 Hey, old friends. Hello. Oh my gosh, Selvon, Gareth, what is this, the whole Sina crew? Hello. Hey, Selvon. Hello, Gareth. How are you? Yeah, good, thanks. I don't know who iPhone is, but that's pretty mysterious. Okay, let's just wait another like minute or two and then we can get started. For some reason I wipe my phone and reinstall things. It's appearing to be weird. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. You all ready? Or five minutes in? Thanks everyone for coming. Today is Wednesday, August 14th. This is the SIG app delivery call. We're just going to be discussing any final items on the SIG app delivery charter. And then after this call, Alexis will kick off a vote on the mailing list just between this group of people to make sure that nobody has any objections and everybody is good to go with this charter. And then on the 20th after the TOC call, we'll call for a vote on the TOC for both the charter and the chairs. So there will be three chairs that will be selected. The nomination form was open for a few weeks and it's now closed. So yeah, that's where we are. I'm going to go ahead and Alexis, do you want to add anything at this point? No, I mean I'm focusing here on the the charter and I'm hoping Michelle that you can talk us through the steps on the chairs. Awesome, sounds good. So do you want to take it away and go through the charter? I think there's only one or two comments. Yeah, so our objective is to get the the charter to a place where everybody on this call can vote on it and the mailing list can vote on it too. Today, because we would like to then take it to the TOC ASAP and I'd like to first of all thank everybody who's been involved in the creation of this document. Let's make sure that if you want it you can be acknowledged as a creator of this document when we can take it to the TOC. Don't let us forget to do that. A couple of highlights. So Quinton is back from his trip and he was an editor and had a couple of suggestions which we want to discuss today. We want to bump a couple of things into working groups. There was the question about the serverless WG. Quinton is proposing that we also have a CICD WG and a PASS WG and one of our initial deliverables be CICD and that would mean that in addition to landscape deliverable we would have a CICD deliverable. What do people think about that? I think it's great to have CICD in its own working group but I do think that like we should not we should let the SIG form and then have people who are organically interested in that space form their own working group after. I don't want to say it's a goal to form the working group because I'd really like to have a way to see that there's interest there and somebody wants to lead it and you know figure out what the objectives of that working group is like that in itself is its own you know will take some time it's its own like set of deliverables so yeah just from previous experience forming working groups and working that out in Kubernetes. Do we also need to rationalize that in the landscape versus it's Roger versus the separate foundation under CNCF at this point for continuous? Not necessarily I think we can decide later. We don't have to be over prescriptive today I just think it's important that we have some key deliverables in the initial TOC presentation I think there is a strong consensus about the landscape on app dev tools because that space is so confusing but that doesn't mean other things can't happen as well. So is it better with these to focus on like the outputs like rather than a working group that that's more of a body to create something? That is where Michelle was going as well yes would you agree Michelle? Yeah I think um I think the whole point of Quentin's comment was hey like CICD and Paz are like really big so let's not make them the sole focus of their of this of this thing but really just allow them to be working groups if they want you know if people want to have that. I think the top the topics I think the topic is less important than the number of people um if figure out delivery attracts 10 people fragmenting into far working groups feels like we got a bit carried away. I think saying that the like the overall say again from the charter perspective these are things we want to cover like a concrete deliverable around CICD, concrete deliverable around Paz, concrete deliverable around several others like guidance whatever it might be feels like app totally in scope totally a good idea and if that if we end up with like 30 people turning up and 10 of them want to do that that feels like a great way of like the state going hey have a working group got on with it I wouldn't put that in this document I think there's things as the SIG we should do they sound like interesting things to do I think how we do them feels like that's the working group that's for the SIG later depending on how many people turn up and who those people are and how it works. Sorry Michelle Kerrio. No go ahead. I was gonna say one of the my thoughts behind mentioning the working groups explicitly here is this is a very big area we want it to be very clear where the boundaries of that area were into the future so all the things that we think fall within the scope of this group some of which are not actually burning priorities right now some of which we don't have any CNCF projects in yet but which we foresee will need to be addressed in the future and we just wanted to you know make sure they were either inside or outside the boundary of this of the SIG and then as a secondary item there are a few of them which are pretty burning concerns a CICD is one of them and we wanted to just make sure that there was a you know very strong focus on that initially and you know it's all very well to say if 30 people sign up and do whatever that's all very well but at the end of the day the SIG itself has to have you know priorities and focuses and sometimes that requires the leadership to actively go and seek out the right people to produce the artifacts in in sort of some priority order so there was a thinking yeah I agree with all of that I don't think that means that the working group has to be in like mentioned in the SIG I think the outputs and the topics should absolutely and how we then how we self organize around those topics can be based on the people who turn up are in the room and I'd worry if we came and said we want to set up this SIG and we want to set up these four working groups that's there's a risk of that being fragmented versus we want to set the SIG it's going to focus on these topics and yeah I think the topics and the outputs are more interesting than the to the TSE to the charter at least than how we then organize around them which might very well be working groups but the other consideration was that we do actually have existing working groups servalisting one of them and the question is you know what is the relationship between the servalist working group and this SIG and the explicit answer which was discussed on the previous call I think Alex you might have missed and Alexis you might have missed it but it was explicitly decided to to fold that working group into the SIG and and so we needed to kind of state that somewhere yeah and hence the section on working groups yeah I think the servalist one is a an interesting exception for interesting reasons that and that that became the cloud cloud events sort of working group versus the servalist one so merging it into a broader topic makes sense yeah okay so Gareth do you have a quick look at the documents do you feel like that that concept which I think everyone's rallied around is adequately expressed and if not could you could you make a couple of quick changes so that we more realize this and then we can kind of declare victory I think I would probably say instead of the following working groups maybe under the scope of the SIG I would say the following topics are under the scope of the SIG like let's and then say the rest of it basically saying about that like as needed these will form working groups I think saying may will leave full unsure and they're not sure what they're actually like voting on so I the original intent of that section was discussing or clarifying the relationship between existing groups not necessarily talking about you know all of the work not necessarily thinking about what the working group structure would be so there was a mention of you know how we relate to the existing kubernetes gaps and how we relate to the existing serverless working groups so really don't think that we need to mention the CICD working group necessarily or how it's working group if we if we don't I don't think that that needs to be there as long as we have that priority of having the CICD deliverable like Gareth mentioned just want to make sure we don't lose sight of what the original intent was for that section yeah I agree with Michelle this part actually now looks like we are trying to create new working groups under the SIG or we want trying to put the existing working group under the scope of this I think it's more like we are talking about the relationship between the existing six and I think you guys might notice there is even no CICD so maybe we don't need to mention that explicitly like that or we can mention that for upcoming CICD working groups and another thing is CI and CD is actually not the same thing they have clear boundary like CI need to need to cooperate with CD system by using Git or some kind of connections so they don't even need to belong into the same working group as we are mentioning in the in the current part right now well what's interesting is that entire paragraph sounds a little funky in the sense that the entire section is about what's in scope and then we have a paragraph in there that says the following items are in scope so we already mentioned has one other spot in that section it's like five lines above when you say hosting environment interoperability and we mentioned paths in there so maybe we should just find a spot for CI CD and serverless to appear in that previous part of the section and then we can remove this entire paragraph with its two points I agree yeah there's a more general comment I'm not a big fan of these sort of crowdsourced documents because they end up very fragmented like this with too many people editing little bits and pieces I would propose that we have one or two primary authors and they take responsibility for incorporating all these comments in we did have a few of those but then a whole bunch of people piled in and edited things okay look I mean that's that's fine but we just want to get a set of changes agreed today so it's okay but it's kind of concerning because it's about a long so I want to make sure that there'll be some information yeah sorry so we um the serverless comment actually we already have paths and fads mentioned specifically what about the edits I just made to the previous section would that cover it uh I would just add the um and the serverless wg will yeah will migrate to to live under this okay and you guys are then okay with crossing out or deleting the text that I've crossed out below yep that gets my plus one any objection done there is a small concern here because I'm reading the charter of the serverless working group it actually including both functionless service and the bank end service for the bank end service it's actually a larger scope even than this cgap delivery working group it works even bigger than the cgap delivery for example the the database may claim to be service by filling the form of the bank end service but I don't think it's very related to the application or what we're talking in this thing I think that the aim should be to defer any changes to the serverless working group charter until this sig is finalized and chairs have been elected we're just all we're doing with the serverless working group is telling people that it has a new home okay I see this is looking great by the way this looks good okay this is your last chance for wedding now any final objections speak now or forever hold your peace great we're done thank you I'll call for a vote on the list right now all right now what's the situation of the chairs michelle please we're gonna send out we're gonna have the toc vote we're gonna send out like the email for a toc to vote on the charter at the same time as we do a condorsate vote for the for the chairs and so we'll have hopefully approval and chairs to announce by the end of next week that's all I have there I'm excited um I'm getting slightly ahead assuming someone says this seems like a good idea and I'm worth much yes um are there already conversations going on about uh kubecon given that all like all of the rest of the planning is going on kubecon already now nobody has talked about kubecon yet or brought it up to my knowledge but that should be something we definitely talk about yeah just they're like like yeah I've I've all the other conversations are going on about um that at the moment so just if there is a if this does get formed is there going to be a room in a slot somewhere could you um could you send that uh as a could you mention that on an email on the mailing list maybe Amy has some answers for us yeah thank you that's a really good point uh Alexis do you have anything else or should we call it I'm happy all righty um thank you everyone for coming uh we will continue discussions on the mailing list and we'll have this up and running in in very very soon cool thank you all thank you very much cheers