 Llewgech chi bod yn rhoi'r cwm dryddol. Rwy'n cael ei dwybrau. I thought about if we're going to just talk a little bit about the community at the CNCF, and some of the things that the TOC has had to deal with, and in particular the scale issues that we're trying to deal with. But if we're going to talk about the CNCF we have to just pause what the CNCF is here to do. This is the screenshot of the homepage Mae'r cyfrif assigned, mae'n cystiad yn gwle bitesh nid yn arddangos,來了 filling s не deckad o gen i'w gw Kubald. Wrth gwrs rydych chi'n might ym dahl iawn i weld hynny, os â dyma eich feithio canaf gan chamer newsydd Criag調. Rwy'n ymddir concise widd fy celfawr, sy'n incluso mai ddolpas hyn games Heaven. Dydw i'r griffwng fydd yn crec Majestyas, ti wno llawer o'r pwyllgor ddelligol a rainfall yn dweud hyn newydd eich cyfryeredd. not off-putting, you know, welcoming to people. We are also about sustaining the ecosystem around this. This is about the project, it's about the users for those projects, it's about the vendor community that fund all of this. You know, we have a lot of different, different subsets of our community difaint interests that we need to cater for. We are trying to balance those interests such that it is good for the projects and the end-users and the vendors. We have a charter that tries to abbreviate the sections of the charter into the key headings. Today, I was just going to wedi gydag o dwy o'r tyffalaeth ffordd o'r llataethau hynny yw'r bobl y profiad yw'r cyffredinfaeth? First is, past is better than slow. Second is, that the CNCF should represent a strong technical identity that we're very much about this software that we call Cloud Native. What does that mean and what does that require from different projects in order to meet that identity? It's not an easy thing to I think that's one of the challenges for the TOC and the TOC community to internalise what this identity is and figure out how our projects can fit with that identity. We also have this set of TOC principles really describing how the TOC operates within that charter. So how do we, as a TOC community, identify good projects? How do we work with those projects? How do we foresee this landscape, this stack? Again, I'm not going to dwell on all of the different bullet points here, but the thing that I did want to highlight here is that we're looking for these high quality, high velocity projects. So, in particular, those first two words, high quality, it's not enough for a project to just be cloud native. We also have this sense of no king makers. I nearly highlighted that one as well, but we are trying to offer choice to end users, but we somehow have to figure out what that high quality aspect means. High velocity probably means that it's evolving fast, that it has lots of contributors, it has lots of end users, that it's evolving towards its product market fit, approaching that well and fast. As I say, the high quality bit is pretty hard to measure. If I kind of put those together, what the TOC community has to try to do, one of our main roles is assessing projects for whether or not they're high quality within this boundary of what cloud native means and what their strong technical identity means. Cloud native projects are known for being scalable, being API driven, being dynamic, so that's the kind of thing that we're looking for from this identity, but it's not a check box exercise. Particularly at what we call the incubation stage, there's this really significant amount of due diligence that the TOC engages in reviewing the project documentation, trying the project out, interviewing end users to understand their experiences, looking at the code, assessing the way the project governed, and trying to make sure that it meets the CNCF's non-technical requirements as well, the things around open governance and neutrality. And we do get help from the CNCF staff, help us with some of that, but in the end the TOC is the group that gets asked to make these judgments. There's a lot of work here. It's non-trivial to assess these projects, which leads us to the issue of scale and the issue of how in such a successful foundation we're growing, the number of projects is growing. We know we still have gaps in the landscape, but we do have this increasing number of projects. We're at almost 50 projects in the CNCF now. And you can see by the graph that the number that have graduated has been growing, the number that's in incubation has been relatively stable, but that says something about Sandbox projects moving up into incubation and incubation projects moving up into graduation. Pretty linear growth over the past couple of years. But it's not linear in terms of applications. I didn't go back into history to look at all the applications in the past, but we have had this really significant interest in the CNCF. There are a lot of projects out there that want to be part of the foundation because it's successful and they have great offerings and they want to be part of this fact that the building blocks of a stack that induces can assemble. So that's if we wanted to try and assess all of those projects at incubation level, that would be a large, large, large amount of work. And in addition to the Sandbox, we have projects increasingly wanting to move up between Sandbox and incubation. So right now, there's not quite a half, but I think about 40% of the number of projects that want to be assessed is about 40% of the total number of projects on the to do list. So it's a lot of stuff out there looking to be assessed in one way or another. And that is really hard to reconcile with this principle of fast is better than slow. So I guess that over a year ago, well, we had the technical oversight committee is one of the kind of three pillars of the CNCF. We added in the six and the six has been hugely useful, really useful resource of having this amazing group of people who have much more in depth knowledge of certain areas than some of us do on the TOC. Lots of us have individual focuses on particular areas, but we can broaden out beyond our 11 members to these amazing people on the six to try and help us with this. And try and help us cope with this backlog that's been building up of assessments. And more people it gives us this more expertise, it gives us more time. I think this is worth mentioning in terms of community. Most of us are doing these roles in the TSE. This is certainly true. And I think across the six, I think across and the, you know, Kubernetes six, I think across a lot of projects, people are paid. I think most contributors are probably being paid by an organization to do a job, but they're not necessarily being given a huge amount of time to work on CNCF specific things. A lot of us have full time jobs doing software engineering and we're working around that. So being able to recruit time from a bigger pool is hugely valuable. But it also means that we have increased divergence of opinions. You know, what do we mean by high quality? What do we mean by cloud native? How do we even draw that kind of bars? What bar should we be drawing? And the underlying problem that we have to face up to is that it can be more confusing projects. This is something that I think, you know, we're recognizing there is a balance here between leveraging all this amazing expertise, but also just it being more confusion for the project and the increasing number of projects out there. So this is one of the reasons why in the CNCF we are simplifying or we're experimenting with simplifying the sandbox process. And I think we're trying to do this by reducing significantly the amount of assessment that we'll do at the sandbox stage. We might still be saying if we don't think they're like a fit for cloud native, you know, this isn't going to be a catchall or every single open source project. We want to be able to have some feel that it is a cloud native project, but we're not going to give any guarantees to end users. We never have given guarantees to end users about sandbox projects, but it's always been very confusing. We've had sandbox projects leveraging the CNCF name to promote their projects. That's one of the reasons why it's been so popular. Not necessarily good for those end users who are really important constituency of our community. So we're going to try really hard with this evolving sandbox process to clarify to end users that there is no due diligence that's been done on these projects that we believe they're cloud natives, but we really not assessing them in any further way. This is very much work in progress. We'll have to see how this evolves. I think it's potentially going to be painful. Every process change is a bit painful, but I hope that it's going to enable us to improve the scale with which we operate on that one. I just wanted to end with the fact that although we do have some growing pains around dealing with these assessments and dealing with the sandbox process in particular, from the this year's maintainers survey, the vast majority of project maintainers are really happy with the service that they're getting from the CNCF and that they would recommend the CNCF to other projects. We hear quite a lot in the TOC about the projects that are frustrated with how long it can take to get through assessments or projects that have applied and maybe not had a good answer of why they've been not accepted and trying to improve those elements. We hear a lot about that and it worries us. I always want to close on the fact that although there are flaws and lots of things we can learn, CNCF is doing a lot of good things for a lot of projects and making those projects available and raising the awareness of them to a lot of end users. Overall, as a community, we are doing good things. With that, I will wrap up there and hope that it makes sense. Thank you. I want to reiterate that CNCF is doing more than a few good things. They're doing a lot of great things. We really appreciate all the work that you've put into it and all the members of the TOC have too. I know from experience having tried to drive things through some of them getting in, some of them not, that it's a process, it's an evolving process. The thing that I want to stress too is that today is really talking about the lessons that we've learned along the way. What I think is wonderful about the CNCF is your ability to understand when things are going awry and needing to change processes and adapt to the environment. The sandbox example is a very good example. From my perspective, it's probably the right move. It's very hard to remove the branding of CNCF as if it's a blessing on a sandbox. That's going to be tactically a hard thing to do. That's really one of the things that does it. One of the conversations that I'm going to unmute are just so we have a few minutes to wrap up that Aloise and Aaron and your fellow AMA and Brian. What we were talking about a little bit before you came in was from a community development process. A lot of people managed to make it through the CNCF incubation, get incubation in sandbox, and they think this is an instant karma thing. They're all of a sudden going to get all of this wonderful new information, new community members, new contributors, new engineers working on their project. Much sometimes to their shock and surprise, they don't get that. The TOC is about vetting and doing this, but the component that seems to me to be missing is the coaching on how to develop communities once you're in the door. I wonder if you can address that just a tiny bit here, what the CNCF's perspective is on whose responsibility it is to do the community development once it's gone on. Recently, I'm going to say maybe a couple of months ago, I have a SIG called Contributor Strategy. A lot of that is about helping projects to learn about that kind of community building aspect. The people behind it includes Paris, who have such a huge amount of experience of building community around Kubernetes. For a while, we've been saying how can we leverage the amazing things that the Kubernetes community did in terms of recruiting people. I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of people they have who have contributed to Kubernetes. They've been so successful in that onboarding of contributors. We have to be able to learn some of that goodness for other projects. Super excitingly, when Paris suggested, hey, do you think we could maybe put somebody together to share some of this experience? Yes, yes, that would be wonderful. It's still relatively early days, but I'm extremely bullish that that is going to be a game changer really for a lot of projects who want to learn how to onboard contributors. Sometimes projects don't necessarily want to. That's a whole other question, but where they do, I think that SIG resources from CNCF staff, just recognizing that it's all well and good, us talking about things like mutual governance, but people need to be able to recruit maintainers. So how do they do that? What's the process for making your project scene welcoming and exciting? We're going to try and improve that. Improve the education process for that. Brian or Aaron or Allways before I pipe in again. Is there anything you'd like to add to that? Pause for a minute. Go ahead, Brian. Yeah, so everything that Liz says and I mean, I will just chime in and Diane knows this. There is lots of people from lots of places with lots of priorities and lots of constraints, and we need to realize that that it does take all types to build this community that we're trying to build. And sometimes from your point of view, this is the best thing and the most right thing ever doesn't fit where the TOC is or where the SIG is or where the community is. And it's difficult and frustrating, but I mean, I've watched what Liz is doing and we just need to first have a process and then follow that process. And I think over time it'll smooth itself out because right now it is difficult and I can see why people would look the other ways or thinking that something's negative is going on. So I just want people to keep that in mind. Allways, did you have something to add there? Yeah, that's other what I always saw with projects and that's been in my role on both sides here, but I mean to be to be told that long here if you even want to get into the CNCF that the process might be taking a bit longer as the CNCF is growing and has to adjust, it shouldn't really hold your approach in back. It should still be working on your project, building on community, working with your end users. And the way that Liz mentioned like a contributor strategy meeting is a CNCF calendar. It's a public meeting. So even this might be like a public secret now, even if you're not a CNCF project, you can still join a meeting if you're part of the CNCF and learn from people there. And I just see people so much clinking like to this batch of honor from the CNCF that they were a CNCF project and then they start working. No, it helps you in certain situations. Like for example, if the companies like this round wanted to work on something together and wanted to go to the project, it would be incredibly hard for us to do this. But still first we would need to agree on a common agenda and so forth. And then the CNCF blessing might be the icing on the cake. And so when projects come in there, I think what we can, it's great to have a computer strategy there. What we sometimes just try to do as well as to stick to is we try to connect them to other people that should be. Okay, this is another project you might think was then you might talk about topics with stamina. It's received in different ways or something. Well, never thought about this. Thank you for that. That's what we're here for. And I just want you to this point before want to be run left alone. But then you're not leveraging that community that you want to get into. And I think that's what you very quickly see also for people submitting projects. We, as the sick chairs, are also not stupid. We understand the intentions. And we obviously see that having the CNCF badge helps. But what even more helps you if people like your project, if they engage with you, if they discuss technical topics and see that you're a great solution. And beyond everything should be your foremost goals when you're interacting there. So Erin, would you like the almost last word? I mean, I think there's a lot of talk around intentions and motivations. And I sincerely do think that the community of people, both TOC chairs and Stig chairs and everyone involved has the best intentions. They really believe in the community. They believe in open source. And I think that's the perfect combination of how we move stuff forward. In addition to the community building, I think it's super important to have all these people together. Singing the same song, debating things openly. I think it's just great to be able to have a platform to do that in. And for me, I think the SIGS has really helped cultivate that. So I'll take the last word. And Brian actually said, used the phrase end user. And one thing that I would like to see more of and having Paris start up the contributors strategy SIG is a great thing. But a recognition that community is more than contributors. It is the end user community. It is all the people who are integrating, all the people who are leveraging your technology or your project. And so a more expansive view of what community is and better coaching for these incoming projects or ancillary projects that are touching on the cloud native. I think is something that we can all do better than hopefully as we move forward with contributor strategy, we expand it to be more ecosystem wide in the personas that they're pursuing to contribute. Because there's a lot of legacy around the word contributor. And along with meritocracy and all of the other good open source words we all grew up on. But to really open up our understanding of what community is. And CNCF has done an amazing job getting an end user community forum set up for CNCF to get the voices heard from the people who are using the technologies. But I think we can, as always, always do better and we're looking forward to collaborating with you guys all on that. So that's not a critique. That's an offer to expand the horizons I think from that. And thank you Liz for figuring out the time zones and for bringing the TOC clarity there that I think everybody is looking for. And continue to evolve the processes and the people that are involved in the TOC. We know it's a lot of work and we really appreciate the effort. Thank you very much for having me. Apologies again for my lateness. And thank you to all of the SIG chairs by the here on this call or possibly looking later and other SIG contributors because we really appreciate your help.