 Good morning. We'll give folks a few more minutes to come on in. I know that Liz said that she had a conflict for today, so we have moved some pieces off the schedule. The intention was to be able to have a conversation around graduation requirements, but we kind of need Liz and a few more people who are out of the office for that. So that one's going to be postponed. So sorry for anybody wanted to come talk about that. That's not on the agenda today. All right, seeing folks coming on in. We're up to 30 people in here, so giving a little longer. I see Elena. I see Jeff Brewer here. I see Matt Klein. I see Sheng. Just kind of like circling around the room to make sure that I've got the Katie's here as well. Your opportunity to like, you know, wave. All right, so I will go ahead and get us started here. I'm anticipating a pretty short meeting today. So again, Liz couldn't make it here today, but our normal pre-meeting pieces here. You have made it to this particular meeting, the July 21st meeting. And anticipating kind of a short meeting today, frankly, because the conversation is really being able to look at our sandbox annual reviews that are currently outstanding. And a note about a new CNCF office hour meeting for projects for folks that want to be able to come by and kind of conversation about that. So with that, I will drop in towards here are our current annual reviews. They are currently being tracked on the projects board at this eight link over here. And right now these have been sitting out here for a while and I'd really like to be able to get some eyes on it or have maybe conversation about why maybe things just aren't moving as quickly. Network service mesh kind of needs three to see sponsors we've got cube edge that needs one to be able to push across the line. Telepresence is in the same boat as is brigade open EBS so being able to get eyes on these would be great. And what we really need is for to see people to be able to come and put a, hello, Michelle. Hello. Excellent. A just just a looks good to me on here and this is a chance to be able to close these out because these are kind of the bulk of our annual reviews right now. So, with that, I will leave the floor open for to see members to unmute conversations. Michelle I know that you had some pieces around how we wanted to be able to improve this process moving forward. The sandbox annual review process. Yeah. Yes. Same approach as, as the sandbox process in terms of like, you know, just like follow the form, answer some questions, and then the TOC can kind of go through them in one meeting. Just kind of go down the list so we can go through all the reviews at a particular cadence. And therefore, you know people wouldn't have to wait. So I think we can describe this proposal in the TOC mailing list and I don't think there were any objections so don't so the question is, do we want to go ahead and start that, or do we want to continue doing reviews the way that we have been doing until we go to this new process. So my, my hope is that we can actually implement this fairly soon. The challenge has actually been finding a meeting time to be able to do that and since we had to move the graduation requirements off of that I figured here is a great opportunity to be able to release some of these annual reviews, clear some of this off, and probably start that process in the next month. So if we can get these taken care of, then from there I think we can move towards being able to say, yes, in one of these meetings we just do like a very quick review, and it goes towards either a simple majority, or a two thirds majority. Yeah, that sounds good to me. So, yeah, looking forward to being able to like hey look these are going to be easy and quick to be able to say, yes, we intend for these projects to be able to continue here's ways that we can help support you. And some of them have actually moved on to be able to apply for incubation as well. And those two processes are totally separate. I know there's been some confusion about this. This is really just designed to be able to make sure that we are maintaining the sandbox. Elena, go ahead. Yeah, I had a question of just about that as from the comments to the PR is that there was a confusion from the users of how how it should be done the incubation filing for incubation and filing for the sandbox annual reviews. So those are completely independent processes. And I try to be able to let everybody know these are totally like separate things, applying for incubation is a much higher bar than just the sandbox annual reviews the annual reviews are being able to talk about. What are you done in the last year, what are your goals, what are things going on and how can we help really. And the sandbox annual review can be like a step to the incubation review at least for the reference is a reference. Yeah, other questions on here comments. I have a question. This is Ricardo. So if a project is admitted into incubation and PR for sandbox reviews still open does you just need to close that PR or, I mean, or do they still need to go through that process. Are you talking about the mechanics of being able to actually like the here's here's how things work as far as the annual reviews, like something has to be closed before the incubation can happen or am I missed for hearing. Well, I'm talking about Cube Edge, they're applying for incubation. And right now, the public comment period is going on. And yeah, and this PR is open here for sandbox review annual sandbox review and, and then what happens if after the vote is complete. And this PR is still open. Right. And, and this is for Cube Edge, but they might apply for some other projects too. So I think, you know what I want to know is like whether do they need to close this PR after it gets admitted into incubation or do they still need to do the sandbox process. So, like, because they've already put in their, their PR that the projects work here is complete. The project can move on towards being able to do incubation and all of that. Now it's kind of on us over on like to see and like CNCF staff side to be able to make sure that like that gets like completed as far as like here's your annual review, this is taken care of, and we move on to incubation. Michelle, my hearing. Oh, I mean, you might be speaking correctly here but I just think the process should be if you're applying for incubation, we're already doing like review and due diligence and things like that. So I think the annual review PR is a little bit redundant. And we should close that out. One TOC sponsor will do it, basically. That makes sense. Yeah, no, I mean, and part of what we're saying is like this is a new process here so I did want to be able to highlight in this morning's meeting to be able to walk through here are the things currently outstanding. And it seems like the projects are getting things on time we're just taking a long time to be able to kind of close it out on our end. So, I like the suggestion of being able to use the next TOC meeting to go through these. And our SIG update is the next public meeting. And that is August, as I bring things up August 4. So, yeah, if for whatever reason these don't get closed before that time. I'm perfectly happy to help put that on schedule. That would be awesome. Thank you. What I would love is to be able to have all of them closed before then, but if they're not That's good. The sandbox reviews. This week I should have more time on Thursday and Friday for that. For Brigade like I was part of that project at the very beginning. So I'm just wondering. Yeah, I think we need like a formal conflict of interest thing. Just to, like, there are some different opinions on the TOC about, you know, whether someone on a project should or should not be able to vote. I think we need to like move along the conflict of interest thing just so it's, it's super clear. I'm putting that down on the future agenda items. Here. For projects. Great. Thank you much appreciated. Alright, anything else around sandbox reviews any other questions anything that people have around this. Okay, I will move us on towards a very quick note. We have a new CNC of staff office hours piece as part of the new sandbox process. We would normally have had a meeting like that we would try to schedule with like the sandbox projects coming in and you'd be able to talk to CNC of staff. Right now with all of you we have all of you coming in. So we have a new staff office hours this is not limited to sandbox projects this can be any project to come by and come by and ask questions about like annual reviews incubation graduation like anything else. Also cube con questions also happy to answer those so for Thursday of the month this is now a repeating meeting. So just a note for that and I will see some of you there. That is all I had on the agenda today. Go ahead, Michelle. Now I'm just going to say that it's really cool. I'm glad people are taking advantage of that. I'm hoping we can scale better as far as being able to talk to all of the projects because there are a few of us and there are a lot of you. So, floor is open for other comments questions people wanted to be able to talk about anything else. I'm just watching chat and seeing if anybody on mute. I see a hand you said go ahead. You're still on mute. Maybe I can force on the mute. All right, I'll consider the the hand be a mistake. Anything else people wanted to be able to bring up this morning. Yeah. Yeah. There was just like a bunch of confusion around the annual review process and I was talking to Priyanka, our new ED. And we were just talking about how we kind of need to do a little revamp of the TOC repo. So I feel like maybe we should open up a GitHub issue around that. I think it means a little bit of a higher level. So, I think we should be able to get a little bit of a thought around like how the TOC repo should be structured and where things should go. Because I think we've been trying to like iteratively make things better, but I, I'm getting feedback that people are still confused or can't find certain documents. So Priyanka was willing to maybe have someone prank and Chris were maybe willing to have someone come and look at that maybe like a tech doc writer. What things they're confused about just so we can give a description of what we need to Priyanka and Chris. So I'll just open that issue up and in GitHub. I'm actually pretty certain that a few folks on the line will have opinions. We have Alex here who's been the SIG storage chair, Ricardo and Lee from both SIG. runtime and SIG network respectively pieces that working that aren't working for the repo Alex go ahead. I think it's from my point of view, the, the information is there. It's just distributed in lots of places. I think what it could do it is having a page that kind of tied everything together. So, so kind of along the lines of, you know, if you are going to apply. Here's a link to the application process. Once you have reviewed the application process, here's a link to where you need to apply a PR to. This is where the reviews go, you know, and just and just and just have like an index or or or or how to guide if you wish to actually follow through because I think if you look at the TSE repo, there are documents for just about everything. It's just, it's not obvious which ones to follow in which order. That that's my personal view. Right, definitely 100% agree with your approach here. We also talked about maybe putting that kind of workflow and all the forms on the CNCF website. I think we need to start with the repo first but since we're kind of moving towards the form. It might be nice to like have on the CNCF website like an application page and like some flow charts and stuff like that and make it pretty, but I think that can come after we organize the repo. Yeah, definitely Ricardo I saw you when you. Go ahead. Yeah. I think there's a little bit of confusion to with the sick repos and what should go in the sick repos. I mean, I would been putting some stuff there but there are no guidelines so so that may actually make some people confused about what you know they need to what information they need to find where right so maybe have the I would suggest and have having some central page where basically provides that information where you know people can just say okay I need to go to the single repo for this and I need to go to the TOC repo for that and, you know, so forth. Yeah, it's a really good, really good point. Thanks. Lee anything from your side given this is supposed to be like you know a sick chair meeting as well I'm calling the sick chairs out for feedback directly. What was that thing that dumpers mother said. I will hold until I have better better forms of question I think I there is some confusion on my end. But I don't know how to best articulate that or make suggestions just yet. That's completely fair. Mostly because this is yet kind of like an open question time here. So, all right, I will watch for that issue to come through and we'll. I'm not sure the best way to be able to actually do a good working meeting with folks here around that but happy to be able to look to that Michelle. I'm saying I'm saying some just submitting this issue now. It's issue for any seven. Perfect. Okay. All right, if there is nothing else that people want to be able to bring up. Excellent. I see that link. Perfect. I can give you all a few minutes back to be able to go look at the annual reviews again would love to be able to have these closed by the next TOC meeting. We'll definitely work on that. Yeah, good to see you all. Yes, always a pleasure. Thank you, Amy. Yeah, good fun.