 Hey everybody. Hey there. One of my thousand or so tabs I have open. I'll talk in the chat. Yep. I don't know about you, but my pattern is I just keep opening tabs until Firefox crashes. Yeah, pretty much. Which one you start over? Okay, April said she's joining late. Okay, well, let's go ahead and get started. Sounds good. We'll get more people late, particularly because we can start out with sub projects template. So I saw your edits on that I'm going through and actually doing a global search on the word project. Just in case or if you didn't see. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I mean, part of this is I adapted this from the one in development for conveyor and conveyor uses the terms umbrella project and project instead of project and sub project. And so, you know, end up missing some of the replacements. Yeah. And there were a few times where used project where I think it was referring to the umbrella project. But it's. Yeah. The, yeah, well, so I'm going to there's 75 instances of the word project. So I'm going to now go through and look at all of them. The, and see which ones need to be sub projects and which ones need to be project. Yeah. And that'll do. Because I think that that was actually the core of my of my misunderstandings of some of the other stuff because it was it was hard to tell whether we were referring to the overall or the sub project. Yeah. The so. Okay. So I'll do that. There's going to be a bit of a delay in approving that anyway, because for our sort of advisory procedure, we need our two TOC liaisons to approve it to go on the website, not that the website is live yet. Yeah. Currently, we only have one TOC liaison because Matt just retired from the TOC. So I need to recruit a new second TOC liaison before anything's going to get approved. But I'll go ahead and get that merged so I can stop thinking about this particular template and focus more on the contributor ladder. Yeah. Anything else on that? I guess the other question is with these three, do we have sufficient governance sample governance templates? I was just going to double check that the Yeah. So we'll have three maintainer council, elected central steering committee and you know, sub projects. Those were the three generics I could think of. I feel like any other form of governance I've seen was fairly specific and not really genericizable, but I might have missed something. No, I think those are good. I think those are the three big ones. Okay. So okay. Second thing is we're going to open governance criteria. I think you went over that, Don. Yeah. Yeah, I did. Yeah, it looked really good. I made a couple of kind of minor comments, suggestions. Yeah. Sorry. Do we want to just go through the comments or? Oh, yeah. Okay. Just say employer or other characteristics. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then, yeah, on the defined cadence for leadership one, that one was a little bit, I don't know. I feel like that one's a little complicated because it's, like if you're, if you just have like a couple of maintainers, if you're a small project, like you don't necessarily need like an annual cadence. Yeah. So let me tell you. Yeah. So I'm just at the bottom for maybe, maybe, yeah. Let me tell you what I'm addressing here, which is specifically we had a CNCF sandbox project in which one of the governance positions was for life. And I'm, you know, and this is actually what triggered me on, hey, we need a definition of open governance because they were like, well, how is that not open? Yeah. And so even for a small project that is led by maintainers, I guess, I mean, I guess part of it is I'm saying leadership replacement, but sometimes you might be replacing it with the same person because they're still the only person that's eligible, right? So it's almost like we want a different word for replacement. Yeah. But, but like, I feel that if a project has somebody who is affected, de facto appointed for life, because there is nothing in the governance that says that their status as leader ever gets reviewed, then that is not open governance, because that person can retain that leadership position long after they've stopped contributing to the project. So maybe we just, we need a different word there than replacement. Or maybe we flip it and kind of address the problem directly and say that, you know, leaders, I don't know, said some more differently than this, but leaders cannot be elected for life. There has to be a process for replacement. Yeah, I don't know. This is really complicated. Yeah, I kind of feel like an actual period has to be defined in the governance because you don't necessarily say this person's a leader for life. You may just not set any elections. If you follow me, that is, you could have elected leaders, but if there is no regular schedule of elections, then they're not actually elected. You know, and for that matter, like another example of something I've seen outside the CNCF, which is a project where theoretically they have, you know, TOC elections, but the elections have been postponed for three years straight. You know, again, that's no longer open governance, no matter what it started out as. So I feel like, yeah, because I understand where you came from on that, seeing the word replacement. And so I think just need to have a different word that understands that, hey, you know, there needs to be defined cycle for leadership changes, and those changes might result in re-electing or re-selecting or re-promote, you know, or retaining the same people, but they have to be at least reviewed. And there has to be an opportunity for them to step down or be no longer leaders. I just threw in another comment with a suggestion just because I typed better than I talk. There's a process for reviewing leadership roles and replacing if needed annually or more frequent. Maybe something along those lines, but it's not very good wording, but... Yeah, we'll have to work on that. Yeah. But anyways, those are my comments. Other than that, I think it looks really good. Those are on the nitpicky one. Okay, so fix that. I kind of feel like if we're going to submit this as I mean, this would end up being because it's related to a CNCF requirement. This would be our first document in the sort of requirements section. So I think I'll actually need to embed this in a slightly longer document, with some framing at least, if nothing else. And then go ahead and submit that. I have a feeling that I'll get some pushback on number four. But we'll see. We'll argue that out. But I agree with you. Number four is important. The, I mean, again, obviously from my perspective, coming from where I'm coming from, my perspective is, hey, you know, projects need to not have governance that is unrelated to the project. And my experience with company appointees is that you often end up with people appointed to leadership positions who have no experience with a project whatsoever. Yeah, which then, you know, offer the same projects results in the projects not making a lot of progress, because the people who have to approve things don't understand the things they need to approve. But you end up with situations like, like with Canada, where, you know, there were a bunch of Google people on the steering committee, but Google wasn't really as invested in the project as they had been in the past. Yeah. Well, you also have the other issue of, you know, what happens when somebody changes employers. But we'll see. I'm sure we'll argue down in the TSE. Okay. So fix those two things, add some framing text, et cetera, put this in the requirements directory, re-review, and then have our liaisons at that time review it and then take it to the TSE. Okay. Oh, I also want to pester Chris A. about this, because I know he's done some thinking about this. Yeah. Give him his feedback. Okay. Anything else on that? And then next item here, the kind of mind of April could join us for this one, but I guess not. Does any, before we get to the linker D thing, does anybody have anything else for WG governance? Okay. So Charles, it's apparently just a few of us here. So I'm going to keep this informal. Hey there. So we saw the, we saw the steering committee launch. Yes. So very exciting. It is. The first meeting is tomorrow, I think. But you already have your group of people. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's in one of the blog posts. There were two announcements, but yeah, I'm certain that the, yeah, there are four people. So if you actually, I'd like to ask you with this end user based steering committee, I'd like it if you could actually say what you want to accomplish with this group. Sure. So I just, as one caveat there, I was not part of like the selection or or even who we were considering for the steering committee. So yeah, the, so my understanding of the basic idea behind the end user concept is we get a lot of folks who companies who are, who have been part of the community longer for a very long time. And so we value their input. We, they have made contributions in the past, which makes them contributors as well as I should say their companies have been contributors in the past. So, you know, there are people who are using the linker D in ways that we think are representative of the way that people would need to use a service mesh. They're solving those problems in their production environments with the service mesh. So again, that's my take on it. There are other folks in the community who had more input on that all together. Okay. So the main goal of this was to actually take sort of long term community members and give them a leadership position so they could be more involved, be more involved, give input on the roadmap, that type of, those types of things. Yeah. And I would defer you to William or Oliver for like the official, official answer. That's, that is the, the unofficial answer from Charles Pretzer. Okay. The, I was wondering, is linker D incubating or graduated? Incubating. Yeah. Because I mean, one of the things I was looking at with that is, you know, is this intended to eventually sort of bolster the multi-organizational status of linker D? Just, I guess to some extent, but we haven't been really focusing, again, this is based, my take based on some of the conversations, we've been focusing more on adoption and growth rather than like, of course, we would love to have multi-organizational input on it. But contributions, but after, you know, some time, and I think some conversations with the CNCF, that we are, we're not just limiting ourselves to the multi-organizational aspect for the path to graduation. I didn't follow the sentence. So we, we've been focusing on community growth and contributor growth as part of the path to graduation and not, not leaning on just the multi-organizational part in and of itself. Yeah. The, yeah, I'm gonna have to say I was looking at it and I was seeing, because we have a number of projects that have not gotten a lot of multi-vendor participation in the projects and have struggled with ways to effectively find leadership positions for their users. Yeah. And so this was very interesting for that reason. Yeah. And I think that the CNCF has caught wind of that as well. They're saying they've got these great projects that can't make it to graduation because they're not getting that multi-organizational input. So, yeah, we've kind of, we've focused just on community and growing that community. Okay. Well, that's cool. We're gonna be, I'm at least going to be keeping a close eye on that, because I'll be very curious as to how it works out. Yeah. I will send you the link for the first year in committee meeting tomorrow. So I will be, I think I'll be there a bunch of meetings tomorrow, but I'm gonna, I plan to be there. I am curious how this works with other, other leadership within the Linkardee project. So I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with how your leadership is structured, but how does, how does the steering committee, given that it's more end user focused, how does it interact with the other, other parts of the Linkardee leadership? That's a good question. Again, a lot of this development of the steering committee in the selection happened with, through conversations that William and Oliver had with folks in the community. So I don't have details on how that particular decision was made, or even I assume that their interactions are, are up until tomorrow have been pretty informal. Lots of emails and slack, but again, I'm just speculating. I, yeah, I don't know if, if I had to continue to guess, which I'm doing, I would say that the steering committee will, you know, present ideas and topics and the other leadership and the, and so William and Oliver I suspect would be like, not so much review, but just listen to those, the topics and specifically around roadmap and feature type stuff and decide how that interaction goes from there. But, you know, like I, I can't overstate enough that I do not have a ton of detail about this. This is really different than a typical steering committee, which would have, I don't know, it's sort of oversee decisions made by individual maintainers, but this is, this is different because it's, it's end-user. So obviously they're not going to be the decision makers over like the maintainer decision making. Yeah, it sounds like sort of two different paths. Yeah, for, I mean, I was thinking about this in terms of certain other projects, now I was thinking if you were to sign in end-user council, you know, of whatever kind, whether you call it a steering committee or not, authoritative decision making over something, the obvious thing would be compliance and scope, right, because obviously users care pretty deeply about what is defined as canonical project X and what isn't. The NRA are going to be somewhat knowledgeable in the area compared to their knowledge of, oh, hey, should we refactor this to depend on this other GoLibrary or not. I also noticed that the sort of interaction with the maintainers was not defined in the current document. I mean, also for that matter, how the steering committee members get replaced is not defined. It looked like the the steering committee charter was meant to be minimum starting document and probably the new steering committee will have to spend a bunch of time defining their own charter. Well, it says that membership expires after one year or if they become ineligible, but they may seek reinstatement immediately. Yeah, but how do the members get selected? Yeah, doesn't say. Yeah, this is interesting and I'll be I'll be curious to see because, you know, I did, I guess I did dig into the governance a little bit more and it's, you know, mostly looks like maintainer decision making, as far as I can tell. And so I'll be curious to see once you put in place more, more around the leadership structure, because you know, eventually as the project grows and you move towards graduating, you'll need something probably a little bit more robust than that. And I'll be curious to see how when you have other leadership bodies, how the two interact, the end user one and the probably a more technical one, like in a technical oversight committee or something. But this is really interesting. I mean, I think this is a really interesting way to get end users more involved and more, how do I say like, basically skin in the game with the project. And so I think it's, I do think it's really interesting. I'm just poking at it just because I'm curious to understand how the pieces fit together. But, but I do think it's really interesting, especially at this early stage, like you would expect to see end user bodies like this later stages and projects. So I'm really curious to see how this how this evolves over time. Yeah, I agree. I don't have a ton more to say about it. It will be interesting to see how it evolves and grows. Okay. Well, keep an eye on it. April, who is not able to join us yet says she doesn't have anything additional for the agenda. So you already have anything? Okay. No, today I'm going to listen on the mode. If so, yeah, if so, that's it. And I will use the remainder of the time to fix up all the sub project stuff. So we can hopefully get that merged today. That's it. Thanks, everybody. Take care. Bye.