 That's, we have a vanity link now so no worries. Thanks. Cool. So we'll get started. So it should be a fairly, not too long meeting, but if you go to, let me go post the slide deck in the Zoom chat in case people don't have it. Just brief, you know, kind of updates, intros for any folks that are new to the call. We'll go over a scheduling update. There's a bit of a conflict for a couple of folks, including myself, in terms of the current schedule. So I think we're just going to move it to the second and fourth Tuesday of the month. We have a community presentation from Michael today to talk a little bit about what he's working on. I have an update on kind of where we are with the landscape and white paper, and then we'll close it out with any other questions to the group. So to go to slide three, anyone new on the call that wants to introduce themselves to the group before we move forward? And kind of what you do. Hi, Chris. Yep. Can you hear me? Yes, we hear you well. Yeah. Hi, I just want to say hello to everyone. So since it's the first time to join this excellent online meeting, and I'm Long from KTH, and I'm a new PhD student in computer science. My supervisor is Martin Mauprez, and our team is really interested in chaos engineering and the self-healing software and also some photo-injection things. So it's really related to this work. And yeah, I'm very happy to contribute more to this community in the future. Cool. Cool, thank you. Nice to meet you. Welcome. Thanks. Hey, this is Aditya. I'm joining from Under Armour. I'm new to the group as well. But at Under Armour, we are starting to do more of chaos engineering. And so me and Paul Osman, who's a senior engineering manager, we're both interested and will start participating in the group as well. Awesome. Great, welcome. Anyone else? Hello, I'm Zach. I am working at Lyft on the performance team. We are just starting to begin concerted efforts, organized efforts that have buy-in from everybody towards chaos engineering. So here I am. Concerted efforts. Okay, anyone else? Okay, that said, it looks like everyone else was on previous calls. So the other thing I want to mention is we have kind of a meeting minutes document. Please add yourself to that if you attend. Just makes it easier to track who attends and who doesn't. So moving on, slide four. So there's a bit of a scheduling conflict for a couple of us. I'm just going to propose that we keep the same time, but we move the meeting to be every second and fourth Tuesday of the month at 80m Pacific. And we'll start with that change on July 10th and July 24th moving forward. Does anyone have any issues with that specific timing? Keep it 80m Pacific, just move the weeks we do it. That's okay. Sounds good. Sounds good. Awesome. Scheduling is always a pain in the ass. So I appreciate people being flexible here. All right. So I'll get that updated on the meeting. Invite in the Google calendar. But I'll do that after this meeting. So slide five and six kind of cover the landscape. So one of the kind of outputs of the group that we want to accomplish is to actually come up with a landscape similar to what we have available currently in CNCF. If you go to l.cncf.io, you kind of see this huge cloud native landscape, which basically covers the different companies and technologies in this space. So we've been trying to take an index of all the different projects out there and try to categorize them in the different categories. I've been struggling with this a little bit, but I've made a little bit of progress. I'm curious if anyone has any comments before I kind of talk about my specific proposal, how we add this to the current cloud native landscape. Yes, Chris. I kind of commented on that GitHub issue. And I did some comment on what could be the categories. So even I was wondering what would be the next step. Do we put up some Excel sheet with various categories, or do we continue to do this on the GitHub or is there a graphical tool? I would like to put more effort on that. Yeah, so there is a tool that essentially the landscape that I forked to the repo that will eventually make the additions and changes to. And then we have a design team that will render a pretty graphic based on that. But I posted a spreadsheet where I'm collecting essentially, I'm filtering some of the projects that we've added to that sheet to be at a certain level where let's say they're not just like a research project, maybe they have a bit of a community. In CNCF, we kind of have this ridiculous criteria of like at least 250 GitHub freaking stars or whatever. Essentially it has to be something that has somewhat of a community behind it. But I'm fine doing it in the spreadsheet. So you're more than welcome to make some additions there. I'll post the spreadsheet in the GitHub issue too, if that works for you. Oh, yeah, that's great. Yeah, I was looking for some place where I can put more thoughts. That'll help. Thank you. Because eventually that will be dumped via pull request to the CNCF landscape. Okay, cool. Yeah, I mean, in terms of categorization, I'm really torn on the like, obviously there's hosted offerings and then there is basically tools that focus maybe on different aspects of chaos engineering, whether it's storage, security, or just general shooting pods or interfering with networking. I haven't been able to come up with more than that. I wonder if it's even worthwhile to try to break things apart into those pieces. But I don't know if you have thoughts. Yes, I did make some comments, but I'll make my additional comments on the spreadsheet. But basic idea was we could do the framework as is and framework itself can be spread into node networking against storage. Just like I said, we could try to put each of these projects or application against those categories. Yeah, I mean, the challenge is it's still somewhat of a nascent space, right? So there may be only like one or project in a specific category, which is fine. I think that's okay. It's just, there's just not many projects at least that I found through my research. But I could be wrong. So any other comments from the group? It seems like a good baseline what you've done so far. There are so many angles that you could look at it that it's probably easier to look at this, the way you've set it up. So it sounds good. I know the challenge is some tools overlap and do multiple categories, right? So then you get in this weird situation where a tool appears on every section, which is just weird. So it's, I don't know. The other thing that also came across my mind is, do we also have a category for cloud providers that support chaos engineering in some fashion natively, right? And one way of doing this exercise is basically you also kind of publicly shame the cloud providers to support this more natively if they're not listed, at least with my selfish CNC I've had on. So yeah, take a look at that spreadsheet and we'll go there. And then eventually that will end up in a pull request to the CNCF landscape. So moving on slide seven and eight. So there's basically, slide seven is basically kind of the bullshit criteria that I mentioned that we use for what we add to the landscape. Essentially, we just want projects that are more than just research projects or someone's kind of small project stuff that's actually fairly used. But slide eight is basically my attempt of, we essentially have two options here. We either create kind of a new category within the current landscape and just add a section maybe under kind of where orchestration and management is and create a specific subsection for chaos engineering or create an individual separate landscape specifically for chaos engineering group to group the part. So my concern was if we don't have enough, if we have a couple handful of tools then maybe it makes sense to kind of graft in the bigger landscape. If we have more than that, maybe we could have our own separate landscape. I don't know if there's strong feelings in the group of which way we go forward with this. We don't have to decide now. It's just a thought. Well, we can start small with another project and then as it grows, like as the work starts growing, the best thing is to get going. Yeah. Agreed. Cool. Yeah. And Chris, I wonder what is the world if you want at this NCF regarding similar sort of topics like security, like maybe testing, are there other efforts like that that will basically be gathered in sort of a bigger landscape? I don't know. Yeah. So I mean, if you look at that landscape, I pointed you. So the way CNCF is organized, it's, you know, each project is free to create its own working groups or efforts. So for example, Kubernetes has six and working groups around storage, security, node, and so on. Each other projects in CNCF have similar setups. They tend to be a little bit simpler. CNCF-wide, we have working groups dedicated to like serverless, you know, networking, storage stuff that affects all of our projects. Chaos Engineering is a working group that we intend to propose to CNCF once we're a little bit further along. So it just, you know, working groups tend to work with other working groups, if it makes sense. But I think, you know, step one is, you know, let's get organized enough where we have maybe a simple landscape position statement and proposal that we could bring to CNCF before trying to work with the other groups out there. Sounds good. All right. So my feedback from the group is we'll create our own kind of smaller landscape similar to kind of the work we did with serverless and kind of go from there and then see how that works out and grows over time. Okay. Cool. All right. All right. Slide nine. So moving on. So not much. Let's see where we slide 10 or slide 12. Sorry. Basically, the main things here is pointing people out to the white paper issue. We're just going to iterate on that on GitHub instead of the Google doc and just send pull requests there. I will formally work on the proposal to CNCF, the former working group. We have the scheduled time to present to the technical board for CNCF, but I don't envision us doing that until probably late July, August timeframe. So other than that, I'm going to open up for any questions and answers. There's a couple reminders that ChaosConf is coming up, believe in late September. CNCF is sponsoring and will be there. So it'd be great to see some folks there. I'm also really looking for volunteers to present next time. So I don't know if, you know, UMA maybe want to present litmus or if anyone else has something to present, it would be good to get you slotted for our next meeting on the 10th. Any volunteers? Yeah, sure. I think, you know, there is an intention to present litmus. I'll check with the team, you know, we're just in the middle of another release. So I'll update through Slack, but we'll try to make it to the next slot. Yeah. Okay. Good. Anyone, anyone else feeling a demo? If not, I'll just slot in litmus. I can present the Pumba. Okay. Do you have any questions for the next meeting? Okay. All right. All right, got you, Alexa. You got a lot of background noise, but we got you Pumba for... I'm outside. Okay, no worries. Any other, okay, so that's good. So I got volunteers for next time. Any other questions from the group? I guess, I guess, Karthik had a chat for Michael, a demo of fire drill in the future if possible. Yeah, I'm happy to do that next time. I just don't know if it can be recorded just because of corporate policy. But yeah, if you're looking for demos, we can do fire drill next week or next time, sorry. Got it. Cool. So any other questions or comments from the group? So on the GitHub for chaos engineering, there are two things. There's a maintainers file and there's interest. Correct. Yeah. I was wondering what the difference between these two things is... Add yourself to the maintainers file as that's how I'm tracking folks to add to the GitHub team. So please do that. You'll basically, anytime we make a major decision or anything like that, I essentially just want a simple majority from the maintainers. Like when we finalize a proposal, I'll ask the maintainers for a vote before we bring it forward to the technical board. So set up a request. Well, any other questions? Just quickly, I was looking at the white paper recently on the one on GitHub. And I was wondering where it's not... It wasn't easy for me to know where to put an effort into. It seems to be a good baseline, but obviously missing a lot of things, I guess. Where could we help or what could I help? Yeah, I mean, it would be great if we had... If someone would like to drive more that white paper, for me, not having a lot of expertise in this particular field, it's a little bit difficult to drive it. So if there's something that you basically... At the end of the day, what we develop will be disseminated to a fairly wide audience, right? So that's kind of my goals. Come up with something that anyone could kind of read over 10, 15 minutes and kind of get a good overview of what the hell is going on in chaos engineering. So I go for it. Like what if you think something's missing? Make a suggestion and we kind of all work together on this. I guess an outline or a TOC or something like a set of... Okay, you're back. Well, I'm back anyway. So yeah, I guess an outline and values like sections and stuff like that. Not necessarily field, but just as a strawman to say, well, this is a structure. Yeah, so yeah, we could go there. The other thing that would be nice is, since I still kind of consider this a nice field, having maybe a section around a couple, maybe a handful or a few case studies. So obviously internet-scale folks like LinkedIn are doing this, Netflix, some of the bigger ones. So maybe highlighting a few of those concrete kind of case studies in the white paper would be a good thing, in my opinion. Chris, do you have a reference of like another working groups like white paper that might be a good thing to look at? Yeah, I do. I'll point it to you in the chat right now, give me a sec again. It's a little dense, but here I'll show you. It's right here. So if you go to the serverless working group section, you can kind of see it. So basically it summarizes what is the field, what are the benefits, pros, cons, different use cases, and so on. So I'm not advising us to go as crazy in depth as they did. There's, I think, a lot more politics in the serverless space than there is in chaos engineering. So I think things that are a little bit simpler for us. Yeah, I think what you said about it being a nice space, I was going to say it's not very far out of academia and white papers yet. So yeah, I think trending carefully is probably pretty smart. Yeah, and to be honest, at least within a CNCF membership, we have a lot of companies, a lot of cloud providers. So what we do will influence thought. So as long as we position a way like this is new, this is being pioneered by some of the internet scale companies out there, we kind of want to disseminate this practice for everyone and show them different tools and things that they could use. You know, my future goals has always been to have the cloud providers support this kind of by default, and also us having a stable set of open source tools available for folks to use to implement this on their own. Could that be the mission of this working group, actually? That kind of is the mission. Produce white paper landscape and make a set of recommendations to the TOC on maybe projects that belong in CNCF in the future. Well, I mean, we'll have to come up with the mission before we present to the technical board, otherwise we'll get shit on. So that's okay. Well, we'll work on that, no worry. Well, any other questions or thoughts? Appreciate everyone's times in getting this. We're still in the bootstrapping phase, so definitely appreciate people taking time out of their schedule, but it's great to kind of hear from practitioners and iterate on our kind of white paper and landscape. All right. Thanks a lot all. I'll close the meeting. The recording will be posted on the CNCF YouTube channel. I'll make sure to post it on the Slack once it's done, but hopefully within 24 hours. So thanks a lot. Thanks again, Michael, for taking time. I know it's early in the morning, so appreciate it. Welcome. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Take care, everyone. All right. Bye-bye. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Yep.