 Good morning. Hello. Excellent. We can hear everyone. This is all good. This is our last meeting, I believe, of the year. If only the last meeting of everything I ever have to do. Oh, good. No, no, no, not quite. Just this convening. Stripping everybody. It's gonna be okay. Our agenda today is mostly driven by being able to actually have some process conversations. So I'm looking forward to this. I think this is going to be fairly productive. See, he's here. I will check to see if we have quorum. If we do not have quorum, I am perfectly willing to be able to call a vote by email. So, Liz, you know. Yeah, let's give people a couple more minutes. Oh, absolutely. Michelle, hello. Hey, how's it going? Oh, Liz, I'm so glad you could make it. I didn't know that you were going to be at this meeting. Aren't you traveling? I'm here. I'm glad you're here too. Well, I thought you were in Australia or something. That was two days ago. I mean, you know. Yeah, that's cool. Honestly, my, I've been killing the planet with my travel. It's been terrible. Nice. Yeah, my, I lose my medallion status on Delta and I'm really happy about it. I'm going to be gold this year. That's next year. Instead of platinum. I was like, the joke about this, right? The joke about the airline status of the gamification of poor life choices. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for a few more folks. Come on in. Hey, Joe. Hey guys, Jeff. Jeff, hello. Hello. Everyone else who I'm not naming individually. Start from the top left Ray Andy cloud needed computing foundation. Some people are turning on their video. It's fun. Yeah. Also, 29 people on a holiday week. That's pretty, pretty. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This was stuff. This was clearly important stuff. Is this a holiday week? I don't consider this a holiday week. Well, I guess. There's other holidays. I'm, I apologize. It's not quite a holiday, but I'm definitely. Do you need a reason to say it's a holiday week? I mean, think about it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. January 3rd, like, is my holiday. Hanukkah begins the 22nd. So that's Sunday yet. So this is not a holiday week. You all need to get back to work. Joe, thank you for that great thread over on Twitter. Oh yeah. No, I mean, Alexis is like, Hey, we should like, and I'm like, yeah, we should. And then we did. Yes. All right. Should we get started? We get to go. All right. Do we have any slides or are we just working from the document? We do have slides today, but they're, they're more or less. Let me make sure that I've got those up and running here. Okay. I think we're having trouble getting slides shared this morning, but so we can just roll from the document and if we were able to get that up and running also fair, I will post links over into here. But realistically, slides are not that important today. The big thing is kicking off with like our process agenda. So. Yeah. Okay. So I think the first thing was current vote update. I think. Yeah. Hanukkah just got enough. Vote. So that's three. So tough graduation is we've, we've hit the. The, the enough votes on that one. SIG network is still only one binding vote away from my last review in here. So if anyone hasn't voted that intends to please do so. That was all great. So congratulations Falco congratulations. Tough. Almost congratulations. SIG network. Getting there. Getting there. All right. So the next thing we had. So we've been doing some work on the. Flow chart for. Like how pros, how projects get accepted. Michelle, did you get a chance to make any. Yeah. So I did update. I kind of want to have this conversation real quick before I went in and actually created this flow chart. But basically I updated the pull request earlier with some. Kind of like a read thinking of how we. Have the process of accepting. Projects. And so I can walk us through that. If you want, if that makes no sense. Yeah, that sounds good. Okay. Do you mind if I share my screen? Amy, are you okay? Thank you. Okay. Can we all see. Company. Okay. Great. Do we have the pull request up? Yes. Yes, you do. Great. You look great. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And since sometimes we think about like, so the, so the problems I'm kind of trying to solve for with these stages and phases is, is one being like, you know, there's some historical triaging that Chris and Amy have done for us. So we wanted to kind of take that responsibility as a TOC and make it more transparent. And so I think that, you know, we're going to have a lot of projects that have been more involved, a little bit different than projects that have not been involved. Like we've said, oh, come to a TOC presentation or no, go to a sick presentation. So I kind of wanted to streamline this process. And think about tracking and, you know, what, what the inputs and outputs of each, each phase and each stage are. So just kind of like as a short overview. We'd have like an initial phase. This is any project that wants to be part of CNCF should go through the process of opening up an issue on the CNCF repo and then on the TFC repo. And this issue would have like, would contain a fill in, a filled out version of like a lightweight issue template. So there would be a two paragraph max description of the project. And by the way, a lot of this is already in the proposal. So I'm just taking out kind of the same thing. So you can copy and paste that over into the formal proposal. When that part of the process comes through. So this template would have just a short description of the project, really an elevator pitch of the problem that you're trying to solve a little bit of the history, like how this project came to be. A statement on alignment with CNCF, why this project wants to be part of the CNCF and what their preferred project level is if they have a preference. A lot of people don't understand what sandbox is, what incubating is, what graduation is. And that's okay. They don't have to be experts on the CNCF process to kind of come propose their project. We'll, we'll educate them through the, through the process. So the second phase is the triage phase. So this is, we've discussed in the last private TOC meeting, we actually volunteered to be on call. This was Brendan Burns proposal. So if we hate doing this, we're just going to blame him. But Brendan proposed, we would have like kind of an on-call system. So there would be one TOC maintainer on call. That person would be responsible for checking the issues and triaging. So if this project is a good fit for the CNCF, we'd be like, great, let's pass this off to the sake. If it's not, then they would probably discuss with the TOC. If, you know, they have new reservations come up with a statement and a justification on why it doesn't fit in the CNCF and respond on the issue and close out the, close out that process. I see that there's a comment in the comment section or a zoom, but I'm not going to check it until the end. So if you have an interjection, just feel free to say it. Okay. And then if, so, so then it goes to the six. So what does that mean, right? So we may say, Hey, this might be the TOC member may say, Hey, we think this is a sandbox level project. Can you go check it out? Or this is an incubating level project. Go check it out. Or we don't know. Let's just give us your recommendation. This is where the initial presentation happens. So if they get a yes in the triage phase, then, you know, we'll, as a TOC member, we'll tag the relevant SIG and the SIG chairs and then we'll request a recommendation. So the project will go do a presentation. They'll open a pull request with a proposal. The SIG will do some due diligence initial, you know, question answering, all that kind of stuff. TOC members can join. This will all be recorded and documented. And so what comes out of this phase is a recommendation template. And the recommendation template is what the SIG fills out for the TOC. So the SIG says, Hey, we think this is a project with this project is good or, you know, not great for the CNCF. They'll include a justification, any recommended project level, and any concerns they have that we should keep track of. And that's where the TOC comes in. So if it's a sandbox level, we'll go look for the, you know, three sponsors, all public, all in the issue, excuse me, in the pull request. We can watch as TOC members watch the recording of their project presentation and you can also request for the project to come to a TOC meeting. We will have already watched the recording and then that's a chance for us to kind of do some, any, any more due diligence, any more question answering sessions and all of that. And so, and if it's incubating, go ahead. To make sure that I'm following this, the part of this is that a, a project coming to present pre-records of presentation, rather than doing it with everybody here. Yeah. Cool. All right. Yeah. Yeah. The recording is in the state presentation. Okay. Got it. So there is a live presentation. Yeah. And I think this is, I mean, inspired by you actually, because you had mentioned something about, you know, getting stuff pre-recorded. So I was thinking about what you had mentioned when, when I was building. I like the idea of being able to have one and then being able to have that kind of, you know, combine out for everybody else. That's good. Yeah. Yeah. And so, and so if it's an incubating project, the TOC can find two sponsors at that point while also doing the due diligence and user interviews in conjunction with the same chairs. And what comes out of that, and I don't think I, I may not have put this specific thing, but what comes out of that is the due diligence document. And the vote is the output of that phase. So that's a high level of what's going on here. I would love any comments, thoughts in the pull request. Or, or Liz, I'll hand it off to you. Any questions or comments from anyone? I had two very brief ones. It's Quinton here. The one is, I think this in general is a great process. I think it's excellent. Two minor reservations. I had one. One is having a single TOC member, potentially like Vita. I think it's a great process. I think it's potentially okay, but, but that, you know, that makes me slightly uneasy and particularly if they do it without involving the SIG, who might have, you know, formed a sort of strategy around that space. And so that's, that's one area where I think maybe we need a little bit of refinement. And the other question was around having three sponsors for Sandbox versus two, four, four, four, four, four, four, four, four, four, four, four, two, four, four salmon punch up with the SIG where they would also be our main sponsor for Sandbox versus two for the others. So one of the things that has held up projects in the past is actually been just getting enough attention to, to get two sponsors. And I think getting a third one, engaged and able to look closely at the project is absolute as the process done. I'm not sure how much of value it adds. So those, those are my two comments. Okay. is coming up next so we can separate that out maybe. Okay yeah but great great comment I got ahead of myself there I should have probably put two and then discussed the three and then the single TOC member process so I would love your comment on that on that pull request so we can keep track of it but what we've thought about from the TOC side what we discussed is that there could be an appeals process so you could you know have you could say hey I want another TOC member to check this out you could appeal if you want to do that another potential possibility is that we could before the single TOC member says no and has that justification I think that there could be a process that we have as the TOC which which is like a lazy consensus so we could kind of as if I were the TOC triager that week and I didn't think that a project was a good fit I could say I could email the TOC mailing list and say hey I don't think this is or the TOC private mailing list I'm not really sure if it should be in public or private but I could email the TOC and say hey I don't think that this is a good fit this is my reasoning do you all agree with me or are there any disagreements and we could kind of discuss it in the back end before I went in kind of made that public basing justification and recommendation so those are two thoughts off the bat but Quentin if you could just throw that in the pulver class I can respond there too yeah I think that sounds like a great way of addressing it I think it's the no it's the no outcome that's that's potentially problematic the yes outcome is fine because the you know the SIG and the and the TOC have a you know later opportunity to change the yes provision all into a no it's the no option that doesn't have a you know fallback plan but what you sketched out makes a lot of sense okay great yeah I mean a couple other points there Quentin I think you know we also talked about having some advisory about sort of projects resubmitting and like when and and how that comes into play one of the things we're optimizing for here is you know my I joke that sometimes the talking to the TOC feels a little bit like talking to a VC nobody ever says no right there's this soft no of like just no answer and so I think one of the things that I would love to see is is even if it's you know some difficult conversations have those conversations versus leaving people hanging yeah I totally agree I just wanted to address a comment on the pull request I think Sarah made this comment um is the recommendation template the same as due to due diligence template I in my process I don't I don't think so I think the recommendation template is more lightweight it's more of a reflection of the conversation that happened in the SIG and less of a you know super deep dive uh into the technical details so the due diligence happened so the due diligence would happen in the TOC action phase so um this is this is a great question because this is something that I was a little bit um I wanted to discuss a little more uh so when the TOC gets a recommendation back from um the SIG I think at that point so this is what we need to clarify do we get is if the recommendation is incubating do we get two sponsors for that incubating project first before we do the diligence so due diligence so that they can help the SIG with due diligence or do we do the due diligence before finding the two sponsors and I think it should be uh the SIG comes back with a recommendation uh the TOC finds the uh necessary sponsors and then those sponsors are responsible for coordinating with the SIG on the actual user interviews and due diligence document so it's after it's it's in that fourth phase okay well I think um it could make sense I think that I want to just kind of talk about the fact that we'll want to oh you know amongst our membership have different people participate in kind of looking into the project and participating in the recommendation phase and so I had assumed that we would say okay fill out this due diligence template and that that would be the mechanism by which we would evaluate the recommendation internally so we would need something like maybe there's a lesser like some subset of the due diligence template like like I don't want to have like all of these different templates that yeah absolutely like so I guess I'd be interested in what subset of the questions in the due diligence template that you would want us to consider right there may be aspects of it that are really more either they're just more of a deep dive or they're more kind of TOC things um I haven't looked at it recently um but like that I think that would be really helpful to be like okay we're gonna do this quicker thing what are those questions yeah I agree with you 100% even with the initial phase like the template there like those are really things that you can that's a subset of the actual project proposal and so the recommendation it makes a lot of sense for us to just make sure that the recommendation template is a subset of the TOC um the TOC excuse me the technical due diligence document so I can take it as an action item to go look at um what subset what exactly that would look like uh and then respond to your uh comment on the helpful request with that yeah I was thinking that the uh the seek would do like a first pass on the due diligence um but whether that means a subset of the questions maybe there's some part of the due diligence template that we leave I don't know yeah and it could also be like we do a draft due diligence template like it so yeah if you look at the details it'd be great to just have some guidance about is it a subset is it a draft of is it a just a short form of yeah I guess also you know if the SIG starts to lean towards a no they don't necessarily have to go through all of the work to do all of the due diligence you know they might come back with the recommend that you know we've we've unearthed a concern well I think that like basically what I had thought about in the flow chart which um I've seen work before although I can't think of the reference which is this idea that the SIG would have to have a champion to the TOC that if we can't find a champion that would be maybe a soft way of saying hey no one in the SIG is willing to champion this project um they have not made a compelling case for membership in the TOC here are our notes right so it would be more like and then the TOC a TOC membership could be like well you know I don't know what's up with that SIG I'm going to champion it right so the idea being that before we have the the official vote and the sponsorship we need somebody maybe it's initially a TOC member uh SIG member typically right it would be you know typically a SIG chair but it could be delegated who is really going to be like I have thought through this project they are great fit for the TOC I'm going to be the point of contact from the SIG to say this is a great project right I'm going to help it through the process and then if no one from the SIG is willing to do that that's a sign but it could be a sign that the SIG is overwhelmed or some other reason right and the TOC could disagree and then someone from the TOC could say I'm going to champion this project it's an idea yeah that's something to definitely consider um I hadn't thought about that and I really like the champion idea um I'd really love to sit on that a little bit that's okay yeah just an idea I think this is super progress thank you Michelle for working on this thank you Sarah yeah I'm just iterating on Sarah's version and Brendan's version this is not from scratch but we'll get there yeah thank you so much Sarah yeah and so anyone else got any questions or points on this one I think Sarah had something so I'm just curious I the flow chart I love like the simplicity in a positive way of the four phases and naming those and I think that the flow chart could be greatly simplified with this structure and I'm just curious about and I think some of these could be Sarah I think we lost you um some of the sorry my audio is it seems fine but Zoom keeps telling me it's worried about me can you hear me yes we can hear you now um I've I noticed that informally when there's when the when TOC members are less familiar with a project or this has come up in SIG meetings as well when we're less familiar with a project we'll say oh this project this other CNCF project seems related how are you the same different right and instead of it that being a back and forth to set as an expectation from the outset that the project would go find other related projects in the CNCF and you know at least see like are we going to use you are you going to use us are we just you know overlapping and do that like just set the expectation that we we are going to come back and ask them questions if they don't say it so they should just proactively look at that because I find that there's like this long slow thing where projects that are new to the CNCF are kind of like what do I do while I wait for an answer and the truth is the projects that are part of the CNC or like are part of the community are already doing the things that will make them more successful but the new people knew the community don't know what those things are so I just wanted to ask what people thought of that kind of encouragement to engage yeah that's I think that that's a really good point do we already have a question I can't think of I filled out a few proposals but I can't think of a question that specifically states like how are you related to other projects and where where do you fit into the landscape like a competitive analysis but it would be nice to I think put that into in my opinion put that into the project proposal which would get open at the same time as the project presentation so that the SIG can go look at that for for what it's worth the in the storage SIG we put together this this template which I've shared with with Liz's documents that she was putting together just now and we cover things like you know adoption but also the ecosystem like what what other projects does this project interact with and does the project require any specific versions of things and is those projects similar to other CNC of projects those sort of questions so I mean I think what we're discussing here though is how much how much information do we collect at this initial phase versus what we collect when we're actually reviewing in the SIG right I'm not sure what the right answer is I think there probably should be like a handful of questions that that the talk person who's kind of on call should have access to if they're trying to make an informed decision and I think it would also be beneficial that sort of all the projects have a common five or ten questions or whatever else that they that they answer when they're submitting to to that talk person that's making that initial call because otherwise we kind of then get into into the realm where we have the sort of shifting goalpost issue that we've had in the past I just posted a link to the project proposal process because I had a recollection we had added we have got comparison with similar projects including what differentiates this project as one of the questions in the project proposal requirements I don't know whether we want to have it in that initial set of questions or not but so I think um perhaps I can I want to keep that part really small for now and I think we should come back in a few months and revisit it and ask the TOC members like in the triage phase did you want that question and if the answer is yes then we can just have it then or we can have it now it doesn't it doesn't matter to me I think this is really great progress let's table it to come back to it again in the new year when we will have made even more awesome progress great thank you yes thank you in the meantime if anybody has any questions or concerns feel free to thread on that thread I'll keep track of it and the next action item for me is going to be just building all these templates so we have an idea of what the question should be exactly cool all right if I recall the next item on the agenda was about this idea of um increasing the number of sponsors from two to three for sandbox projects so just to remind everyone right now the only criteria for becoming a sandbox project is sponsorship by two TOC members as of the next elections coming up very soon we're going to have nine sorry 11 instead of nine TOC members so the proposal here is that we should change that minimum that sponsorship bar for sandbox from two to three um I think the strong argument for why we should do this is um the theory I mean it's only a theoretical concern but nevertheless something we should be conscious of that right now you could have two TOC members from the same organization and if they wanted to put one of their organizations projects into the CNCF there is nothing to stop that um but with three they would have to be buying from someone else I don't think we've had any cases anything like that but it seems like a good thing to make sure you know if you if you can't get sponsorship from three TOC members should the project really be there I think also the thinking was just to align the number of sponsors you know proportionally with the number of members on the TOC true true and I thought sponsorship had a role this might be more informal but I thought the sponsors were like had some also kind of obligation to the project that if the project needed to find its way in the CNCF that the sponsors would be there for them right that it was like kind of that type of relationship and I made a maybe I read that somewhere maybe it was discussed I don't recall so I'm curious what the role of like do you is was I correct in assuming that there's some kind of ongoing role of this sponsorship or is it merely just um like sponsor it through the voting process I think there might be a difference between formal and informal role but the formal role is just through the sponsoring process to my understanding in fact we used to have a list of who the sponsors were and you know they were people who'd been you know hadn't been on the TOC for many months so we don't have any kind of process for updating that yeah I think I think that was a flaw actually Liz and I think the intention was that that sponsor and this predated the SIGs so maybe the SIGs make that kind of redundant and the SIGs are responsible for looking after the project after it is um uh you know brought into the CNCF but but at the time when it was initiated the intention was that that the sponsors would be you know there to look after the project over time and and yes we fell down in in that some of the you know many of the TOC members were replaced and nobody was kind of put in place to take over their sponsorship roles just just one other comment on the on the three versus two things I think it's a very valid concern if if a single company can put two TOC members up and sponsor something I think that is problematic and I think we should stress that one concern is that you know getting two sponsors sufficiently engaged is difficult enough getting three would be even more difficult potentially and time consuming so an alternative would be to say that the two sponsors have to be from different companies that might be another way of addressing that specific concern but it doesn't address Joe's Joe's comment that you know you want to you know somewhere around a third of the TOC members to be sponsors I guess is the implicit kind of requirement there I think you know the you know we have seen and I don't think we've seen this lately where projects will what I would call sponsorship where they would essentially go through and have a lot of one-on-one conversations with TOC members and and try and get people to say yes before there's sort of any concerns were shared that type thing I think as a TOC we're doing better at communicating as we get inbound communications but I think at that three level you know there's a definitely makes it harder to do something like that would it make sense to to encourage at least one of the sponsors to be one of the liaisons for the relevant SIG for that project like if it's a security project have a security TOC liaison be a sponsor yeah that's a really interesting point I wonder if that needs to be formalized or whether that's a kind of likely to come out in the wash anyway just because TOC members who have a particular interest in a particular area are more likely to be the natural sponsors for a project you know I can definitely think of cases where you know projects have come in and it's really outside of my wheelhouse and I would not feel you know I might think it's a great project but if it's not really something I know very much about doesn't feel like the right thing to be the sponsor there is a question in chat about making the binding the TOC from different organizations meaning two sponsors from the same org just count as one I am trying to be able to think of a place where we would actually have that happen at the moment that is not possible but possibly in the future which is to say we do not have TOC members from the same organization everyone here is from separate orgs no we do Michelle and Brandon you're right okay you're right thank you I beg your pardon is that something we want to put into this personally I would rather keep it simple yeah I just feel like like people change companies like a lot in this space so I don't know that's just something that consider let's ask another question so let's separate out the question of whether sponsors should have a broader responsibility because I think that is something we don't currently have so I think maybe we separate that out but if we have that as a separate point do we have any reasons not to increase the bar from two to three can can I ask a question here do the sponsors have time for extra responsibility especially as more projects are added so do we want the same box projects to grow kind of like the Apache foundation has or do we want to keep them small and then do the sponsors have the time to put in for that extra responsibility given the growth that's wanted right I think to think of that separately you know thinking about the responsibility being delegated to six as we scale I think it's also worth recognizing that the set of service has offered to sandbox projects is minimal and so the amount of active time from the TOC to sandbox project should be relatively low that's you know when this you know for good or ill when we move from from inception to sandbox the decision at that point was to try and make the sandbox process be less rigorous more open less services and more available as a landing ground you know a landing space and so that's why you see places where the new TOC maintainers seat is not elected by sandbox members and when you go to the to the landscape sandbox projects are not highlighted like the incubating graduate projects are yeah I think even in the absence of additional services Joe I think that there is I mean I don't know personally as a potential sponsor or project I would certainly not want to put my name next to a project as a sponsor unless I had you know a certain amount of understanding of what the project was about and and make sure that I you know wasn't dragging my own name through the through the mud by by sponsoring something which which turned up not to be a good idea so so even that amount of effort I think was difficult to get you know two TOC members especially for projects I may not be at all familiar with you know for the household name stuff it's it's pretty straightforward but for the you know very early stuff that a lot of TOC members may never have heard of before and they might have to go and do a bunch of reading to figure out whether they think this is something I want to put their name to it was a pretty big hurdle for some of the projects I must say and I think it you know it further exacerbates the point you mentioned about this TOC sponsor shopping thing where it's it's pretty difficult to get those two in our three and so you just go and you know splatter gun all the TOC members and try and get them all excited about the project I can see where you're coming from I think um one of the things that we want to I guess consider is that in this process even at the sandbox level the presentation is happening you know to the SAIG and that a lot of the responsibility for vetting the sandbox level project is now delegated to the to the SAIG and we ask for a recommendation even at the sandbox level so that has yeah I mean I understand that that has been an issue in the past and even that I have encountered that it takes a lot of time to really understand something and you know ask the right questions and read through all the documentation and the proposal and all that but now that that should be some of that is a shared responsibility and that's just something to consider okay I think since we aren't actually quora I don't think we can do the vote now so we'll do the vote on email later but I think this is a good and useful discussion okay all right so the next thing I had was uh on the agenda was I drafted a proposal I've done this in a google doc initially for a process for getting sandbox projects through an annual review um again trying to keep this really lightweight um but putting the responsibility really onto the project to say this is um you know this is where we're at uh let me just post the link I did send it round I think the thick code did send it around to the TSE list I haven't seen any comments on it yet so maybe that means it's perfect um or maybe it just needs to be written I think what I'll say is if there's tons of I want to move this into github fairly soon so we can have uh you know open discussion in there if anybody thinks this is a terrible terrible idea I'll you know tell me before I put it in github and please feel free to comment it on the in the dog I I really like the idea um for what it's worth um what I was also thinking was that if um if we use a template to accept um a project into the sandbox then we can keep that template updated so we can have kind of points in time as to how um the the project is advanced because and and we can kind of use the diffs in github or whatever to show to show the changes over time too so so if you can kind of see okay maybe adoption was low before and now it's high and maybe you didn't interact before but now it does and that sort of thing I love that diffs idea that's great okay so maybe Michelle you and I should sort of think about how we could put this into a format that you could easily diff sounds good all right great uh what's next that project that is bored we have one okay uh let's have a look at what is on the board we do have this board oh i've posted the link it's very hard to see there's two links uh for various projects and project proposals this is the right one yeah yes that is correct okay okay so uh I think actually the key to that one I should have closed that one that's fine that's why we're doing this yeah and I should move uh operator from work over done okay um so the longer intention here is to be able to make sure that we have a visible way for everyone to see what is in progress where and what needs to happen next yes so just starting at the actually on this board can we add in something around when it's in the sick yes uh status I think we can try and get the board to match I mean I know yes this is all iterative and it's all in progress and I'm happy to be able to add in another column to be able to track who is currently in submission for the SIGs and what the outcome is from there great so is this the project backlog yes this is the project backlog should the columns match the proposed phases when they will yes when we actually have that yes yes so exciting so uh go ahead how are SIGs going to be looped into this project backlog for their work and I asked because I was talking to the kudo folks and I was talking to the SIG folks uh over SIG app delivery and I see it's under the in-project due diligence presentation but I was told they've already presented and the SIG doesn't feel they have any other work to do involved it's now at a step where the TOC needs to do work and so I'm reading this board and talking to them it appears there's mismatch either something's not right on the board or there's mismatch with the SIG is there any what's the plan to get this going yeah absolutely the um the we want to take a step back to talk through the process but I think it's up to us to give the SIG a template to fill out like a recommendation template to fill out so that the the TOC can kind of take it over if we want to go that route Liz you're leaning over should I say something no I'm I'm completely agree with what you said okay so um Matt in that particular case I'll follow up there um but it's kind of a check-in and ag situation and we've got a lot of moving parts so um yeah okay that was kudo you've been talking about wasn't it kudo yeah or kudo I'm probably butchering the name and and just for I just wanted to make sure I'm right yeah for transparency the SIG app delivery folks have reached out and I need to respond to them so that is that is me I need to follow up right one thing I noticed on here so there's cortex and I have some recollection that sanos are also I don't see anything on the board but I recall an email in the last day or two about sanos maybe I'm misremembering that but anyway um we don't right now have an observability SIG and it would be wonderful if we did have such a thing so if there is anyone out there on this call or if you know of anyone who would be interested in setting up a observability SIG we would love to talk to them about that I know someone who would be interested in that uh his name is me although I don't know if I'm speaking out of turn this is my first call and we've just recently joined welcome um my name is Matt from EverQuote um and I'm VP for cloud engineering on a snow day in New England uh so I'm in my formal attire uh but we are rolling out Cortex and Loki uh we've already started actually over the next uh two quarters really one quarter in in force um for general observability platform that's Cortex, Loki, Grafana and Yeager in Q2 Q3 for our microservices which are all hosted in multiple clouds uh so um we've been doing a ton of work around observability and I would love to engage with whatever SIG uh we might create or help create it I'm not sure though what the process is like I said this is my first CNCF meeting that I've attended so wonderful thank you so much for volunteering this is fantastic uh with a copy out that I'm not sure what I'm signing up for in terms of oh yeah no idea those are my favorite kind of volunteers yeah I mean the observability is really at the center we were a DevOps slash SRE team and we've transitioned to really making more self-service components so that we can scale out the organization without you know scaling my organization to pace uh so observability is really just it touches everything we do uh from the business and the technical side so um yeah yeah terrific um anyone else on the call who happens to be interested could we maybe open up an issue as well and then we can send it on mailing lists and that's a really good idea Twitter's and Joe is our designated tweeter so Is there a well-planned process for SIG creation uh curiosity or uh well we've done it a few times now that I think it is coming together so maybe um we also have like a kind of SIG chairs anonymous self-help group that is being so yeah so more specifically as a SIG chair um we have a very well documented process that everyone who follows it has a different interpretation of what it means so if you are interested in be leading a SIG it would be fabulous if you read that process and added annotations clarifications or a set of questions because now it's sort of hard to retroactively go back and try to figure out what was confusing about something that we now understand so it would be great to have a new reader because it's in the TOC directory there's a SIG sub-directory which is intended to have complete documentation but from experience that's not we're just not quite sure how to fix it I don't know if you've seen it but Michelle already posted a link into the chat see that SIGS yeah okay I can't seem to find the list of SIGS and TOC liaisons but um if we have that somewhere storage and app delivery looks like yeah so I guess Liz on our side awesome uh Liz on our side what we need to get some liaisons together too right yeah I think we did actually uh choose the ones that are in the SIGS list in that directory I can help you but what seems to work fairly well in the past is to put a draft charter together which specs out you know what the what the bounds of the SIGS are what sort of charters and then use that as a sort of rallying point to solicit people to be tech leads uh codechairs and and liaisons I think we already have provisioned and it's laid out um yeah yeah I think the liaison information is in a mailing list not in the repo so I'll look at that I've just been having a look and I can't find it in the repo so uh yeah I think we do need to add that we still have a rather old out of date proposed list that I think maybe we should just turn into a list of actual SIGS I think the liaison information is in each separate SIG documents so yeah having an overview I think refactoring that I think would be a great PR for someone to do yeah all right there's a radiot for the SIG runtime right so we can reuse that template right so for new SIG yes you're welcome to use that well there's an outline in the SIG instructions so I think there's like every SIG has a charter yep cool I'll review this stuff over the holiday what's the expected timeframe or next steps do we have a bi-weekly or a monthly cadence that we work back come ping me and we'll talk about like what would actually work best for you um so being able to actually track for what a meeting would schedule would look like to be able to review a charter and then being able to bring into the TUC for a formal vote so come find me we'll work together I'll do that perfect thank you great last bit let us let us talk about elections in the 10 minutes that we have here the nominations are currently open um I know there's been lots of questions around this I am perfectly happy to be able to help answer questions to be able to update the FAQ um oh basically where are we at on the possibility of uh delaying or extending the deadline for that maintain a seat so for that maintainer seat uh we're actually working on logistics to be able to extend that further um the challenge is that there is a general board maintainer selected seat that is supposed to be able to open nominations basically directly following this so we are working on logistics to be able to not have two nomination processes running in the same bucket basically so is there there's no objection to extending the deadline though right no it's the logistics problem on my end and okay being able to work on that one that's really the only issue here um yeah um so like I'm good I was just gonna ask are there any governance issues with timetables or anything outlined there that would be impacted by this I don't know what the charter has to say about timetables and things like that if there's anything there so the timetable says that the general board agrees towards being able to have like this is where the elections start um my real challenge right now is that uh the end of the elections kind of overlap a little bit with the end of what the proposed or sorry the written down schedules um because right now we have the seats end on the 29th and the next people come in and they are seated on February 3rd so that that is like an absolute like has to make deadline is that your question yeah go ahead um Amy this is Michael uh is Baco able to propose a maintainer now that we're somewhat officially incubation that is not a question that I had thought about I think so the why not the nominations haven't closed that's correct yeah thank you okay that is not something that I considered thank you for bringing it up has Falco received the email with all of the details and nuances for this right no because they have just gotten to the point this morning yeah well I saw the email that was sent to the TOC mailing list with all the details and nuances there but if there's an intentional one Amy no same email same things trying to be able to keep it all the same bucket thank you um but yeah that's a very good point thank you okay say and you said that there was a date or February 3rd that was immovable yes what actually would happen if that date was missed um I'm not sure that's why I'm thinking you know I'll have to get back to you like what would happen if that date was actually missed go ahead Michelle thank you um so uh the the I don't really see it much of an issue and this is just me spitballing here but um with the maintainer elected TOC seat uh that's an addition so there's not like a seat that's missing from the TOC that we would have to like really worry about there so I think that that deadline um we could make a case to the governing board or whoever needs to vote to like or you know do lazy consensus to make sure that the dates are you know correct and and and approved and all that so there is uh there's that um I don't think that that's a big issue uh Brandon Phillips was the other developer representative on the governing board his term ends in December so uh there is a gap there of a month um and I don't think that that's uh again like that I think that if there was a problem with you know timelines and all that that's the thing that we need to consider we just need to make sure that the GB seat for a developer rep is like that election is on time um I don't see a huge issue with the TOC uh maintainer elected seat timeline um if we don't have it I don't see any repercussions I just think the governing board probably needs to do some sort of like lazy consensus to approve like an extension if that's the process that we might go towards but again maybe Dan or Chrysler better uh resource for answering those questions and then the other thing one to mention was um um oh actually I don't remember gosh just slipped my mind but um but we should probably propose some dates um and and figure out what is reasonable considering it's the holiday season so maybe Amy we can work on what I can think of around this is being able to just extend that one maintainer seat and leave the deadlines the same for nominations for both the um uh end user community and the general board seat um because that like the the only logistical change on that end is basically on our end to be able to make sure that we're not putting nominations into these same places um and then from there I think we can review the list of nominees that have come out um longer term as far as like you know we come back in January we look up and say hey we have enough nominations to be able to make this a robust meaningful process and then we move forward with the timelines as proposed fair um I would have to look at the that sounds great I would just have to look at the um the dates again because I think there's only like one or two I'm not sure exact do you want to I'm bringing up my email to be able to look at this as far as like the because I sent a bunch of emails about this all right here's what we've got right now for the timeline I am putting it over into your chat all right there's a question in the chat about uh from Ricardo about signing up for the mailing list if you mean the TOC mailing list I think the link is on the github page for the TOC right it is good so you know the qualification period like that shouldn't apply to um the maintainer seat because that's more of like uh for the for the gb seats it's like there's a bunch of nominations and then the gb is the endorsing part of it um the gb says hey these people are qualified or not qualified we already do an endorsing kind of um process with the maintaining electric electricity by requiring them to um put forth two endorsers from two different projects and companies so I think what I'm just proposing here that we extend the nomination period to January 20th um and then start the or January 19th and then start the election for the maintainers on January 20th so my understanding is that all of the nominees are going through the same qualification process and Liz you can correct me if that is not the understanding I am not sure whether that has been clarified one way or the other I think what Michelle is saying does make a lot of sense though so I think we should perhaps run that past down and the gb so the one thing I'll say is in the charter itself it specifies that the governing board and the TOC shall go over each nominee for a TOC position so I think to not have that qualification period would require a change in the charter because that is actually outlined in my those are also there's also never been agreed that we should update the charter but this is kind of a gray area because before it was only the TOC and the GB who were doing the nominating so of course they would go through qualifying and actually the GB selected seats are not qualified by the TOC so only the GB qualifies those and then the TOC qualifies their nominees so the maintainers should qualify I mean just going along with the pattern so the maintainers should qualify their own nominee is also there's a two-week period there for qualifications so if the charter says that everyone has to go through the qualifications I don't see why it would be a problem to stagger them to say we have two weeks to go through the governing board and TOC ones and one week for the last set maintain ones for example would that be acceptable I mean it's not a question for us it's a question for the GB yeah we should have this thread with the GB folks but I think this is all good to propose Matt you took a break yeah I was just going to say you know I like the idea of pulling the GB and TOC qualifications because if you've got somebody who's from a maintainer of a graduated or incubating project who got people from two other companies not theirs to sign up and two other projects not theirs to do it across the projects imagine the GB coming in and saying no we decided this person isn't qualified that's where I think it's going to get a little bit hard and weird because I mean the qualification there is already really hard yeah I agree I agree but I guess we we may be in a position where we have to do something through the charter even if that turns out to be a formality and we can change it for next time okay I think we can take these suggestions to the governing board and it sounds as though there's quite a lot of will from you know Amy and the rest of the organization to try to find a way to extend these nominations because clearly it has been a bit confusing so I appreciated I think we're up to time we got through a lot yes we got through everything thank you so much everyone we'll see you in the new year great thank you thank you I'm really enjoying listening to Bex Fury