 Good morning. We'll give folks a few more minutes to come on in. A few more minutes to come on in. I am not anticipating that we're going to use the entire time this morning. We've got a pretty late agenda today. Also, we've lost Liz. I've just heard from Michelle that she's not going to make it this morning. And Elena has kind of like, so. Good to see some of you then. Where's that emoticon for chopped liver when I need it. I was hoping that somebody was going to pick up like the, now come on, like we're all here. It's going to be fun. Excellent. I am, I'm seeing some of the folks that I needed to be able to kick us off. So I will go ahead and get us started in here. Welcome. We have made it to our. December 1st meeting. I've got attendance over in the working doc. And here's our agenda today. We've got some optional updates from folks that have. Put things in because we know that. Keep calm was only a few weeks ago, so might not have everybody in here, but I will kick us off with the app delivery folks. Yeah, so quick update from our side first on project flux. Also potentially now together with flagger requested to move to incubation. The links in here that's a link that's currently with. The QC, so Lexis and the flux folks pinged us, but obviously for the working group to start the due diligence, we need to officially go from the QC that we should be working on this issue is in there. So let us know when we should start working, but they request to go to incubation. The working groups. We have started to re engage now around the operator working groups. If you remember a long time back with the order was this definition of what the operator is and this went. Kind of in circus, a lot of discussions in there. When we keep this off so big interest now we started to rename it from definition to life paper. As a working title and have we structured it, there will be a more detailed presentation tomorrow in the sick update meeting. So it's more that's going away, not just defining it, but what are you using it for having a clearly defined target audience like developers as these users of operators. The current chairs have had more want to pass on to to new chairs for the working group. It's fairly because they have taken over most of the work and they think it's fair. I don't know where there's an official process for working group chairs but we can take this offline. And another request that came in is to have a small survey and operate the usage which frameworks that people are using it for which type of use cases and so forth to also have some market insights there. I don't know if you most likely have heard of already because there was quite some mass around queues, you can around this. So consortium around. GitHub's approach is to have a kid ops working group. They also submitted some of that work as a CNCF sandbox proposal as well, like in the proposal doc here. We'll talk to them tomorrow is also sandbox projects for it uses to have a look at. So the goal is to have a again definition of or capability model around those and avoiding the word manifesto because some people were not really happy about using the word manifesto in here but there's also ideas about like having trainings and other materials on it. And on the CNCF landscape for app delivery that's still something that we don't have an update on that honestly we're not really actively pushing right now as well so the focus really was pushing these working groups and supporting them to get into operation as well and yeah for flux and Flaker please for it to use you just to reach out to us. Quick question when I looked at the get ups working group proposal last week. It was constituted as a sub project of flux rather than as an independent group. Has that changed or is it still a sub project of flux. I talked to this with Alexis the reason why they did it because they wanted to have the blog posts out there and they needed the link beforehand. So from my understanding there is a request to service desk to move this under the CNCF and I was approached this up with them that it should not be under flux it should be separate. So they are well aware of it. I'm not sure it has been changed yet but that point was very well made. Okay I was going to say it wasn't just the namespace and GitHub which I understand. It was also the text of the proposal itself specifically said that it was a sub project of flux. So the, I'll take a look and see if they've updated that. It said it would use the governance. Yeah, yeah, but not that was just would copy that governance not as a. I think I think that was, I didn't that was intended to mean it was part of flux in any way. I think I talked to Alexis to say that they're trying to move it over with the org and everything. I think it hasn't been done yet given all to keep calm. I think it was going on to keep calm but I can definitely provide an update as this is how this movie for any other questions that I will pass on to contributor strategy because you all got a lot in here. When do we not have a lot in there. But anyway, hello everyone hello friends. Hope everyone is doing well doing being safe. Josh and I are actually going to do the update today. We always keep the discovery survey at the top of this slide that's just an ongoing survey for us to collect information from you as project maintainers and contributors. And that kind of helps us out with where things are what's going on with 70 now 70 plus projects in the foundation. But we definitely have had a lot of stuff go on in our sub projects the three main sub projects that we have right now maintainer circle governance as well as contributor growth. We have we're moving and shaking in all three areas, the maintainer circle is actually going to be kicking off on December 17. Today, this is at 1030 am Pacific time on Thursdays. Yes, we'll also include a survey about availability to see if there's other times that would be better for people who would really want to attend, so that we can scale from there but we needed to just get the first one off the ground and get it launched. Yay, open source. So the first topic is actually going to be an interactive burnout slash time management topic. The way that the structure of the events are going to go at least for the first couple until you know other maintainers, you know, sit give suggestions as to other structures and topics. The first structure is going to be announcements, and then lead into an academic talk so a professor researcher, etc, on the topic that's usually tied into open source somehow. And then it's a 15 to 20 minute talk from them that would seed break breakout room discussions, which is where we'll go will break off so if we get up to 200 people then we'll break off into 20 groups. And then there people will start to talk about you know what what had happened during the researcher topic and then also just really that's where the networking the camaraderie and the sharing of experiences will happen. And then after that we'll come back together for a second talk and that second talk is usually going to be a maintainer so that it's relatable. We'll go into the last breakout session and we'll end the end of the event. So that's what the maintainer circle structure is going to be the future topics that we have we already have a couple speakers actually for these and we've locked them down for January and I can't believe it's already January and February that we're talking about, but some future topics that we have speakers for is creating values for yourself and your project, inclusive language, accidental evangelist, because as many maintainers know they are now an evangelist as well they didn't really know that ahead of time, and then also dealing with conflict grief and loss as a project leader. And then Josh you want to take it away for governance update. Yeah, not a lot because we're mainly preparing for kubcon related activities but we've gone ahead and merged into templates for people weren't already where we maintain this project templates repository that has a lot of mockups and markdown for projects to use as their initial documentation includes things like a contributing MD file and several other things. And we've added to that to common governance models. Example documents for that one is a simple maintainer circle governance and the other is steering committee elections. If you recall we had discussions about steering committees a while ago. And so we wanted to provide an example of that, based on a simplified version of the kubernetes steering committee elections. The one remaining model that we want to get in there is governance by sub projects for projects that are divided up into a lot of sub projects and are sort of an amalgam, which is the third sort of most common type of project governance within cloud native. You want to take the contributor growth stuff Paris or should I. The other thing is that out of contributor growth Carolyn has started work on the discuss contributor maintainer site. With information for maintainers of all of our projects. The, this is a very early proof of concept. Very early. Discussion. It's going to get merged with the existing contribute that CNC f.org site, you know with a, you know, are you a contributor or you maintainer sort of switch off. And, and they also began a draft for a playbook for recruiting contributors because this is the number one request we get from projects for help, which is recruiting new contributors to the project, something that everybody struggles with the. So actually I don't know this to do item. This is, yep. This is a graduation requirement that we would like to draft up for projects that has to do with some kind of document that would indicate what their community management strategy and or contributor strategy is going to be. A K who's going to take care of your people and your ecosystem, because, you know, CNC f goes so far. They're not going to send every tweet for you. Kind of thing so it's important that scalable graduated projects look out for that, especially during maintenance phases that's pretty crucial because once you get to a maintenance phase people are like oh wow I wish I had a community manager. So that is a to do item for us we have a lot of words on paper right now but nothing to show for it. So that's soon. And then we did put all of our other work we've got 20 plus issues that we're working on and would love to have other project maintainers contributors or academics researchers that study these topics to come on and help us. Questions I don't see anything in chat. Okay. Thank you so contribute your strategy. Network Lee, you're up. Hello. So, SIG network didn't meet the week of cube calm, but the service mesh working group did twice meet since last we've given an update and so we'll focus a little bit on the initiatives that the service mesh working group is pushing forward. The one that's gotten the most traction is, or that is advanced the most is the suite of conformance tests for service meshes that are adhering to SMI. So I think in total they're between eight and nine implementations of SMI. I think seven of which are implementations by service meshes themselves, and a couple done by management systems that use SMI to interface with service meshes. And so, I think it's been like the last three significant service mesh project announcements when when there's been a new service mesh announced has announced compatibility with SMI which bodes well for the spec bodes well for the space. And as such, on this call in the past we've noted that there's an initiative to to define conformance to the spec and then tooling to facilitate the testing of that conformance. So the service mesh working group has as last time we met spent the entire time on this topic, which gets a little involved with respect to how it is that. What what assertions need to be defined to to qualify whether or not an implementation of SMI is in fact conformant like what what is conformant. One of the challenges there and actually I think where I know that all of the all of the individuals that are involved would enjoy some or benefit from some feedback from any of you that have a thought here. I can present a question to you, and you can provide feedback offline or here if you'd like but is. Here's the situation service mesh interface as a set of four API is at the moment. Maybe a fifth. So this is one of the implementations so this is really like it should to make this question generic. This could be for really any any API could be for something like SNMP. Recognizing the different vendors implement a set of specifications, and maybe they adhere to the specs maybe they don't. For some vendors, or some projects, they may choose not to implement all of what my specification covers. So the question is, to the extent that perpetually a given project wouldn't implement all of the spec should they be out of compliance. Like there's the fact that they're not going to implement some certain portion ever that that portion doesn't apply to them. Does that mean that they're not conformant. And so that this type of a question is floating around. In my opinion, please. The group is soliciting feedback. Okay, so that was the that was a real focus the other meeting the other service mesh working group meeting was on well distributed performance analysis. So all of you are no doubt familiar with on boy. As has a project there's probably more. There's, there's at least one sub project of on boy. It's called night Hawk it's a load generator. It is being it's gaining in popularity it's being enhanced to support a horizontal scaling or rather support being cognizant of itself so multiple instances of itself to be able to generate a load and send in, send in load from different vectors to different end points, all concurrently bring back the, the analysis of that load and analyze that from from from sort of a 3D perspective if you will. Anyway, but based on, so that's been a focus of the service mesh working group is what kind of what does that mean and what what new analysis can come out of having such a high fidelity view. And as such there's a, the community is is bringing forth a project called get nighthawk to help facilitate many builds and sort of the distribution of nighthawk. As a simple project so those are the that those happen since last time we met. I think that if my status is correct. We have entered into or about to enter into public comment period for ambassador. I think that was where we were just before cube cone. I think we were waiting on being able to get feedback from you all directly and then we can call for public comment, we can take this up offline. Okay. Is there time for a quick question, or yeah. So on on both of the topics you you covered in more land, both the SMI conformance stuff as well as the service mesh performance. Have you been engaged in addition to, you know, envoy, have you been engaged with link or D and has there been a bidirectional comms between the projects. You know, we run it in production but just as it's as it's also broadly used and particularly around the high fidelity metrics down to route level with their Prometheus and native integration. I was curious if, if, if most of the efforts around that are targeted specifically at the nighthawk and the envoy bits or is it more broad to be inclusive of link or D as well. Yeah, great question on quickly with SMI conformance. So it was a link or D maintainer that was maybe the most engaged during the last meeting in a positive way. So that was, that was good. With respect to performance. I'll kind of combine two line items into one to sort of speak to your, to your question Matt about service mesh performance and sort of some emerging capabilities out of the nighthawk project to be able to do what I just described that I think the short of the answer is to your question is yes that the efforts here are proxy agnostic. Rather the efforts here are bits are going in and bits are coming back out. And what's the latency of those what's the throughput of those is there. One of the things that's interesting in nighthawk is that there's, it's has an extensibility model for an adaptive load component. So the ability to like run a load test, analyze it, maybe run run based on the results run another one analyze that sort of run some optimization routines if you will, and that those aren't specific to one proxy versus the next. Yep. All of the, all of the, all each of the efforts actually that are listed in the bullet points there are mesh agnostic are like applicable to all measures in all data planes. Awesome. Thanks for the thanks for that. Next, I will be apparent when we get to sustainability but we've been talking about various aspects of observability as it relates to other projects and obviously, you know, things like, you know, performance of service measures is right up the center alley of that so. Yeah, thanks. Very good. And when you get there is that in part what meet the project is about. Yeah, yeah, I'll cover it. Good deal. That's, that's all for me. Oh, Matt, you're up. Oh, hey, I forgot of the order. There's a bunch here I'll try to be somewhat brief. And we might have a couple of discussion points as well. So at a high level I think, you know, we're a new sig still we formed it in, but the q1 q2 timeframe, early q2. So the last six months I think has been has seen a lot of engagement from the community. I will say it's tended towards folks from vendors. The list there is just for perusal it's not exhaustive and there's no specific ordering. You know, we've had a lot of folks come in and provide feedback and input on various discussion topics and I think, you know, for an initial launch of the sig particularly during COVID and without the two coup con events where we could have in person meet ups and networking. I'm quite pleased by the attendance that we've realized. We can always do better and I look forward to even more engagement at project level versus folks interested from observability vendors or just folks interested in observability but not necessarily on behalf of projects. But that's, that's sort of a rough smattering of where we're at now. In terms of in progress efforts there's a con bond board that we've started to use to help orchestrate work. And we will expect to use that. I'll use that a little bit more in the future. There are sorry for the efficient background noise. But the specific efforts underway are, you know, we're scheduling a series of introductory talks with other other projects. So examples would be litmus and a few others that will captain link or D etc. And I'll get to that at the last part. There are some these efforts by the way are being driven by sig members, not, not myself or or, or, or Richard, but there's a white paper that folks are working on that's sort of a you know, a broad view of various topics for those new to the sig or new to the space. There's an index page that's being in draft form right now that just has a listing of all of the other projects that have particularly interesting topics around observability. And we have a couple of design documents that have been proposed for various tools in the in the space one of them is a migration tool coming out of one of the sig members. Daytime job, if you will, to help with migration of permit the as metrics. I think on the one of the more notable things in terms of incubation and proposals is the due diligence review for open metrics. So we've started that in the last call in our next call we'll have part two of that. And here we could probably use some feedback from this body. Open metrics due diligence there were questions raised by around open telemetry and open metrics and alignment or lack of alignment and scoping and all of that. We didn't come to a conclusion during that sig call. But we are requesting a little bit of guidance on how if at all projects at various phases. And to align with other projects. And, you know, I'm covering this just to frame it as Richie Richard Hartman correctly recused himself from a from a chair position as he's involved directly with this project but he's here on the call so we can discuss but, you know, relevant issues that we consider are you know the no king making base case here and, you know, you know, if indeed there's no King King making so to speak then no alignment check is really allowed right we don't have to have as part of our due diligence that that box is checked. So if no then it becomes a almost an NP complete right we've got a many too many alignment so so that gets messy if we say that there must be alignment. That said, you know, some of the things that came out of this are like what would happen if one project as another project to either delay, or do do things like that which doesn't always make sense. Could it be more of a, you know, sandbox and incubation projects should align themselves with graduated projects. Right so in the context of open metrics. You know, Prometheus is a very de facto system with broad adoption and much of the design center for open metrics has been around, making sure that it's effectively a drop in replacement for the wire protocol for Prometheus. And so then, you know, as open telemetry is up and coming and working towards graduation as our all projects. Ideally, you know, should should they kind of take the same approach to the open metrics. So so there's a couple of different ways to think about that. We did, however, you know, have agreement that we're all working for it in good faith. And since the CIG call there's been some subsequent discussion in Slack around, you know, the way forward to align, you know, various aspects of open telemetry and open metrics in a go forward But that's the general nugget of where we spend most of our time is really in this space. So, so without if there's any feedback from folks here or opinions. I think Richard's really the domain expert here so I've just covered the framing but I'll defer to him for discussion. If any. Yeah, Richard anything from your side. You can sorry. Well, well, I'll also say, I'll also say that the open metrics proposal has been submitted to the itf, which is, I think, big news in just in terms of standards and having some really positive movement there for from that project. I can cover the rest and then when we hear Richie we can talk about the broader, you know, how should projects be aligned or is there anyone that wants to have an opinion on that now, or any guidance. I think it's an important question that you've raised around kind of what the guidance should be from the TOC in terms of alignment. I think it's a question that we're starting to think about as we revise incubation graduation criteria potentially. So stay tuned. And any input here will definitely listen to. Okay. I mean, in this case, we're not blocked. You know, I'm not pulling a fire alarm here, you know, we've got open, you know, we're all on the same team when it comes to, you know, particularly standards and and, as I mentioned before open telemetry and open metrics are already working together and we'll continue to do so. So we'll have maybe a better update on what comes out of the next set rounds of discussion stemming from the due diligence for open metrics upcoming agenda items that we've got for for our next set of calls. Our tech our tech lead is going to be doing a bit of a talk on profiling and debugging of stream latency using some cool stuff. We've got more open metrics, obviously, and then this is there is a bit of a call to action. We've sort of come through the first couple of quarters of the SIG and we've established something of a cadence and gotten some of the administrative out of the way, and have a kind of a core core set of folks that seem to come back every week for more, or every two weeks rather. I'm going to start scheduling short, you know, 10 to 12 minute, if you will, maybe even 15, but time boxed introductions from other projects that have aspects that that that are in scope for the six so for example there's a project called litmus. It's a chaos mesh testing thing and obviously, you know what happens during something like a chaos experiment which is sort of a sadistic way to slam workloads and clusters. You know how you communicate that is obviously obviously matters so they've done some integrations with Prometheus but but how do you visualize something like a chaos test ongoing or the result of a chaos test or how do you zoom out and aggregate kind of wrap your wrap your head around a whole suite of projects and the results, perhaps across a fleet. So, so they're going to come talk about aspects of observability, same thing with with captain linker D. And there's obviously many others so you know we're reaching out to connections that we have and or in some cases cold calling if you will projects that are an obvious good fit for for this just to build this community and start having the SIG interface with projects, some of whom might not know what other projects within the umbrella of the CNCF are available to them or they could align with or leverage capabilities from. So if you have direct connections to some projects that would be a good fit for sort of a encapsulated webinar or a show and tell to kind of help build, you know these cross project and relationships. You know, please reach out either in Slack or to myself or Richie or Bartek directly. And then lastly, and I'm going to be formulating this a little more formally but we're going to start building center and it's in our charter but start building a reference architecture catalog, particularly of end user generated reference architecture so you know in our case that ever quote we're running various observability related workloads on EKS right that's just what we're doing and we're deploying it with whatever we're using in our case mostly Tonka and helm. But you know there are other other projects and other other things and other clouds so we want to launch just a general user driven. Not a king maker style, you know that we shall do this but just here's what members of the CNCF community are actually doing, and this could be either useful as an example or some place to start from for somebody else that wants to engage with these same projects. And that's really all we've got for today. Okay, I think Richie's mic might still be broken. Not if you can hear us. Yes. He gives up okay. All right. Unless any questions, comments, chat. All right. Move us on towards runtime. Hey, good morning everyone. So we don't have a lot of updates because we were. We didn't have a meeting during cube con. But we're still continuing with presentations and reaching out to communities. So on the containers and runtime space. A few projects in the scope in the sick and in the last meeting we had a presentation from crosslet. And that's basically running Web assembly modules as the cubelet and being able to run those modules with Kubernetes. So very interesting project and this is actually being led by the folks of Microsoft. So if you take a look at the presentation, I, I put up the link there. So that was our last meeting and another project is trout. I mentioned this project in one of our last TOC meetings. This is a container registry written in Rust. They're still gathering some information. So hopefully we'll have some participation from them or presentation. Or a discussion session. Then we have a CIS box and that's a project that allows you to run VMs in containers. So a full blown VM with system D and all the different components. With this you're able to run it in a container. So I think a lot of people running in VMs they want to move still want to move to container so this is a useful project for that. So I reached out to this project during cube con. So hopefully we have a presentation from them to then Lucid is another Web assembly runtime. This is maintained by the folks at Fastly. So reached out to them, but it yet to be determined when we'll have participation from them or when they'll be presented. So that's it for the containers and runtime space and the other area is the operating systems for containers and operating systems in general. This is a project that spaces rest CTL and this allows you to run ways to determine the resources in an operating system. So with different metrics. So you could actually tie it to latency metrics and and that actually figures out a way to control resources in your operating system to be more optimal. So all the workloads can have enough resources to run so in maximizing say CPU utilization or memory resources in the operating system. So yeah hopefully we'll have a presentation from them pretty soon and this is actually led by the folks at Facebook. Another project is Bortail. This is another project in the operating systems for containers we reached out to them and this is very similar to some of the some of the other projects that presented before in the sick like a flat car and towels. So exciting new projects in that area. And then in the AI ops and IoT space or at the edge cube flow it's going to present at our next meeting on Thursday. So this is machine learning and to end stack. It's been around for a while. And I think a lot of the folks are probably familiar with this but so happy to have them engaged with the sick and have their presentation about their project. K3S will be presenting soon. I think a lot of the folks are familiar with this too. So this is Kubernetes distribution of Kubernetes flavor, the runs at the edge. And open your and this is another project in the CNCF already. And we reached out to them so they could present in the second to have them engaged in with the second. This allows you to run Kubernetes or extend Kubernetes to the edge and we'll don't present on in 10 in two weeks on December 17th. And finally for runtime activities or sick runtime activities and on the agenda, we're planning to for our next cube con presentation. So we're looking at the CFP and maybe some of the topics to present there to get more engagement. And our work group, the container orchestrated device work group is also doing the same so planning maybe a panel or to submit something for cube con. And yeah, and that's, that's pretty much it that we have for sick runtime. So glad to take any questions or if you want to talk to us offline. Glad to do so as well. Yeah. And so Amy posted that December 13 is a CFP deadline for cube con. So it's coming up pretty soon. awful fast. So, yeah. All right, any comments. Questions will move on sick security. I think I've got some of you here. Yes, I am here. This is Emily Fox. Hello, everyone. Some short updates. We have more members as a result of cloud native security days, smashing success. It was awesome. We had excellent feedback from it. The CTF seemed to actually be the most widely celebrated part of the day. A couple of quick metrics we had 327 misconfigured clusters over the course of seven hours of the event, which included six challenges, each of them getting progressively more difficult to complete. There were at least 60 participants that participated in the CTF we believe that there was a lot more that tried maybe one or two challenges but overall at least 60. We had more than 200 participants that participated for the cloud native security day itself. We had over 1200 individuals registered to attend the event. Just looking at the channel information we had about 310 folks just in the cloud native security day channel I think we had about 180 or so in the CTF channel. Everybody seems to love the event. We had excellent feedback. The CTF to announce the cloud native security white paper is formally released as a PDF on November 18, 2020. We've had a couple of PRs and requests for changes to the document already. Small tweaks, a couple of editorial things that we missed, but it's already been translated to another language and there's an open PR to wrap that up. So that's all we have. All right, looks like we can move on to SIG storage. Alex, thank you SIG security. Hello. So, we have, we have a new project proposal, the Longhorn project. That's currently in Sandbox. They presented to the SIG of included links to the presentation and the recording. The SIG has reviewed the project has tried it out, the running it and sort of gone through some of the details in terms of end users and maintainers and things like that. And we think it's ready for the next stage of due diligence. We've just got a Slack message from, from Sheng, who said that SAAD has kindly stepped forward to, to, to act as a TSE sponsor for the due diligence process so we're obviously happy to work together. So thank you SAAD. I hope and I hope that's correct. Just a minute. That's right. Thank you. We're, we're also still going through the process with the OpenEBS project as we, as we review their, their incubation proposal. There are some ongoing discussions with the project team and the, as well as some of the CNCF staff to help resolve a couple of issues, but we're hoping we'll be able to move forward with that eventually. And the Proficer project was approved at Sandbox, which we're all very happy about and the project is very, is very grateful for. So in terms of asks, one of the, one of the things I was going to, one of the things I'd like to put to the call is ask for some guidance, I guess, on which is the best way to request feedback from, from the TOC. After Sandbox reviews or, or, or, or Sandbox votes. It's, you know, we're obviously aware of the, of the ability to view the recordings and things like that, but I was wondering, you know, should there be a process or do we have a method whereby maybe we can ask some clarifying questions, either on behalf of the project or the project directly to the TOC to, to, to get some feedback? We've generally talked to projects directly, but I think that, and I think, but I think if, if there are specific questions, yeah, just mail the mailing list, probably the best place to handle them. Okay, that, that, that sounds good. I was, we had one of the Sandbox proposals that, that had a review request and we just wanted to get some, some additional feedback because the project asked for some information from the SEG and obviously, you know, we didn't necessarily have some of the backgrounds that led to the decision, so that's, that's cool. Right. In terms of the, some of the next things that the SEG will be working on, we will, we're looking to finalize the performance and benchmarking my paper. This has been on the agenda for a while. And we haven't, we haven't had some of the resources needed to finish it off, but hopefully now that KubeCon is gone and some of the holiday periods come in, hopefully we'll be able to finish this off. We're also looking to start off a new, a new discussion around disaster recovery. So, to discuss the cloud native disaster recovery options, and perhaps considering, you know, authoring a document to kind of capture the process or perhaps even starting a working group to delve in a little deeper depending on, depending on the feedback we get and the, and the response that we get to the calls. And then finally, we're, we're actively looking to recruit some additional tech leads to the SEG to help with, you know, things like the project reviews and, and authoring contents. We have some extremely strong leads in the SEG at the moment, but we're all, you know, fairly, fairly busy and, and we could, we could do with some, some additional pairs of hands to help as you know additional projects go through the pipeline and as the content continues to grow. So, very happy to, to, if anybody fancies throwing their hats into the, into the, into the process or into the ring, so to speak, let me know or any of the other SEG members. And we're very happy to have a discussion and maybe explain some of the responsibilities and further detail or answer any questions. But it would be, it would be great to, to help us grow and help the community and the CNCF. And that's me. Okay, I don't see any questions and chat. Anyone have questions, comments. All right, last bit in here is a note about the new diversity trainings come up. This is the pieces come in with collaboration with the National Center for women and information technology and we're pretty excited about this. And there's an issue that's currently open that makes this a required training for to see members sig chairs. I think anybody in a leadership position so wanted to be able to highlight this for folks here. And that is our last agenda item today. I have a question so what's the deadline to finish this training. I don't know if there is one right now it's just kind of like a, hey, this is this has come out we put this out around cube con, we wanted to be able to make sure that people were at least aware of it. And then I think we'll probably have more of a like a deadline around, like, you know, being able to do this probably like in the new year. Does that help. Yeah, yeah. Full disclosure, I have not taken it yet I look forward to taking it with you all of you. So, if there's nothing else in here, I'll give everyone a few minutes back out of your day good to see everyone. Thank you.