 Hey Josh, how are you? Someone just bit me because I was paying attention to the computer and not to him. Am I getting any sound here? Yeah, I can hear you. Can you hear us? Hello. Oh, that would be why. Okay, that's better. Okay. Agenda, we found it. I just dropped it into the chat. Okay, add yourself. It didn't already add you. We might as well get started. As usual, this is a meeting of the cloud native computing foundation. As such, we are under the CNCF's code of conduct. So behave yourselves accordingly. This meeting is also being recorded. So people can watch it later. I put a few things on the agenda. Agenda, if people have other stuff, please add it. I added an item to the end about holiday meetings. And which ones we keep. It's getting to be that time of the year. Yeah. So now that we're past coupon. We should really go back to. Finishing up all of the paperwork. For projects, particularly because we now have a. We are about to have a publication avenue. To discuss in the next thing. So. There is a whole list of things that we said that we should probably have. Some of which are done and some of which are not done. The. Hey, Maris. I'm like, yes, I finally can make one of these things. Yes. I can make one of these things. All up in your business. So some of those are done. Some of those are not done. Even if somebody already put there, if you have an impulse to write one of those, even if somebody put their name next to it, feel free to ping them and say, Hey, are you actually working on this? Because some of those names got put next to those items like that. I don't know if you've changed. The. The charter one. I just, I haven't gotten around to it. I'm actually, I'm on holiday after this Friday for the rest of the year. And I'm actually hoping to work on it. Over the holiday. That's kind of from work. That does not sound like a holiday to me. I normally don't do any work on the holiday, but I don't know. We'll see. I do stuff. Yeah. Yeah. And I say the purple is spectacular. Oh, I thank you. I went, I went all the way bleach the whole thing. Go all purple, not just the highlights. I don't want to bleach given that I can't get my hair trimmed right now. Yeah. Your hair is lightened up though. You might not actually need to bleach it. It dries out so easily though. Yeah. The. The color itself is pretty moisturizing. Okay. But yeah, there's, there's a few things. And I'm kind of, I've got this halfway draft of the, the general catch all policies and procedures document. You know, I guess I will try to finish before the holidays. But there's a bunch of other stuff. And to plus, you know, if you think of some other governance document that people real, that projects really ought to have or frequently request, don't hesitate to add it to that list. That list is not meant to be a limiter. The, the second thing is I said, we're now getting a route to publication for people who haven't already seen. Carolyn stood up a Netlify site. I'm going to push towards. Having that officially take over contribute.cncf.io. As soon as it does, we have a way to actually move stuff to publication. So the question is for the materials that we have already published, which ones of them are ready. And we kind of need to cement this. The idea of the general meeting was that we were going to have Matt and or sod act as the. TOC stamp of approval. For, for things to actually move them to publication on the site. But first, we have to decide that they're ready. So we've got currently. I think leadership selection is probably, probably good to go. What is governance? Yeah, I think that one's, I think that one's good too. Okay. And the paperwork one is, as I remark leave that the one in master is, Oh, the paperwork checklist, the paperwork checklist would. Actually be extremely valuable. But it's definitely, we're going to need to throw it at the full TOC. And collect comments on it. Okay. I wouldn't have anything else that, that we've even merged to master. So those would be the three. Yeah. So. I'll go ahead and float this because I don't know what our meeting schedule is for the general group. I'll ping everybody over Slack and email and make sure that we're ready for the TOC to throw comments at us and then throw it on the TOC list and say, Hey, we're planning on publishing this. Make sure that you think it's actually correct. And I'm sure we're going to get feedback because my experience already assembling that checklist is what things are actually required at which level somewhat depends on which TOC member you ask. So approving that document is really going to end up being a process of getting the TOC to standardize their requirements for each level, which is honestly the more important thing than having the checklist. But it means I don't expect it to be fast. Anything else on that? Okay. For more of this, we've been working on templates for projects. Again, we've got a basic maintainer circle, governance structure, basic steering committee election governance structure up there to do on governance structures is governance by subproject. I'll throw it again. I think I threw this out last meeting though and the answer was no. Whether or not anybody has a good example for this, because well, I can definitely come up with a synthetic template for the structure. I would rather base it off something that is actually being used. The couple of projects that I know that are effectively governance by subprojects also have a bunch of weird complications. And as a result, do not make for good template material. So if anybody knows somebody who is doing governance by subprojects, where it is structurally simple, it would be good. Otherwise I'll keep clicking through Vicki's archive and see if I actually come across something. The other thing that's actually come up discussing with a couple of projects that are thinking of submitting to CNCF Sandbox is one of the other things that projects often need or want before joining the CNCF is a developer certificate of origin or a contributor license agreement. And so one of the questions that comes up is, do we want to supply a template or an advisory on those? I think that most of our projects, they just use DCO. There are only a few projects that are using CLA mostly for some historical reasons, like CLA has been used in the older parent company before donating to CNCF. And so again, DCO is not technically the preferred way of doing things. So CNCF both encourage projects to use either way, but from our experience of running the foundation for like a year, most of our projects they use in DCO. Now also as far as I remember, we have something defining CNCF charter and give me a minute, I can try to find something. Okay. I think it's definitely worth putting something out there because I think a lot of people don't understand the difference between the two. And if we have a preference for one, we should state that, but there are certain conditions. If you've always used the CLA in the past for the project, maybe you should continue to use one. And I think some of that would be helpful for people. Because there are a lot of people who really don't know about the CLA because that seems to be, historically has been more common. I think DCO is becoming a lot more common, but I think a lot of people don't understand what it is. Okay. So before we even go to the templates, that's actually something that is in our to-do list of advisory documents, which is, you know, you're required to adopt the CNCF IP policy. What does that materially look like? And I think that would be the appropriate place to get into the question of what's a DCO versus a CLA? Why would you need to adopt either one? So yeah, probably before a template, we need to do that. I'm hoping somebody out there has written a good template DCO. So if you check the chat, you'll find a subtract from CNCF charter where we define why people see and briefly explain our preferences for getting CLA and DCO and as a reminder, CNCF charter is approved by governing board. So yeah, this is the basic one, the basic document here. I'm not seeing anything about DCO or CLA there. Scroll down to number 11. The link didn't do a very good job. Okay. Yeah, it talks about their requirements, but I think we probably need to provide a bit more guidance than what's in here. Oh, see. And here, there's actually stuff in here about required licenses that is actually literally nowhere else. And that we have not communicated to projects or the TOC. So that would be useful to have in there. Because elsewhere we have CNCF documentation saying that Apache 2.0 is preferred. But not required. And here it says that Apache 2.0 is required unless you get dispensation from the governing board. So that's kind of conflicting advice from the CNCF. And one of those things that we need to get clarification on. Where did you find that Apache 2.0 is not required, but likely find the source of that. So it's in the other documentation about the levels. Is it in the TOC report? Yeah. It would be great to find it and clarify. Again, what is defined in the charter is basically the, the real source of truth of what we're doing here. Okay. So if there's anything that is kind of mismatching the words that are defined in the charter. So the different body is to be updated. So it would be great. Yeah. It would be great to find. Okay. Yeah. And I mean, the other thing is that's also nowhere in the, so you want to join the CNCF stuff. Like, like, I mean literally what I just read in the foundation repo, that is the only place that is. So it would be important for us to add that to like the paperwork checklist to say, Hey, are you Apache 2.0? If you're not Apache 2.0, can you become Apache 2.0? If you can't become Apache 2.0, you're going to need to apply to the governing board to be under a different license. So the, that's why we need this IP document. Okay. So move that up on the priority. Okay. Yeah, this is, but you're right Dawn. This is not what it says about. Okay. But, but here we have the standard developer certificate.org. So actually all we need to do is copy this and. Template ties it. Which makes the template easy. Okay. So we can copy and template ties that. So we don't have to find anything. So here's a question. And I guess it's for you or right, which is, we were just saying most projects have a DCO. We probably want to recommend a DCO, but effectively this foundations charter is recommending a CLA and over a DCO. Is that something we need to take up. With the TSE. I'm not sure. Let me, let me recheck that, but basically we do not recommend CLA as a, as a primary. It's a primary way of providing authority to you. We had a different request from, from the different projects who were asking us like, how can I sign up? How can I bootstrap the CLA and the CLA system, but essentially most of them did not need them. And they ended up is just using DCO. So DCO is a good alternative. And it's way simpler to use it. Yeah. The. Yes. And, and does not require constant trouble shooting by the CNCF staff. When people's auto signatures on GitHub are not accepted. The, um, Okay. That would be important thing to collect. Okay. So it sounds like overall the big question is, it sounds like we want to get all this in place, both with the IP document and templatize the DCO example. We're not going to templatize the CLA example, because we'll just record, we'll just link to that CNCF CLA document, which basically says call the CNCF attorneys. So, um, okay. So that answers that. And then let us move up to Dawn's item before we go any further, which is upcoming meetings. So the next meeting for this would normally be the 22nd. I am definitely canceling that meeting. Because I'm not going to be available. And I highly doubt that anyone else will be available on the 22nd. Um, the, um, which means that next meeting after that would be January 5th. I don't see any reason to not hold that meeting. January 5th work for people as far as they know right now. Yeah, I'll be around that week. Okay. Okay. So issues and we'll start with. Paris's issue here because she linked it in here. Um, Paris, do you want to explain what you're asking here? I am thinking that we should continue the bad gene stuff and really create taxonomies from the bad genes so that we can start to make some sense of things and not have people run around in circles because I think there is multiple ways of running a community. And I think Nadia proved that in research through her book. Um, so my thing is, uh, let's look at and do an in-depth dive into like what it would look like to have taxonomies for our communities here. Like could we take Nadia's, uh, you know, made up words, uh, and then like at the bottom, I had some open questions with things like, are there certain communities that, you know, aren't necessarily allowed under CNCF governance? Are there some that we are, you know, that we should target? Um, I don't know. This is really more of a discussion topic. Honestly, I'm a much larger discussion topic, but I really feel like this is the glue that we need to making these conversations better instead of having people just say, oh, well, you know, not every project wants to be Kubernetes. Like this is what they're trying to say. And it's like the debate of, oh, is this open source? It's like, yes, this is open source, but like maybe it's not the way you do participation. Um, so I think it would be really cool to call that out in a badging system so that people could understand some of those things like ease of participation and a user adoption and, um, you know, I don't know, just things like that. And I think that badging would really, really, really help this. So I'm just kind of ready to take it in gear and continue to work on, on the proposal that dims had initially outlined with some of the stuff from, from open stack and kind of elevate that further to see what it would look like for us to explore that world. So that's it. It's mostly just discussion. Yeah. Um, in the previous badging proposal, which actually kind of fell off a cliff simply because the people originally going to work on it have not been very available. Well, I'm picking it up. Okay. We actually talked more about attaching the badges to things that were, um, I do diligence or entry requirements. Have you followed me? Yeah. Um, and the, um, although, um, some things like general form of governance, um, I wouldn't be a bad thing to have in cases where, where it's sort of clearly defined, right? Because it's not bad. Well, if you're about to start contributing to a project, um, it's useful to know whether it has steering committee elections or whether it's got a maintainer council running it. Um, the, um, I don't know if you've read Nadia's book yet, but it is probably the most brilliant piece of artwork I have ever read in my whole life. So I would like to base my next year of work on it. So, uh, I really, really, really think that like where she's on to something with the taxonomies because it's just like, there's so many open source projects now that everybody's just like debating on like what is and is not open source. When guess what? Like all of it is. And it's just not to the likings of. You know, certain folks on some of the ways that they run their communities. And I think that that is what we should like suss out because even with open governance, there's still multiple ways of like you're saying running your project. So if we could make groupings for those, and decide like what ease of participation levels are acceptable. For instance, because not everybody needs liberal, you know, contribution policies like Kubernetes or do they, uh, I feel like that's kind of the, like the granular stuff that we should really like suss out. And then for instance, like tie them to maturation. So does that mean that when you graduate, you're like, you have to be a federation and Nadia describes a federation as Kubernetes. Um, so it's like, do you, does that mean that every graduated process needs to be a federation and have that classification of things? Um, So that's kind of where I am right now. I think it just makes a lot of sense. And I just wanted to see if y'all thought it makes sense for me to, continue to work on it. Yeah. I mean, I guess the problem with that classification is realistically, we're not going to be able to classify a project as a toy. And so that's, so that's my thing. So therefore we're making a statement that say, unfortunately toys don't make our bar based on open governance. And then that is how people can see, you know, well, that's project wouldn't work out in CNCF. You see what I'm saying? So like that's, that's the, like the idea here where, because it's just like right now they're just like, Oh, that project isn't going to like, you know, work well in CNCF and people are like, why not? And there's just no real. Like, uh, definitive reasons, right? So that's, that's the idea here. I mean, it's just no real. Like, uh, definitive reasons, right? It's just a lot of. Safe. Back and forth. But if we could make that statement, like, hey, unfortunately toys, y'all are very open source. However, for CNCF. And to get the CNCF resources, we need to get the work done, right. So, we need to be able to work with the CNCF and. And we need to graduate out of Sandbox in some other category outside of toy. Because a stadium, a club, or a federation means that there's more participation levels than a toy. Right. Yeah. I would say the other thing is that those four classifications don't say some things about how. Don't say some things about governance specifically. you can have a project that's effectively a federation. But it's run by a maintainer council. You follow me? Right, so that's where the taxonomies are gonna break in. So it's just like birds, right? There's like tons of hummingbirds. But then it's like hummingbird with the big beak underneath. And then hummingbird with the yellow back. Like that's exactly what this would be. It would be like federation with a steering committee, federation with a multi-company project. Federation, that would be the badge. So the badge would be federation this, federation that. And then we would all be Star Trek and it would be so much cooler. So that's my pitch. I don't know if y'all like it or not. So if you would like, I would like to continue this work. I'd also am asking that to you because if it's not necessarily something that would be worthwhile, I might not work on it. So what do you think? I just feel like I'm very passionate about this. So I can actually put some time into it. Dawn, you're biting your lip. What's going on? I don't have any strong feelings out of the way. I don't think about this. I think it's nice to have the badging but it's not something that I'm particularly, particularly passionate about. It'll be worth cycling back with Dimms. I mean, because he kind of kicked all of us off. Yeah, no, I've been working with Dimms. Yeah, Dimms is excited about it. Yeah, Dimms is also excited about it. I just would like to curb all of the conversations that are going on for like the last year about what is, isn't open source and what is and isn't a CNCF project. And I really think this would tackle that. I genuinely think so. Because I also get a lot of crap from people who are like, Paris, you just want to turn everything into Kubernetes and that is false. I just would like to go on record and say that. So I feel like that would also prove a point that, yes, like we all respect all open source here. It just might not necessarily be a fit for CNCF's principles and resources and things like that. So that's where I'm coming from here. Charles, thank goodness. Like you, your hair is looking great. I don't know what you're talking about. I'm freaking, I'm freaking Kate. Like I'm like, hey. I'm curious about this book that Nadia wrote. How new is it? I actually, you know what? You're in the Bay Area, aren't you? Yeah. Guess what? I've got a copy for you and I can do contactless delivery. Awesome. I mean, I'm happy to meet you. I'm A, I'm A, that board. And B, and B, no, I literally, I got a couple of extra copies in case I was ever in this predicament where I'm like making my case and I'm like, here's a copy. I would love it. Sorry to derail the conversation. I'd love it. And I just finished Jono Bacon's book and, you know, there are things to think about there. First was an eventer who offers Kubernetes to their users. We all get things like that. Tina's got some background nice. Yeah. I was like, is that Derek? Yeah, I'll arrange with you to, we'll get it sorted out. So thank you. Tina, are you trying to say something? Oh, I'm sorry. I should have. No, all good. All good. We just wanted to make sure that we were, that we were being attentive. That's all. Yeah. How are you Tina? I don't know if I've, if we've ever talked. Right. I work for ARM for the infrastructure ecosystem. Yeah, I've seen your name everywhere. That's how I was like, wow, this is a, this is a special treat. Are you just hanging out with us today? Yeah. And I just recently signed up for the calendar and I see, oh, sounds interesting. So I will just join and see. Yeah, welcome. Yeah, this is just our chill session. I'm actually talking for Josh's chill session, technically. I'll touch a moment. Charles, did you have a second question? I feel like I may have. No, I actually just found the book. Okay. Yeah, I'll, I just said I'll arrange with you and we'll find a place to, to connect. There were the DCO stuff was interesting. We use DCO. I, sorry, jumping back in a little bit late. It was mid-workout while y'all were talking about that. So I, it sounds like we can, if we template something we can do, provide the templates and say, here are your two options. We recommend DCO. And I think it's, Josh, I really appreciate that link because I didn't know the difference between the two, which is really important. Yeah. Yeah. I always try to get DCO for our project simply because like everything else aside, the overhead is much lower. Yeah. The, so, because like with DCO, you can do the thing where you have agreement by implication, right? Well, you just have a bot say, hey, you know, unless if, since you submitted this request, you're saying that you agree to our DCO. So if you don't, you better look at it. The, whereas you really can't do that with the CLA, you have to have the whole sign off process, which has, has never not been a pain for Kubernetes. I'll tell you. It's even worse for the companies that won't let employees click through CLA's that require like, literally like Bloomberg requires their CTO to put a paper signature on paper. Basically is, is how it works. And so getting, getting those handled is just such a pain. I avoid it whenever I can. Okay. Other open issues and governance end user promotion criteria that would go into our advisories. Nobody's currently working on that portion of the advisories. It's in our long checklist of documents that we haven't finished. I never had any objections to making that definition clearer. The, and the other one is the multi-organization requirement. There were some proposals of the TOC level to change the text in or meaning of the multi-organization requirement, but those proposals never rose as high as looking to get approved. I, and therefore there's really nothing for us to do there that I know of. The requirement is, is still what it stands, which is that on whatever your leadership group is, your leadership group, by the time you reach the graduated level needs to include people from more than one organization. And everything else is advice on how do you recruit contributors from outside your initial starting group. The, so let's look at any PRs that might fall under governance, which there aren't currently. So that was easy for sad reasons because all of us have been too distracted to actually submit stuff, but the, particularly, Dawn, would you like to do a recap of our session at KubeCon? Oh my God, that was a disaster. Thank you, Paris, for being one of the only people who stuck around. Now, we actually did get a couple of people who stuck around, but oh my God, it was a comedy of errors. They had the wrong video. They couldn't upload a new video because Intrata doesn't work that way. They couldn't let us share our screen because also Intrata doesn't work that way. And we had apparently the tech who had no idea what he was doing and couldn't make anything work. And we eventually just went live and just talked for the remaining 15 minutes that we had out of the session by the time, because we started what, 15 minutes late, at least, maybe 20. Paris, how did we do, given all of that, since you were the one watching us? I'm your number one cheerleader. So that's why I'm like, if I'm not there, I want you to be mad at me. So I thought like you did great for like all the softballs that came out. Like there was, like you still stuck through. You were like, I mean, I would most likely said, hanging up, catch me in slack. Y'all were like, you know what, we're gonna stick through it. So no, I liked it. And other people sat through with you. So I felt like that was like the testament that like people really, like, you know, Josh already said that at another meeting. Like that was like a testament that like the content that we're trying to serve is relevant. So yeah. Yeah. So one of the questions that comes up since we only have a couple of days left to decide on this is whether or not we want to re-propose redoing that for KubeCon May or whether we want to do something else. For what it's worth, KubeCon May is, I've been told not going to be on Intrado. Thoughts? Yeah, I don't know. I feel like I say no. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was gonna say I feel like we should find some other way to represent the contributor strategy and or the governance working group to, I don't know, do something that's gonna maybe, maybe help more people because I think that, you know, the Q&A is great for the few people to show up and ask and have those specific questions. Yeah. But I wonder if there's something we could do that'd be more applicable to a broader set of people that would be useful. So we could expand on the checklist and maybe talk more about the differences between the, you know, incubating sandbox graduated. We could talk more about the process. I don't know. I mean, the alternative and the problem is that I can't speak for, you know, the other working group would be to have something that's a little bit more focused on contributor growth. That would be the other option. Might be better because big leave we're looking at something which's a little bit more broadly applicable beyond leaders of existing CNCF projects. Okay. Well, something to think about because the deadline is the Sunday. Yeah. So we have almost no time to think about this. I feel like we should. Yeah. But I also feel like we probably don't have all the people on this call that we need to make those decisions. Yeah. Especially if we wanted to do something more around contributor growth. Yep. I mean, in order to do something with sort of SIG-wide, like contributor strategy-wide can we talk about? Yeah, I definitely think so. Let's talk about all the resources we have. Yes. Templates. Yes. Talk about all the things that we do and do it more of a- Yes. How we can help. Yes, or I would like to pitch a maintainer circle. Okay. So, yeah, but I highly prefer the, this is what contributor experience basic intro is because I still think that that could be valuable to hundreds of people. Yeah, I just, I have not had good luck with things that are just sort of intros of a particular team. So I tend to lean towards things that have a specific program. So that would lead me towards, say, doing a maintainer circle. But if we do sort of an intro to Intro Strat, I would pitch it sort of differently. I would pitch it more along the lines of how, I don't know, how to get help in navigating through the process and how, I don't know. Yeah, I wouldn't pitch it as an intro to contributor strategy seg. I would pitch it as something around, here are the templates, here are the guides, here's all the things you need and walk people through the process. I'm not articulating myself very well. It's getting late. I'm getting sleepy. One more meeting after this. Okay. Well, if you have more thoughts on that tomorrow during the day of your time, maybe write something up. So happy to sign on, happy to have, I mean, honestly, I think the CNCF would be happy to have us do a maintainer circle thing that was not necessarily our program session as a maintainer circle thing. It's been pulling teeth, high recording to try to get any kind of slots that are for maintainers or contributors outside of what's already given to them. So that's why I've been trying to advocate hard as hell to redo the maintainer track entirely because I think New World Order requires that. And I'm just, I don't know if we can all band together and talk to the chairs about that, but I really think it would be best serve for our maintainers to have contributor summit related content that they would be served normally on the maintainer track. It's kind of like what we would serve at a maintainer circle instead of what currently goes on. Yeah, one of the problems that's existing me, because like when we're having this in person, the maintainer sessions, a lot of them really were working sessions, but that has not worked at all on Intrado and Intrado, they just become additional presentations. So yeah. Probably we can use Zoom breakout rooms and stuff like that. I don't know, but anyway. I do want to scrap the idea of doing the contributor strategy wide thing and just pitch the maintainer circle. I mean, if you feel like we'd get more benefit out of that and you're looking for places to- So I think I still think we would get more benefit out of the general, to be honest. I think we honestly, I feel like we should do both. That's kind of what my TLDR is. And that's what I think. Do I pitch both? Yeah. I mean, my worst case scenario is we would just run a maintainer circle concurrently with HubeCon. But yeah, I really think that there's so much value with what you're laying out, especially to have that recorded on the internet forever. That's what I mean. I mean, I'm not forever, but you know what I mean. Yeah, I think that's the value in my opinion. It's like the recording. So like any artifact that you would get out of it would be more than like a maintainer circle artifact. Okay. What sounds like a plan? Does anybody have anything else? Potentially up to six or seven minutes left. Gotta jump off the prep for another meeting, but this is all good stuff. Thank you. And I'll chat with you soon. I'll get in touch with you Paris. Yeah, for sure. Thanks, y'all. Thanks. Thanks, y'all. Bye Tina. Thank you. Bye Tina. Miss y'all, bye y'all. And any thoughts or questions, Tina? I think this is very good. Yusra, I get some strategy here. Yeah. Because I'm, Tom has a lot of developers. I try to leverage it to build our ecosystem. Thank you. I appreciate it. Let us know if you ever have any direct questions. Yeah. And thanks for coming. Yeah, if I do, I'll send you email. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. All right y'all. Maybe later everybody have good holidays if I don't see you before you take off. Well, at the contributor celebration. So that's true. And Tina, you're invited to that too. Yeah. Well, for those of us who are Kubernetes geeks, yeah. Thanks. Well, no, they've opened it to all of CNCF, Josh. Oh yeah? Okay. Yeah. Uh-huh. Okay. Yes. All right. Bye.