 I don't know the e-pop, I'll listen up. Ah, hi. Oh, sorry, I'm late. Happy New Year. Yeah, you too. Sorry, I'm mute. Right. Yeah, in case it wasn't already there. I'll link to the meeting notes. People could have their names. Okay. So no announcements. Upcoming events. Has anyone got anything to add to those? Or any detail on some of them. I know Lucina, you've, you've submitted the proposal for the date. Okay. That is my first, the back from the break, I'll check the, the timeline and see when we should expect a year back. Okay, Cool, thank you. So yeah, has anyone got any other events that they want to add to the list or updates or thoughts, comments on the ones that are here? So this was a discussion we'd had at the last meeting about the people who wanted to submit part of a best practice document. So maybe the summary. We were kind of investigating the different ways that we could enable that. So one option is an issue template like this, which where each section from the best practice proposal is a section in the issue template for people to add whatever wording they like. So, signing the alternative to that was this Google Docs approach where we, for example, just have the template in a Google Doc format, and people can add some wording and then people can comment on it, etc. Both options are open at the moment for this particular issue. So if we jump back to the issue template option as a spelling error, which I can modify. Has anyone else got any, any chance to review this and sign it off if they can. That'd be great. So basically Tom, the main idea is to give feedback about the template, right, not the content of the template. Yeah, just the issue template itself, not the content. Okay, yeah, probably just means that particular context. It's quite hard to see what it will look like when it's in this format, but basically each of these types where it's a text area will just be a text box for people to fill in. So it's basically a prompt for, you know, what it says here. So if all someone wants to do is add a summary, then that's all they need to fill in. So if we could get some reviews on that, that'd be good. Similarly, so I see Victor, you've commented on this as well, which is good to think of that. I haven't finished this tool, obviously, but this relates back to this issue. So it'd be good if people could have a, I'll fill this out a bit further, I've only done the summary up to now. I'll fill it out a bit further and then people can, I'll put it in Slack or something and people can start to have a look at it. Any other issues? I found quite interesting the feedback that Gecker gave us to the single process per container best practice. One process type. Oh yeah, no, I remember reading this and then thinking I need to come back and have another read of this and I never did. So, so try to investigate a little bit more about that particular best practice. What I found was it is, it is okay to have multiple. I mean, obviously, the suggestion is to try to just use one process per container, but in cases that you can have just single one. The best practice here is use a kind of process manager like a supervisor D or tiny or all these tools to make sure that you can proper manage the signaling. So, in that case, any, any signal that you receive from your process like a tick term or all of these needs to be propagated properly to the container runtime. So, you know, and of course, there are people who are saying like, yeah, this is a, you shouldn't go in this way, like, I didn't found any place where we're mentioning about impacting the performance using more process per container for things like that. So, yeah. Okay, so we're just waiting on responses to your feedback. Yeah, it's an interesting one. There definitely needs to be something that is measured. Question is what you say. Yeah, the other probably the other tricky thing is like, if we allowed to run a more than a more than one process per container, how we are going to validate it in terms like the test suite tool. Yeah, and whilst it might be a kind of, what's the word, gold standard, maybe, how realistic is it in terms of, you know, real, what people would call cloud native applications, how many are single process containers. I don't know. What I'm trying to think is, what's the rationale for this? Oh well. And is there, is there a different thing we should measure to, to drive people towards the benefit that underpins that rationale. So is it pod size, or is it container size, or is it log visibility, or is it, you know, something else that we should be testing instead. Yeah, I feel like they follow the same Unix principle like just do one thing at a time, like doing one thing good and like also they mentioned this like a single concern principle like if you, if you have only single process and your luck holds only corresponds to that process and everything you chose to do with a single thing. Yeah, you cannot mix it up. I think that that's, that's a main. Okay, let's see if he comes back with any response to your suggestion. Okay. So this one, which has been through, that's the Google doc that I'm preparing. Do we know if there are any, I can't remember the status of this quite old one, nearly two years old, whether we're going to do anything about it or close it. What's the last thing that we can start proceeding to train the draft and the PR for for that. I didn't see any, any objections to implement it. I mean, how does that show best practice. Yeah. It's probably now an essential test. So the best practice would basically be just mirroring that can do that in this quarter them. That's quite an old, an old issue. So it'd be good to be able to close that. The requirements for multi interface or a call you sent a document around this and thoughts in it. What are the orders, no Sega discussing how to standardize. Yeah, for this one, I guess the main. I'm not saying roadblock or like a. But definitely one major point to consider like, therefore, so the computer communities like doing and also they, the last thing that they do, they did was opening PR. It seems like they're having great progress on modifying the API, the Cuban API to support multiple networks. So, I don't know how close they are in terms like implementation. But yeah, it's like, they're moving in that particular direction. We can create like that. Or current cases. Okay, this is pretty active and still happening within the last week. Okay. How long has that been open. Three weeks. Okay. Right. Let's, let's keep track of that then. So in terms of this issue, then, should we close it or put it just leave it on hold and keep it open. Do you think I think that we can keep it open. And eventually transform or best practice to use whatever that they have implemented. I mean, not saying no, it's just like just modifying. Part of me is also thinking or we can close it and maybe we open later. You can see like that proper. I mean better. Now, if we think we're going to do something then let's keep it open but market is on hold. And then it's just clear from looking at it. Okay, I'm not aware of any other updates on these ones, which I think we've been through a few times Taylor or anyone else. Do you have any updates. So one of the things that I remember like we were trying to accomplish is like to the fine CNF or some of the other terms in the CNF lottery. So, maybe we can start with one or the most controversial one which is like CNF. So, what do you think like should be good idea to start that proposal in the CNCF lottery project. Yeah, would that be an issue in this repository or in the CNCF glossary repository. You just matter of the PR but once I mean just meeting the PR is not quite complicated. The most the most complicated thing is trying to define it and being a consensus and say well this is going to be our definition. Yeah, I don't know where, where's it, where's the glossary how is it in the website repository or is it a separate one. It's in the CNCF. Yeah, and you can find it as a glossary. Yeah. And I guess that they have some campaigns as well but yeah they have different things like terms or. And also ones that you propose something is like that particular definitions goes through different stages like a draft. She appreciated or things like that so. Yeah. So you think we should add some things into this list. Yep, because I have seen things for security for other things. Maybe having our own definitions there could be helpful. Okay, so do you think we should just do you think we should agree as a community in CNF working group. In which terms, we should then just singular singularly request, adding to the glossary or do it by day. I, yeah, I think, yeah, thinking similarly, could be, it could be something that we discuss up here like, I mean it's our like, or, or discussion in our own repository or. We actually got something and. Yeah, yeah. There's anything in here or not. Yeah, that's another CNF. CNF. Yeah, it was a third word Jeff. Years ago. Yeah, okay. These, these discussions are just why I think probably nothing's happened is because when we try and define what is a CNF. We end up with a lot of different opinions. Yeah. Okay, so let's create an issue for it, because otherwise we won't track it. We'll link off to the discussion points that have been out already. I work for you, Victor. Yep, yep. Okay. What are the updates on these issues this week. It's from my side. I don't know what else has something. Okay, no, no other agenda items. So is there any other business from anyone. By the way, I found like a silver communities went to have their own meeting. Like around January 25. You're aware of that or No, no, a regular meeting or one off event type thing. I think you just Let me see if I found it. Both put in the Slack. Yeah. But now to answer the question I wasn't aware of that. Okay. Yeah, it's going to be a little more friendly for you because European time is on. Okay, I got it. Just based it in the Zoom chat. So the next one is going to be Wednesday, 23rd. Okay. Center European time. Yeah. And it is this year's meeting. Yeah. Yeah, so I I'm not involved in silver anymore. Okay, that's interesting. Every two weeks on a Wednesday. Okay. Anything else to add. That case. Close the call and see you next week. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.