 Morning, Lee. Hi, Morni. Yeah, today, Alois will not be here, and a lot of folks has asked for a leave for their vacation. So let's just go a very quick meeting, and we do have two agenda in the meeting notes. So the first update is from my side, and I will give you a quick update on the GitOps working group. I also see Dan is here, so maybe Dan can add more details back one. So there are basically two important progress here, and first is, of course, the first meeting of the working group has been successfully held. So it's very successful community meeting, and we see a lot of participators there, and they are all very excited to make sure that the whole working group is a open and vendor-neutral organization. So we are actually working with that. As part of the work, me and Alois has almost finished the working group charter draft, and the link is over there. So if you have any other inputs on that documentation, please just go ahead to comment, because we will finalize the working group charter, I think in this week or at least latest next week. And then when we have the working group charter, we will send it to CNCF, so the CNCF will give us an official meeting link and the calendar invitation. So that means the working group is established. And this is the first progress. A second one is, we have also talked with the current maintainers of the working group repo, and they are actually working on migrating the whole project to a independent organization. And I think the last step is from the VWorks folks, they need some legal improvement to move that thing from the Flux organization. And basically they need approval from the Flux maintainers. I don't see there's any blockers there, so it just will happen. These are two update from my side. And then do you have any upgrade on the GitOps working group? No, you covered it all perfectly. Sure, thank you. Do anyone have other inputs or questions regarding to the working group before we move to next discussion? I think once the working group moves, then you guys will, I mean, the community will decide the governance and how to pick maintainers and all of that, right? Yes, it's already documented in the working group charter. So there will be an election running after the working group is established. And so this is exactly the next step. And also the existing content in the working group report may need some revise because today it's fully inherited from the Flux, kind of some modeling documentation. So it's basically writing around the Flux. So we need to revise a little bit, a little bit to make it a fully independent project. This is also one of the next steps. Okay, so this is the first issue. The second issue is regarding to the operator working group. I didn't see Tom is here, so I will have to speak for him. So the progress is that the charter of the operator working group is also finished. And I have already reviewed this documentation. It's basically about operating technicians and the use cases of operators. So I believe people send out the draft documentation through the mailing list of the SIGAP delivery and everybody can add their final input. And just as a GitOps working group, we will try to finalize this charter and publish it as the official since you have working group charter in GitHub. So this is the next step. And there's also another thing happening in SIGAP delivery last week. That is the Flux project is asking for incubation review. So the SIG will also involve in that process but the decision maker at TOC. So we will try to provide the, every information we know and which we think is useful to the TOC. So if anyone in the SIG want to contribute or talk with me, please feel free to talk with me and alloys if you know any user story of Flux or you know anything you want to let TOC know or you think there's anything is useful to help or anything you need to mention in the process of the reviewed Flux, please feel free to ask me on the Slack, talk to me on the Slack. So basically this is the standard review process which happened a lot in the past few years. So I think it could be very easy to handle Flux this time. And another issue is that I didn't see that Flux folks here but the issue is Flux is right now is under merging with Flagger. So we are very not sure if we want to involve Flagger in this review process. And so right now my proposal is that if the merge happened, I mean happened for example recently then we need to involve Flagger but this is not studied yet. So I didn't know that for example for our growth family you basically also have several stop project. So how do you handle that? Do you see every project as the same family or they do have independent functionalities? So we see workflows and events as one family and CD and rollouts as another but they are all really used in application delivery. So when we went for incubation the story was application delivery. Joe actually called it application delivery platform with all the components because the way we positioned is all the projects together manage jobs and applications. So. I see, I see. So I think the Flux were maybe going to the similar pattern and Flagger will also be part of the our growth family as one of the building block but it can be used maybe independently. Yeah, but in most cases that people will use them use a project with Flux to do the keep up. I think that will be the direction. Okay, thank you for your valuable input. Yeah. The only thing is when we went to the TOC though any new project we want to add to our growth family we have to go and get CNCF approval. That's how it is. That means if you want to add a new project into the existing Argo organization that you need to actually run under the revealed CNCF again. Yes. Okay, I see. Yeah, that is valuable information. I didn't know that before. Okay, this is basically what the SIG has up. The SIG has already, it's already working on. And oh, Amy just mentioned the next sandbox project review which is that, sure. Yeah, thank you. But the Flux is actually trying to promote to the incubation level. So I didn't know that they are related. Sorry, what was the question? I mean, Amy said next sandbox project review is January 2006. Look, comment about being able to, if you were going to add in new projects in here that would be a way to be able to do it. Oh, I see, I see. Yeah, it may be more complicated than being able to try to be able to like, merging things, we can take it offline, it's fine. I see, I see your point. Okay, this is basically what we have from the SIG site. Is any topics you folks want to discuss or have questions or have some issues? After the repo of the GitOps Working Group moves, I mean, will the meeting be a part of this meeting or the Thursday meeting? Are you guys yet to decide? So this is not decided yet because the standard process is the working group will have a separate meeting. That is actually the meeting for working group because they want to have their independent meeting. But we do have discussion that maybe we want to merge them into the SIG meeting because this is basically one of the most important field. So this is still under discussion. I think we can discuss that after we have the working group because we need some decision makers, like chairs for the working group to say, okay, if they want to merge them together or not, because today there's no official decision makers in the working group, instead of several community members or community maintainers there. So maybe we want to discuss that after we have the formal working group. This is the content idea I have. I don't know if Dan has any other thoughts on that. Yeah, I think we could potentially merge some of it or we could use the working group to kind of come up with proposals and come back as sort of a subcommittee if you will and kind of present those things. I could see it going either way. I think it just depends on level of interest and level of importance and what else, what other things are going on. Don't want to be disruptive to other paths that are happening within this group. So I could see it going either way. Cool, got it. Another issue is we do have some devices from TOC that the name of the project is kind of needs some rethinking because there is a plan to donate its project to CENSA Standbox, but it will be very interesting to see their project in a standbox which has a name of the working group. So I think this part is also under discussion. I don't know if Dan, you have any idea on that or any people have any idea on that. So some of the proposal, like maybe we should change the name of the repo to get off the workspace. So it looks like more like a project instead of the working group. But I see that is also valuable option, but I didn't read this discussion with everybody here because it's just some ideas, but I'd like to see your thoughts on that. So whether you want to have a, where do you think it need a new name or you think that the working group has a project name is by? So firstly, I don't know the background of submitting the working group as a project. Dan might add, like, what do they mean by submitting working group as a incubation project or sorry, standbox project? Like what will be the deliverables of that project? Is that in the charter? Let me just look at the charter. Cornelia, you were the one that sort of started the discussion with CIG App delivery and started the kick and I kicked off that process. What do you think? Yeah, so I honestly have not thought that through in detail. So I don't know whether this should be its own independent. I think it was proposed as an idea and that's something that we as a CIG App delivery and maybe as the working group itself should make that decision on whether this is something that we do want to actually create a standbox project around. So I don't know. I don't know what the answer is there. It was just an idea for us to decide as a group. There are some other working groups in the CNCF are none of them under a project like that? So I can speak to some of that and I'll just kind of like wander on it and like hi. So the working groups that actually exist predate the CIGs and serverless is the only one that's still active around that. There was a conversation a little bit ago about them becoming a CIG but kind of died for lack of interest and there wasn't a lot of reason to be able to move through that. I'm not sure, like I've put it in the Lincoln chat about like the, here's the thing that Alexis put in say line number two. This is everything that he's saying about like why this particular group should be a sandbox project. So now you all have documentation. I wonder if, you know because I'm thinking about app delivery and app delivery is in my mind and you correct me is really looking at kind of all the different ways of handling app delivery and enabling that. And the GitOps working group is more taking a stake in the ground of saying, we think this is the way that software should be deployed and this is how the patterns that should be followed. And I imagine that there are other potentially competing standards that may arise that would fit within CIG app delivery and other problems that are being solved. So I don't... I think a lay's question was not whether it should be a working group. It is a working group. The question is whether it should be a project. So we have to see whether there are any other projects in CNCF which are like this. I'm not aware. Yeah, this is pretty new thing to, you know have a project which name is a working group. So this is the question I'm asking for. So I also talked with Alexis before for this thing. I think his answer makes sense because it's basically we want to have very useful content in the repo of the working group. So not just like documentation or wallpaper, we want to have code tools and framework which are maintained by the community in the repo. So that will make this repo have the potential to become a sandbox project. So I also agree with that. So I think the only thing I'm not very sure or I don't know how to handle is whether we should split them out as a project which has a name for a project. For example, potato head, right? We can give it a name and then donate to sandbox which is one of the delivery of the working group or we just want to donate the whole working group repo at the standard bar project. In that sense, I will feel it's kind of a little bit, it kind of need to be weird to have a name that is a working group but it's actually a sandbox project. So this is the question I'm trying to figure out. I can imagine a scenario where you have almost a new category of project that are like best practice kind of, because that's what we ultimately are trying to do is accomplish is like people are doing getups today and people are doing a lot of things and what we're trying to do is kind of come up with this framework of like these are the best practices, this is what we're trying to do and we're trying to evangelize around those things and we're trying to get those best practices out. And it is different than anything else that's been done. That was kind of along the lines I was thinking I was about to ask can the deliverable of a sandbox project that it ultimately creates and maintains be something like a sense of the community of some aspect of in this case app delivery where yeah, that's gonna be an ongoing statement and it's gonna have to be maintained and updated and there's gonna be ancillary code around it but it's at the same time it's not necessarily like a binding it's not gonna be on the same level as like official project policy. It's just kind of a statement of a working group of this is our opinion but can that be a deliverable of a project? Maybe that needs to be that new kind of project that you're talking about. Yeah, so I have two questions. One is, what do we get by making this working group a project instead of just a working group? And then second, if like this working group project eventually delivers code and tools and stuff like that. I mean, how does that relate to other like non-working group projects in this space? Like it seems like it would get like some kind of implicit endorsement because it's like a multi large community working group type of thing. And so I'm not sure exactly what would happen. I think we should think about it because Cornelia then like Flux is a GitOps project Argo is a GitOps project which part should then go in this working group project? We need to discuss. Right now, if I look at the working group charter the deliverables are more best practices, documents and they're more documents. I don't see any... Right, but it could very easily also go to tools, right? Like you might have tools to help people assess their needs or stuff like that. And then so once you start going down the road the road of tools, then there's a question of what is the scope of that? And does that, you know, and so... Yeah, I mean, I think that there's a set of things that come before tools. And that is a whole, I'm very, very interested in examples. Yeah. And I want, you know, sample and that's part of the reason why we didn't wanna just make this a repo somewhere. We wanted to have a GitOps working group organization and GitHub was that we anticipate having multiple repos that this, you know, there might be a repo here which is some example that shows you exactly how to do things a particular way in Argos CD. It shows a particular, you know, best practice on Argos CD and another one that shows the best practice around, you know, flux and those types of things. So we want this to be largely, you know, enabling users to make the most of GitOps. And so you're right. I mean, at some point, to me, it feels like a slippery slope as soon as we start saying, well, what are the tools, you know, enabling people to be successful with GitOps defines another set of tools. Right. Also a project, of course, NCNCF goes through certain graduation processes. That's right. They start with like sandbox, they become incubating and whatever. What, how would you, how would you measure the adoption of a working group project? Is it based on the documentation? Like, I'm not sure how you, like, it's easy to measure adoption or use of a tool, but how do you measure the adoption of a process and determine? So I don't know if a working group style of thing, we should put that in the same landscape as, like a project specifically tailored to deliver a, like an opinionated way of doing GitOps type of thing. So I'm not quite sure about that. I think they was trying to explain how, I guess Alexis explained the project thing, but it's not clear to me, like what we get out of making this a project versus if the working group that produces the recommendation does practice this document. So if someone has a good perspective on that, we'd love to hear it. Yeah. I mean, one of the questions that I have to, is to the folks who are a little bit more familiar with this whole project, you know, progression that you just described, Ed, is there a notion of, like everything that becomes a sandbox is the ultimate goal to get to graduation or is being a sandbox project valuable in some way, in and of itself? Because it gets back to your point, Ed, of what does it mean for this to go through the graduation process? That's clear when you've got a project, you know, a project that has code and adoption and things like that. But is there a value, the question, but even if we say, well, no, this will never become graduated, is there value to it being designated as the sandbox project? Yeah. I would say that the intent of most projects, as far as I know, in becoming a sandbox project is to eventually go to graduation. Projects may stop, of course, or do that. Also, you know, I guess my question is not so much whether there should be some type of maturity framework for something like a working group, you know, and as Amy was saying, you know, the six were started after the working groups, most of the existing working groups. A lot of the existing working groups seem to be in limbo today, which, you know, is another set of problems that the CNCF probably needs to address. So it may be useful to have a, you know, some type of graduated maturity tier for working groups or, you know, working groups, but I don't know that it should be on the same landscape or playing field as like projects delivering opinionated tools and so on. So maybe it's a separate set of... Yeah, I don't know if it's the working group that graduates or if it's a practice that graduates. Like, I'm thinking like at some point we're going to go home. But how do you graduate or practice? The current criteria is all centered around a, like a project, like code, project tool, No, that's true, that's true. But I'm imagining like what if we, you know, we came out with something like 15 factor app, you know, and when that was written there wasn't quite a CNCF thing, but doing it as a, you know, the community is invested in these patterns and is invested in these and says, yeah, this is the way that, this is the way, right? This is the way it should be done. And enough people have tested it and kicked the tires and worked through it. And they've found that if you follow these patterns that there's security improvements or productivity improvements, all these kinds of things. Like, yeah, I mean, I agree. It's a little weird. Like it's not something that's really been done before. I can't think of anything else in the CNCF that has put something out quite like that before. Yeah. Well, the other thing is of course the CNCF has up to now been very careful and, you know, their job is not to pick winners or losers, right? To endorse one opinionated way of doing things versus another. On the other hand, there are benefits to, you know, standardizing and publishing practices as long as it doesn't exclude, you know, other alternatives, right? So I think also it's important to maintain that balance. Like if an entire working group that promotes a specific way of doing good ops becomes graduated, what does that mean for all the other alternatives? That's a good point. And I can also see, you know, on the horizon, there are people who are probably thinking about, you know, if you can put a stamp of approval and you've gone through the process with the community of making this practice mature and making sure you've thought through the, you know, the variables and stuff. I can imagine some bank out there being like, oh, yeah, this is cool. Like this is something we should adopt because I can see that it's got this community approval and buy-in and there's backing behind it and there's resources, there's people we can talk to that are gonna help us figure out the rough edges if we're missing something, you know? So I definitely see the value, but it is, I agree with everybody. Like it's a little weird. Like it's not exactly what's been done before. I think it would be either to understand if there can be some code. I mean, some kind of library framework or even some command-line tool that will be also helpful to see, okay, this is a project. So it can go through the whole process of the sandbox, even graduation someday, that will be also helpful. I think this is a direction we also want to push everybody working on that. So what kind of idea we can have in this report? I strongly believe that we need to do something which are valuable to the community, including the best practices that sometimes many codes make the whole working group become a concrete entity instead of just some place that we talk, right? Yeah, so yeah. Yeah, no, we ultimately have to publish things, right? And I think the examples that Cornelia brought up are one of the areas of importance where it's like, okay, well, here's a pattern and here are the code examples of how to implement that pattern with Argo and with Flux. And I worry that in the past, there was a push to try to create code between the different technologies and it didn't really work. I think there was enough disagreement between the two projects that it made more sense to keep them separate. So I almost think in some sense we're trying to prevent some of the pain that's happened around like service meshes a little bit, like trying to say like, no, this is like, this is like kind of the framework in which we can work and we can compete, we can play and we can agree about the best practice and stuff. And some other project might come along that's competing, that's better. It just might be a different thing. You know, it would fit still under SIGAP delivery, but it would not be a GitOps thing. It would be its own thing that was, you know, you know what I'm saying? Yeah, so exactly that. Like, you know, I'd like to make sure that, say you're a GitOps project, you're not participating in the working group and that, you know, such projects are not stifle mentally disadvantaged or something simply because they're not, you know, participating in it because the tools that we're developing for this thing on the, there's very focus on the self-life looks at Argo or other projects that are actually participating. And so it creates this barrier which prevents innovation in the future. Just to, I'm Dave, this is my first time joining this meeting, but just to get onto that, like I'm also in some SIGs in the Continuous Delivery Foundation, which is Tecton, Spinnaker, Right. screwdriver, right? And like, part of the reason I'm here, just mostly listening is because, like we're about to start working on a set of, sort of like, what it's the sort of like, package data exchange, you know, standard of what like a, a superable package looks like. And I was like, this is probably a good group to be listening to, to see what else is going on, but there's that cross communication that, you know, for the reasons of those projects being in CNCF before CDF got created and any other pieces into those decisions. Like, but we're all kind of still kind of playing in the same space, right? And I'm, and I'm really interested in what everyone has to say, right? Exactly. So, I mean, David brings up a really excellent point. Like, there are obviously other industry groups like the CDF that's also interesting in space. So I feel like if the get off working group, if we do our job, right, it will benefit everyone, right? Whether or not you are a member of the CNCF or the working group, but if you're working in the get off space, it should benefit you. If it only benefits members of the working group, then we're doing a terrible job, right? Of course, yeah. And maybe we should also be reaching out and working with the CDF and other such groups to make sure, I don't know, I mean, if we're at the CDF and we are both working on it and trying to raise the boats for everyone, we can obviously get a bigger outcome than if we're each independently working on our own. And then at some point, we're gonna try to get our message, turn up the volume on our message versus someone else's message. Yeah, and I've been engaging with the CDF from the beginning, more specifically with like Tracy Reagan and some of those folks just talking about like what we're doing. And there was a question early on about if it would make more sense in the CDF than in the CNCF. And I think that the members kind of felt like there was a little bit more support for better or for worse in the CNCF at the moment. But it's not like there's not an overlap. I mean, they're very good at an overlap between the CNCF and the CDF, right? And between the, and between GitOps, right? It covered like SIGApp delivery versus CDFoundation. I mean, we're talking about two groups that are trying to solve a lot of the same problems, right? Yeah, I think I'm specifically on a SIG interoperability, which is just trying to figure out like, we worked out the first thing that we created was like a Rosetta Stone for, well, a workflow here is a pipeline there. And all those sorts of just things that I think supersede whether it's GitOps or more traditional, like a CD pipeline or that sort of thing, like just trying to come up with the language that we can all speak sort of like the dictionary that for this group. Right, and maybe like Dan and David, you're familiar with both communities. So you're like a bridge in a sense between some of this stuff that's happening. More of us should probably be bridges in that respect. But yeah. So yeah, so how do we, I guess one question is like, how do we structure this so that it benefits everyone, whether or not you are an active participant? Because not everyone also has resources to actively participate in all of these activities, right? It's very time consuming. So I think we should also give some thought to that, like what does the working group need to do in order to really raise the vote for everyone? And what exactly does that mean? What is most in need? I guess there are lots of CNCF working groups. My impression is that a lot of them are somewhat inactive. And so I don't know, is that the impression other people have? Like are other CNCF working groups highly successful? Amy was saying that serverless is active today. Yes, I know serverless is active, definitely. But what about some other? It's like you also kind of transitioned into SIGs. Storage transitioned into a SIG. Security transitioned into a SIG. It's pretty much it. Okay. Yeah, it's kind of, it's interesting because like GitOps is very clearly something that would fit underneath SIG app, like within SIG app delivery, like we're playing in the same playground, but SIG app delivery is trying to solve kind of different scopes of problems like around. Like, it's broader. It's broader, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, one of the things that I have to say is that I am not hugely concerned at this stage of us ending up doing something that only benefits the participants of this working group because of the things that we have to find that we want to produce. We wanna produce white papers. We wanna produce demonstrations. We wanna produce presentations. We wanna produce all of those things. We're about producing educational materials. And so I'm not worried that we aren't going to achieve that because that's part of our charter. We're gonna achieve value for the community. Yeah, we should achieve that, but I am concerned if we are doing things that only benefit the members of the working group, that will definitely create options because the people that it's not benefiting will create their own working group. Yeah, but why is, what I don't understand is why that's a concern of yours because if we produce these materials and people who are not participating are benefactors of those materials, why are you concerned that we won't achieve that? No, I mean, your statement was you're not concerned that if the working group work only benefits the working group members, well, that is not the charter of the CNCF, right? It's not to- Right. Yeah. But that's what I thought you're saying is that you're concerned that the working group will only benefit participants of the working group. That's what I thought you were saying. Yes, because at some point, like if you're a vendor, you're in a competitive landscape, right? And so if one vendor is a member of the working group and it only benefits them, and this advantages other vendors who are not part of the working group. So I'm saying that our focus should be to lift the boats for everyone, right? Whether you are an active person that's in the working group or not. I think the focus should be on standards and processes and not that, hey, this company is part of this working group, so they are endorsed by CNCF and that company. That's your point. Yeah. That's your point. If a working group only benefits its members, other people who are not members of that working group will create another working group. It will create factions within the community. Yeah, but I think the answer to that is just to make sure that it's clear that anyone can join and be part of the process and get their information in. And I guess you said earlier, like not everyone can commit that. Yeah, not everyone has time, yeah. So that would, I think, discourage innovation in this space. We had like 60 plus people join the last working group meeting. I think it's a totally valid concern and it's one we should definitely keep an eye on. And if it looks like, you know, if something breaks it out into factions at some point, then maybe we'll have to eat crow. But for the moment, you know, like the people that were all on the call and the GitOps principles that we discussed and the outputs that we discussed, there was pretty broad consensus, not just from the maintainers, but very much from the whole community that was participating and it's quite a few people. I mean, so I felt good about it. I mean, I think we're on the right track right now, but we should definitely be mindful that there are some potential pitfalls to fall into. Yeah, and you know, I actually think that one of the responsibilities of the working group is to help the community understand the growing GitOps landscape. And so part of the working group responsibilities are to say, hey, look at this cool new project over here. And this is something that we haven't thought about. It's addressing, it's providing a set of solutions that we haven't included under the GitOps umbrella. Let's, and it shouldn't, to your point, Ed, it shouldn't be that that project needs to come and say, hey, please consider us. That's part of our responsibility of the working group is to stay apprised of the whole GitOps landscape and include things, whether those people are coming actively or not. Right, absolutely, Courtney, I mean, I think you put it very well. I totally agree. If I can jump in there too, I think one of the things about that is maintaining easy on-ramps for people to reach in, like this first meeting here. And the reason I'm here is because I gave a talk at KubeCon and Thomas Schuetz reached out to me and said, hey, we're working on this white paper in the operator working group or whatever that we think you might have some contributions on. So he sent me a Google Docs link. That was it. That was all it took for me to be able to contribute to this. So as long as you have those easy on-ramps, I think people will come and then it makes your own outreach that much easier too. Right, so yeah, so I guess one area of slippery slope is like once we start creating tools or things like that, of course, some of these tools may be competitive with tools or other projects that vendors or other projects have. Whereas things like practices and so on and so forth, even if they're opinionated, I mean, we have collections of, we can have collections of these things and some of them may be contradictory to each other, like not all of them can be the best practice. That kind of asset, anyone can like leverage and use. So there's a little bit of like, I guess we have to think carefully about what kinds of activities might exclude participation versus other things that I mean everyone can benefit from. And like if no one is interested in doing some diagnostic tool or something and it helps the industry, then it's probably fair game to consider. Yeah, I view it as like if we push these get-off standards and practices and we're collecting the case studies and we're collecting the patterns and we're agreeing upon them. I see this situation where all these companies and engineering teams who are looking for like how they should be deploying software, looking at that and they're saying, oh, look, I can go and do this with Argo. I can go and do this with Flux, but ultimately like I'm accomplishing these kinds of patterns and these are like the pitfalls to watch out for and these are the benefits and I have a clear guide line of where to go and tools do help with that. I mean, I've gone through the process of setting up Argo and Flux and they have different degrees of opinion on them, but so many people get lost on implementation detail that they can't get full advantage out of all the tools and that's like if I understand the principles, if I understand the patterns, I'm gonna adopt it quicker, we're gonna be happier as a team. I think it's a huge benefit to the community if we can make it right. If we've set up a bunch of garbage recommendations, then it's not gonna help anybody, but I think we have enough smart people in the room that that's not gonna happen. Right. And maybe we're thinking too far ahead, like the first set of things we wanna deliver are these practices and so on, right? And everyone agrees it's a good thing. So once we do that, we'll probably have a better idea of what we're doing. I think it's a very valuable discussion gave me a lot of input. So I think from my side, I mean, from CNSF side, there are two things very important to make this thing successful. So first, we need to establish an open vendor neutral organization, which is a GitHub's working group under CNSF, I think this is the right direction we're going, we're on the right track. The second thing is just as Joel mentioned that we need to make sure that the contribution bar of this working group is pretty low. You don't have to be the member of this working group, you don't have to be the maintainer of this working group to contribute your ideas or be part of that. So I think this is also really important. That's why I think the governance the governance and the chair's election which is the next step is also important that we need to make sure that the whole working group has a right vision and has a right, has a right, my side to set the bar for everybody to be involved into this working group. I think these two things are very important based on the today's discussion. And as the CNSF seek at the literature, I think me and Alois were trying to make sure that we go to the right direction, a open and very friendly working group to engage everybody from the community who are interested in this topic. So we are not building something that can, that is Ferguson's certain project. I will say we want to create the community working could be a Ferguson feed-offs itself. So that is what I can get from the discussion today and let's push the whole thing to this direction. Oh, you got muted. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I mean to make this meeting short because a lot of folks say they want to go to vacation and they want to go tomorrow. So another week of work left. Yeah, so I didn't expect that we still have a long meeting because we have basically have a very interesting topic to discuss, but yes, I think this is a good start and it's working with that. Okay, any other topics want to bring up today or you can end this meeting? Happy holidays everyone. Yes, have a good break. Yes, okay. Thank you. All right, thank you. Take care, Ruben. Thank you. Bye bye.