 Josh you still have that really interesting name again. What happened? I Zoom has never figured out the bug I Ran into somebody else from CNCF who actually has the same issue and they've had the same experience Zoom can't figure out what's going on. I mean, like I said, the weird thing is like I did a Search of my entire file tree and that string does not exist anywhere Because it's it's not random. It's consistently the same string It's like it's a hash of my name or something. All right, the artist formerly known as Josh. Cool. Yeah MD5 Josh I believe dialing in let me check to make sure that she needs just got what she's need. Let me check if the New setup has kicked in yet It has it has cool. Don't have a project board yet So you may not see it if you so immediately after the setting the settings kicked in you would have received an email from the settings bot or Probot or something like that to invite you To the repo as an external collaborator Because I'm not sure I received it. Okay This whole business with well, I mean this I guess this isn't github's fault is a third-party bot but The whole business of needing to receive emails In order to do things on on a web service Technically you may not I think it sends the email, but you can probably also accept from GitHub itself Apparently not because that that was the reason why I was asking is that I haven't gotten anything on github itself There's no notification And when I actually look at the project, I still have no permissions Gotcha so Let me check if there's like an invited Thing yeah, cuz I don't know about anybody else but I've Experienced fairly high rates of email going astray in the last two weeks email our real nemesis Hello Made it excellent. I can't turn on my video though. It says some kind of Privacy Yeah Sorry y'all That's what you made. Hello Yeah, you need CNCF needs to turn on the web client on the main meeting on the main settings not the meeting settings Whoa Didn't hear you Amy. It was kind of robotic. I don't know that we can do that. I'll have to go work with IT. I will go do so Okay, I mean we turned it on on Kubernetes. So your IT is technically managing ours as well Yeah, and I can talk to folks to Amy if they if they want to talk to me um Because right now it doesn't look like any Googlers are going to be able to participate in CNCF meetings unless we dial in from our iPhones or some other device Which sucks give me a bit. Yep All right. I'm sorry y'all. Did I what did what did I what did I interrupt? I apologize Josh check the chat Yeah, no, I actually found the email it got sorted into one of my various github notifications folders gotcha gotcha now that I knew to look for it Okay, cool and Matt's and Matt is on here. Hey Matt. Sorry about this No problem. Yeah more like the last thing I want to do with my life is figure out zoom. I think I Hold on. I'm trying to fix the privacy issue on my iPhone with the video too because I feel really weird and gross talking without video All right, so Thanks y'all for coming. Sorry. I'm 10 minutes late to the show here total apologize Matt the good news is I actually wrote down a ton of the questions that We kind of wanted to address on the agenda That's sort of like it's pretty much a high level of you know, what can we do for you as a GB rep Especially maybe stuff that you were trying to do before we were a Thing that like as contributor focused that we can either Take co-own own whatever kind of thing and then I also went through and combed your doc as far as like the older What maintainers need doc? I wanted to see if there was an update there and see if you Looked at any of the questions that were on there Sorry, which questions? I didn't see any On the on the meeting agenda. Oh, sorry. Let me let me open it Yeah, and I didn't I didn't tag you in or anything and we can go through this stuff individually too. So I'm looking at your maintainer your CNCF projects or CNCF what do projects need maintain your version? Okay, got it Sorry go ahead And then I was just gonna ask some questions One is this the most updated one that you've done because I think this one was from maybe early 2019 Yeah, like looks like pretty much same time last year. I think I Think there might be one that has more comments Let me there was one that was sent out to the entire CNCF list So let me let me just quickly Try to pull that up one second Sure, and then while you while you pull that out for context for folks that are on the line right now Matt is a GB rep I don't want to speak for me can tell us what that means in a second But the thing is some of the GB reps take You know problems and issues and things like that to the governing board on behalf of maintainers and so Matt has this like really cool Already birds-eye view. So does Michelle Norale into Like kind of what maintainers are looking for from projects However, some of that stuff a lot of it does include things that are outside of our scope So I'm just bringing Matt here today so that we can hear from kind of a GD rep Experience like what we should be focusing on what things that they hear that we can start talking about programmatically And things like that and then I put some very specific Kind of either questions and or like statements on the agenda as well about that doc Yeah, so I guess what what would be the best way of approaching this conversation Do you want to ask questions or I do you want me to give like a little overview from my perspective? I'm happy to do whatever you think is best do a little overview because there are people on the phone that Know a little bit not don't know enough about like what a GB rep is So give a little maybe a little bit of an overview and then I'll ask you some of the direct questions Sure. Yeah, so, I mean just to be fully transparent my role in all this is a little odd because I I Do three different things. I'm on the TOC. I'm the GB maintainer rep and I also You know basically lead envoy, which is a very large project. So You know, I come at this from a lot of different angles So I'm gonna be perfectly honest in saying that it's very hard for me to disentangle all All three of those roles. So some of my answers are just going to be colored by the fact that I'm that I'm doing all, you know all of those things From the GB rep perspective for those of you that don't know the CNCF Essentially has a you know, kind of a few different branches if you will there's the TOC which is doing technical leadership There's the staff which actually runs the pen and then there's the governing board Which you know, you can think of it like a board of directors, you know They're helping to define budget and and define strategy and those those types of things The idea behind the GB rep is that I Voted on by maintainers. So as a maintainer of a CNCF project I was voted on to Represent the interests of maintainers on the governing board, you know So that has implications around funding and those those types of things Does that give the type of overview that you were looking for Paris Yes, I'm sorry. I'm like I was like struggling to find a mute on my bro. Yeah, I know the Zoom app is just like what the hell anyway Uh, yeah, so that is you know the high-level situation. So I think what Michelle and I Attempt to do is you know, we attempt to funnel feedback from maintainers To the governing board and potentially also to the TOC I'm going to be totally honest in the sense that it is at times a struggle to get maintainers to provide feedback And and this is a I would say a constant point of tension between the CNCF staff and the TOC and You know certain certain members of the GB in the sense that There's there's always this tension of trying to understand like our project maintainers are they not Asking for things because they don't need anything or they're not asking for things because they don't know what they can ask for Or they don't feel that if they ask for something complicated, it would actually be resolved. So You know as it relates to this group or this SIG, I Think there are definitely a few common concerns that I can definitely talk to that I think this SIG could absolutely help with and I'm definitely happy to go into those or We can go through specific questions Paris, whatever you think is best. I Definitely have specific questions to other folks have specific questions. I Don't want to dominate. So that's why I'm asking if others could go first Okay, I think you should see the conversation Okay. All right. So I went through the older version of that doc Not necessarily the updated one, but I think just skimming through Skimming through your updated one as well. I think that most they're mostly the same Yeah, what I did is yeah I would I would I do what I say to other folks that are on the line is like funding and legal is Definitely out of scope for us and you're gonna see a lot of that on the GB And that is exactly like one of the main reasons why Michelle and Matt are like doing the GB stuff or not You know not you necessarily doing it but like the role itself So that stuff is out of scope for us. So I just wanted to at least sidebar that So some of the other things that I thought we could help out with that really called out are things like the community growth Consulting as well as the governance consulting and I wanted to see from you there if Incorporating Sort of an AMA into this meeting obviously doing an open call for all maintainers doing you know Getting that kind of thing involved in having that AMA style once a month with the addition of a maintainer circle Which we can talk about in a second. Do you feel like that would be valuable to these folks? Yes, so I think I think just increasing communication is the Lowest hanging fruit that we can and it and it should be really easy. I think this is already actually been asked for There just is no good way for maintainers to even talk to each other right now I think there's a CNCF groups IO list, but it's actually moderated by the staff Which doesn't really make any sense. So it's like figuring out even just from starters like a a mailing list or Private slack room or something right where? Maintainers can feel comfortable talking to each other and I would go as far as to say that that should be maintainers only Maybe members of this sake, but no no CNCF staff Just to allow an open and safe space for dialogue Without any type of moderation So that that would be my first suggestion and I think that's been asked for again and again and again And if we can just make that happen that would be super useful Because that's just a place where people can ask, you know, it's like I'm having this problem Like, you know, can you help me or do you have advice? Should I ask the CNCF for this or should I deal with myself? Right, so just having that safe communication space. I think would be extremely useful. I Think that could be good for the maintainer circle Because like if we want to chisel out AMA time for this meeting specifically like Amy and you are and stuff Or like court of the team. So we should absolutely yeah So I'm thinking for like up this at least the sick strategy meeting that so then I feel like from a maintainer circle perspective That really fits in well I'm gonna jump to a maintainer circle question just because it's on the same topic Which is the definition of your main maintainer is different than mine Yeah, and I wanted to talk to you about that because the maintainer at CNCF level is like the people that vote on TOC, which is a very, you know, minimum number of people per project in some cases, you know, obviously others have more but Can we open this word up to include reviewers approvers people that are like making changes on things But would that make sense in this community meaning would that cause any kind of confusion or and I'm also I'm also Interested in hearing from CNCF folks on that too just because I know that naming things as hard like we already have this big confusion Like what's a sig? So I want to make sure that we start off on the right foot so that it's not like just some big what the heck is this To be perfectly honest, I have no idea actually how the CNCF determines What maintainers qualify for things like TOC voting and GB voting and things like that? so I You know, I think that There's a tension here in the sense that I think that one of the reasons that CNCF has been successful is that it doesn't It doesn't have very strict requirements in terms of how projects actually govern themselves And I don't know that we want to change that But I think one of the things that this sig could do is to the extent possible Maybe recommend different different structures that would that would make it a little simpler to You know to have a cookie cutter experience if if a project wants right And and I think we're trying to do that across different sigs, right? So for example, it's obviously not the not the provenance of this sig but you know, we would like sick security to have a Example our security process, right? That you know a project doesn't have to choose it, but it would be recommended that they do so so I actually see it as There's I mean as far as governance. I see that we have two levels As in there are already some Kind of vaguely defined governance requirements for graduation I'd like those to be less vaguely defined Sorry, are we talking about who is a maintainer? Are we talking specifically about the graduation requirements? Well, you you moved in you moved into governance. Yeah, I actually have a lot to say on this topic. So But I guess sorry just before we talk about that, which I think is a super important thing to talk about I just wanted to finish like on the What is a maintainer topic, which I think also needs some clarification And I think that would be a very helpful thing that this group could tackle And then it's anybody from CNCF on the line that has either suggestion or opinion or or Anything to add about the definition of maintainer and or us using it to define more people than what CNCF defines it as So you are put a link in the chat that post to the public maintainers list and Everything that list also points back to the file about where we're getting these maintainers from So I hope it's at least clear. It might not be understood Yeah, I'm looking now. Well, I'm sorry. I'm like still my Yeah, it's basically besides every project besides Kubernetes includes the list of the of the project maintainers in the main GitHub repo With Kubernetes, it's the steering So that was how it was designed original So, I think I would I've seen this list in the past and I think I would disagree with the way that it's at least on the I know Kubernetes is a special yeah, but you know, like having steering be the only voices. Maybe we can have like Voting officials or something like that are nominated by steering right that may be composed of of Sig chairs technical leads Subproject owners, what have you and and then select a few additional of them Because you see other projects have maybe like some of them have on you know upwards of 20 people, right? And not everyone's going to be steering member and not everyone's necessarily going to become an owner for Kate community Which I think have been kind of the requirements for for maintainership here So, yeah, I think that's something we should discuss eventually Yeah, I want to sidebar the Kubernetes conversation though and we can take that up with steering Because I think a lot of us are in agreement with you Steven So, but I do want to sidebar that for Kubernetes business Yeah, no, I agree. I think that just like for instance I don't want to miss reviewers in the maintainer circle And I think reviewers are an important component for us to grow within the project to become approvers and the people that ultimately do maintain the project So That's why I wanted to be a little bit more inclusive But I also don't want to be Like that's not the right way I'm not I'm not saying the right thing I know but I'm saying what I'm trying to say is like I don't want to be Use this word and be inclusive and then when TOC voting comes around people think that they're going to vote So, I guess that's my like major Point is that we're definitely going to hit eventually it might not be tomorrow But eventually we're going to hit some people being ticked thinking that they might be able to vote and they're being called a Maintainer in one case and not another case. I think we're already seeing that because I think we're I think we're increasingly seeing Projects that have sub projects. This is coming up with helm like it's going to come up with other projects We actually have the situation with an envoy also because because we have sub projects so I mean I I Appreciate that we have this spreadsheet, but I I I do think that We're all in agreement that I think this could play a very important part and helping to better clarify this situation Okay, I'll take a I'll take an action to keep this moving async So we can keep this discussion flowing and I also I think even have an issue about maintainer circle And I think I even asked Zach to about like Zach was zig-dux and Kubernetes like I don't know Zach's on I can't see the participant So it's not but like shopping. Yeah shopping the maintainer definition. I saw that yeah Shopping the maintainer definition just because I already know we're gonna have issues coming up So I'll let's continue that async Knowing that a lot of us are in agreement that we need to figure that part out All right, and then so the other areas let's get into the governance part because I know I know Josh wanted to get into that and Me too. Yeah some of the governance like either whether it's templates, whatever Josh do you want to proceed with your question one more time? Just to refresh So I'm getting started with this. We'll see if there's an issue open I'm gonna continue the issue with starting to get a work and there's basically sort of two portions to the governance effort portion number one is clarifying graduation requirements Like we basically kind of have a graduation requirement for good governance But it's not really defined as what is the minimum bar for good governance Which means that often when it gets discussed in SIGS or the TOC It feels fairly subjective, and I think we can make it a lot less subjective The And that would be sort of you know our minimum bar and you can define as things like for example We don't want a fully graduated project where a hundred percent of the maintainers all come from one company The so there'll be some diversity requirements and that sort of thing in there and Then the second part of it is assembling a set of documents and recommendations and that sort of thing for projects to improve their governance You know workflows different ways that people can select owners and maintainers across different projects the You know Suggestions on how to hold transparent decision-making meetings all of the things that you sort of need for Successful open community project governance And particularly like the whole reason I got into this begin with is we have quite a number of projects within the CNCF That started at a single company They want to make them Multi-company public projects, but they're not really sure how to proceed so That's going to be my main focus and then moving into sort of broader You know other governance recommendations But really looking at a lot of these smaller projects that want to move along and become more community oriented and just don't have the experience to know how Yeah, I think from my perspective there's a couple of different parts of this I Think we really do have to dig in on To this portion of the graduation requirement. It's a it's a contentious point. It comes up again and again and again We're seeing this right now with both gnats and gRPC both both come to mind and I think from a from a foundation perspective, I think the You know, this is obviously partly This is partly a decision that the TOC is going to have to make But I think this SIG will play a huge part in actually helping to shape that conversation So that would actually be one of my highest priority things to help with is to try to drive some Consensus around how we want to handle the maintainer diversity requirement and and by maintainer diversity I'm obviously talking about multi-organization or multi-company I think that's part one and I think that's probably the most urgent because that is causing some Consternation right now. I think the second part is that as part of the incubation Requirements and especially as part of the graduation requirements. There's this nebulous requirement of a quote healthy community, right and that is fully subjective And I think like we're asking SIGs to do technology reviews I really would love this SIG to whenever any project goes up for either incubation or graduation I'd love it to do a community health assessment, right and having Some rigor around that like some rubric it will be very helpful because this is so so subjective and I you know We can sit on this call forever and talk about github stars and other bullshit metrics but it's like I just It frustrates me when we put up these slides and it's like I have so many darker downloads or github stars or whatever Like these are not like these are not real real metrics So so it's like this group helping with that rubric like super super useful and then just last thing that I would say is part three is I think a lot of Maintainers of projects want to increase their community health, right? It's like they want more maintainers, but they don't know what to do so part three is which is some sense the hardest part is Through maintainer circle and we've talked in other calls about like job boards and you know There's lots of things that we can do from a SIG perspective To me part three is how do we help people? Get get more maintainers. So I think those are the three things probably in priority order that are that would be the most important to me For my part, I'm gonna start with governance because you have to start somewhere And because I'm currently helping along a couple of sandbox projects who are grappling with this. So I have to do it However Red Hat has internally a community health measurement thing So one of the other things that I can actually do right away is put our thing in the repo So that if somebody can get to measuring the other parts of community health You know, how do you measure it? How do you improve the various dimensions? Before I can get to it. They could actually have that on as contributing material We look at it before you commit it Well, it's a you know, we just need no a resources folder Yeah, we've got the governance folder and templates Yeah, but I mean a resources folder for things That are materials that we are using but are not our guidelines if you follow me So go ahead and add it in there. Yeah, so my this kind of leans into my suggestion of having the I mean some of the stuff that we some of the stuff We're gonna want to keep in sig contributor strategy repo, but there's also the contribute repo That's probably more visible So I was thinking of like a what does a community repo look like? Like kubernetes community repo look like in CNCF land So before we're saying that that is the contribute repo So I would want us to get access to and we can work on the github stuff a thing But I'd want us to get access the same level of access to that as well so we can start flushing out that directory structure So we're doing all of our policies and procedures in the sig contributor strategy repo and then doing everything templates and guidance in the contribute repo Is that where folks are wanting to go That sounds good with me to start. Yeah, it sounds like things should only go over to the contribute repo when we feel that They are approved exactly the the fit and finish kind of like done done. Yeah, I Definitely have a problem with Submitting one employer's guidance as rule like I feel like that's why I feel like we should make it less red hat Um, like I'm not gonna have like I don't have to share it if you don't want it Yeah, I mean that might Mike. I'm cool with it. I'm just saying I would I would rather us be a little bit collaborative than like For me to talk about resources. We're talking about materials for us to mine. I guess. Yeah, it's just again like we're talking about like like we conversations with like company diversity already and Like then we're just like putting resources in a folder that are like talking about those companies I don't know. Maybe we should just like create a doc then and not check them in That's my take anybody else's take. Yeah, I mean, I think we should We should do some some type of review So we can talk about the provenance, but I would copy them into a doc or put it in markdown or something where we can actually comment on it Well, so I mean we can I can give like Google's open source playbook that because it's already open sourced So I I'm really not understanding what's wrong with having a resources folder in the repo That is materials that we're drawing from from all kinds of different sources So companies from public sources from everywhere So I think it's I think I think as long as the provenance of these resources is clear and that we're saying that this is not Our guidance necessarily if we have a if we have a doc that says like this is our guidance for Community health assessments and governance models and all that stuff that is born from These documents that are clearly linked out to where they come from I think that's fine But I agree that we should shop this internally SIG internally before it goes anywhere Not the red hat document, but the document that would be born from. Oh, yeah, aggregative lists sources, I Don't know. I guess I just have been around this block of time or two and know that companies will fight to put their resources in there if they see other companies putting resources in there And then it's gonna be a why isn't my company have resources in here? kind of thing so There's seven of us on the call we're not exactly drowning in input right now, I mean, I'm not saying that we're drowning that we like That it's an issue. It's just that I know how these things go and like we say that it's only seven of us right now But when we get kicking and things get like You know, whatever I mean, it's a it's an easy question for somebody to ask us like why is there only red hat documentation in this resource thing? Or whatever, so I don't know. That's my that's my thing like I would I guess I would just rather have a doc With links and stuff like that to already open source resources That's my day But if everybody else disagrees then by all means enjoy a resource holder Yeah, I I think we're a little early on to be fighting about stuff like this so my my personal advice is to start with a doc and let's just gather some links from everyone that's interested and What what I would hope that we would do is that we would end up with some markdown or a final dog or something That actually is the product of the aggregate group the aggregate group of people Exactly. Yeah, and my my thing is too. I'm like, I just think that people are going to see resources as resources for them and They're gonna be poking around in our stuff and like the media does too and like I Think like if we do have a resources folder, please just include a read me that says these are not this is not our guidance Etc. Etc. So the people are extremely clear about that But I agree like I was going to also bring up that we needed like a doc with like links and stuff like that for us So, yes, it's needed. I just don't know just from a perception standpoint. I don't want Folks to to go that way. All right Josh, do you have any more governance stuff that you wanted to address with Matt? specifically No, no, we're just getting word, you know, we're just getting started The I do actually like so because we're sort of seeing governance is assumed in something else So I'm actually going to move stuff because I think you got the right term there, which is general community health Right of which governance is a component So because previously we had the name of the overall goal as diligence And I think calling the overall goal community health that actually better encompasses everything that we want to cover All right, so the rest some of the other questions that That I had listed for Matt specifically Things that we could help out with some of the end-user stuff as well like you called out like Templates for adopters md and stuff Yeah, that is yep. That is one that is one that comes up a ton I don't know where that fits like if it fits here. I think it's a little soft in terms of fitting, but maybe But this is a persistent problem where you know, we have usage requirements particularly at the incubation and the graduation level Some ability to facilitate how we do that and again some more structure than we have I think would be useful So There are a couple different parts of CNCF that are responsible for helping shepherd people through the Toc like incubation etc process. Does our SIG fall into that? Yes or no, I Think yes. So from what I was saying before I I personally We just passed. I don't know. I mean Yeah, I will I will I will talk less about the charter and and just from my my perspective Is that I actually think that this SIG is involved should be involved in every incubation and graduation review And and mostly around the checks around Like doing a review And some due diligence on the governance process maintainer diversity the community health and and and like I was saying before having some rubric which is Slightly more defined than the literally random gut check that that we use right now because that is honestly what happens right now It's a bunch of us just like I have all some stuff and say as a healthy and we use our own completely Subjective measure of that. Yeah, my point was is that there's been um content kind of spread out Like you mentioned people were putting up github stars for example on their thing The only reason people do that is because there isn't a template that says totally Like are the now it's a PR or whatever This is what it should look like and so you look at a previous one and then you go Okay, well someone else had stars. I'll do stars has been an open issue for months about Having a template and there isn't one yet and like that's something that we should we should take on then and go This is what a template should look like for submitting to incubation or to the next levels In addition to adopters and a couple other things then like So they kind of have like they don't have a home now So if you say that it's part of our charter Then I think we should kind of like grab some of those other stragglers that our people have said they want to do and Everyone has been searching for for months because like there's been churn And kind of bring it in and like make it part of our wheelhouse. Yeah, so let's let's pick it up I see that I see the you know some of what we're doing funneling into okay We make it easier for SIGs SIGs to do their due diligence that eventually escalates to TOC and then becomes You know does or doesn't become a project. I would also say that there's a lot of I think that the TOC list is is the a fun place for chatter about How some of these things function and you know as someone who's like we're we're working on submitting decks as you know for for sandbox right now and I Jumped around like a million pages trying to figure out like how I was supposed to do it I opened an issue Amy was like hold on can you do it as a PR and and and then got point Pointed to a separate, you know set of documentation about how to do this thing But you know some of it's buried in maybe it's buried in like how the TOC operates, right? Which is not necessarily the first place that someone's going to jump into but I think that we should also try to Channel these voices that are jumping in on the mailing lists and stuff like that and put them to work Right like you want to see a template like okay? We'll put out a template, but if you have thoughts on how this template should go Let's work to look you there's I know there's at least one or two people on mailing list talking about Processes and they're like okay draft a document tell us out like tell us how it should go, right? So I think we can I think we can I definitely think we should pick it up Because I for what it's worth. Yeah, I mean my my personal experience so far is that The people that actually write the docs like they're the ones that actually make things happen So I would I would strongly suggest people to pick pick pick the things that are interesting Whether it be in this area or some other area and let's actually type out some strop proposal and actually talk about it Because we can we can go back and forth and talk about Not very specific things all day, but if we can just get something on paper I think I think it will lead to process improvements On All right, and then like on the templating front We can also do contributor guides and things under like the contributor growth working group That's like super eat not I don't want to use the word easy I'm saying easy for us on the line a lot of us have done Contributor guides and things like that meaning easy for us to populate like good templates and resources and things like that and Then I did want to take a note You have obviously CI and CI being expensive and you're like what maintainers want I was also going to going to ask you what you think about Maybe helping out with Identifying triage guidelines or teams or roles and how to set those up so that they can save either money or You know save the rejection hotline for getting more expensive CI is there is anything in there valuable to projects are now not really I mean like it it might be I think that's why we did the whole special needs proposal and I guess I Guess I I view those instances to be a little Farther apart. So if I were honest, I just feel like if this group has Limited time I think it could be fully occupied with all of the stuff that we've already talked about around governance and community health and those types of things and My personal feeling and this doesn't obviously have to be the way that the group goes is that I would rather focus a hundred percent of the effort on Nailing those things because I think they're the biggest need, you know, which is the defining the graduation requirements the community health DD and then the how-do projects help them increase their Maintainer ranks. I just feel like those are the biggest needs right now. So yeah, I kind of agree there, too I think it would be nice if we could get together as a group and determine what our Definition of like done is at least to start right because like at that point if we lay down enough documentation to say that We should start heavily recruiting people for this group to work on improving that documentation Then we should find a point at which we should do that right because we're already planning to recruit for the maintainer circle and and you know it We could assume that some of those maintainer circle people might eventually become Contributor strategy members as well. So I think we should try to and I mean, I think we're all Over-subscribed in some ways. So I think we should find Where we're happy with opening the gate for everyone else As long as we've laid down something really good to start That's why I think we need to get all of our working groups up with read me's get all of our documentation In order before we open the gates because once we open the gates, y'all know how it works Like people are gonna be like, well, give me a project or give me a task and then you're like, here's this ambiguous thing over here So we'll be like having our own meta issues that the rest of the projects All right, I think that was it for my questions with Matt. Does anybody else have Matt related GB rep questions? Because I feel like we got a lot Just a general. Thank you. You're doing a whole bunch and across a bunch of different groups And I saw like when you were when you were up, I guess applying or you know For for GB and and all the stuff that you said around wanting to make the community better So so thank you for the work that you've been doing already All for also helping with this. I think this is one of the most high leverage things that we can work on right now So yeah And do you have any questions for us? I don't I don't think so. I mean again, this is an area that I'm personally passionate about so My my suggestion is what we were saying before is I think the group will be more effective if Uh, we pick a small set of things and try to actually do them, right? So You know, I think like starting on a You know, like a a what what is done list or something along those line like what what does success mean I think would be useful just because these types of things Frankly, they can devolve into a lot of meetings and talk but not not much action And I would I would hate to see that happen So just setting a few specific goals and and figuring out how to make that happen would be great Yeah, I feel like this crew too could be a little bit more on the conference driven development end too Because I feel like we should use like the cube con channels to get the word out about a lot of this stuff Yeah, sure Absolutely. I thought that is not my advice for code generating folks, by the way Do not do conference driven development. Please don't um in that case But I feel like in our case we could kind of have those as mild as I have those as our milestones for instance and not like at least milestones and and there there are things even from the conference perspective That I would love to do which we don't do right now. It's right. It's like for example Why at coupon do we not have a maintainer? Happy hour slash meetup slash lunch slash breakfast or something like that, right? I mean, it's just there's such low hanging fruit here in terms of getting some of these people to actually talk to each other That we're not doing right now. So I feel like this group can drive some of some of those things in terms of mailing lists and meetups and Just get people talking would be a great improvement Yep All right, yeah, we've got a ton Taking some notes too All right, yeah, we've got a ton and I think our It sounds I think our crew right now. Does anybody on the line feel like they have No idea what to do next Because I think right now we want to launch some of these working groups officially get some of that stuff kicked off I know we've got some kick smaller kickoff meetings with like the end user stuff and with contributor growth like carolin and Karen So we'll kick those off next week And then I maybe in there in our smaller working groups We can talk about what done looks like for each of us and then come together In the next two weeks at the next two week meeting and talk about some of like our first deliverables Is that cool with everybody? I have a mini bike shed or are we calling them working groups or sub projects? I know You know it So kubernetes calls them sub projects cncf calls them working groups matt. How much leverage do we have changing the word sig here? I I just don't have time for this stuff You can you can you can call it whatever you want it doesn't Yeah Right just just just pick pick whatever you all want to call it Sorry make it clear and available to people that when you're doing something like this is where you should go for that Whatever it is called is whatever you need to call it. It's fine I mean, I think the only I think the only issue that we've had to date is just the fact that they're called other things in the other project that kind of Play discrepancy. It's like I agree with you and like if you're clear with someone on what the hell it is do it um But like I think that might also be a cause for like A reason why the sigs at the cncf level have not had Uh, you know or you know the folks that are saying that they don't have enough You know folks and they're helping them I'm wondering it's just if there's this just general Um confusion around the term sig and what the heck a sig does and stuff like that At the cncf level by the way, that's Um, so anyway, that was my bike shed. Have a nice day So uh contributed growth folks fyi there's a doodle in the slack. I'll put a doodle on the mailing list as well um end user folks we are sort of uh On hausish, but we should meet anyway. That's eor and um, steven um And even then governance josh who who is signed up to help you I think there were you had in person that was like really gung-ho about governance stuff. Was that steven too? Yes, but no, um Like I I only added josh to the governance sub project within the read me right now. Um, because he was the only clear All right, it was josh might okay. Do you have you have folks helping you and stuff like that to get this off the ground? Nope Do you want help? I'm not As much as I love you. I know what your cue is Carolyn or um, or maybe you know, Karen's not on the line right now. Um, Karen might want to help Um, and there's some other folks that are not on the line right now and I know april my coworker wants to help so She's not on the line right now either For that matter, I can do a few shout outs and cnc f slack and see if anybody turns up Yeah um All right That's it for me y'all anybody else have anything Go team I know there's a lot to do y'all, but i'm actually excited. I'm so excited I always say that but I just want to say it one more time I think this this sig has the opportunity to have I think a very very large impact. So, um, it's Very exciting to me to actually see this being worked on Yay To All right, great. That's it sir. I'm starting to stay calm. Thank you. Bye. See you in two weeks y'all