 Hey, y'all, let me just check where Paris and Josh are at. Hello, everyone. Hello, hello. I think people are still. The K-Native community meeting is just wrapping up, and it was definitely a bring your popcorn sort of event. I see. It's wondering. Yeah, so Chris DiBona answering questions about the OUC for the K-Native community. I should have moved my schedule around. Yeah, I moved some stuff around to accommodate that meeting. But it's recorded, so you can watch it later. Cool, cool, awesome. It's interesting. I realize I don't have host powers here, but. Well, Paris said she's on her way. I saw Josh in the community meeting. April was in the community meeting. OK, cool. So I'm assuming that it sounded like they're wrapping it up, so I dropped off. I might be missing something really fantastic. Who knows? Right, so for those who are here, I'm going to just drop the meeting notes in the chat and feel free to put your names down as attendees and any topics you might want to discuss there. Hi, everybody. Just wanted to introduce myself. I'm a VMware employee, but I work mostly in the Build Tax project, so I saw the blog post this week, and I was like, oh, it seems pretty cool. I wanted to see what's happening with the. I got VMware represent in this meeting. I'm also VMware. I believe Steven is also VMware. I am also VMware, yeah. Oh, welcome to the meeting. Carolyn, do you feel left out because you're not VMware? I live my life company free. I just think about my friends. Hey, April. So Build Packs, are you MAPIU as well? Yeah, MAPIU. OK, cool. We are. So I'm on the, so Don is on the OSPO side and I'm on the TKG core like test and release for Trame, so like release engineering for TKG. Cool. But then also just general CNC, that's that from what I've seen. Yeah, I get around a little bit. So some some air time. How's everyone's week by two weeks, month, year, long, everything going? I had so much fun yesterday watching Twitter implode. So it sounds like they determined it was a social engineering thing with Twitter employees. Yeah. That would be fun. So did anybody get double Bitcoin? Oh, April, did you, were you on Twitter last night? Or no? Oh, OK. Yeah, so someone socially engineered a Twitter like SRE or somebody, someone who had access to the admin plan panel, and they were able to get into the accounts of all the major verified Twitter users and accounts like Barack Obama, Biden, Elon Musk, Apple. I don't know, like a whole bunch. And they posted a cryptocurrency link and told people to like donate. And then that high profile person would match it and acted like it was a thing for charity. And a lot of people did, as like a scam. And then so the people who had the accounts were trying to like delete the tweets and make it go away. And I think they were getting locked out and the emails were getting switched to something else. I don't know. And so instead of touch shutting down Twitter, they just locked all the verified people out of their accounts so they could retweet, so they couldn't tweet original tweets. And so they were trying to communicate simply through retweets, which was hilarious. So the unverifieds had a blast last night. Yeah, that's a, can y'all hear me now? Yeah. Yeah, that would be good. Yeah, I like, I've decided for my mental health I need to take some time off of Twitter because I tend to wake up, look at Twitter, and think like, God, the world is terrible. And so I missed all the good stuff, apparently. That's kind of amazing. I really feel bad for the SRE, my God. Yeah, I feel sorry for whoever got phished or whatever. Really happy. But it's fascinating. I'd love to, like, I'm sure I don't know they'll make it public, but I'd love to hear like how it happened because that's a big one. That's kind of fascinating. Like, we're going to need a postmortem on that one for sure. Twitter's not going to give you a postmortem. I'll tell you that. Redacted, they got to give something for it. It's how you break into all of our stuff. Yeah. Well, more so, like, here's how we mitigated that, right? Like, I don't care exactly how it happened, but. Yeah, I'm just fascinated by the whole, you know, the whole thing. So, yeah. I would hope that if it happened once, it shouldn't happen again. But it's not always the strongest hope. Computers, right? They find a way. Security's the thing that's easy, right? Hey, Paris. Hey, Karen. Sorry, y'all. I had a call that was just not end, and I could not end it. I apologize. Do we know if Josh is popping on, too? If we haven't heard from him, it's probably, you know. Let's, we'll say this is Chair Quorum and get started. All right. More officially for the recording. Hello, hello, everyone. Today is July 16th. This is a CNCF SIG contributor strategy meeting. It's a meeting that is recorded and available on the internet. So please be mindful of what you say and do. Please be sure to adhere to the CNCF code of conduct. And in general, just be awesome people. So we've got a few things on the agenda, and it looks like they're all, they're all working group or sub project, the updates. So who is handling the project template update? Is that the new repo that was just created? Paris? Yeah. Yeah. So I can tell you what Paris told me yesterday, but. Which was that she made it to put stuff in there. And we should find stuff. Well, let's find stuff. We don't want to just throw things in. The idea was that we would generate unique things that came out of our working groups. One of the biggest working groups that would be creating this is governance and contributor growth. So instead of just adopting things out of, say, Kubernetes or something like that is it would like we've created the contributing guide. So I finally have a place to put that. We're working on a contribution ladder right now as well. And I know governance, Josh was in here. But they're working on similar things that would go in that template repo as well. So we would look at other rebos like Kubernetes or Helm like in and out of the CNCF as examples. And then we use that to kind of come up with something usually unique and composite out of multiples that also include our own best practices and suggestions and advice. Yeah, that sounds awesome. Kind of grab and go, bootstrap yourself, get started. So one thing I would say is that we will want to flip this on as a template repo. Right now it doesn't look like it is. So there's like a checkbox in the settings for people who have admin access to allow people to not have to clone the repo, but use it as a template instead. And then we as contributor strategy are probably going to want elevated permissions here, right, admin? This is a CNCF contributor repo. Sorry, what? No. Which repo is this talking about? The project template repo. Cool. Are there specific things, Carolyn, that you all want to help with? Because I know Paris and I were talking yesterday about at least for some other stuff that I'm working on, like looking at some other examples for other projects and kind of what they might be doing. So as part of that, is it helpful if we find other things and use it to create new stuff or do you all have stuff already? We were like, you know, what Josh did, which was great, was he laid out like a forward thinking, what's all the different content that governance eventually needs to make. I want to do the same thing on Tuesday with contributor growth. Right now we're working on the contributing guide and the contribution ladder, but we haven't made a full list of everything so that people could start to just think about examples in the community and start collecting them. So on Tuesday, we're going to make that list of everything that we're eventually going to want to create and put into that repo. I don't have one. Yeah, no, that's totally, I have a lot of tabs open of things that I'm like, oh, that's cool. Let me copy paste this and bring it over. So I'll just keep that for until Tuesday. So there's also a, I think it's like a community health check that is on the GitHub repos where I can check if you have like, do you have a readme? Do you have a contributor guide? Do you have contributor guidelines? Do you have like security policy in place? And if we make the repo have all the check boxes and people can kind of grab and go and be checked off in multiple places. This is something kind of is relevant to me like as a new dex maintainer to one of the things that I came to mind was a website. Like when you get started, like you don't necessarily have a website. So I pasted in the chat the CNCF Hugo Netlify starter as well. And that's one of their grab and go templates that you can use to just bootstrap a repo really quickly, bootstrap a website really quickly. Agreed. That's awesome. One other suggestion, maybe I'll PR it into the project template repo is one thing we added to some of the build tax repos. When you file an issue, so you're able to create settings with like GitHub actions that you can have like different templates for what the issue should look like. And amongst them, you can also have a link to something else. So we posted in like feel free to reach out to us on Slack and then had a link to the build tax Slack on it. Which I thought was kind of a useful way of making people are free to file issues. But they can also just reach out to us on Slack instead of doing that. And we can try and help them faster. I don't know if that's like overly involved or not. Are you talking like the contact us on the readme or? Not in the readme. When you file like an issue specifically. Yeah. Oh, the issue templates. Yeah, issue templates. So you can do it that they're also like random links. Yeah, we have that on the list and is part of the to do as well issue and PR templates, like various ones for enhancements, questions, bugs, stuff like that. Yeah, make that note though. But also, yes, PR is welcome if you already have ideas that people can start reviewing. That'd be cool. I mean, other templates that would be cool would be like PR workflows and cheat kind of situation. Exactly. Contributor guide. Cheat, cheats. Do we want to? There's a lot of them. What was that? Sorry, do we want to iterate on the templates in one of our own repositories for contributor strategy before we promote things to the templates directory for the CNC app? That is the plan that go directly to the template revolve that we iterate on them in the working groups first. Yeah, so if you want to add things, I'm like taking the links that you're putting in the chat and putting them in the agenda so we don't lose them after the end of the meeting. But if I'm missing one, please link them in there. And I'll get these, make sure that we're talking about them in the working group. But the plan is on Tuesday, we're going to go through and make a big list of all the content and stuff like that. And then maybe break out individual issues and get people thinking about these asynchronously so we can have multiple people working on these and say like iterating on the issue PR or the template PR or PR templates or start a website, things like that. So we can have lots of people working because it was a lot of surface area for these. Paris, I thought you mentioned one, though. And I don't think I caught it. I wrote some stuff down in the notes. I said communication, MD, PR workflow slash lifecycle, whatever people call it there, and contributor cheat sheets, which is kind of just a TLDR of your contributor guide, really. Has anyone involved chatted with Ehor at all? I know he was working on a revision of CNCF Contribute, which may have some overlap with some of the content that may end up living in the template project. So my nurse, go ahead. Oh, I was going to say, originally we were talking about putting these in Contribute. But then when I started opening up an issue and discussing this, I got feedback, overwhelming feedback from everyone that this was not the right place for it. And that's what inspired making project template. And doing it separately. The concern was that Contribute was really for new contributors coming to CNCF and looking for a project and where to contribute and what are the norms and how to do it and everything. And then the type of content we were looking to add was really more for maintainers trying to get set up and either learn how to do things or the templates and everything and having them both in there, they didn't want to have it all mixed and matched. In addition, we wanted it to be a template repo where you could just clone it and go. So that's why we ended up making the second repo. Yeah, that totally makes sense. I would not argue but say that maintainers are also contributors. So I think that, at least on the CNCF level, there should be some sort of how to get started as a maintainer. And maybe that lives in our contributor strategy repo instead. Does it live in contribute? Does it live in contributor strategy? Who knows? I think the guidance is you should be a contributor before you should be a maintainer, right? It started like making that transition and supporting projects. I think that's what you're talking about. Yeah, so like, hey, you just got added to the CNCF as a sandbox incubating project, right? Like what to do first, right? How do you be an effective maintainer? How do you be an effective maintainer of a CNCF project as opposed to just a maintainer of the project that you were on before? Yeah, I think that's great. Well, so do we have like milestone dates for that kickoff that we want to drop in the notes? Which kickoff exactly? For this template project discussions and stuff. I know it's kind of already in progress, but for people who are coming to read the notes later and want to get involved too. Oh, OK. I think a lot of this is going to be driven from the Contribute Growth Working Group. Got you. So I think they should just come to the meeting next week on Tuesday. I can send out a thing in the mailing list today. Sweet. And invite people. Let them know that this is something that we're going to be starting to look at more. And then we're going to be making, I'm kind of a content grocery list. And kind of just so that more people can work on it simultaneously. But I think we haven't done a good job of making that easier for everyone to work on. Yeah, having that for governance was really helpful for getting started. That was a great idea. Are we going to start talking about the maintainer circle? Yeah. I think we need to get a GIF of that, because that's amazing. Maybe first we can really talk about the first we can quickly talk about the TSE update. Wait, Josh, did Josh give it? Or did you give it to Iris? I did it. OK, cool. Do you want a copy of it in the notes? So I know we have the slides. And just did we get any specific feedback? Everybody loved it. They said great work. See you later. So. OK, I'm going to leave. Easy, easy. That was the summary. So, well, Aria has opinions about that, Paris. Yeah, TLDR, they believe in our mission. And everything that we're working on is important and amazing. That was it. We're still in that super new state where we haven't given anybody grief yet. So. I'm going to leave the org questions. So let's go. Soon, soon. Just wait till they hear about the governance stuff. Cool, you want to do a maintainer circle? Oh, Karen dropped. Dang it, she probably had a conflict at 11. So Karen and I met last week. What we talked about was how much pretty much timing sucks on this for launch. Because obviously, KubeCon Europe is going off in August, mid-August. We don't have a slot there. There's no slots there for us to launch this, which means that if we were to launch in August, we would be competing with most of the events going on. And people would not like that. So that leaves us with September, which just seems so far, at least to me anyway, to try to launch something and still maintain the momentum of the newness of this group. So I fret that we need to figure out something to launch and it's outside of just a Slack channel. The other thing that we talked about was how some people still don't identify with the word maintainer. The goal of the group is to grow maintainers and support them. So people like official reviewers would be included in this as well, but some reviewers, for instance, don't say that they're maintainers. So we were kind of stuck on that. And I also heard feedback from other people that we should probably get a new word. So that leaves us kind of with this. We know what we want to do. We know the goals. We now know the composition of the first three meetings. We know the topic of those meetings. We've got our communication channels. Now we need a name and now we need a time. So that's the kind of TLDR of where we are right now. I mean, in a minute, it might be unicorns.leadership.cncf. Like, that's how I'm just in a minute, like, I don't know. Seconded, let's do it. I'm just going to make up a word and then everybody's going to be like, sounds like a great word. I don't know. So what's everybody's thoughts on timing and or naming and or something else, by the way? I don't ever saw a name, but I know one thing that maybe resonates more with people in the Kubernetes community is the concept of chopwood carry water. And whether you're a maintainer or a reviewer, I think you do Navy associate more with that concept. And if we could find something that Navy links in with that, we could find a cute name that more people associate with. I don't have a name that goes with that yet. It just kind of came from right now. But I like unicorns too, and then stamp cute. So. I also, A.B. tested the just the term leadership circle. A lot of people also did not think that they were a leader because they're not on a steering committee or something, which is weird, because we're not leaders either. Sorry, no, just kidding. Yeah, no, I've been testing out some different words. And then if we call them owners, which is Kubernetes, then that obviously alienates 45 projects that don't have owners. So it's like, hang on, there's something there because we could not necessarily correlate it to Kubernetes, but correlate it to the idea of ownership of code, right? So GitHub has the code owners concept, right? And Kubernetes is kind of an exploded version of that, right? So I think code owners does fit. Would we exclude doc owners and or community owners? So I think of when I think of code, I think of anything that gets committed to a repo, regardless of what we consider the content to be. But not everyone has that feeling, right? I agree, and I was going to also say that, to have not all the everybody that has that feeling also. Yeah, like Kubernetes, we explicitly separate it out as non-code contributors, right? So naming is hard. Yes, and I'm like, that's why I'm just like, there's going to be a minute where I'm just going to flip the table, and it's going to be unicorns, everybody, just like. I mean, you have all the stickers. Because I'm just like, I want to launch this inclusive language discussion, like I want to like, I want to get us there, right? Like, I just feel blocked in this, like, the naming conventions. And then the. Oh, here's my experience about naming, is that when you name something, no one will like it. And it doesn't matter what name you pick, no one will like it. Nobody liked the name Google when they first launched. The iPad got all kinds of bad press. I think you pick something that seems reasonable. You go with it, and people will get used to it. Don, tell me, though. I don't do naming, because this is why, but. Give me a suggestion, Don, do you? Did we already try MasterCircle? Oh, yeah, that would definitely flow well. That would flow really well. Don, you. Honestly, I would go with MaintainerCircle and just be clear about the definition that it's for reviewers, it's for approvers, it's for owners, it's for. But no matter what you pick, people, or LeadershipCircle, I mean, I would honestly, I would go with one of those, because I think coming up with something crazy is going to be even worse. All right. So I like shipping with MaintainerCircle as well. I would say let's not let the naming of something prevent us actually doing the thing. The ultimately, we'll probably find a different name or people will fall into love with it eventually. But we. We ate it in three pounds. She's like, I've done surveys and calculations. But what I kind of don't dig about leadership is some people specifically don't want to be in leadership. I feel like they can sooner get on board with the idea of owning code and maintaining code, or owning content and maintaining content, as opposed to I have to lead a thing. I have to run a meeting. I have to, like, their additional responsibilities implied with leadership. At the same time, I feel like with the recent discussion on master-slave mentality, I feel like ownership also could be a touchy word, not necessarily. But I could see people getting flared up about it, even though there's obviously not necessarily any insinuation there. And this is only, I don't know, something about growth as well. Like, this is a group for people who are trying to contribute to and to grow their products. This would be a group that would be trying to contribute to themselves and to grow each other. So for instance, like, how to be a better code reviewer, how to not burn out, how to include inclusive language in your project, how to combat unconscious bias. That's the, I feel like the goals in small, small maintainer groups where it's focused on peers and peer mentoring and group mentoring and things like that. Name, y'all. I agree. Like, just call it what you originally had said to call it. And it can change as it progresses. But I certainly agree with Dawn. There's always going to be people that don't think it's the right one. Then together we can come up with something new. And then what about the timing debacle or timing debacle here where it's like, how do we, because like the planning for this is going to take care and I like to launch like from, you know, to launch kind of this birds of a feathery, not serious first session and then launch the second session, which is technically the first with like the inclusive language pick with the inclusive language bit. We're talking like probably three to four weeks of planning all of those things. But again, that's when it's like, that's why it's like if we started that now we would be budding up literally in the middle of HubeCon and competing with HubeCon. So, I think September is a great time to launch. Like everyone's on vacation in August and like now is, I don't know, half people I know are burnt out and like, I don't know what's wrong with September. Give yourself time to plan and do it. Yeah, I guess I just didn't want to dim the light, I guess. Yeah, but no one is sitting here waiting for us to deliver right now. Like there's no ticking clock. Yeah. I also think like it's a little different than if HubeCon was in person in terms of it becoming this all consuming everybody's only focused on that. Since it's virtual this year, like I think it's less of a, you know, you're not traveling, you're not, you know we're not getting to hang out with each other and have fun. So we have no choice but to sit in front of our computers and look at updates. That's another meeting, right? It's kind of, I mean, you're totally right. And, you know, talking with the chairs and Nancy about this stuff, it's like, it feels like another meeting. Like there's no physically going to a place and blocking off time and the workday, like you're still gonna be doing other stuff. You know, it's, yeah, I don't know. I'm fine with waiting personally. All right, well, we'll launch with maintainer circle, wait for the all duck and we'll do September. The other thing that we talked about that I actually don't wanna necessarily take the time on now because I'd rather file the issue first. But I think that if we redid maintainers.cncf.io into an actual site that could be useful, like we could link to things like the project templates and like the events that we're gonna host for maintainers and like everything is right now, it's just the spreadsheet of who can vote for TOC people. I think that would give folks an identity and not even necessarily identity, but just also just give us somewhere to host this stuff that's not necessarily a GitHub as well. And like maybe we could even like feature maintainers, like maintainer profiles, like, I don't know. That was just an idea that I had. I'd rather file an issue, but wanted to get general kind of like good, bad, ugly feels on that kind of an idea. When I see the spreadsheet I think of, I think YAML, I think Parabolous, right? So, you know, what we use for Kubernetes to maintain groups, right? In general, right, for GitHub orgs, but also like the kkates.io stuff where we maintain email membership or group membership by YAML, right? Like the maintainers should not have to necessarily be something that Amy has to update, right? Of anyone who has, you know, anyone who can add an entry to a YAML file should be able to go in and drop an update. And then we slurp that into whatever site ends up getting put up. I like the idea. Yeah, and I also think like, you know, as CNCF takes on more projects, like this spreadsheet just becomes unwieldy pretty quickly. And so, you know, it'd be great to have it be something that you could easily filter by like sandbox projects and graduated and all that and then get to like what you're really looking for. Cause this is a lot, it's a pretty rainbow, but it's a lot. Yep. Yeah. So cool. All right, I'll write an issue and do the whole kick the boodle for it. But I just wanted to get like a pulse check of please don't go down this line or please do. So I'm going to keep on trucking. So that's the, that's the end of maintainers. There we go. Maybe you should just call it kitten kaboodle. I like that. I just picture a little kitten. Move on to the next update. We actually already talked about contributor growth when we talked about the project templates. We've pretty much finished the contributing guide. So I will submit that finally cause we have the project template repo now. So that's what all I have to say about that. We're going to start working on the ladder next and then we'll kick off making a big grocery list of content that we're going to start working on next and crowdsourcing. So let's move on to governance. Oh, do we still have you? You're connecting twice. Oh my gosh, has Stephen frozen himself? That's mile, that's like the best frozen state I've ever seen in my life. Honestly, that should actually be his new avatar. I think we've got a headshot. Yeah, I think we've got a headshot. Honestly. Make sure you take a screenshot of it, so. So yeah, my computer fell apart tabs or basil or something running. So I'm on my phone right now. Darn computers. Computers are hard. Dolan, why don't you give us an update on what you've been working on? Yeah, sure. So Josh put together the tracking issue, which had a big laundry list of the types of content that we need for governance. And there's lots of it that actually kind of overlaps with contributor growth. So I think there are some bits that some of the people who are working in both of those working groups are focused on. I took leadership selection for governance, just as something that was relatively standalone. And I put together a draft. So if you wanna have a look at it, edit it, leave some feedback, that would be cool. It's just, I put some thoughts down. So it's probably, I don't know how long we wanted these to be. So I felt like I didn't wanna go overboard. So it probably needs a bit more detail in some places. So have at it. Yeah, I think that was most of what we talked about in the governance working group, wasn't it? I think this is good, Don. As far as like lengths and stuff that you were concerned about. I wonder, reading it too, I wonder if it would be cool to also include other projects that aren't cloud native in some of the examples. Yeah, I wasn't sure about that. I tried to use examples of graduated cloud native projects because I figured there wouldn't be really any controversy because they were sort of blessed by the CNCF in one way or another as graduated projects. But if we think there are other like really good examples of any of those areas, or if there's maybe an area that's more commonly used in another type of foundation that isn't really as represented in the CNCF, maybe we'd wanna add an area and use some other examples. But yeah, have a think about it. Like I said, it's, you know, if people wanna add stuff to it or add comments, that'd be cool. I figure we can talk about it in the next governance working group in more detail. Cool. Any questions for Dawn? Well, Steven's basalling. Great job. It's not a question, it's worth coming. Oh my gosh, I was about to moderate. I was about to moderate. Honestly, like I was on another tab and I was like about to click on the who's and he just came in as the participant. Anyway. I forgot. You have fun here, right? Dawn, I do have a question. Is this something that we'll feed into eventually a governance.md for our template? People? No. No, I don't think so. Because this is more like a bunch of options that you could pick, but you'd kind of wanna pick one and then go with it. We should definitely add governance.md to that list if Josh hasn't added it though, because that is one of the like big ones that we've not necessarily talked about from a template perspective as well. Yeah, totally. Do you wanna make it a template though or just a list of like, here's some examples of models you might consider or whatever? So like just add. What we did, what I think is helpful is sometimes your template just needs to have a bunch of comments that walks you through. These are the required things you need to have and here's some of the optional things you need to have. We may link to documents like this one where we go, you need to make this decision. Here are some things you can look at and then you should paste one of these in here and go, this is what you're gonna use. You know what I mean? And I do think- I'm glad that you can immediately use, but it's like a, you know, a paint by numbers I'm picking for you. I do think it would be useful to have a governance.md template because there are some common things that everything should have. So like what is your decision-making criteria? That should be in your governance document. How are maintainers selected? How is your, I don't know, leadership selected or something. I think we should at least have some categories and then links out to documents that will help them make those decisions. Exactly, charter templates. Oh, that's another one. Thank you. What did you say? Charter templates. Yeah. Totally. Yeah. Great. Now I'm actually taking notes. Is someone editing this issue or is it okay if I just edit that and add those in? No free to edit, yeah. I'll just put those in the charter template and the governance.md into here so that we remember. The other governance stuff that's not on the agenda but just needs to bubble up for everyone just in case just to like keep everybody on the same page is the multi-org stuff is the steering committee guidance that we gave to the TOC. We did not give that during the meeting though. So that's why if we gave that during the meeting we probably would have had a different response of great time later. I think a lot of folks had issue with it. A lot of folks agreed with us. It feels like there's a lot of division. I don't know what everybody else's thoughts were on the response but discuss. Should we follow up I guess? I mean, I think it, we made a recommendation to the TOC but it's correct that they can ignore that, right? Yeah, yeah, for sure. So I guess that when we talk about like next steps it's kind of like they're still having the conversation. So it's kind of a, I don't know what is our next step. Other than, you know, like we said, we don't think this is the way to go. I guess we're on the we said, what we said approach. I just don't know. I don't know what, you know, I know personally I was gonna respond to the thread to just get a little more clarification from the last question was like Matt talking about continuity details. And I'm just kind of curious as to like what, what he's envisioning there when he's thinking of, you know, continuity and how a project would, how would a project make its own continuity plan when you're trying, when you're looking at a scenario where the current maintainers are no longer maintaining the project? If that makes sense. And so that's why I'm trying to get a feel for like what exactly he's trying to get to there. And I think it all comes back to like, you know there's still a lot of open questions about what exactly they're trying to get at. Cause I liked, you know, like Dems had pointed out the tagging aspect and like, is it something that is, is it, is it something as simple as, you know saying like these projects have this kind of a, you know, maintainership and you as an end user should know what that means and how that could impact your implementation or your use of this project. And is that enough or is it more that the TOC is trying to get at? So. I wonder if we should go ahead and jumpstart some work around the tagging stuff that Dems laid out and defining some of that too. Because that could be a good, that could be a good next goal for the next TOC meeting which isn't this next Tuesday but it's the following Tuesday. So we could present like, hey, we've evolved kind of here's some bad gene that might help with some of that. Hold on. Yeah, and I also think it's a good kind of like there's that education piece that we could be doing for, you know, CNCF members and users people who are just interested in the cloud native space in general of like, well it actually applies beyond cloud native. It's kind of like all open source of like when we say a project is single maintainer, multi org maintainer, whatever, like kind of what that means. And, you know, the considerations that you should think through before you adopt this particular project. I mean, ultimately it's open source, right? So like if somebody, if I use something and a maintainer just decides like, I'm out of here, like I can always still get the code, but it's just an understanding of like, you know, unless you're willing to do it yourself at that point, no more features are coming. So I think we just need to make that, you know, clear kind of educate books on what the expectation should be. And I think that's like a good thing to have no matter what happens with the graduation aspect. I think it's a good education avenue that CNCF can do. So I'm happy to help with that and take that if I can work with you on that, if that's helpful. Yes. And anybody else have anything for governance that they're working on? Looking at the time we have lost in one minute? Just be quickly. Anything governance? There's lots to do there. All right. The next thing is just approving a PR. It's our only outstanding PR. It's where we can put our resources and our links. And what we find, I just pre-populated it with just a few so you can see where I was going with this. This is actually not all of the, I have probably a lot more links than this to add. This is just something that I thought would be helpful and useful to the group. So if someone could give me a review on that, but that does not need to be live on this call. There's also gonna be a charter revision going in today. And that charter revision is going to take away everything that we've bootstrapped from the roadmap, add in a lot of the stuff that we've already talked about today. Also add in Stephen as chair and do a couple of other housekeeping bits. Of course, we're gonna do the charter revision route, which is to get it approved by TOC as well. So this will just be the first steps of review. And I'll mail that out to the mailing list, but nothing dramatic is going to be changing. It's just, now that we're out of bootstrap stage, updating that pretty much. That's it for us. Questions, concerns, wanna jump in? Nothing? Go team. Good, it's 7.30 here, so I'm ready to... Yes, dinner. Dinner, tell me what's for dinner, Dawn. We are having leftover spicy Korean food, which we refer to as face melty, because it's homemade and it's super spicy. That's amazing. Lots of the go-kujang paste. Lots. You're after my heart now. All right, y'all. See you on the flip side. Tuesday, right for contributor growth, I think it is. And then next Thursday after that. See y'all. Yes, bye-bye. Thank you for having me. Yeah, thanks for coming.