 Thank you. All right, we are now recording. Go ahead. Hi, today is July 26. Today is a sandbox review, so let's get started. So we had two projects from previously that we had asked a tax to give feedback on. And I believe the first one was Hexa. Emily, do you want to tell us what you thought of? So some of our feedback back to Hexa was when we wanted them to go talk to the security tags so that they were aware and engaged in those processes to engage in a self-assessment, which they have already filed an issue for, as well as answering some of our questions specifically around what is HAC, what is the difference between Hexa and IDQL. They did provide that. There is a thread in our channel with that information and content. So overall, it appears that they have satisfied all of our asks. I think the only item that would remain outstanding is providing the clarity that they gave back to us personally back into their own project documentation so that any potential contributor or community member interested in leveraging the project actually understands the differences between IDQL, Hexa, HAC, and how all of those components work together. Any questions for Emily? OK, ready to vote? It gives me the feeling that, yes, they've stepped up. They did what we asked them to do. They're getting good feedback. They're able to talk to people already. They know some folks in security. So I think they are well on their journey. So I would be positive on them joining us. I would add the caveat that we'd like their documentation to be updated to reflect the better clarity that they provided to us about the various projects. Yeah, we'll have to catch that incubation, Emily. And we can also add a note that when we send out the email, plus one, and then add some comments there on making sure that they have their documentation. Yes, Amy, thank you. So Amy, could you please call for a vote on this? Is up and go ahead. Yeah. And yes, we can ask for them adding things around now. We'll ask for it non-boarding. Yeah, perfect. So the second one we want to talk of today is Conveyor. I believe, Erin, we got some feedback. And this is the updated language that they provided afterwards. Some of the key things that I noticed was, hey, there are things that are open shift related, then we would move it to somewhere else. And we'd like to focus on just pure Kubernetes here. That was definitely one thing that I could catch. Erin, anything else you wanted to highlight here? Yeah, I think they took out the open shift specific things. Because it is based just on Kubernetes, I think it was more of a documentation issue. And they also broke it down into its other components, like forklift and crane and all those things to be separated out. So we have a little more clarity on what is being contributed or not. I think for Sandbox is fine incubation. We would probably want to have things more crisp. I'd like to get a, and I know that they went to the tag app delivery, felt like they had good alignment there. And this is the resubmit. What is confusing to me is how we should have them resubmit so that it is an addendum to their original. So we don't have to go back into the archives and figure out the diff. So that's fine. I did that already. No, I know you did. I just wondered if there's a better way we can do that for projects than them. Go. Correct. I have a feeling that we should ask them to email us an update or something like that or open any issue or something to that effect. But yeah, let's do that offline. For now, we can start a vote and get this in. I will add it to my list of things to think about. And we can do it ad hoc. Amy, vote, please. Go ahead. Two, let's start the next one. Truso, I hope I'm saying it correctly. Truso is a KMS provider. There is one more at the bottom that says External Secrets Operator. So there are two in the same space. But let's just talk about Truso here. I think this was from on that folks. On that, Truso slash Wiki. So I want to clarify. I don't think it's actually a KMS provider. I think it's a plug-in for a KMS provider to Kubernetes Secrets. Yeah. Yeah. I think the scope is like a secret encryption. It's a scope very small. I just feel the scope is very small. Doesn't need to be a separate project. And also I do not see the roadmap. There's a link there, but there's no roadmap. It's also a one-person project started in October. Yeah. It's super early. Looks like they're even still working on building out KMS provider support. I think Azure is the open PR that they have right now for it. I mean, there's been a lot of projects along the lines of encrypting secrets that have been created over the years that have not sustained development, which has been a somewhat problematic, I think, for consumers, which is not. I mean, there's been demand for them. And most of the roadmap here is complete. And so even if you go dig through the roadmap, you're going to see almost everything's closed. So what comes next? Yeah. This is one here. Roadmap for V2. Look, page not found. You have to go into the projects and go search for it yourself. It's not that the link doesn't work. But if you go to the projects up there? Yeah, got it. Classic. Classic project, yeah. Yeah. To do not assigned. OK. Yeah. There are a lot of things closed. Yeah. So let's read what they say, what they want from us, right? Oops, where did it go? Yeah. OK, so the other KMS plugins probably, I don't know. So this is a KMS plugin. And one of the questions was, was it too small to be a separate project? And we are seeing that there is only one person working on it. So we asked them to come back. Is that what the consensus seems to be? I think they should come back. I think that they need to go talk to Kubernetes, saying security, and maybe potentially tag security as well. They have very little in the way of community meetup information. So if they're looking to get community contributors, it's going to be very difficult. Yeah. Yeah. OK. So Amy, can we summarize that and send it to them? Yeah, there's a note in chat. I mean, if that's good enough. The usual framing that we use for this, like a more robust community. Yeah, OK. Great. We can move on. But the next one is YAM. So this is like an. The GitHub link doesn't work. And the GitHub link everywhere doesn't work. So I don't think we can review it. I couldn't review it. I couldn't review it either. I went looking for the closest thing that they have is the YAM engine examples in the repo. And that's it. It's a hello world. There's nothing else. Yeah. So one thing I did figure out was this is a person from Zoom doing this and almost like doing it by himself, I presume, or herself, I couldn't tell. So yeah. So let's go back to them and say, hey, please fix your links and come back to us when you're ready. Another question is whether they can merge into an existing CDE project, like the Argo CD, or do they need to be an independent one? Yeah. So YAM incorrect wavelengths. Yes. Thank you. So next one is Armada. So this is from G-Research. I feel a bit mad. Go ahead. Sorry. And so it's in the same space, I guess. It's a batch scheduler. Yeah. It's a batch scheduler. And they schedule across clusters. That's a differentiation. But there are CLI in the commands. Actually, I'm not quite cloud-native. They have their own CLI APIs, which is their own specific way. And also, they use Redis. So I just feel it's not quite. But they have some very good scheduling algorithms. Do you need this to be compliant with the declarative model API, or is it not? We don't have any requirements. Yeah. OK. Looks like there's a few people working on it, for sure. And it's been developed for several years back to 2019. Yeah. And the other thing was, I would support this. The technical stuff is OK. They have a community. And they want to do this cloud-native way. And the key difference is it's not a single cluster solution. It is a multi-cluster solution, which is definitely one of the things that we would like people to move towards. Is there how many other maintenance that all belong to one company, or because they don't have their email? It's from G-Research in UK. So yeah. And the primary reason people come here is to start off to build a community here. So any other observations before we can start a vote? The only other thing that I would call it is they have a fairly significant backlog. But with the project being as old as it is, that's to be expected. OK. Amy, call for vote, please. It's open. Go ahead. Thank you. Has anyone done a deeper look at QBRE? I've been talking about things. So I would like somebody else to take a turn. I have taken a look at this. Looks like it's very preliminary. It does not have much information. RAID itself is a popular product, AI workload. But I think they would like to integrate this with Kubernetes. But I think it's very early stage. I feel they need to provide it. RAID is not real early, in my opinion. It is being actively used in many different facets of industry. It was actually instead of a spark that was retrofitted to be used in Kubernetes and didn't quite ever work well, RAID was designed for cloud-native use for AI ML. Well, RAID is not. RAID that's being contributed, is it? It's QBRE, which lets you run RAID applications in Kubernetes. That's right. Yes, I would just saying that RAID is mature. I didn't want to. Yeah, I think, yeah, I didn't say RAID is great, popular. I was talking about QBRE is very early stage. OK. I misunderstood. And so any scale is the name of the company that's backing this project? If it's a Berkeley, Berkeley. I think it's the same group, which is working on RAID. It's a Berkeley, right? Yeah, yeah. It's kind of strange taking it out of the RAID project and putting it just this bit in the CNCF when it's already part of a project where it kind of makes sense for it to be there. I agree. I don't know what the motivation behind that is. Like, is it? That's very limited. Does not provide much information. Yeah, RAID itself has a lot of information, but QBRE, you know, not much information. So there is no other projects in the space is basically what they mentioned here. And they want to close a partnership with Kubernetes community. So those are the reasons they are coming here. Like, do we have operators today for specific things? Like, I think there's one more Postgres QL thing below. Historically, we've mostly said no to operators because we would have so many separate projects and it's not being clear how to manage that. I mean, I think that it seems to me that they don't need to be in the sandbox to have a closer partnership. They can have a closer partnership by working more closely with the community, which they're welcome to do, but leaving it as part of the RAID project just seems to make more sense to me. Yeah, if you want to integrate this, they can use a Kubernetes CRD, Kubernetes operator, something like that. Yeah, they're already doing that. Yeah, they already are doing that. It's just odd because I think it's already being widely used in the Kubernetes community and I don't know if the sandbox component is just to formalize the community structure. I would agree having it remain with the RAID project. Yeah, but if they really want to come here, how are we stopping them? Well, it sounds like we have precedents in the past that we don't accept operators, is that correct? I don't think we've written that down anywhere. I don't think it's been written down anywhere. See, the other thing is like this is essentially the scientific community, right? Like Props in Berkeley and the general SF of Stanford and other people too, right? So we need to draw them in. If this is the way to draw them in, I wouldn't mind. But we're not going to get the whole RAID project, probably. I understand. Which would be, like it would make sense for RAID to be in somewhere in Linux Foundation perhaps. I think that would make sense, but just one little bit of it and not the rest of it is just kind of the least important part of it is in the next foundation and the rest of it is not. It's just weird. Okay. So do we want to take a vote or do we just say not at this time? Do we want to ask them? Oh, go ahead. If they can provide more information about what they are going to, they said they are going to provide tools to do all this. But there's little information on how they are going to do that. I just feel there's not much information to evaluate. I think RAID itself is a very good project. It's a great project. And also I agree with you, Dems. It's good if we include those Berkeley, those universities into the CSF. That's a great thing. And just if they can provide more information, I just, it's hard for me. It's easier. You can find a lot of information about RAID, but for Kupre, what exactly? Not much information. That's the first part of the reason why they're coming here. They want more people to know about Kupre. I'm torn. So I look at this and I say being a sandbox project isn't going to give you all that extra visibility where everybody's going to notice you. That's what I was just going to say. There's no marketing for sandbox anyways. So if the motivation is marketing, dollars or visibility, that's not going to happen in sandbox either. I totally agree with you. And what's their motivation? I really want to know why they want this to leave the Ray project and join the CNCF. And if it's just marketing, I don't think they're going to get that level of marketing here anyway. Yeah. That's basically what they've said here, right? They said that the whole Ray project would like to have a close relationship, not this little bit of it. Yeah. So I would say plus one to figure out, go talk to them in some form or fashion. Maybe they are coming to Detroit. We could have a talk with them or something, but it's probably early for us to look at this. The way it is structured right now. So let's go with no for now. Any objections? Okay. Good. Next one is open zero trust security platform, which is actually no vector. Yes. The new one. Have you pronounced it? Yes. Well, although the code. The code is not yet under the org, which is very confusing. Yes. Yes. And there are some bad get hub links as well. They also have not imported the history into the. There are three repositories and, you know, there's just links to the other. New vector. So they haven't cleaned it up. So it's not ready for us to review. I think. Correct. Matt, any, any words here since this is from Susie, I think. Um, you know, I'm not sure what their timetable is for bringing over the history. I think they're going to just move the repositories over. They're saying that here. The history is not in the, in those repos. Yeah. It's not in the new repos. It's in the old locations under the new vector org. They have not reorganized. No, those don't have the history. They just import. They import all the files as of last December. Ah, yeah. Yeah. It doesn't have the full history. Yeah. Which is kind of annoying. I mean, I can say there might be reasons for doing that, but I would rather. I don't have the reasons for it, but I'm happy to go chase them down. I suspect that they were waiting on a sandbox decision before they did anything. Yeah, we need to turn the situation around. So please take that back, Matt, and let us, you know, come back. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we are seven 30 minutes in SRE works. This is from Alibaba. I couldn't work out what it does. There, there isn't a lot there. I got the impression that it's for operating and maintaining big data and AI deployment specifically that are leveraging AI ops. But there's nothing else that's there. It's not clear whether or not it's Kubernetes native and specific, or if it's for a cloud service provider. It's, there's just not enough. Yeah. And all the documents are definitely in the language that we don't read. Well, call zero for that matter. And it's from Tencent. Oh, it's from Alibaba, right? Yeah. One concern is their code conduct is the enforcement is enforced by Alibaba project team. Is that okay? We work through, we have a set of things that they work through as part of onboarding. So we can clean that up. That is not a problem as such. But we need to know what it does. And it doesn't seem to be a way for us to figure that out here. It could just be a language barrier, though, on the intent of it works as well. Like I like the idea of some more projects coming in where it's addressing these operational concerns from a community standpoint, but I just, there's not enough there that I can understand the extent of what is being contributed. Okay. So can we redirect them to tag up delivery and ask them to have a presentation there and have a chat and then come back to us. I think I want to be able to have them reapply with like robust documentation and project goals. Let them talk to somebody first, Amy. So yes, and one of the things that we've kind of committed to projects is when we do that, we have specific goals in mind for the tags to be able to review. And here I'm just seeing larger clarity. Yeah. Okay. How do you want to phrase that, Amy? I really think it's like we're unclear on the project's goals. We'd like to have a presentation around the goals, the roadmap and how you'd like to get more contribution. Maybe it is there. We just don't know how to read it, right? Since we don't know. Okay, I like Richie's wording for this. Offer an intro and a demo to the tag. Perfect. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I think it's awesome to provide this, all this in English, right? They need to, yeah. I won't force them just for us to review, but at least let them talk about the technology and what they want to do and get a summary from the tag. Thank you. Bumblebee, did anybody catch how this works? And why Solow is bringing it here? So it seems to take EBF, EBPF programs as OCI images and lay them into your kernel. I'm, I didn't get why. So I, so I think Eric goes, I went through this project. It's, it's targeted as building around this EBPF as containers. Say quickly. I think that this EBPF is a very important, you know, trend in the way of doing networking. And so I think this is very useful. Yeah, but in terms of information, not very much information, but I think this project itself is very important. I think the goal was to make EBPF have a easier user experience for people to develop against. And that was the goal of the project. I was wondering whether this is something that fit into the CNCF being where EBPF sits all around. How they only support C code for what it wraps, although they do have Rust plan development only started last November. And since February, there have been 12 total commits since the start of February with less than a thousand change lines. Yeah, the tutorial is really nice. You get a feel of like what they are trying to do here. How do you write a new EBPF program for sure. But cloud native connections are mostly around like, hey, how can we package this into Docker as a Docker image, OCA image kind of thing, right? So going back to like, what are they? Is there any reason we can't refer or recommend them back to the EBPF foundation? I think they are not specific about EBPF, but they are more about tools or how to build around it, around the EBPF as program as containers. And I think that's why I probably want to come here. Yeah. Yeah, but I think people will have to package things as containers outside CNCF. I don't think that necessarily means that they belong here. I mean, I would want to see more community adoption just because it seems that... Right. It's not clear that that is going to be the way people want to package things. And it's EBPF and C code, which are two things the CNCF is not really known for. So I'm looking at this from, does this fit with us? Well, what would be similar to something we've had? I mean, we've had recently some plugins to like VS code for packaging. I'm just trying to think of, are there... Is there tooling that's similar to help transition things to be cloud-native or run within this ecosystem that we have taken before? Closest thing I can think of is like code generators for things so that they can be deployed with the Kubernetes or cloud-native stuff. Yeah. So... Do we have any update from the observability tag? It says they did present. What I want to avoid is feedback we've been getting from various community members around. They go to the tag, they present, they get really good feedback, and we... They come into this process and then they get bounced and they feel kind of like... Then they have to reapply. It seems like a frustrating vicious circle, so... Agree, agree. So we can give this a home and see where it goes, right? So my question then would be, why bumblebee at home here and QBRI not? I'm not advocating one way or the other. I'm just trying to figure out, just noticing in the comments that they had already presented and if... I completely agreed. I think part of what we're starting to run into, at least based off of this sandbox discussion is there are extracurricular projects that are being proposed that aren't tightly coupled within the ecosystem. They're more natural extensions of its maturity. So the question is whether or not those extensions, which kind of circulate in a different project arena, whether or not we should be including them or if they should go to those other projects' faces. And I'm not sure that we're ready to have that conversation to make a definitive decision, but we should probably do that soon, because it will impact future sandbox applications as well as the existing projects we have in the ecosystem. So let me play one argument, right? We do have projects that do WASM, and then WASM gets deployed as containers into various environments. And we do have a bunch of projects that doesn't do that. So this is... Replace WASM with EBPF and essentially... But I'm not sure that EBPF has the same characteristics as WASM that make it interesting as part of Cloud Nativica system. Like there's a single shared kernel that you're putting injecting code into and you can't run general applications. It's a tool for building kernel instrumentation. It's a tool for building kernel instrumentation and for monitoring tooling and things like that, which is not, in that sense, Cloud Nativica at all. Okay. So that's what we tell them. We tell them that, yes, we have seen things similar to this before. It's just that this is a code generator for building tools that can be deployed. That somebody runs this code generator once, writes some tools and then releases in a while off the go. But that's not workloads as such, right? So that is a distinction that we are making here. Yeah. I think that using Cloud Nativica packaging doesn't make what you're packaging Cloud Nativica. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Can you write this off? Yeah, help me out with that one. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. So the next one is Cloud Native PG. Who is passionate about databases in Kubernetes? Well, I mean, I'll start with this one. So Cloud Native PG is a Postgres operator for Kubernetes. And that's essentially what it is. And if you look at it, they do talk about the other ones out there, crunchy data, things like that, the different operators out there, and they're looking to have one. If you keep going to the right, you'll see their motivation here. And they're looking to instead of having it disconnected, having it connected. But at the center of it is it's a Postgres operator for Kubernetes. So are they asking us to King make it? Effectively. By optimizing it over the other projects. Not that all the other projects would like to merge into this one, but they would like us to King make this one by putting into CNCF. Yeah. So Kubernetes has quite some operators, right? CRD and operator. So I don't know why, why do they want this to be a CNCF supply CNCF project? This falls into the same discussion we just had about operators. I think here what I'm seeing here is like there are multiple Postgres vendors. They want to work together on a common operator here. I don't think that's what they're saying. I think what they're saying is they would like us to choose this one and force everyone to work on this one. I don't, I don't see all the other projects saying we want to, we want this one to be the one that's chosen. Okay. So like if all the projects were saying we want to come together and work together on a project and we need it in a neutral place to do so. But the way I read this is this project is asking us to be King maker and choose their Postgres project over all the other ones and not let the other ones in because then we're going to work on this one, which is not what we do. And almost every developer is from a company call from one particular company. They're often the same company. Yeah, Enterprise DD. Okay. So we should tell them to go talk to other Postgres vendors, get consensus and then propose a clean slate or something. Well, I'm not sure we would accept it even then. Okay. Given the other discussions. So if what they're purporting is to kind of bring everybody together to do this level of development, would it be beneficial for them to seek a working group within one of the SIGs or one of the tags to start having these discussions rather than doing this keen making request. So what do we tell them to go do a tag app delivery? I think personally, I feel like if that's what they're they're seeking based off of what it is that they are saying, then yeah, tag app delivery, propose a working group, get the right people involved and see what happens. That's fair. So can you write that up, Emily? Yes. The Richie is more than an operator or something. We should, we wouldn't be stopped from accepting a different project. Yes, you are right, Richie. No, we wouldn't be stopped. I think, but the way I read it is they're asking us not so in effect, which is. Yeah. So they have to adjust their expectation that we might be bringing in more, right? If we do decide to do it, that is. So we give them feedback and move to the next one. Actually skipped you down. This is duplicate. We are at DB pack. DB pack. I think I had trouble with this one too. So this one, they're talking about using postpress. No, my SQL protocol or something like that. This project was started in April. I think we're getting to a record of how quickly it's been from creation to submission. So. I think they want to support multiple databases. But doing what DB pack, a database cluster to pack to. Yeah, this was the one I was talking about my SQL protocol. Does it create like a layer to make that consistent amongst all databases? I don't really. Yeah, again. I don't understand like. The full extent of. It says that it creates an operator to manage database topology manage traffic and allow users to customize traffic routing through hints using CRD rules and detecting hint and SQL. To face comments. They want to prevent other companies from launching their own database mesh projects as well as get more developers. That is what their request is. So that's not a good way to talk. That might be language barrier to write. Yeah. Yeah. The only later call out that they have in there is the form of standard in the field of database traffic governance, but we don't. I'm pretty sure we don't do standards here. Specifications. Yeah. Again, that might be like a. I mean, it's just too, it's too, it's too young. That literally is a month. It's like, so we can. Time to come back. Yeah, we can tell. Yeah. Gather some more momentum. And then we can revisit this. Okay. Karina CSI plugin. Okay. Who's the storage person here? Again, this is like in more of the database scenario, which is interesting that that's kind of heating up. Beyond sent.com. Extremely low latency battle tested building blocks. Well known to the experience. Again, it's. I'm the goals of just marketing and bringing more people in don't. Aren't quite what we're looking for. I've never heard of the cloud native storage system that they're contributing here if that's paired with it or not. Which one are you talking about? Scroll. To the right. I don't, and I also don't think we have each of the CSI plugins as separate projects. I think that's kind of the subset of the CSI specification for cube. So I, I guess off the cuff, I don't feel like it's. Something we would generally take in. I am not sure that they have presented into the storage SIG either. Okay. So then it's easy. Go, go talk to the sort of SIG. Yeah. And, and have, you know, Alex provide us a recommendation from that, but typically in the history, I don't think it's a separate project. I don't think it's a separate project. I don't think it's a separate project. I haven't taken CSI plugins as a separate project in and of itself. And maybe I'm missing something that that's. It's also a kind of new recent project. Without much history. Yep. Okay. So easy thing to say there. Go talk to the SIG comeback. A tag and come back. Yep. Multi. But again, if we say that, and we don't have the information that we need to be able to implement a tag. If we've made that request. Yeah. We need to be able to populate this spreadsheet with a re application and a recommendation or. Whatever from each one of the tags is part of our standard process. Yeah, let's do an asset thread on Slack. After this meeting and we can decide there. And we have to decide, do we want CSI plugins to be individual projects in the CNC? And if the answers no and they go present to the tag and the tag says looks good and they come back to us. And we're not interested in CSI plugins and we just asked them to do a bunch of legwork for nothing. So we have to tell them what we're looking for. We have to tell the tag what we're looking for right. I agree with Matt. If we don't think CSI plugins or any other plugins like CNI plugins, there are many CNI plugins, there are many CSI plugins. If we don't think that should be a separate project, do we still need to ask them to go to the tag and then come back? Or if we allow that, there will be a lot of plugins. We have seven minutes. Let's leave this for now as something that they need to do. Let them go talk to the tag and we'll also tell the tag that is it just a CSI plugin because we don't want just a CSI plugin. If there is more than like, there might be another language barrier here. They are highlighting one of the aspects of the thing which is a CSI plugin and they might have other things like I saw a scheduler or something too. So it might be like a full solution out of which they are highlighting the cloud native aspect. So giving them the benefit of the doubt here. So multi-cloud. Anybody saw this one? It's basically Terraform once deploy everywhere for multi. Yeah, I mean, I'd say they start in January. It's a difficult problem. Doing multi-cloud implementation of Terraform is like a huge piece of work. Our commits have been pretty active though. But it's two people in six months. I mean, I would still say come back. You're talking with the team here. Looks like they're five people. Oh, they have the name of the company is the same as the name of the project too. There's only two of them with more than two commits. Okay. Yeah, you're right. They should grow a little bit more community-wise before they come back here. It seems an interesting idea like generate Terraform and then use the... Yeah, but it's not a trivial problem. I know. Yeah. It's a gigantic problem. And so it's a question of like can they create a community that's up for solving a hard problem with lots of difficult edge cases and things. And that's the question really rather than just like, yes, it's crazy work. You will need to drop down into Terraform for any edge case. And soon it'll be useless kind of thing. It's difficult to... Not every resource will be supported. Or you'll support lowest common denominations. It won't be useful. There's always issues that they'll have to have an opinion on for a start. Like just how are we going to try and do this given it's a hard problem. I would say in addition to reapplying with a more robust community that they should pick a few particular use cases that they intend on doing really well. Because that's the only way that they're going to drive some of that community adoption and development. Yeah. Okay. Who wants to write this one? Because we are saying no, but come back, but also adding the context that the two of you just said. Amy, sure. Thank you. I'm surprised we got to 14. There you go. Four minutes left and external secrets operator. Did anybody get it? So the main thing about here is they already brought a whole bunch of people into this project. And they are very proud of the fact that they've... So for example here, if you're curious about the origins of the project, check out this issue on PR. So apparently there were a lot more projects and they all gotten consolidated here. There are a lot of strategies standardized as CRD spec and there's a links to a bunch of other operators here. So they've basically bootstrapped already into a community and I think it's a good place to start. What do you think, Emily? They're also an operator. Yes, they are also an operator. I mean, I think we should be consistent. Yeah, but secrets are a big problem for everybody. Yeah, I'm not sure we should be consistent with this one because it's... Although it's implemented as an operator, it's not just an operator to X. It's a way to manage secrets and communities, which happens to be implemented as an operator. Yeah. And it supports multiple... Yeah, it's not one thing that they support, right? Yeah. The secret space needs a lot of work for us. Yes. Like even all of the things that they have listed, not a single one of them is a cloud native project. What do you mean the providers here? Yeah, the providers AWS Secrets Manager, Hashi Group Vault, Google Secrets, Azure Key Vault, like... What do we want then? I mean, I would love for us to have our own secrets management project, but I know that that is probably not going to happen any time in the next few years. But we have in the past talked about how we should... How to try and get one. Maybe this is how we do that. Okay. People who are watching this video, please start one and you will have an easy path into the sandbox. We had another secret operator, right? Secret operator before, right? Yeah. That were just two people or one person. Yeah, that was only one person working on it. Oh. Ask them to consolidate if we want to have such a party as NSF. Can we ask them all to consolidate? That's what they're doing here. Like I showed you that... Okay. Yeah. That list they've got, yeah, is what I raised on the other one. There are all these dead projects and active-ish projects. I think that this list is kind of part of the scope of the issue that people don't seem to be able to get momentum behind these projects long-term for reasons that... Right. But this one is getting momentum, right? Yeah. At least for now. Right. Yeah. So I will be inclined to... I'm okay to try it. Try it, yeah. Okay. Yeah, I mean it has a community. It fits the sandbox, which is where they're trying to work it out. Whether or not it will last or not is on them. Yeah. And it plays well with a lot of different systems, which I know this is a whole people want filled. So there's potential there. I mean, it makes sense. Yeah. So Amy, can you start? It's open. Go ahead. The last one for today. Thanks, everyone. We got through a whole bunch today and fully... Quite a few people will be happy. I'm going to track towards the next one being September 27th. Any objections? No. Okay. Okay. Thanks a lot, everyone. Thank you so much, all. Okay. Thank you.