start with those discussions on the TOC repo. Let's jump in the tag chairs channel. I know Erin has a doc that she's been working on. And I know Leo's got several PRs out there on how we help the tags move forward. Pretty much at this point, anything is an option. You're only limited by yourself and what you're thinking about for your group and for your community and projects. So throw ideas and against the wall and we'll see what sticks. Thank you all so much. Bye all.