 Hello. So we're at the two minute mark. I don't think we'll have a ton more people joining given the holidays and everything. Speaking of holidays, Dims can't make it today. He asked me to jump in, so I'm driving this one this time. Amy, do you want to set us up on the antitrust and everything? I can also do it. Both is fine. You've made it here. Welcome. Welcome in. Do you see a member's present day? This is good updated. And our agenda day is open floor and kind of like seeing what people come up with. So and Dims is here. Hi Dims. So super. I'll leave like the agenda slide up and then kind of like let folks just kind of start with whatever they'd like because we haven't done one of these in a while. Isn't Dims supposed to be in a car? I'm more than happy to hand back over. Please go keep doing what you're doing. You're confusing me. Okay. Yeah. Open floor. Anything goes. Next slide will also just be about the audience speaking up. So yeah. Any questions? Anything you want to talk about? If you want to go directly from from before sandbox integration now is the time to speak up. If you all speak at the same time, it's really hard to understand. So Hi. Yeah. So this is Ricardo from tag runtime. There's an open issue regarding the working groups and the process to create them. So I think in the past when we have created working groups under the tags, some of them haven't been set up. So the TLC votes to create them. And then I've seen the working groups that have been created the last month or so have actually gone through a TLC vote. So I think we need a little bit more clarity on the process and and anybody has any thoughts on that? Which specific part of the process you mean the current PR and everything about how how working groups and tags interact or or something else? No, it's it's about the creation. So I guess one thing is the PR is the PR supposed to be open on the tag repository or is it supposed to be open on the TLC repository? And the other aspect is that before the working group actually actually gets officially created, does it have to happen through a TLC vote? Maybe Dimps can actually chime in on this. Yeah, I think it starts with like where is everything right now, right? Like if you ask that question, like what is the inventory of all the working groups? Is it all listed in the CNC of TLC somewhere? I don't know the answer to that question. Amy, do we have the consolidated list of all the active working groups in the CNC of TLC repository? It really should be in like the tags like the the tags folder in the TLC repository should be like the one place it might not actually be true as far as like where everything is going right now, but that that is where all of them should live. Emily, you had a comment and yes go ahead. Yes, so we have an open PR on this 868. A lot of these kinds of questions we want to drive into the PR to try to clarify the process because there are occasions where a tag certainly has the prerogative to establish a working group to allow them to accomplish a particular project or deliverable or focus area that is well defined and within their charter. There may also be occasions where the TLC is presented with information that we feel should really be directed back into a tag into a specific working group. So we might recommend or we might request that tag take on that activity in order to accomplish whatever that deliverable or that specific ask is the current instructions that we have around working groups did allow for working groups to exist at the talk level and therefore they would need talk approval for that. We're trying to fix a lot of this and provide better clarification and better guidance and instruction to both the community potential working groups as well as the tags to understand like what does that process look like? Do we need to have talk members voting on whether or not a tag can have a working group? We want to ensure that the tags feel empowered to have some level of autonomy and accomplishing their charter, their mission, and their scope and objectives as they see appropriate and then having that periodic check in with the talk liaisons. So any recommendations that you have around how do we refine this process? What's going to work best for the tags? How do we ensure that they have that level of autonomy and that level of interest being measured and engaged? We'd really like to get that feedback on the PR that I linked in the chat. Sounds good to me. So I think one, yeah, the open question is like, yeah, does the TOC have to approve the working groups or not? And what is the take on some of the folks here? There is no consensus yet, which is why the PR exists. And that's like, I'm basically parroting Emily, but give feedback, like what is your intention? I can see very good arguments both ways. And I think most of us can. So yeah, that's the place to give feedback and to have this discussion. From the point of view of discovery, I think if we make sure that people can start in one spot and then be able to enumerate, okay, what are the tags, which working groups are in which tags. If we set those things up, I think that'll be much better going forward. Because I think we have some of that information, not where they are supposed to be right now when nobody knows. Since we haven't written it down. So back to what Emily said. So let's try to update. Richie, you have the pen on that draft here. So let's collect some thoughts here. I have something on that as well, but Matt raised his hand before this. So Matt, you have the mic. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure. So I see kind of two aspects to this. There's the workflow that we've been discussing around like, what's the approval or what's the actual specific mechanism by which, et cetera, et cetera. From a slightly different perspective, I'm kind of eagerly watching to see where the authoritative source of truth is. I'm putting a link in chat. The graph project up and kind of incubating on nights and weekends is getting to the point where I've now modeled the first sub graph module, which captures exactly the relationship between all of these things. So working groups and who's on what tag and who's a chair and who's a tech lead and what tags are associated with what working groups. And so I'd like to add working groups in particular to that model. So that's the other half of this is just where statefully in GitHub is there a JSON file that I can pull out of to populate this now that the GraphQL API is about ready to be live, at least the first MVP of it. And I can use mutations to import data into it. I'm at that point of the project. So there's an intersection there. And this would provide a GraphQL API that models all these things, these constructs. So I'll also come into the PR. I was going to ask if it would be beneficial for the community for us to create an issue to correspond with the PR to capture some of these requirements and requests such as having working groups listed in a JSON file that way they can be extracted whether or not that's on a tag repo or at the talk level and kind of get more specific information that you all need from us as we work through and kind of refine this process because as always PRs and suggestions are more than welcome on the existing PR. But if there are specific goals and objectives that you all are looking for would having an issue to help capture that so we can ensure that that PR is updated and reflective of those changes be beneficial. Yes. I'm happy to draft and open a PR. I'd rather an issue to capture some of these requirements in concrete terms if that's helpful. Happy to. As I replied to DIMMS, I think we discussed this in within TOC to some extent as well. I think there is consensus that we need something machine readable which can then be parsed and presented wherever but have something which is machine readable and well defined places within the respective git repos or whatever you and build this basically what Meg also just talked about. Anyone else on this topic? Yeah I think opening an issue is a good idea so we can collect feedbacks from the tag fees or from other contributors to see what they you know what's their thought. I think at least the TOC rep should be involved in the decision or after creating a new worker. Yeah that's precisely what I think is best to be discussed in the PR. Anyone else on this topic or with a new topic? Both is completely or let's ask for the current topic and once going twice. Okay. Anyone else with a new topic? Anything goes? Yeah so you all posted a, this is Josh Berkus yeah, Contribute Strategy, a great plan for overhauling the sandbox application process. Since you're having this one of the other questions I wanted to have is are we going to revisit the list of questions that we ask for sandbox applications. Just you know speaking from experience of having prepared some of these I don't feel like the list of questions really matches up with exactly what we're looking to know from projects and it might be worth taking a look at what questions we're asking new sandbox projects and kind of doing a version two of that. The questions that we have there mostly, what Liz and a couple of other people thought of at the time, sandbox questions and haven't really been touched since the form was first created. I think there is some form of consensus that we that we should be overworking most of those also for the other levels also combining a few documents and also having a central entry point. I think that part is basically on the backlog by consensus already by implicit consensus. The main question here is do you have specific things which you would like to see there or would not like to see there or merged into something like this? So yeah I was going to say if we are revisiting the questions I can make some suggestions. Should I do them on that issue or make a new one? Either one works. I did have a specific question I wanted to ask. So whenever we are going through the sandbox process I realize that I don't know what the organization or a set of organizations and I have to guess by the email address of the submitter. So that is something that I would like to know because that comes up every time we review. And also just for completeness because this is highly relevant from from contributors point of view and tech contributors is also a good entry point into CNCF. I'm trying to discern between I or we but I'm probably choosing the we here. Don't think it will be possible to have a fully closed set of questions which give all the answers once answered and you you can basically have a state machine and you go through it with a piece of paper and pen and and you know the outcome. I don't think this will ever be at that point. That being said there is much improvement to be made. Emily? Yeah I was going to agree that there is a lot of improvement that can be made. I would ask because we have the open issue which I linked 804 around some of what those process changes are looking like. We can definitely reconsider some of the questions that are being asked and potentially add new ones remove some of the old ones or better clarify the existing ones that we have so that we're receiving more pertinent information. If you have suggestions and recommendations I would say definitely please comment for them on the issue because a lot of us have either been in the talk for a while or have been around the talk or are brand new. So we're very close to the sandbox process and we may not always see or remember everything or any of the questions necessary that we ask of sandbox projects. So if you have an idea or if you're thinking back to an experience that you had as a sandbox project that you wish that we had requested that information from you earlier please feel free to comment on the issue with what that was. That way we can try to collect it all together and see if there is a more streamlined and refined way of receiving the information that helps us make more informed decisions about those applications. Anyone else on this topic? Three, two, one. Any new topic? So I wanted to go through the issues that we have open. Leave the project onboarding alone. This is negative of a project onboarding. You just linked over to the project onboarding. Yeah, it's minus label colon. Can we discuss the new mission of the TOC contributors? Oh yeah, that's actually a good one. So in the past I think the TOC contributors have been on the CNCF website. So I think it's up for debate whether the tags need to be on the CNCF website or something else. Right now it's against the TOC and there may be some other places where we may want to recognize the TOC contributors. Again, as I pointed out in the issue I want to point out that the only requirement again that was to TOC contributors is to put the tagged TOC contributor in your personal profile. There was no requirement to have actually contributed anything. So if you're going to preserve the list of people that's there you're going to need to review whether or not who actually was a contributor versus who just adopted the tag. Just for the record we also jumped in topics but that's completely fine. My gut is that this is a TOC question of where and how to represent work within CNCF. So I think one middle ground would be if we are able to store and retrieve the set of all the TLs and chairs that should definitely go on the website. If we make that machine possible that would be something that we know because we vote on it and we welcome people and we know when they step out. So we do have a set of people who are supposed to be the pillars of the community that are supposed to welcome newcomers and mentor other people into leadership roles and things like that. So I think that would be definitely something that I would like to see happen. Ideally this could also be generated from the same data we talked about just now where we have one machine readable file. Several does matter and really generate this from somewhere. I think if we can have a centralized space to have links to all these tags and then you know on each of all these tags on the webpage and then under each tag you know there's a list of you know I see current thing each tag I see these chairs but also list for that tag. I also have a list of contributors who are really contributing to that tag. Speaking for for one tag that might be difficult to maintain just because unlike the actual CNCF projects we don't have contribution metrics for tags. There is something which sorry let me restart. OpenTelemetry has some tooling to extract names from meeting documents to see who participated in what meetings to put this alongside information which they can extract from GitHub and such. That would be one option to to extract this kind of information. I would just want to add that tag security used to maintain an active listing of their contributors and found that enduring so it was unwieldy to maintain up-to-date information. I believe there is still an open issue with the CNCF to explore the possibility of a badging construct that allows the technical leadership of a tag to issue badging to its contributors because not all contributions happen in the form of a Git commit or a PR could be an out-of-band discussion that takes place or a Google doc that gets ridden and then converted into markdown in the form of a PR and we really didn't have a good way of capturing a lot of that nuance and all of the contribution value that comes from a widely diverse community badging would be ideal and I know that the foundation already does this with credly badges when we have program committee members for any of the various conferences. A potential expansion of that would also be reaching back out to GitHub to understand whether or not we can issue badges to those individual profiles much in the same way that you get them for the Arctic code vaults or Hacktoberfest or any of those other event-oriented badging schemas that GitHub offers. And yeah I'll drop a quick update on that one. The credly side of the house is actually in progress with the training team. GitHub is kind of like but hoping to be able to like get like more of those wheels turning so all right Richie passing back to you then. Yeah I'm waiting if someone else is still anyone else on this topic? I'm actually wondering do we need to have some sort of assignment or action items in terms of this or this is more about just open discussion for now or open discussion on the TOC or the PR on the GitHub repository? I think after the call if we should go around like the things that we spoke about if we could create issues or comment on existing issues that will be a good Ricardo. The things that you brought up for example right like so make sure that it is covered in an existing issue if not we can just please create a new one. Okay so it's good thank you. From a purely formal point of view that's why I started with I'm not sure if this is even within TOC domain. My gut is that this is probably more a governing board not a TOC thing of course this is more marketing and such on the plus side Dems and I can carry this into governing board and just have that discussion there informed from what the TOC and what the technical community within CNCF wants to have. So this is not a problem as such this is just formalizing this properly because else I'm mentally blocking this like I don't think that within TOC we can say okay this should be done but I do think that there is a good way to just get a rubber stamp on the consensus. Sounds good thank you. Richie for me the problem statement is you typically is when somebody new is asking me a question hey where in CNCF do I go talk to who do I talk to right so that we need to answer that question by saying hey here is a list of tags here is the list of working groups under the tags and here are the contacts for the working groups or the tags and you know here are the people that are responsible for you know the day-to-day working off these things so those all these things should be you know easy to find so that we can tell people hey go follow the thread and you'll find who you need to talk to where they have their meetings and so on. I mean at the technical level sorry I thought you were finished. Oh no I'm done. On the technical level A again having having machine-readable sources or one source of truth we know from both Kubernetes and Prometheus that label sets are quite powerful so I mean ideally we have lists of people we attach labels to them and then we have just different views on that data and you just represent that data from whatever label and someone has label X and you have overview X and you can just filter it down in ideally not as a confusing way as in the landscape but basically something like this and then just generate this dynamically based on what you're looking for and at the same time we can then overhaul the landscape and also apply label sets and proper searching and it will be a lot less confusing but that's a topic for a different day. Anyone else on this topic with a new topic? Hey I guess I don't I don't understand why it wouldn't work just to have a list of tags and tag leads where we currently have a block of TOC contributors. I agree with you Josh we should do that. Yeah that's the easy thing to do and we should do it yes. And to be clear this is also something which I don't think needs any coordination across CNC of course that is absolutely and clearly within within the scope of TOC just decide themselves. And the mechanism to do this right now is that we have to like for TOC members we say TOC member in a JSON file in the CNC of people I guess we need to come up with some standardized naming convention for each tag or a working group within a tag so that then we can go around changing that either that or we have a separate YAML file that essentially has this information and the generator that picks up the existing information from CNC of people can cross check with the new YAML file and then render the name and the name of the tag and the name of the working group and things like that. So I think we need to get it done for sure and I definitely support this. I also have thoughts on the technical details but let's do this in the issue. I understand the TOC right I see we have link to the tags and then so there are links to the tags and then under that webpage there are links to each tag under each tag there is you know there is I mean the chairs these are listed and working groups meeting information are listed so I'm a little bit not clear so what's the new requirement? So Kathy one thing for example is in the cncf.io website we used to have pictures of people with who they are and what they do that has gotten dropped off because we cleaned up what we used to have before called the TOC contributors so we need to persist some information that the website folks can use to generate those pictures on the cncf.io website that is what is missing. Okay I think the problem of having that is you know those information may be obsolete right so are we going are we saying we would add back some contributors name there? Yeah and what we are seeing is we should at least have tag chairs and technical leads of tags at a minimum that is what we were talking about so far. Okay. Very differently for contributing levels where you don't have a lot of churn and where you have more processes involved to to set or remove a stamp it's much more likely that it won't go out of date or become stale or out of sync. Anyone else? Any new topics? Should we go back to what Dems put into chat then over to you Dems. Let me share my screen. I'm on it there go. Okay so let's start from the bottom I think I should have sorted it the other way so the landscape metadata I think we are in a good position I think the last I talked to GFI most of the information is there so we can move forward with cleaning up that markdown file. The TOC contributors we've been talking about that indirectly or indirectly you know for the last half hour. The code attribution one I think it needs a little bit more input from other people right now it's just you know some of the thoughts that I had this was about how do when people want to grab a whole bunch of code from another project and use it in their project what is the kind of things that they need to think about and you know how do we they make how do we make sure that we preserve the notices and you know copyright headers and things like that what have we been following so far in different projects and how do we codify that so that when when somebody new when a new sandbox project that comes and asks us hey here is the you know the instruction manual go look at it and read and follow it so that is the best practices for code. We talked about the request and response for sandbox and you know I think we have an update from Emily there Emily did you want to talk about that a little bit? Yep so we've been updating the issue in fact Josh thank you so much for that immediate comment. Josh has extracted the existing question list and commented on the issue so before we start going through and doing this monumental change to the sandbox project and changing all the repos and the links and things if we can get as much feedback as possible on the issue of like the things that we're specifically looking for what are those changes to those questions that way when we get started down this process the review period for public comment is a lot more simplified because we'll have a well understood structure before us um so please take the time and go through we don't have any real timeline other than we'd like to be able to announce it at KubeCon North America and start implementing the new process shortly thereafter. The talk is actually fairly close to closing out the backlog of existing sandbox applications and we feel like we've learned a lot going through this and trying to streamline it and refine it a little bit more especially as the ecosystem continues to mature so your feedback is welcome and very much appreciated. Thank you and I do want to go to the two or more foundations but before that I wanted to just quickly cover the three projects that we are currently tracking and worried about um actually there's one more um the open EBS I forgot about that um so it's a project they've been having trouble with lack of maintainers um existing maintainers have moved on so um there was some promises by some organizations to staff HCD and that is not yet happening there was one person from VMware who became a maintainer recently so um at least there is a little bit more coverage right now but what ended up happening was from Google I think the number of maintenance dropped from two to one so so yeah attrition is happening and we don't have enough people with the knowledge and the skills that are needed for HCD to step forward so if you know of people who would be interested in it contributing to HCD please send them our way because um you know this is a critical component to Kubernetes so that was a call for action to the folks here on the call. Any questions there on HCD? I think we have we have an update an offer for an update. Um yeah um so as as just speaking as as a very minor at HCD contributor um the um so a number of new people have stepped forward to help with HCD technically um either sponsored by vendors or not uh some of them independently which is really good however um we're still in a situation where the only two people who knew 100 percent comprehended 100 percent of the HCD code um I left without mentoring anyone so um a lot of the situation is that we don't have anybody currently maintaining the project who really has a comprehensive understanding of all of the parts of HCD so um we're going to be doing a lot of self-education around that and don't expect to see much in the way of HCD releases other than bug fixes for a while. Yeah um so there were some thoughts there from the HCD team about hey can we um can we tell people that we are not accepting any new features and we're going to be in a bug fix uh maintain our mode maintenance mode uh for the foreseeable future and things might change later um things like that so we should like encourage steps like that which will reduce the burden on the whoever is left right now so that they can help mentor the people coming in right okay so um the the Brigade Project um we got an update yesterday or day before uh saying that um you know the annual report there was a um there was a there were some comments from the maintainers in the annual report uh that you know they would like to archive the project because you know there's only four people at that time and most of them are not working on this anymore so um I'm trying to surface that information here so that we can all go figure out like are there people who use Brigade and you know will they be able to help um you know sustain the Brigade Project so but then we so far what has happened is a few people stepped up and they were not able to do the things that were required so the new set of people also end up saying hey let's archive the project so that's the situation we are in right now um and we'll probably give some kind of heads up to folks and figure out how to shut it down in a phase manner I guess um archive it so um any questions about Brigade here okay and the last one uh was uh with respect to health was Cortex Project so anybody here wants to talk about that uh Richie the closest is you right um in terms of um uh the tagly is on uh for observability uh yeah also just for the record for anyone who doesn't know most probably do but uh I also work for Grafana Labs so many different heads many different things um if you look into the into the issue Grafana Labs forked Cortex into a year and is not sponsoring development of um of Cortex development anymore um that's part of the announcement blog post which uh which dimslinked um currently there are four uh maintainers employed by other companies unless I'm wrong two aws one adobe one google um the google person hasn't done much anything in the last year or so um and there's not a huge uptake in in slack on the positive side there is uptake in the last two months like you can see the curves go back up again and I do think that it's healthy at the same time it's not as fast paced as it used to be it's not as fast paced as either Thanos or Prometheus which is always like the the three uh in which Prometheus Cortex Thanos are moving um the ideal outcome in this this call for help would be in particular for users of Cortex and there are quite a few large users uh who derive value from it to start investing in it and getting people um on payroll or moving them or hiring them or what have you um with an intention to to work on Cortex similar to all the other projects met um yeah uh so I've just updated that issue issue 899 with some reports and some analysis that I ran uh a few months ago and today tomorrow this week um I'll be updating that to to include the most the time since uh may uh that that you were just speaking about you know showing that uptick but uh what's there now uh is is sort of from the beginning of time through um through may of this year with some initial high level stuff um and Alelida and I and uh you uh you know we'll be working on on on some more concrete recommendations uh on on what the Cortex project might might need but uh I completely agree that you know we're going to start with some of the larger users of Cortex and see what their resource allocation is and and you know start start talking to the likes of um Workday and others that that are listed as as as using Cortex in production I mean it may be that you know what's needed is community management and or project management it may be in addition to to engineering that that's the case but but we'll be looking at making uh before the next TLC meeting some more concrete recommendations on on this right the inflection point for for contributions is March 13th um that's that's the most interesting data as you can also see uh in the in the block um my own personal opinion is the main thing which is needed is more hands as in software engineers um yeah again the reason for surfacing it here is so we can go around telling folks that you know this is where these are the projects that need help and these are the places where they need help for sure um so I think I'm done with the list of issues except for the one from Emily can we go to that one please so Emily I wanted to know where is this coming from rather than what you're asking itself right like yeah what led to us talking about this um so over the past several months I have been asked by various members of the CNCF both within the talk as well as within tank security and other conversations I've had what's going on an open SSF um in fact tank security has an open issue it's number 969 and their repository to tighten up the collaboration between open SSF and tank security because a lot of their work is very similar in that the the largest difference between tank security and the open SSF is the the fact that they're more targeted on cloud native which makes a lot of sense but a lot of the value in some of these security proposals and deliverables that are coming out of the tag aren't fundamentally unique to cloud native they're the adoption of best practices within industry that have been growing over the past several decades and that's really where open SSF is starting to take off on a side note we are also within the foundation starting to see more integrations with other projects outside of the foundation but leveraging cloud native technology to allow them to meet their adopters needs we've seen some sandbox applications come up where we're not sure whether or not the project quite fits within the cloud native definition um and may actually belong better or perform better as part of a separate foundation that aligns more with that mission goal and objective so i wanted to highlight this because these questions are starting to come up and as with anything in incident response if you're reading the instructions in the middle of a firefighter in the middle of an incident you've probably waited too long so having that information kind of planned out or at least roughed out to say that we've had the discussion and we have a general idea of how to proceed forward is ideal before we're actually faced with making a decision but as chris anichak has said in the past it's always nice to have something to work from as an example um so i wanted to kind of bring this up here as i've brought it up with the open SSF there are some legal and licensing and code of conduct kind of items that do need to be fleshed out that are more governance oriented but i don't see anything within any of the chargers both within cnc fm with an open ssf that prohibits a project from existing in affiliation with more than one foundation either as a home foundation where it properly belongs and received most of its benefits from as well as a guest foundation in that it's featured there and those community members are actively encouraged to take advantage of leverage or contribute to and this is beyond just the projects themselves this also could potentially expand to the tags the technical advisory groups within the cncf of which there may be some overlapping work because we have been around a fair amount of time and we've been doing this for quite a bit so we understand kind of some of the challenges in executing such a vast amount of work not with my current uh sharing the thing but with my my toc had on um this is not something which seems f can decide which is part of why like the and i fully realized the irony of you running against walls uh because i i do think this is something which absolutely shouldn't needs to be discussed as um as there is more and more overlap between uh foundations and between their intentions and also more cross-collaboration um i don't know where i saw it but i saw somewhere um something about bouncing those things up into linux foundation because that is the root foundation for all of the foundations which comes with a whole lot of procedural baggage because different toc different people to work with blah blah blah um on the on the trademark and everything and on the legal side everything is linux foundation any anyway any feel free to yell and scream the wrong about this but i think i'm correct um basically legally speaking everything is linux foundation anyway so this is uh it could just move there as far as i'm aware um benefit would be you can you can go to more than one conference as a first party thing if you have honest overlap the downside is some people might shop around to achieve this kind of thing final thought on the downside if you have for example two tocs and they don't agree on a technical thing and they want to pull in different directions who's the final arbiter do you have an escalation mechanism within linux foundation probably yes how would this look like who would stuff it blah blah blah blah all that being said i think it's a good conversation to have yeah i i kind of agree in the sense that it needs to be dealt with at a higher level i mean definitely not at the toc level it needs to go to the gb at least from our side um and there are a lot of paper cuts for sure that'll show up i'll give you one example right i was reviewing i think six store stuff and the dependencies of six store and they have like vast amount of dependencies even when compared with kubernetes and you know just getting it just thinking about getting an exception for those dependencies is like you know is going to be a hell of a challenge so just small things like that you know dependencies ip copyright notices all those things are going to be like things that are going to be contested between the foundations the idea of a home and guest definitely seems to resonate with me in the sense that okay we all follow the rules of the home foundation but we'll also get you know you know starred or space in the when there are things happening in the guest foundation as well i think this needs to go up the chain for sure that would be my idea so i think the follow-up for this would be irishie and me taking it up to the gb level i guess or at least sending them an email saying hey is this something that you want us to deal with or do you want to talk about it somewhere else um so that is something that we can do emily is there any prior art on this has this never come up before this is a new thing i don't know chris is on and talk to historically who've ever had this happen he's not i'm not aware of this and amy also shook her head so i think um this isn't really something which happened um just to do the german formal thing again even governing board can't can't decide this they can only inform it or suggest something one way to get a quicker return might be to just poke chris and a check about it um chris he has the appropriate amount of hats to also speak for the foundation okay we'll delegate to chris then i'm not saying delegation i'm just saying in particular for emily this might be a good way to just get something more quickly of course if chris says absolutely not never um governing board can't force it through um at least not the governing board of the cncf the governing board of the linux foundation could force it through um but yeah those are precisely those interdependencies against your bumping on the project level um which we will be bumping against on the on the um charter or whatever level uh so probably getting the gut of chris and a check is is a good first step yeah as to this point um the nearest or this do you want to speak up right yeah i could do if i unmute myself yeah i was just um pointing out that i think there have been sort of collaborative um events between foundations at least where their linux foundation foundations um the one that spanned to my mind was um the continuous delivery foundation i'm pretty sure did a colo at the cube con at one point and i know chris when the cdf was first created was very kind of bullish about the fact that there could be kind of collaboration between those foundations i'm not sure that anything really happened beyond the kind of coexistent um you know co-located events um i think it's you know there's there's some interest here i think this is it it does it would be interesting to kind of see the outcome of a joint i don't know open ssf and cncf security group that it does feel like sometimes there's duplicate effort so i do think this is a really interesting idea and one of the things that i want to highlight here is that i do not want the community members to feel like they have to forcibly choose between one foundation for the other if that's where their interest lies particularly when their skill sets and their talents are well used in both groups or in multiple foundations so anything we can do to ease that experience for them and to make it more enjoyable will certainly allow us to retain more of those active contributors and potentially elevate them into more leadership positions where we have the most need yeah i think in my opinion it might be just be better to document the collaboration between the both foundations and the projects and have transparency so the collaborators can choose you know where they want to invest their effort yeah traditionally it's like i hope you were talking before chris says the most hats so basically what we are saying is like if we get the people to work on both i mean different projects from both the foundations i think that is the best way to increase the collaborative nature for it but yes matt was also pointing out that you know there is an event which is jointly held is not the same as dealing with ip between the foundations matt do you want to speak more about it oh i was just going to say that you know when it's all in the linux foundation it's one shared organization that holds all the intellectual property and right that's one of the perks of and one of the reasons people put their projects into the cncf is you know multiple companies can work together on the same thing and the ip is held by one organization but when you've got two organizations so you're bringing a foundation outside of the linux foundation um then you've got two organizations and the projects are both part of both of them then how does that intellectual property work and who owns it and what does that mean and that's just a big harry legal question um that i don't know the answer to and it's something that before we could go down that path we need advice on and anybody whether it's us the governing board the linux foundation board any of that stuff probably needs legal advice on to even know what our options are and that other foundation we have to be a part of we then have to deal with those things as well so they'd be having to wheel uh willing to even jump through some harry hoops on that as well and so that's just a bunch of stuff that has to be worked out right this was also handled in chat to some extent i think we are talking about two different things um one is cross collaboration and cross membership between different sub foundations of linux foundation for example cc and cf and open ssf and the other is to have linux foundation in some some complete distinct entity i think it's already hard enough to to try and solve the former i somewhat strongly believe there is no solution to the letter it's almost like you need a primary foundation and a secondary one that's like a oem like if we look to like you know examples and uh industry it seems like we would need some sort of agreement there to do that but i agree there has to be a primary foundation that makes the decisions especially if they have competing to see interests um i don't think we see that now but i think it would be it's a good time to to bring it up because it'll probably become way more common and especially to emily's point in the security space you know it's it's pretty diverse and moving rapidly and i do have heard feedback from various members that it is a choice today whether it's open ssf or cncf and there doesn't seem to be a clear path to be able to be participate actively in both effectively okay i was just thinking you know as soon as you have this kind of concept of a host or primary foundation that's kind of owning the ip and and setting the rules it i'm not quite sure what the kind of guests you know can't is there anything that the kind of guests i couldn't just do by participating in the host organization is this more about saying we want to rationalize some of these groups in which case that might mean you know maybe there is no longer a i'm just going to pick this out of the air as an example maybe tag security becomes something that open ssf owns and you know cncf kind of ask for help from open ssf for security related things would that not be the kind of logical endpoint of this route i hadn't really thought about it going that way so i don't know that's i think that's entirely possible that things evolve and maybe they move in that direction when they become more specialized or big enough not to you know be underneath the umbrella of the cncf anymore i i guess that's a great point to bring up yeah and i'm not saying that's necessarily a good or bad thing i'm just sort of trying to think of where you know what the endpoint would be or the direction of travel would take us this is the last thing that i had in that topic was like hey right now we have the open ssf might think that hey cncf you were in the limelight for a long time now it's our turn and you're coming to encroach on our you know on our things so that was another um you know social aspect of it uh as well right um so i don't know anyway it's definitely above our pay grade and we we start by tagging uh requesting Chris's help and see where it goes okay all right we're at time um so we'll leave that one be good to see you all thanks everybody bye thanks all thank you