 Hello folks morning greetings really um so Liz we have a full group today um the only ones who didn't make it across the line and I uh they might drop in is uh tag observability but everybody else has got something to say this morning so okay good I guess we'll give people a couple of minutes to join I hope everyone enjoyed a long weekend if they had such a thing okay 18 folks in the line I think about giving them a minute or so um yeah yeah just still gradually joining in exactly give it till three minutes past I'm gonna guess we have quite a low attendance number today because of that long weekend like Monday and Tuesday rolling to one it's everyone's favorite I just got back this afternoon I've been away for the weekend as well so lovely I can I could easily believe there are plenty of people still traveling from wherever they're traveling from Dave on the line Dave I wasn't sure if you wanted to be able to add to the agenda today or if you wanted to be able to save it oh I guess if we have time I'm happy to cover my topic today especially if Will's here I don't know if Will's here yet but I will I will keep watch for you um okay that's probably oh sorry oh sorry Dave continue I've got somebody else like the uh Aaron is signed in there's something funny that is all oh I see you know I was gonna say if Will doesn't show up it's probably not worth covering my topic but if he does we probably should that is completely fair okay Aaron doesn't fact know that she is signed in there's both mathematic karate she will return excellent Liz passing to you all right let's get started uh so uh usual rules apply and trust you've made it to the meeting and today I think our main agenda is updates from the tags so without further ado shall we start our physical order I see excellent that's like in school was my first then I was always first having the ace well it always gets me the first row um yeah hello we want update for tech app delivery uh first on projects there is currently two projects on the review one is crossplane for incubation and the other one that was submitted was Depper by Microsoft crossplane we have uh conducted the end user interviews already the due diligence so far is already I also talked to Harry about this we still feel that we might want to do a bit more end user interviews to see a bit more on the adoption side there but overall the rest of the due diligence from the tech side is fine Depper they just submitted two days ago so honestly I didn't get that time to look into the due diligence document they also haven't presented yet or any interviews are running yet um so on presentations we had we had two projects presenting one was conveyor which is actually a collection of tools for migration to cloud native um environments and I just will as I didn't put a link in here I'll I'll update this later on it was an interesting project at the very beginning when we started with sick app delivery we always had this um migration topic which we put to decide and say well it is kind of an interesting topic but we don't want to make it front and center I think it's still an interesting collection of tools that they have with conveyor and uh but I didn't necessarily want to apply it was just a presentation so we still encourage projects also to present to the wider community and share it even if they're not wanting to apply just as other techs do as well lagoon also presented I assume that they want to go for sandbox going forward it's a delivery platform that comes more from the web and hosting background mostly focusing on web based environments still waiting for them what they want to do next again we encourage more projects in the delivery space to also actively present and have this discussion on good news deliverables I remember this when we talked a long time ago about what our operators and that we should be working on an operator white paper so thanks to the people writing the operator working group the white paper is now ready for a public review with contributions from a lot of people there's also a PR available for comments on this one this was really a long time in the making we started this activity then we kind of got stole where people got sidetracked and then thanks to people who took to get on again we now really moved forward with this one so pill obviously feel free to provide more review on the white paper then the folks from litmus together with the container a container chaos project started on a white paper they didn't create the working group where they just started on it on chaos engineering best practices which I think is also super interesting and again we told them to reach out to to other people as well this is very early stage work there as well operator white paper I think is it I mean we have Thomas and the other folks here feel free to have a look at it and we should share it with a wider audience for review on the working groups the plan is that we retire or dissolve the operator working group once the white paper is done the call was always to come up with some more concise definitions of what operators are used for and so forth once the white paper is done that was more less the mission of the working group so once this is done we will dissolve the working groups which should be a couple weeks out obviously the initial orders are still contributing to sick after they were here air gap this was an activity we started also a long time ago had some traction in the beginning but not really anymore so people are not actively driving this forward so I also would retire this working group because there's simply no activity right now application enablement working group there is a draft charter for a proposed new working group in app delivery we're still struggling a bit with the name and so the idea is more as defining requirements for environments where you deploy your cloud native applications it's still early in an early draft stage I'll keep you updated as this commences I think once you read it the the overall idea what they want to achieve is right here it is still struggling a bit with with the name and there's also ready some good use cases in there it really relates to applications requirement on the underlying infrastructure cross-checking ensuring that things are there and making them more easily deploy so this was mostly driven by people who actually run into this very specific problems also the team around application enablement is reaching out to all related projects that kind of touched this space as well and last but not least I sent it on the mailing list today I sent it before but it kind of got sidetracked obviously to the tuc mailing list the current co-chairs together with the tuc liaison we had a vote because two of the one of the co-chairs brian is stepping down and obviously harry is transitioning into the tuc to have a vote on new co-chairs and also on tech leads so this is shared on the tuc mailing list as well and that's it from SIGAP delivery feel free to ask any questions I have a question I just opened the link to the chaos engineering white paper which looks like it's a collaboration between some folks from app delivery and some folks from I've already forgotten what the other group was networking okay cool and I wondered if there's like a working group or a way for people if they're specifically interested in that chaos engineering white paper how they can find out how it's going on and how to get involved in that work yeah I can talk to them so I was pushing them actually to work with the chaos the networking chaos people to bring them together because they're working on the same topic also it's two different texts that are working on this I think we could establish a working group and let me connect with Lee on this one because he's driving tech network so we can connect on this one but it's a good idea I think it's still in an early draft stage I'll give you an update next week but next meet next time we have this meeting I think it's a good idea to perform this into a working group once it has matured a bit more good point yeah great make sure that people can get involved if they if they want to do so awesome anybody else with any questions for Alice I dropped a quick note into chat folks didn't already pick this up the next sandbox review meeting is June 22nd for the projects that we're coming by and presenting and considering get your applications in all right so uh next up who's who's up next it is contributor strategy how do you hello Josh um so first and big news is if you hadn't noticed the new contributor sites is live so you go to contribute that cncf.io um and uh that has the new design um by carolin um I yeah as well as it now has a branching structure where there's a link off to maintain our information as well as information about how to contribute to projects the um and um so please explore that we've got right now there's a little bit of material there we're going to have more as stuff gets approved um I for the the maintainer site with lots of information about how to run the cncf project related to that um I we've nominated carolin van slike as the first tech lead for contributor strategy um I don't know what's required to get that finally merged it's got enough votes the uh since she's going to continue to maintain the website seemed only appropriate um for anybody who's been involved with contributor strategy also wanted to know uh per the slide there that we changing our meeting schedule from what it has been and a bunch of the meetings are changed so if you actually wanted to come to those take a note of the new schedule which is already up on the cncf community calendar for sub projects um for governance the charter document advice is in approval this is basically for projects to have um a mission scope information about their project most cncf projects do have this but not all of them um hence deciding that it was worth having advice there um so uh that's just waiting for a second approval and then that'll get merged and then we will add um examples to the templates um for contributor growth um the contributor ladder template uh got merged um feel free to take a look at it like I said this template was meant to be in in all inclusive sort of restaurant menu template that people can cut the pieces out of that apply to their project um I know from here what the recruiting playbook is still in development um which is something that a lot of people have asked us for in terms of recruiting contributors um also um Catherine um has been working on I she has been using this new generation tools called community CRMs um and so is writing that up as a tool for project maintainers um as as to actually have a software tool to help organize their project um maintainer circle we're looking at there was supposed to be a maintainer circle this Thursday we're looking at rescheduling that one to the low RSVPs um the topic was going to be uh uh maintaining during grief and loss and conflict resolution um obviously uh the first being particularly applicable um this year um and that's our activity for the month questions Amy is there any reason or what's the process for merging Carolyn as the tech lead is that I need to check on where we're actually at as far as like the vote um as uh yeah uh we can take this one offline I will do a like a like gather because we've got a lot out there right now for tech lead votes so okay we'll leave it in your capable hands but I think just from a very casual quick look I think there's lots of plus ones there so there are lots of plus ones I'm not sure if it's totally across the line yet and I don't want to be able to get everybody's hopes up without me checking on it for real so um watch the space for more great anyone for anything else on contributor strategy all right let's move on look like it is tag network up next right hey uh um well just uh let's talk about projects first and then working groups just as a brief recap of projects that were recently accepted so Submariner uh KGB and Emissary Ingress so a couple of sandboxes and an incubation um there are a few projects under review currently so Linkardee is under review for graduation um Silium is under review for incubation um Messery is under review for sandbox Service Mesh performance under review for sandbox and um Yarp is under review for sandbox so so there's actually a lot a lot under review in context of working groups so there's one active working group in well there's one active working group that we're able to keep um tabs on and in part because this working group often presents at um tag network um it's the service mesh working group um we've spoken of some of its initiatives before um uh since last we met there was an update given well on um this project called get nighthawk it's a relatively um small project it's intended to help expose um envoys the envoy project's load generator and just sort of create distributions of it get into people's hands consider that um it's growing in popularity and um has a number of um unexplored is interesting has some some things that are useful it's a useful tool to some of the research that's going on in the service mesh working group um so there was a there have been recent posts about service mesh performance being one of those areas of focus um and that continuing to be an ongoing area of interest and so nighthawk uh plays a role in that so um there's been there's a set of there's one maybe a set of discussions to have um around metrics so speaking of performance and that has to do with a little bit related to the review of um service mesh performance as a sandbox potential sandbox project and um how smi traffic metrics and um a proposal from tom k whose last name i don't want to butcher on the record but um um tom k of um kata who's you know has suggested um a time or two to have a discussion around um well metrics coming from kubernetes ingress kubernetes gateway um from api gateways and just kubernetes service metrics themselves so kind of a timely discussion or topic brought up by him as it interrelates to a set of discussions for um smi smp and meshery and discussing around metrics and how they're how they're tracked so so uh noting the the next review date of the 22nd um i'm hopeful that there've been a couple of maintainers of of two of the projects that are under review that have been out either on parental leave or covid has hit close to home for some and so that's that stalled some of the project reviews but hopefully we'll hopefully they'll we'll some of those projects will have concluded um just as we look forward to next meeting topic for tag network um we're gonna try to write in pen um yarp whom we just missed um this last meeting time based on representation based on the fact that the agenda was was full but but sam spencer was in uh representing yarp and was in attendance last time so yeah that's the that's what we got i think i think i want to just add a little bit of color around the those sandbox review projects um just for the benefit of people who haven't um necessarily uh heard what we've well what we've really been thinking here is that you know there's meshery there's service mesh performance there's the service mesh interface and they all have some kind of commonality around the definition of what a service mesh is and how it performs so uh at the last sandbox review we at the tse had a kind of question of should these all be three separate projects or is there some overlap and um if you have views on whether that's a good idea a bad idea you know which parts of that make sense or don't make sense um do feel free to reach out to me or anybody else on the toc or lee or anyone who um is kind of involved in those projects because um yeah if if it makes sense to kind of the idea here is really that as the cnc effort would be nice if we had a pretty aligned view on what service mesh means and does and how you measure it so there so that's where that that thinking is coming from all right any other questions for lee and tag network okie doke let's move on to riccardo is actually out today but tag runtime is here so they've got a lot going on with project presentation in the communities um working on some mlops pieces and it looks like they are doing some like kind of pretty heavy agenda items here um so other pieces in here are basically like they have a community space they have their own youtube channel and they're looking forward to collaborate with the other pegs so i promised him i would be as reader today awesome yeah lots of stuff going on in here so are they the first tag to have a community space for all the tags have their community spaces we're just slowly rolling them out um and they get a space to be able to do either um meetups or um just like other kind of spaces in here and it's kind of an experiment right now but we'll see what happens with them yeah okay so if i click on that link i can see one group member who is trippy riccardo so it's the idea that anyone who is a named co-chair tech lead some other named role that they would appear on this size um like i said we're still rolling it out and people are still kind of finding their feet around this one but it's kind of a good experiment for what if you had this space like a meetup very nice all right so i'll move on security unless anyone has comments about runtime well yeah let's go on to tag security do we have anyone representing tag security oh jj hi how you doing um yeah so we have a few updates um main main one is uh sarah and i are rolling out as co-chairs and then we have uh better ones in better version brandon and aradhanas dependent and they've been doing amazing work as you can see here and uh they've been pretty involved in like cross community work as well uh not just within cncf outside of cncf as well so um the entire community is like so excited about their stepping up to be a co-chair and so are we and uh it's in much better hands as we roll out and that i think is our term comes to an end uh june third so this is right on time so for the people for those of you that haven't voted on the toc please follow up and then get the voting going it's still pending a pending much of toc votes on this so that's that's about uh that's about the co-chair nomination uh memberships have gone up significantly over time it's 94 members right now from 67 different affiliations uh all ranging from uh nest to federal to different organization organizational membership so you can go take a look at it and then it's pretty impressive interesting group of people that's doing amazing work there so that's that's about co-chair nomination you also have i think one more slide which if emily is here i'll let her talk to i mean these two are getting added in addition to emily emily has been doing a phenomenal work on as a co-chair already and she'll continue to be the co- continue to do the co-chair part as we roll out so thanks jj so some quick general updates from us we have worked with the cncf's issue of press release concerning the supply chain security paper that was recently released by the group this came out of orc following the solar winds attack and has been continually evolving it is a continued evolution of the work that we have done in the supply chain security catalog that goes through and enumerates attacks that the community has come across and groups them by type of attack and provides remediations as we see them so this is a huge effort it's just one of the many things that the group is working on they're meeting back up again to start defining what their next deliverable is that's all i have yeah i think that's mostly what we had from sick security thank you all right great so i think i already said in the email but big thanks to jj and sarah for everything they've done with the group that is currently you know that is now called tag security but it's you know originated a safe several years ago and jj and sarah were part of the original team who kind of made these groups that are now called tags into a real thing so i really appreciate their work on that and hi to brandon and aradna i can see you're on the call so um a little bit early because we you know the vote's still in process but it's great to see your um jump again yes any questions for tag security from anyone all right storage i think is up next yes so hi liz um so we have uh we have a new co-chair nominee zing who's currently at tech lead with the sig and we have nick connelly who we're nominating to be a tech lead who is currently a member and contributing to the tag already um i'd like to point out we've i just recently sort of maybe an hour ago um sent the email out to the talk uh mailing list uh so we can sort of formalize this uh with a vote i think they are um fairly uncontroversial you know zing is so well established uh in the storage space both in the criminities side of the world and and with our tag um and and again nick is is you know very um an established uh technology uh technologist in the storage space um has been working uh with us on on some of the performance documents for example for for almost a year now um and this kind of follows on from of course erin moving out from the from the sig into the into the toc um so so zing will be um replacing erin's erin's seat um and then if we move on to the next slide please um we have a number of projects which are going through review there is the longhorn project which is currently sandbox moving into incubation um sad is the sponsor for this the dd process is is ongoing uh louise pubon one of our tag tech leads is um is is running the dd process there we've got uh chubao fs um which again is currently in sandbox and moving to incubation zhang is um the sponsor anna dd doc has been drafted we're meeting next to um review that document um open ebs is um currently has a proposal open um we have the the we have an outstanding item um where the team needed to provide us with um an update uh on some of the licensing uh issues that that we were discussing previously that just reached out uh as part of this meeting um and so they're ready to to um to cover the the the topic and provide an update um so we'll be doing that either this week or next um and in terms of content uh that we're working on um we've had extensive discussions so this has been we've probably had um i don't know something like 10 meetings on this where are they covering the cloud native disaster recovery um and the different sort of options and patterns and architectures that that apply um uh in a cloud native world when you're considering disaster recovery especially uh in consideration with sort of moving from some of the traditional experiences there um and uh we have we have a draft which is now undergone many iterations um which which which is kind of coming to coming to a point where uh we're we're happy with it and the number of changes is is reducing but of course we'd we'd love you know since this is such a big topic we'd love um we'd love any feedback from from any of the tags or TOC at this point um on the on the document um and uh if uh if anybody is interested in in covering this we'll you know we're we're covering this in our regular uh tag meetings too um the performance and benchmarking white paper um has sort of stalled because we've been focusing on the the projects and disaster recovery documents but we're hoping to to get to finalize that shortly um and then recently we had the vineyard project um successfully moving to sandbox um which is which is an interesting project to to accelerate storage mostly for um a number of uh use cases like like ETL and and with distributed systems in Kubernetes which is which is particularly exciting i think um and that's our update is there a working group for performance and benchmarking we were covering off the document uh as part of the standard uh tank calls we we sort of hadn't splintered it off into into a working group um but if there but if there is uh you know if there is uh interest from some more people to to participate absolutely we could do that oh well no i just i was more wondering how i got involved would get involved from a technical basis um so so the document is is is open for um for comments and uh if uh and and we're you know i'm quite happy to slot it in as an agenda item for one of our next calls too all right any more questions for the tag storage okay um Dave did you want to take a few minutes sure yeah um so i wanted to have i guess maybe two different conversations but a conversation about the multiple organizations graduation requirement and i think i don't remember exactly i don't have it open in front of you right now but i think in the way it's written is that we need committers from multiple organizations but i think the way that the TOC has historically voted and discussed it has been having multiple organizations as maintainers or some sort of kind of much stronger voice than just committers and i'm curious both what people in the call think of that requirement and specifically kind of what the spirit of it is and why we have it rather than explicitly just like is the number of organizations here greater than one and then maybe to call out an extremely specific reason why i care uh is that i am currently sponsoring the graduation process for linker d and linker d all of the linker d maintainers are from buoyant but it's debatable whether that's actually a negative thing for the project and the reason we shouldn't let it pass graduation though if we just look at the number of organizations the number is one um so i think will's on the call so i'm happy to hear his thoughts as well as kind of anyone from the toc or anyone else in the call that has opinions on what the spirit of that requirement is or if they have specific thoughts on linker d whether it should or should not uh like pass that bar with its current setup i want to just add a little bit of historical color to you know this isn't the first time we've had the discussion about this i think the last time this came up in um uh you know in in significant form it was around the idea of having um oh man the the term escapes me that um the idea of like a supervisory committee um who steering committee steering committee that's that's the word i was thinking of thank you uh which has come up you know from a few different projects the thinking being it's not just about committing to code it's about ensuring that uh multiple organizations have um the ability the roadmap isn't just defined for the benefit of one particular organization but that um you know a community project should be have some influence from multiple organizations so i just want i i don't want to repeat that whole conversation but i just wanted to remind people that that had happened in the past yeah for the question of what's the spirit of this requirement i just pasted a link into chat um which was when we previously discussed this and narrowed down why we have this requirement what the reasons behind it are um so if you go ahead and look at that it actually has a sort of first and second priority in terms of of why the requirement exists um the um i for linkardy in particular i actually had the impression that they had started um this end user council thing with the idea of using that to get somebody with a maintainer equivalent uh position um who did not work for buoyant um the um i thought that was going rather well yeah josh that wasn't the intent of the steering committee although it is going rather well the intent of the linkardy steering committee was to make sure that we have end users driving the linkardy roadmap and and giving us kind of giving the maintainers explicit feedback um but there's no ask of them explicitly more implicitly to become maintainers yeah so i guess one of the problems that we had with the steering committee concept when we had this discussion that was never quite resolved was the question of what prevents having a titular steering committee for a project that's diverse but in which the members are actually not in any way involved with the project um that's that's always the uh kind of the concern because you know would always be possible for any project to sort of appoint a group of random people um who aren't really involved with the project so we need to have some way to ensure you know for example like you're trying to do some way to ensure that and to be able to check that the members of the steering committee are actually determining the roadmap for the project and i don't think anybody's quite figured that out yet yeah i mean i can only speak to the model that we use um on the linkardy steering committee which is you know maybe six months old at this point so it doesn't have a super long history there um but we kind of have an explicit roadmap review process as part of the meetings uh feedback is incorporated and you know ideally addressed and then we revisit that in the next meeting you know everything's recorded and there's notes taken and so on okay um cool can we put this on the agenda for next governance wg to see if we can actually get down enough requirements for this sort of structure yeah i think the last time we um talked about documenting this we were uh the toc was concerned that if we make everything too prescriptive and and i agree that as documented it is not i i don't think the graduation criteria currently reflects my perception of um the toc's thinking on this but i don't think we want to get to a point where it's like if you achieve these things you know you will definitely have passed everything that the um that the toc expects some of this is going to be judgment based and so we need to find a way to articulate that in the graduation criteria um i think that from the discussions that we've and other toc people do speak up i think that the broad idea of steering committees and the way that linkardy have gone about it is you know seems seems to be meeting with approval i would say um and yeah that isn't to say we've had a vote in it or anything i would just say that in discussions about it it feels like a positive way to ensure that projects that do have one vendor who is sort of doing the bulk of the work on the project can still be considered to be community projects because otherwise they shouldn't be in the cntf in the first place um but and i think linkardy is actually doing a really good job of sort of setting an example and and feeling out how to do this in a way that meets what they need for the project meets what the community need from a project and doesn't require kind of artificial barriers around like how do you force another employer to pay pay maintainer it's impossible thank you i'm glad you're glad that comes across that way um so beyond the uh you know i don't want to put words in Dave's mouth right now but you know one of the things we have been struggling with a bit as we work on the due diligence doc is less the idea of like okay is control of you know linkardy is linkardy a true community project but it's more about the longevity aspect so you know if buoyant disappears does linkardy continue and is that the bar that we need to meet and do we need to have some explanation for how things will continue in the case where you know the the single vendor um disappears so what does disappear even mean is that like acquired by another company or is that like running running out of money and like just disbanding you know so is there has there been any to see thought about that aspect of the multi vendor maintainer requirement and we've always felt that that is there needs to be some uh i don't know explanation of how that isn't going to be a problem for this project or how much that is or isn't a risk for a given project because i think it is a a reasonable concern that's you know if a vendor is acquired by another company and then that other company is not interested in in maintaining that project what what does that mean um you know how will that project continue will there be will it put at risk any end users who are relying on that project and i think the risk of that happening does vary somewhat from project to project and it it kind of you know a project that comes out of a vendor who are very specifically focused on one project has a different you know say risk profile to a project that comes out of you know one of the giant cloud vendors who have a hundred different projects on the go at any given time so i think there might be ways of addressing that concern without it necessarily being you have to have multiple you know maintainers at any given time that's just my own my own view yeah i'll just say selfishly as you know the CEO of the company that is funding you know the majority of liquidity development right now i'd much rather say hey boy it's doing really well and like we've got a strong economic for you know kind of incentive to keep lingerie moving then to have to argue for the opposite condition which is like oh everything's going to be fine enough you know point to spanishes so i guess i just don't you know where is that bar is a bar that it has to be like you know indestructible even if point goes away or is a bar that like it's not going to go away because things are going really really well right i don't know if that makes sense i think we're the generic or sorry guys okay now is it with a generic project i think this is a valid concern maybe with linkardy and buoyant the relationship is close enough that it's not very likely that like buoyant stops caring about linkardy maybe the other point and this is what i forgot to bring up with you will is what if another what if other vendors come in to the linkardy space and start growing and then like are competing with buoyant and now we have this funny thing where like they're linkardy vendors but buoyant owns linkardy but they're competing with buoyant so you have the like how do we ensure that buoyant isn't necessarily driving the community away from vendors for economic reasons that aren't necessarily in the best interest of linkardy as a community yeah so that actually is an easy one from my perspective i would love to have other vendors involved and we've always been welcoming and open and eager to make that happen but this gets into the specifics of like buoyant's business model and the fact that we're not selling linkardy you know we're not selling like linkardy enterprise we've set ourselves up kind of purposefully so that linkardy is supposed to be a community project and we would like to have other people involved but you know i don't know how much of this discussion should get into like the specifics of buoyant's business model i guess i'm happy i'm happy to have that discussion yeah i i think it's more important for there to be a process um which which there is with linkardy by which someone can clearly become a maintainer who doesn't work for buoyant um the i mean that's that's because like when we had this discussion about what are the reasons behind the multi-order requirement right top priority was openness that is the project must be open to contributions and potentially maintainers from people other than the initial sponsoring company um and you know and the one about continuity was kind of secondary because let's face it we have a bunch of existing graduated projects where they do have maintainers from multiple companies but one company is responsible for 80 percent of current code drafting and those projects would be in serious trouble if that one company withdrew their technical support um so that's not really new for us but there needs to be one of the things i think we'll witness here's an example of um the mesos project was a good example of kind of a failure in that continuity process where when the contributors from a single organization just stopped working on it there was no process to advance new maintainers who worked for a different organization and we want to avoid getting into that particular trap in sieve yeah um so currently the way we do businesses if it happens then we essentially have a attic process to mottball the project right and so essentially at that point um any of the end user community folks have to stop using the project and switch over to something else so so that's a current situation right so can we make that situation a little bit better and that could be like having some kind of a plan that can be executed at that time to say see these are the other options that you can switch over to either some documentation something like that so basically we have to come up with an answer to the question that other people are going to ask us like how can i be sure that linkardini is going to be around around for the long long term for me right like that's a question that is going to come from the end user community uh that's definitely um what we should answer here uh the other aspect to this also is i would rather this kind of a discussion is an exception to the process rather than um saying that you know yes this is a model that we want to espouse as okay any of the new incoming projects can adopt this by default right like if we end up going that route then most of the projects won't even think about like all the things that they can possibly do to get other people to join their project and do good work uh so that was those were the two things that i was worried about video okay so then you know dave maybe you you and i uh you know document the path to main chainership in linkardini document the examples of you know non-white maintainership in the past which we've had you know in a limited way um and then is there anything else you would want to see around this require and i guess document the kind of steering committee mechanics i think that sounds good to me i just wanted to make sure that other people let's call don't have additional things so that we don't do that and let's find out we missed a couple things so i guess anybody else speak now or i don't know or comment later in the due diligence talk when we miss something yeah the other aspect that we didn't talk about dave here was like we uh the questions that we were trying to put together the other day uh we said both founding companies and founding engineers um so i don't think that's a problem here um but for linkardini itself but that was the other aspect that we were talking about yeah yeah that makes sense but i guess yeah to your point maybe the linkardini due diligence doesn't mean to get into the individuals part cool so then i guess we're good we have a way forward for linkardini and we don't want to have a generic way forward is what i'm hearing yeah i feel like we should have something in the graduation criteria that's acknowledges that we don't always stick to the letter of you know it must have main title committers whatever the the wording is um something about there may be other ways of de-risking the project shouldn't that be in the governance um overview for each of the projects though because if i look back at things like container d and core dns it clearly outlines the different roles and how to contribute and establishes the neutrality of each one of the projects i would think i would see something for every project underneath the governance that should cover that anyways i'm gonna say let me point out we just published the contributor ladder template kind of with that idea in mind okay yeah i was just it seems like there is some overlap there and i'm less familiar with the governance already established for linkardini but i would think as part of graduation we we would reflect back on that anyways to make sure it's part of the complete diligence so thanks josh for that call out to the new template so that sounds as though there might be some additional documentation of how that process of of becoming a maintainer has worked in the past and would work in the future that template might be a useful way of expressing it um yeah all right david you happy as the person who brought it up yeah i think i'm good brilliant all right anyone got anything else they'd like to add on that separately i know we've got matt young on the line we skipped um observability so anything we could like to be able to add i'm now putting him on the spot oh hi um nothing huge to add um the slides up to date uh we've had a slow few weeks coming off of coup con and a lot of people taking pto so it's been a little bit quiet for the last few weeks but moving forward we're going to be engaging with the platforms that have been set up around youtube and the community site as well as you know launching some of the working groups that we have we talked about two meetings ago in the last two weeks we also had pixie labs last two meetings rather we also had pixie labs and a tool called prom dump be presented to the sig uh to the tag rather uh so we'll hope to have some more updates uh next week um rather in the next two sb meeting so nothing huge to report great i think last time we spoke you were looking for additional chairs and tech leads how's how's that search going yes indeed um it's been a little slow again um a lot a lot of the folks in this space kind of i think uh kind of enough to con or a little pride um so we are looking for both new tech leads as well as a third chair so if anyone has folks in that space uh that you would think would be a good fit please reach out um to either our liaisons or uh rich here myself all right good stuff thank you for the update matt any questions for tag observability all right time for a cup of tea before your next meeting all right thanks everyone for your time and we'll see you next time right thanks