 Hey, Josh. Howdy. How's it going? Oh, Tuesdays are hell. I always have solid meetings starting at, at seven. And I'm waiting for desperately hoping one of them will end early enough that I can grab a bite to eat. Ah. So. The. Well, we don't have, we don't have much on our agenda. So this might be your opportunity. Well, the, the previous one actually ended 15 minutes early. So I wolfed down a bagel. Okay. The, um, and, and, you know, got head butted by my cat who could smell fish. And I pointed out that he doesn't like smoked salmon. But it doesn't matter. No. No. The, um, so. Yeah. Mostly for me, it's been, you know, spring conference. Hell with. Everything for red hat summit and. Um, Kubecon do it once. Yep. So, okay. Well, we only got really a couple of things. Yeah. So see if anybody joins us. I'll give a couple of minutes. The, um, Sub projects template poll. Where is that? Yeah. We've only got all the feedback in. Oh my God, you know, I don't know why I don't usually, I guess mostly. On pull requests, mostly people choose one commenting method or the other. Um, I don't know. I don't know. You know, it's just, I really had to hunt down comments. All over the GitHub UI to include all of them. Yeah. Some of them showed up in the, some of them showed up in the file comments and some of them showed up in the conversation. Yeah. I tried to do mine as a review. So they show up in the file comments because I think. I find it easier to. Absorb there. Yeah. I don't know. So. In a few hours on meetings with Amy. Yes. No, part of it. Like, I wondered. Through here to be able to see if there's like suggestions that I can have for like project charters and things. Um, and it looks like you've already gone through and like a tempted to find the CNCF charters that like. Don't exist out here. Um, yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'm giving that. Officially. Okay, so welcome to the governance working group meeting for the CNCF. One of the CNCF COC. This is being recorded. And all of that jazz and we are going to start out by reviewing the draft. If I can get my mouse back, we're going to start out by reviewing the draft. Charter document. For recommendations for projects to add a charter component to their governance documentation. Which was proposed by Dawn last meeting. And now she has a draft. So you want to take that away Dawn. Absolutely. So I did get some good feedback from Dems, which I think I've incorporated most of that. So the direction I decided to go with this was looking, looking around. So none of the graduated projects have a quote charter document. But what they do have is they have those components. And so what, what I tried to do was steer people towards including certain things in their documentation. So with the idea that having, you know, having some of this like a scope and a mission helps avoid issues and misunderstanding later people don't actually understand what you do. And there's also lots of complexity overlapping technologies, that sort of thing. So, so this helps people fit their project into the overall ecosystem and what functionality it has and it doesn't have what are they trying to do and not do. So I talked about a little bit about how it's often not all the charter, but what we really want is people to have like a mission statement while user principles, similar things found within either their governance documents or read me. So the specific recommendation was to include a mission statement in the read me file. And then include, like a statement of values or principles within the governance document. And with a point that it should be consistent with the mission and value of the CF charter, which we should all read. And then Jim's also made a good point that these really are living documents that should change over time as projects evolve. So what you need when you're at sandbox is probably just a statement or two. But what you need when you, you know, by the time you graduate is probably something a bit more detailed. And then I gave a few examples. So that's, that's pretty much, pretty much it. Am I missing anything. Two questions. And does this seem like the right approach. No, I think this is the right approach. The only group that I would really highlight is having like major charters here are the SIGs because they need those in order to be able to form. I would use the same words here like I'm struggling with being able to call it a project charter, because like, as we've seen, it's not called a charter at all. And it doesn't follow the same kind of thing and being able to set the expectation that we'll have the same level of robustness as the big charters like the CNCF charter and the SIG charters is probably not something that a tiny little baby project is going to be able to meet those goals. Yeah. Yeah, no, that's a good point. I think maybe I should add something about about saying let me figure out where I'm not sure where like this this comment would be like yeah project read me seems like the most appropriate place to be able to like kind of like have this as a starting point. Rather than in the governance document. So what I what I said was that the mission should be in the in the read me, because I think that's important for people to see front and center, and that the either some kind of statement about values and principles should be in in the governance documentation. Hold on I'm trying to catch up with notes. Yep. And there's one thing that you don't actually mentioned there that I think is actually critical for projects to have scope. Okay. As in, which is kind of a more technical, you know, a more technical corollary to the mission. And like, you know, this project, you know, covers, you know, the, you know, container x wasm runtime and its dependencies and drivers. You know, but not container building tools. Yeah, I ran across a really good example of the scope document. I think I saw another one too. Yeah, this is this isn't the one I'm thinking of there was another one that was really good that I will dig up that was a very much a technical scope it was this project it does these things and not these things. And it was, it was quite well well written. I'll dig up an example. This is good. It's good feedback. And the other question is, should we be recommending that people put the scope in the read me or in the governance documentation. I mean, I think as long as you have it, it's fine. Everybody can make their own decisions about where this should live as far as like a spec project is going to be different from like a distro project that kind of thing. Well, yeah, but we're going to be adding stuff to templates. We're going to make a question of which, which template do we add it to. I think it's a great conversation about like the, it should live somewhere. Where do we want it to make the recommendation live. Okay, I retract my comments. Yeah, cool. Yeah. Yeah, realistically they could they can put it anywhere and they can ignore it in the template there and there's quite a bit of leeway. Okay, that's fine. Yeah. I tend to think scope. It's probably more in the governance documentation. Would you agree with that. I'm fine with that I can see it being in either place. The, I mean, it's, it's kind of traded because like for some of the stuff like I've just been working on conveyors governance document again. And for conveyor they really need scope to be part of the governance documentation because that's where the procedures on accepting new sub projects are. And that's when you really need to know scope. Yeah. But for other projects I who don't have that sort of consideration, if they're putting the mission in the read me scope is kind of a corollary to the mission it's the technical details of the mission. And I can see them also putting it there. So, container D has a pretty good example of document. I saw another one to kind of remember where which project it was. But this is good so what I'll do is I'll, I'll take all of this and update it, and then probably do you want to review it one more time in this meeting or should I just make the changes and PR it. You have a preference. I'd like to actually spell out the sort of three different sections that we've identified. The mission scope and values and principles. Okay, to to explain what those are because right this is the advisory document right. And it's going to accompany the changes that we make to the templates. And so explanations are in order. So to say hey this is what a mission is. This is what scope is this is what values and principles are. And I'll do that and then I'll, I'll bring it back to this meeting or get some feedback a sync on this doc before I PR it because I think those are picking up changes that. Yeah, I don't want to, I don't want necessarily do all the iterations on one GitHub because that's harder. Timing note, the next sig update meeting is April 6. So that can give you both a deadline as well as like a time to be able to put this out in public too too soon to too short too fast. I turned 15 on April 6. Okay, fine. You don't have to be there directly. Someone else. Yep. Yes. I can. Wow, everybody's younger than me. It's really a timing note. That's all. Yep. Yeah, but I do not turn 50 on April 6 so the. So, so yeah, I can probably be at the meeting and that actually would be good. Just a note or something to highlight the TOC is going to be interested in this and someone may even have comments in good ways. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so we have time to work on this more in the next week. Plus. Yeah, I should. For me, I suddenly become slightly more available. Once the deadline for turning in conference materials has passed this Thursday. The. So, okay. Yeah, and I'll be, I'll be out the week of March 29th through my birthday. So I'll be out that week before because that's Easter holiday. So we get Friday and Monday off anyways. So taking advantage of that to take a full week off. More than a week. Yeah, I guess that would be the one question is how well attended that meeting is going to be, but we never know. I can't predict. Just letting you know there is a meeting and perhaps if you wanted to have a deadline, and if you wanted to be done, like, and we want other things, this would be a way to give us some give us right something to discuss with the meeting. Yeah. Exactly. So, okay. Yeah, that seems good. And then the tricky part is going to be watching him and this out in the tricky part is going to be coming up with template examples because a generic template for a mission statement. Yeah. I'm actually thinking scope should go in the read me file. Because scope is as much as much to do with contributions, as it does with other things. So I think I think scope needing to be in the governance file for things like an umbrella project is a little bit more of a special case. Okay. That seems to be reasonable to me. Like you said, it's one of those things like you could make an argument for either way. Yeah. Also that means in our template things will only be creating the scope template once instead of three times. Oh yeah, that's true. I think that burying it in the governance documents, a lot of people don't read the government documents unless they're interested in particular governance issues or scope is something that you actually really want everyone to read. Okay. Yeah, this is good. Thanks. Okay. Okay. Well thank you for drafting that. Yeah, I finally got time after saying I was going to do it for how many months. What the, oh well, how long have I had the initial bullet point version of the definition of open governance sitting in a hack and D document. So the. Okay. And speaking of long term things. I have finally gotten all comments incorporated into sub projects template. So if possible, I would like to go ahead and vote to merge that. It has been reviewed by sod. Not by our new TSE liaison but I think, given that it's a template it's probably okay to have it reviewed by one of them. We should, and we also have not synced up with our new liaison which is, I keep wanting to say Alyssa, but I don't think that's the right name. Or Alana, Elena. First thing I'll have to ask her is how she pronounces her name. I did this, I want to say last week with updating with like the new TSE liaison. Yeah. Yeah. The. Okay. So, okay. Yep. Any further, any further discussion on the sub projects template. No, I think it, I think it looks good. That was a lot of feedback to incorporate. I think. Yeah. I mean, honestly, probably the other two templates need that level of review, which they didn't necessarily get originally. So, if, if anybody is feeling. You should expect that the sub projects template to end up in the top project very soon because that's what, that's what Joshua works on and he and I were talking about governance for for top update framework and. Okay. And I was like, I know, I know exactly what you should look at. I was like, it's a draft. Yeah. Yeah. So that's how you got. It's going to be officially added to the conveyor project, which is has not yet applied to the CNCF. This week. So being a specification they have basically, yeah, limitations of the specification in various languages, reference implementations. So it bit nicely into the sub project model. Cool. Always, always lovely to have a road test of these things. Yeah, exactly. So, yeah, and I'm just saying the other two. The other two did not quite get the same level of scrutiny, which probably means that they could use it. At some point down the line. Okay, the. So, I mean, the two are in some ways less complicated or have more field examples, right, because like steering committee elections we have lots and lots of examples of the. You know, that, you know, maintainer council is not that complicated of a model. Plus honestly, nobody is going to use that template is written based on looking at 10 different maintenance council projects. The. So. Okay. Do we have any other open issues. The other thing I did is I went through the, the issues of the PRs, and I tagged them with the governance working group. Because we talked about how we didn't have any of them properly tagged. Okay. Yeah, I see that the only one that's governance is the general website one. Yeah. Do we have stuff that Carolyn is waiting for us on the website. I was wondering what the status of the website is. Yeah, I don't know. She she was actually waiting for my review. And I've completed it last week. While paper appears. Yeah, yeah. Okay, time zones. Okay. So, you know, the daylight savings time zones here expected that this hour, this meeting will start in a few in half an hour. So, Karen was waiting for my review on the website. I completed it last week. And let's check if anything else is there. But as far as I remember, she had to address a few minor issues then that's it. Yeah, I'm looking forward to getting this. Getting this out there. I'm constantly pointing people to various resources that we have the box that we've written and I feel sort of guilty just like dropping on my link to get every co. Yeah. Yeah, just just a minor, just a minor stuff here and once it's done so we have good website. Cool. Perfect. Okay. Yeah, then we can actually get our flow of materials going the. So, okay. The. But it doesn't sound like there's specific stuff for governance to do until that's live, although I can double check with Carolyn, but it doesn't sound like there's anything to do until that's live. So, okay. I think that's it short and sweet unless you actually want to do the revisions to the mission stuff live. Um, no, I'll do that offline because I actually given that we want to put more details about the mission scope and principles values I kind of want to reorganize it a little and break, break those down into separate and make it easier for people to find so that's reorganizing a document is not particularly productive in a collaborative environment. So, I'll do that offline. But I should I should legitimately have some time to do that. Okay. And yeah, once you're done with your part of that then ping me and I will start adding stuff. Okay. And this is actually part of contributor growth effectively but in there which is that work continues on the template contributor ladder. Karen's done a lot of reorganization I need to go through and edit. I have not had a lot of time to devote to it. The. So, that's in progress. See, see folks on slack email, whatever. Good. Good to see you all.