 All right, we are now recording, please go ahead. Wonderful. Shall we start at the top with GitOps Working Group, where I did have a little bit of conversation with Alexis about this right at the beginning when he was first proposing it. I think the main thing here is they wanted a neutral place for a bunch of companies to collaborate. And if that isn't what the sandbox is for, I don't know what it is. Yeah, I spoke to him the other day and it was like it's very much that they want to make sure that the Working Group produces stuff that might live longer than the Working Group, which might not potentially last for that long in the end, but they want somewhere to collaborate that's ongoing past that and maintain the things. I think it's a great initiative. I'm just thinking that do you think it will be a confusion with a with a naming working group, like we have working groups as as entities in TOC in CNCF. And now it's like kind of like a project name initiative name in sandbox. I think it's probably a right now, but if the Working Group shuts down and they just maintain the project, it probably needs a different name that's not working group then but the moment there is the it's the app. It's like a standard. It's a good point. I don't love the name but I don't want that to be a reason to say no. Absolutely. Yeah. Oh, Chris is saying as long as working groups done on code should be fine. Do they have code or a project that they want to check in. It's a good question. I don't think so. I think it's more documentation. The moment is for the contents of the working group repo under that's under flux. Yeah, but it would potentially have outputs of the working group after that. Can we create a I was wondering if we could create a repo under the TOC org, like other work groups. She moved it to a GitHub organization called GitOps Working Group. We don't really care where the working group or project lives as long as it's a neutral independent org. Yeah, I wonder if we should just say yes and then say hey this might cause confusion with other working groups that are part of six. So if you were able to think of another name. I think it's fair. I'm just wondering if, you know, the fact that it's not a project doesn't necessarily have, you know, code yet. And it's a working group. We have a lot of working groups. We have a lot of SIGs. If we just move it to wherever the SIGs are working groups live today. Maybe this speaks to a slightly broader problem of bureaucracy potentially getting in the way of just people getting on and doing work. So I think when they set this up, they had four or five different companies who wanted to get involved and wanted to get on and work. And I think they just didn't want to go through the rigmarole of a SIG and they were like, we just need to just need a GitHub repo and we can just get on with it. I don't know whether that says something about the way SIGs are managed. I guess should we just say yes to this and then have a separate conversation that isn't during this call about what we do with working groups and SIGs but move on to other voting now. That sounds like a good idea. Yeah. So let's put in the chat. So unless anyone has any other questions, votes for GitOps working group. Hang on. I've put a note in here that they do actually have their own repo over under SIG at delivery. They are both a working group and a project is the plan not one or the other. Got it. Okay. Because I was a bit, I was, that's why I asked Alexis back because I was confused. Is this a working group or a, or a project and he said both because they want to have as effects that outlive the working group. No. Okay. Have we got enough? Not yet. I'm at five. That's five without including Michelle who voted before you asked for votes. Excellent. That passes. Thank you. Yeah, is that enough for? Yes, we can move on. Right. So next up is to various data store. So it's like, it's like a gateway to the limit projects to install them easily easily on Kubernetes. So they've put like a similar projects like Longhorn and Rook. I don't think like they're exactly like Longhorn, because Longhorn is like the entity that contains everything. Here it's like it's, it's enablement for a limit projects. I guess it's more similar to Rook. It's a company. And it is a company. Yeah. And they have like their projects are open source, but they're a part of CNCF. So, do you have any opinion about this? I've certainly, I mean, I've certainly known limit and DRBD for a long time. Until I saw this project, I haven't, surprisingly, I haven't encountered it in the Kubernetes ecosystem. I'm a little surprised given how famous DRBD was. Yeah, they worked, Linbit was involved with open source Kubernetes site for a while. Beyond that, I'm not too familiar with them. This idea of having a operator for deploying, deploying their, their application seems fine. I think it'll be more interesting if they ever intend to go into incubation. We have an outstanding question I think right now of what we want to do with storage systems in general. That'll come up here. Also, I've had a recollection we have talked before or hesitated before about operators, whether an operator is in itself sufficiently interesting as a project. You know, it's just an operator. It's not really, it's just kind of glue, isn't it? It's also a CSI driver, it says as well. Yeah, I mean, I think, I think it depends on what the operator does, you know, if, because if people follow the pattern and then create something quite, you know, quite significant, it's probably, it's probably okay. But do we want CNCF projects for operators for essentially every bit of software out there? No, I don't have, there was a Postgres operator, what would we? I mean, I would actually, when you would, Liz, when you were mentioning that like my SQL Postgres was exactly what came from my mind. I mean, in fact, if there's actually a good one that you don't need, that's why the DBA does, I would think that that actually would be very valuable. I think I completely agree that it would be valuable and it would be a good example of an operator. I'm just wondering, like there could be a thousand, maybe we need a whole other kind of category of project for operators. It just feels like. But isn't, isn't, I mean, if our goal is to faster, you know, adoption of Kubernetes get more. I would think that would be a great thing if they're actually good operators that could bring popular workloads on top of Kubernetes. And I, to be honest, some of these operators, if they operate as just a pattern, right? So depending on how much business logic goes into it, and if they're so sophisticated, they could easily dwarf some of the platform components. So, I guess I'm not sure. Actually, I'm not clear. And to be clear, it seems like it's more than just an operator in this case, it looks like it's the CSI driver and other components as well. Yeah, so they're saying everything under this Piraeus data store organization. Yeah, I think, yeah, I think so. That just seemed a bit more. And do we know anything about how this compares to some of the other. No, I just, but, you know, again, if I want to, you know, I think the, I think Lynn, Lynn bid and DRBD, I mean, that those are really, really credible software. That's open source software. Yeah, I'd say again, like I have no objections for moving this to sandbox. We have a number of CSI drivers and even the Kubernetes repo. I think it's the question will be if they want to move any of these individual projects to an incubation level. They do also have under why do you want to contribute your project. It talks about increasing the visibility of the project to attract more users and contributors. Does it already have like a community, you know, is there a community around it or is it kind of one company's not that necessarily has to be a gate for sandbox but do we think it's, it's there to be a community project. I mean, so far it's clearly just a limb limbit project, but, but you know, again, the limbit stuff is very popular. Yeah. I mean, they have a decent size ecosystem like Shing said, probably more pop, I mean, they're, they're the different scale there. They're deployments. I would even claim it's perhaps more popular than Seth, for example. Yeah, is it. I mean, as sandbox, you could probably assume, you know, good intentions here and then maybe scrutinize them a little bit more in incubation about, you know, multi vendor aspects. Take it to a vote. Michelle was a plus one. I don't know if you already saw that that passes, we can move on. Thank you. These two clown query submissions are they. Do you think it's just the second one is an updated version of the first one. I think so consider them together, please. It's basically a one person project. There's a few other people who have one or two commits. But it's like six other people, but it's very small. The repository was created last year and of last year, so it's relatively new. But it's 20, 20. Yeah, seems to be active. And one person contributing mostly. I kind of feel like it's for the future, maybe we can introduce an extra column for when the GitHub repository was created like I always derive this information myself. APIs. I feel like that would be useful. Sounds like a good idea to me. Just tracks me as being too new to know if it's got any traction and doesn't have any, doesn't give us any compelling reason why it needs to be in sandbox get more traction like it's been asked, you know, people said they won't collaborate on this. I'm struggling a little bit to see how this would be. Definitely, you know, why would we recommend this over a prior custodian, for example, when they say focus more on questions and monitor less on actions, more focused on actions. Does feel a bit early to me. Um, do we want to go to a vote personally and no, I think it's a, it's too early to see not compelling that it needs to be in sandbox. Probably enough that it doesn't pass, I guess. Can move on. I see a note on the next one. Why is young Amy said email for corrections. Is that he never got back to me and the challenge is that he put his name instead of the project name and it's not exceptionally clear. So the repository is empty like there are no PR is no issues. I mean, yeah, it's a, it's a, again, it's a single person project since last September. Seems way too early. This is definitely not ready. Which I call it Calabash. Calabash. Tuna land. Also a one person project that's very new. Oh, he says it has two contributors, but they're actually the same person. Also, also November the 15th. And they actually position themselves so the goal is of Tuna land is to flatten the learning curve with existing CNCF projects by intentionally bonding them behind the language interface. But if you look at the repository, like there is no example of such integration with any of the cloud native projects. I'm just curious of what they mean by that. It seems very, very early. It's very rough. More probably just got created November last year. Sorry. Didn't mean that. I wonder if we should establish those sort of like men time, like men lifespan, like your get every co needs to be at least a year old or something. We're letting in the Github's working group. Which is, but that's a working group though right. Well, but if it was a project, I mean, if, if Microsoft and Amazon and Google came together and said we want to build a project for Tuna land. We need a neutral place. We'd kind of go yeah, let's do it. I guess it could also be that someone takes some proprietary software, let's just say it's really good and put it on GitHub and might be relatively young but might have years of development behind it. It's multiple factors right it's not just me. I guess I guess what I'm saying is well that is all very true and possible. I suspect that we're going to be effectively dealing with more, not quite spam but then we are going to be dealing with the opposite problem, but I'm just wondering maybe just a fact if we're going to find a hard, hard guideline like we generally expect, you know, one of or three of the following six, you know, like multi large corporation collaboration pre existing user base or, you know, a year's worth of evidence of contributions or so I don't know. It feels like there's some mechanistic stuff that we can do here to filter with that would save us time. I mean, the one out to be honest, I don't know if we're willing to do that but the one I like the most is some kind of a user adoption. We could, even if it's subjective that would exclude a lot of project. Yeah, I mean I don't know how good of a metric it is but even things like stars forks or number of people watching isn't it's not user adoption but it's like a mediocre proxy metric for that and a few of these are at zero on some of those. Although it's also a game game that people can gain something like that. That's the thing. Are you looking for projects to have a certain number of these things people achieve those things and then kind of go, you have to let me in. Well, no. No, I wouldn't put it as a record. It's a it's necessary but not sufficient. Yeah. Yeah, I think you're right some guidelines about. Yeah. Some of the kind of things we're looking for. Maybe. I mean maybe requesting testimonials from two users or something as part of the form. You know, at least for somebody to go find somebody who's willing to write like a repair three sentences about why it's cool or something. Actually, yeah, and if it was about looking for a neutral collaboration space. That could be, you know, okay, we don't have this yet but you know, two other organizations want to come together and get involved. Yeah. Because it's always hard to find developers collaborators, you know contributors but at least they can find some users. Anyway, something to think about I don't want to derail that just something that occurs to me as a way of like getting a some sort of filter on here so that we don't because I definitely feel like we're visiting some here where we just really sure that we're not going to push them through and it seemed way too early or whatever. Yeah. All right. Amy, do you want to think about how we could phrase something like that or should we maybe try and think up some examples of how to do that offline. Yeah, I'm a little concerned that the form is going to get a little too long. But that doesn't mean that we can't add things so we'll take this. We have like an FAQ about some of these points. Yeah. I believe we're in Cuban vaders. Yes. You've invaded. Excellent. Thank you. I don't think quite about anything based on space. This is super cute like major cute points here seems like a fun project. It's based on a games framework or default which has a license that I'm just trying to read but I'm just trying to get a non commercial license. I would, I'm really unsure about this. I mean it's like so it's based on a and it's based on a game engine with a non open source license. Yeah, we'd have to take a look at it. Yeah, I'm a little bit familiar with the default folks. Do you want to check that out first and then if it's okay to come back for another vote or come back for a vote? Yeah, I'll do some research on on my end. Maybe they can move to another engine. Alrighty, we'll leave that to you Chris. Curie fence. November 2020. Well, very recent. I think their website looks super fancy application security platform. I think Matt Klein was working with with them so Matt knows a little bit more because I think they're using envoy filters as part of their solution. Yeah, it talks about extending on the proxy. Did you get the impression that he's positive about it? I think so. But I don't want to speak on his behalf. They have his picture and a quote from him on their website. And as well as Chris from Cisco and this guy James from eBay. So if we're looking for a couple of users to say something they did that on their website for whatever that's worth. If it's super envoy specific should it be like an envoy sub project if it's a plugin or something. It seems very security specific which I don't think would fit into the envoy. Well, they tend not to host all the filters within the envoy project itself. So it's a web security firewall right that's, yeah it's interesting. I don't, I don't know are there any other web security firewalls in our space here. Web application firewall sorry. Not that I know of. Interesting. Why they want to contribute. That's interesting. They're wanting to, I think they mean assure users that curie fences and going to do the elastic change maneuver. That's pretty, pretty interesting. I mean, unlike the other recent, very recent projects it does have a whole lot of people equally contributing which is encouraging not just one person. And do we think they all come from, well I guess they could come from, they could come from the same organization and just, you know, right well should we go to vote that passes we can move on to different things with an s that's like a go. Yes, I think these folks present they did not present I mean they. This is a submission that came back. This is a reapply. Yahoo, or if I recall, maybe Yahoo Japan. What did we tell them last time. We had a question around spiffy spire. Yeah, address that. Oh yeah, how is different to spawn. We see this one last time. Mm hmm. Yeah, that's a reapply. Do you all remember what the, what the gap was. If I recall the to see just wanted to understand how does this differ from spiffy spire and if it potentially integrates with that. I think that was the summary. Yeah, it's used widely in production at and Yahoo and it's related companies as far as I know. I think it's kind of compactable with, you know, it's an alternative to spire, and it looks like that kind of concentrated on some of the more kind of enterprise he features like tenancy support, I guess multi tenancy. There's a UI. And of course I'm in trouble with spiffy because that's a lot of spiffy X599 ideas as well. So it's got some overlap. Yeah, that's pretty interesting. You know, if it's used in production somewhere like Verizon, that's a big old. Any other comments or should we make a vote. Let's get votes. QVN press you've dropped something in chat context or explainer really. I think that yeah just reference for people interested. It's been a while since I've come across over and mostly in the open stack days. I can see a contrast against Calico. And I can see also a comparison against Calico, and I can see this project compared against OVM Kubernetes. How active is the OVM community these days. I think it's still used fairly widely. I just don't know how active. Open V switches still still kicking around. Find a neutral place for better adoption and community collaboration. Is this, I feel like I'm getting rapidly out of my depth here, but if we adopt something like that, is it overlapping with that kind of OVM world in a way that No, I mean this is a CNI implementation right. This is a driver. It's basically all it is to work with open V switch and so on. Comes from Aluda, which did Alibaba buy them and trying to remember who or bite dance. Do you remember Shang by any chance. I think they're independent. I mean, this morning they were purchased. We see. Maybe. I'm trying to someone bought them. I just don't remember who another Chinese company. But looking at their website, it's just, there's still a member of CNC. Yeah, I know. Looks looks independent to me. Not bad if they're quiet. It looks like, you know, the team has people from lots of different companies. Oh yeah, maybe Aluda. I'm confusing them with Chi Cloud. I'm going to take off by dance. All by, by dance. Yeah, I wonder whether this is actively, actively is it being, you know, Is this something that's going to take off or is this going to be, you know, a bridge to the past. I suppose is my worry. I mean they're fairly if you look at the releases, they've been pretty good. Pretty consistent at least compared to the other. I don't think Open Vs which is just going to go away suddenly overnight or anything. Yeah, no, it's going to stick around for a while. Any other comments or should we do votes? K8 dash. Is this indeed as in the recruitment people? That is correct. Optimize for mobile. Joe. Also relatively new. Relatively new project. I'm looking at the. At the top commuters. Oh, no, it's March 31st, 2019. So it's been a while. So I guess I have a concern around naming since Kubernetes has a Kubernetes dashboard called Kubernetes dashboard. This may end up getting confusing. Yeah. I agree. It's not had a lot of work. I mean, like, it's like the top commuter has 10 commits. It's like. It's just. It's not clear how much. Very big. 10 commits with 436 lines of code. Not really even very big commits. Number three makes up for it though. Yeah. 109,000 line vendor in commit. I always try and be the person who takes that carried out myself. So I'll get the negative scores. But I mean, I think the combination of age and the amount of activity. Pays an interesting picture. Given that it's not super new, it's March, 2019, at least with from the contributor page. But nobody has a lot of commits in there. Months like. The stretch between July and January, it looks pretty dead all together. So I don't know how active or how much of a. Like growth future this has. I wonder like what the story is like, is this maybe an internal project that they. Over is that why there was just one very, very large. I really like to understand more. Look at that. Look at the GitHub tree in master. It shows 300 commits and. Some of them emerge. Some of them are coming from like the users that are not a part of the GitHub. Like. Seems like there's more, but yeah, there is a. The majority of the activity starts. Around October last year before that, that was pretty idle. Maybe it was not on GitHub. And most of the committers are just don't have to have accounts. Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. Yeah. It looks like an internal indeed project that they maybe flip the bit on. Yeah, that makes a lot of that makes more sense because it's, yeah, it's actually much more. I'm going to guess that the Kubernetes project. Don't. Well, should we ask you to see if they're. Concerned about having multiple dashboards. It's a good idea. It's also the very first dashboard project that wants to join CNCF. We don't have anything else. Yeah, I don't know if we should ask. I definitely feel like the dashboard project was like explicitly forked out and said people said we don't actually want this. Seems sort of imply that like. Let many flowers bloom as long as it's not in our space. So what does it now is it. Well, I mean, I think it's still in the rematch still be in the repo, but it was. I think that like it was. Sort of everybody said, Hey, this thing is not, we're not fully confident security of this thing. And like, so I think it's there sort of for historical reasons, but I don't think it was. I think it was sort of explicitly unendorsed at some level. And there's other dashboards out there, right? VMware has octant. I think there's people have built a ton of these things. The clouds have all built their own too. Yeah. So I guess they want to contribute it. That's even got hacked over first. Should he vote for this? Can we put in a yes with a please rename or something like that? Something less generic. We definitely want to rename. Or do we want to ask Kubernetes if they have a concern? I'm just thinking from like an end user perspective, since there's already a Kubernetes dashboard. We make it clear that this is something new and different. I'd ask them to rename personally. Okay. Shall I do a vote for Kim Vanessa's. Okay. Subject to rename. Yeah. Sounds good. So we made it. Hey. Good. So exciting. What's the stock distribution thing about that? So yeah, I mean, it's been languishing in Docker. And everyone has their own forks of it. Yeah. Yeah. So basically, we've not appointed maintainers from. Get lab and get hub and harbor and. Digitalation. Who are all using it. And production. So. Hopefully we can kind of. Unfaulk it all and get people contributing again by being at NCF. So. I was planning to move it to apply for incubation pretty soon. Yeah. I think that's a good idea. Yeah. I think that is in reduction use everywhere. Definitely. Yeah. Do we have a feel about the name? I, we don't have a, we don't, I need, it needs a new org name because it hasn't got its own org, but I have no idea. But I kind of tried to think about renaming it. I kind of like distribution for historical reasons now. Cause it's always been called that. And I kind of come around to it. Cause I was thinking like. It's a totally new name, but I think maybe an org name that's. Like there are like, um, you know, something about registry or something might be good, but, um, I kind of, but I will, I'm not really attached. I'm a fifth. The maintainers want to rename it or if anyone wants to rename it, I don't mind, but you know, it's always been distribution. It's kind of the people who use it and know it as distribution and OCI and things. It's got a community around it, I think. Any other comments? Seems like a great addition. It's very cool. That passes. Distribution deal. Yeah. I was thinking of ideas for you, Justin. Yeah, that's kind of nice. Cool. I think that's it. All right. As far as part. Otherwise I can turn the recording off. Yeah. We're in the midst of TOC elections. Yeah. Yeah. I think we could stop the recording. Do we want to just take a couple of minutes to go?