 Hello all we'll get started at five after so some Pretty big news. It looks like Google won over Oracle in the Supreme Court over the Android API and Java API issues Yeah, I'm seeing that big news Are we supposed to tear or? What are you supposed to do? Keep writing APIs Now you don't have to worry about Oracle suing you for adding two plus two in your code Okay, instead you just have to worry about Google now But we cheer because it's not work or it Exactly Jeffery, can you post that Google doc to the chat? Zoom chat having a hard time getting it up. Actually, I may have spoken too soon. Got it up. Oh, cool. Thanks alright, so If you have an agenda item, please add it to the meeting notes with your name and Add please add your name as well to the attendees list Does anyone have any walk-in items? Try to share my screen here. Okay, and Let's get started. So let's say we've had at least one PR Just point out that got merged during the week since the last weekend The last Hey, yes Your steps not working like I don't see anything. I'll just share for you and Scroll around for you. Oh, you don't say you're this screen at all No, and I'm realizing in the last call that your screen was pretty much frozen like on one frame for like the entirety of the call So I'll share for you and you can kind of just tell me where you want to go Thanks for letting me know right so starting with the This I was just listing some of the PR's that I got Closed so that we can everyone's aware and This one is Around governance so good to point out This is the mainly a refactor to make things consistent that Ian worked on and then added some a little bit more information That we've been discussing for a while Around how we would handle representation and that's towards the end but I think the primary thing was clarifying the wording and then bringing it All into one section, which is the bottom part. Yeah, I mean I think I Would hope we never actually actually never have to use this section but the point is that its presence should basically Keep the whole thing under control That said what this does right now is it talks about how to determine whether people are Potentially, you know over representing their company, but then we've got to deal with some other elements of the Charter which haven't been covered in here because at the moment we seem to think that Representation representation is per company rather than per person and I think that's probably not where we want to be in the long run and We're about to do a tech lead election and the tech lead election is also a bit confused in as much as It would be effectively a majority vote per tech lead gets you in which means that if there is a cabal a group Over you know representing people with anything close to a majority then they can Pretty much push all the you know as many tech leads as they care to name into Into the system quite easily I don't have answers to either of those things I'm just going to raise them and leave you to decide what we want to do about it But I think those two points do need addressing as well. All right. Thanks, Anne Let's move on to the next PR Set of PRs All right, so co-chairs from Bill So this is the result of the elections that we had and We have Three co-chairs Right now the Equally split and as we're moving forward talking about things we can decide what we want and how this works out we have Jeffery salons and from charter communications as the service provider co-chair Ian Wells from Cisco as the CNF developer co-chair myself for the cloud native and kubernetes and This is updated in the charter and the Main read me There's another I think comment about maybe moving some of this out of the charter into a standalone document for the items that may be updated more often than the Maybe our base charter things that we don't expect to update maybe for years to come versus things like this Which will at least be recurring and there's others But we'll tackle that in a another PR I think that was one of your suggestions and that we make those updates and I believe that your Okay, with tackling it in another one Yeah, can you guys find? Okay, great. And so I Think this one is just a notice so Let's go ahead and merge this one Jeffrey and go back to conversation Click the conversation tab. Yep. Cool. It kind of feels like 2020 21 You can delete the branch, okay, yeah, it's good. Otherwise we end up with hundreds of old branches Yeah, just as a general bookkeeping I noticed I had some from previous merge requests that I went in and cleaned up a week or two ago So if you've got some like ones that are hanging out that you don't think are needed any more Go back and then do a little spring cleaning to the group at large Um, good idea. All right Ready for sub directories. Yeah These are ordered and hopefully PRs that we can quickly knock out before we get into some longer discussions and so this one is one Lucina put in and you're on the call if you'd like to speak but the quick overview is it's adding Templates to make things easier for folks Creating a PR for different items and we can add multiple templates in the sub directory Lucina you got anything to add to that. I Just started with the the folder and the general and then if we want to add a Use case full request template we can do so and as well as the best practice And play this can be added with a folder And a new PR. I think this one can be those with just the general and folder Any objections before merging that The general plus the sub directory Yeah, that's good. Probably the only the only thing that I am seen Um, he's just regarding the headers. Um Well, because I've probably the the linter is going to complain about using um Not the proper headers, but yeah, it's something that I can fix later Once that the super linter is March Sorry, I didn't catch that No, well, the only thing that I was saying is like for example description and all the others headers Which are in the the document Jeff if you can go back to the document um, yeah, it's using This is a different header instead of starting from the first one So the the linter is going to complain about about this disorder but I mean, maybe something that I can fix later once Victor can we merge this and then I'll make a note to create an issue and you can go and touch it Yeah, that's fine Are you saying it had no header? There was a miss The header if you looked at your own level two headers from the start, which is going to throw the linter off Yeah, so the template could have a if if we were going to do anything that the simplest would be doing a suggest edit and then add general template or whatever you want to put at the top that um That can be added in a new pr Yeah, also lucy and I won't step on you anymore. I'll let you um Do the note taking so i'm not writing over your stuff Oh, no worries. Thanks for your help Is that how you spell winter? Yep Moving on Victor anything you want to Well, I'm not basically this uh, keep it action From my understanding is just checking them is following for full requests So for now, it's not taking any effect, but for new ones is going to check everything So I don't know if We decided to have it or not a great idea or what you think about But just a suggestion for another tool to minimize Yeah, I think the answer that you just let's commit it and try it and if we hate it then we can fix it Yeah, I like that approach Why not everybody okay with that? Does this um only complying or will it try to auto fix? I think only it's going to complain Is it going to block the pr until the misspelling is fixed? Hmm um Do we have the set in the in the um The flow the get of actions flow to block um I'm not pretty sure Uh, the latin is like oh, yeah, yeah, but it is not active because it's just It's just checking on on prs Mm-hmm. I don't think I mean And again, that's another reason why I say just commit it and let's see if it causes difficulties, but I don't think any of the um Any of the checks are actually blocking Um, I think you're just you know on your own recognizance to fix what they report at this point That sounds I'm totally safe to me if we're saying it's going to give you some type of feedback But it doesn't take action then I'm For merging Yeah, and if I turn out to be wrong then it's you know 20 minutes to fix the whole thing. So I wouldn't um I wouldn't get too wrapped up with that Wow We reviewed it in the future Jeffrey for says problems So right apparently it's not being committed for three weeks All right, victor you're up again Yeah, um Well, this is a little more controversial because it touches a lot of files. Um, probably the most controversial thing is like the The line length which is set to 80 So we can remove that if we decide like it's not something that we want to keep I mean the only technical reason that I have seen is regarding historical Way to do it but um Besides that I can this lean turn is checking Markdown syntaxes Other things from other files. I mean it's not just considered um Markdown files also consider like jammel or Shell scrapes or anything any documents checking the proper syntax is and I think it's useful, but we have to configure in a way that we want it so Probably the only thing that we have to discuss here is like If we want to use it and if we want to use with this configuration um I actually do like the line length limit, but it does seem to be causing a great deal of mess in The way it's breaking links up So I wonder whether we can commit this without the line length limit to begin with and then see how If we can get a slightly more tailored solution to that part of the problem later Yep. Yeah. Um, the only thing that I have seen is in some cases when I am doing reviews in on on github I have noticed that The parser is not It's not detecting the differences or the suggestions. So But Maybe is is another is not The line length is another reason Yeah, I mean honestly, I I agree with you and that's why I wanted to see is start wrapping our text because the Diff is terrible without it um, but on the other hand The number of changes you'd have to put in there Breaking links across multiple lines and this sort of thing and if we ever have a particularly long url. I don't know what will happen. So um It feels like if we Skip that for now and run a few experiments to see exactly how it's treating things then that would be um Better and then at least we get the rest of the benefits because I think the header corrections that it was doing Where it picked up on the fact that we can't nest headers properly by by eye. Um, that was quite handy to know actually And another thing maybe we can start doing like suggestions like uh for future prs we can encourage to reduce the number of lines, I mean Not not reducing the paragraphs, but I mean at least reducing the formatting Away, maybe in the future if we decide to use it Uh, it's not going to be Painful like this point So disable line length for now and resolve the conflicts. Is that Yep. Yeah It will need basically rebasing on the latest master because again if once we do that then The the template issue will basically pop up This one's pretty uh pretty boring Anything to say taylor in Um, can someone just run a oh, I see it's just a um, uh character. Okay. Yeah, I forget that. Um Yeah, no, I Still think well, I think it's weird on one count that this is the second use of use a story when it was the use case When it was the first one committed, but I still not entirely convinced on numbers But for as long as we're living with them then there's nothing wrong with this Maybe and do you want to so merge this but do you want to open up an issue to talk about like what mediators are going to apply I would include something around also mapping. Um, I think we talked about this last week mapping use cases To best practices, etc Yeah, and I think we might need a design document area as well, which we haven't got yet, but yes Taylor, do you want to talk through this discussion? Sure, so this is related to representation and Community Who's involved in the community? He's contributing. There's a lot of things that this was tying into in various conversations and The most recent thing where this is applied was tied in with elections And there's a lot of feedback as we were already in the election that the Seems an interest to move towards individuals voices versus The organizations And so the idea here is to switch the whole interested parties list to show individuals while also showing who they're affiliated with so when we have Whatever company it is if you work for google or Jeff I guess jeffrey you maybe could be a good one so charter communications I think if I didn't put a link to our chart or the interest parties document but where it says If you can open that up they in the cad base and then the The interested parties mark done so where it says charter communications it could now say You're there on the top five We would say Jeffery salons comma charter communications or something like that and if there's more people that's fine at charter That's great actually. So we have a big list and this has no impact on the way we're currently doing limits or the representation PR that we just Did that and worked on that we just merged This is only changing this list. So we could still Look at it and say, okay, there's five people at charter They get one vote if that's what we want Any changes to how it's used would be outside of this PR and maybe another point is we already have a mixture of Orgs and individuals so Frederick as listed there Mars, Nikolai, and then we have Orgs And this would align us more with how other groups have been showing it. So there you go So this this is a get-up discussion and if if there's if I guess we're trying to get some feedback and if folks agree then We can create a PR. We'll need to add the names for the people which I have some of the contacts bill when he's back has Probably the the rest of the list. We could just add the people that put on their names on there but if you already know then we can do that but The PR chain would change that that document to have individual names So how much more of the charter would we have to change if we did this because again the customer voting Sorry customer the the company voting Seems like it would probably have to Be removed to if we were going to flip this round, but um Ian you're you're cutting out for me. I got like one in five words. I don't know if that's Again, so so would we want to remove the company voting part at the same time as we do this? I mean if we're gonna Would we want to remove did anyone else here in? Yeah, I can hear Ian fine. I mean personally Ian. I'm fine with it I mean if we end up having weird hostile takeovers later, we can address that but um Long and short is if you can represent yourself And we're gonna like try to like block people's votes, which I don't think is gonna solve a whole lot Then they'll just list themselves as individual representation anyways, right? Yeah, it was more that Those things stand then if a company is an interested party, then the company gets one vote if we flip it to a Individual being an interested party with company representation then The stuff we've just committed make sure that their company is not over represented that's dealt with But the the bylaws specifically say one company one vote. I'm wondering whether we take that out at this point as well Yeah, like I said, I mean This is um not changing anything about how we use the list. We could stay the same where we Have one vote per org and one vote for an unaffiliated And we still have the thing where if two people Are from a company you can't say i'm unaffiliated If you're if you're actually there soon as one other person from the org So this has no change on how we use it the main focus here is to allow us to communicate a larger number of Individuals that are showing interest which if you look at most of the other projects out there, that's That's the point like what is our community? So if we have 20 orgs there's actually only one person per org and it's not really showing How how large is our community getting or anything else? now we can also use that information for the governance aspects as well, but Trying to give the flexibility of of having an individual and the org So that we can use that information in the best way Let me go and read what the charter actually says because i can't remember but i thought it was basically a interested party company gets one vote effectively Which wouldn't be what we would have in our interested party list if we change to do what you're talking about And that is not in any way shape or form a criticism of what you're suggesting I think it's the right thing to do. I'm just trying to work out whether it's got a knock on effect that we have to deal with immediately All right. Well, this is a discussion. So hop on the um Hop on the github discussion and you can write stuff into this We're there's no pr yet The idea is to put it forward and get some feedback and if it looks like Something to move forward on then we create a pr and if we need to update the charter as well, that's fine We can that may be a blocker We don't have to continue on this one though unless anyone else has more thoughts And let's move on so we have the add values to the charter Taylor you kind of had like a succinct list bill has these kind of like paragraph style little narratives There's been some discussion I don't know what happened, but all my comments got put in the wrong place together, but um I don't know if people when I dive into this is kind of a broad topic of um Kind of the heart and spirit of what we're trying to do here I suspect if we went into this in the meeting, we would be about an hour over the top of the end of the meeting um, I think it's just one of those things where Go luck make your comment um someone needs to basically go and start folding and closing some of those comments off, but um It's probably better done in the um In the uh poll request I agree. I would say the other thing too to think on is do we want You know just the short bulleted list or do we want the narratives? um, I prefer the narratives if I'm being honest, but um You know, that's my own opinion that isn't to say that there are other opinions out there All right. Well, I'll move on. I agree with the end. Um, there's already a lot of discussion here to Like look into you know, please check out the pr way in Um, if you have a third way of stating values, then please chime in PR approval process I don't know this one is one. I think we need probably more discussion on like It says tech leads will do mergers, but we haven't really Fully established what a tech lead does taylor. Um And I'm if I remember correctly, there's no limit on tech leads, right? So What the ratio of like individuals versus tech leads, um Like at that point do we just leave it as individuals in as long as we get a quorum we go or how I don't know what people's thoughts are on this one. This one seems a little bit. Um Underdeveloped in my opinion Um, I might argue that perhaps our concept of tech leads is a bit underdeveloped. So somewhere between Core developers, you would see an open stack where, you know, you would never try and It was done by I but the number of core developers was Constrained you didn't increase it too big because you needed someone you trusted to review Uh poll requests specifically Um, but that doesn't mean to say they couldn't do, you know, they couldn't you couldn't go off and do something adventurous It just means that you didn't need to be a core developer to do that So if we could figure out what we actually Want our tech leads to be are they the part of the approval process is that a primary job? Or are they just, you know, people we've nominated to investigate a specific thing? Uh, which, you know, doesn't necessarily involve election or anything else. How do we want to think about them? online 1a as well says a co-chair of vote can be um jumped but Yeah, I lost. I lost the Line I'll wait until this is done Yeah, so If you look at line 180 as well it says a co-chair vote can be replaced by the approval of two tech leads and That also seems quite like quite a low bar like I could pair up with another tech lead and say hey, let's go start replacing people another Maybe another way to look at this is we don't have the representation Um, that's well established the in the process for electing and the prep and the The powers so we need to handle all that before we put stuff in Yes, for what you're saying Frederick and I think that it's tied in with the the other as well like what what are what are they? What does the tech lead do and there's a follow-up? item on the agenda about Including other types of leads. So what what do these do? Is they're gonna is the next one like also broaching the topic of community leads Taylor? Yeah, that would be part of it. So if I think we shouldn't even call it tech leads um, it's more like a I don't know you can why but it's We need some type of team leads would be equivalent if you thought like a project or something but um Team lead their leads working group leads. So you have the chairs and then you have what are these leads? They're going to take on different things Yeah of them maybe Technical and what does that mean? Of course that can be broken down into different things and then the community side That may be people from other groups that were wanting that are involved with us and maybe involved with several security groups or a whole chaos community. There's multiple litmus chaos Two different cncf projects. There's other ones in there in many different areas. So we may have someone in there that's wanting to ensure that Information from those groups comes over and then feedback from us is flowing in so tying into that There's the whole engagement and you could say marketing to get people involved. So anything around this says what are efforts that we have? And then people doing different types of Facilitation. So these are contributions. So is what type of contributions? Can happen so then leads could be focused in any different area or multiple areas, of course So I think expanding this to say someone is leading within our group to try to help is It'd be good to expand it beyond just saying attack lead Yeah, I personally think we kind of need to Look at this at large too. Like if you're going to lead documentation improvements Do you really need to get voted in for that or? I mean typically we have Self-motivated people that just kind of step up when we have the five second awkward pregnant pause on the call and they say fine. I'll do it You know Technical and community leads probably seem a little bit more official in my mind I don't know and I think I like the idea of a community lead for someone who Maybe doesn't have the confidence yet to Fully dive into like a deep technical subject, but they still want to help push the ball down the field I don't know what people start on Let's talk about what we need versus what we could have what we need right now It seems is is people who kind of are a process for deciding when a pull request is ready and goes in Which again is more like a core developer side of things than it is anything else. It's not leading projects It's not leading initiatives. It's literally taking an active role in making sure that by saying yes on a pull request They're not going to cause anyone great distress That's the thing that will get us moving the rest of it I think we could basically You know take longer to consider calling something a community lead or a project lead or whatever We may want them. There may be a reason for making the official That I think is a lot less well established right now The reason why this I I agree with the individuals being motivated and ideally we just have people willing to contribute or that's what we want and More than having people the titles are not important. So we just we're trying to get people to contribute um The reason why this is in here is primarily around what we have the wording around like the The governance side that last one that we looked at for the pr approvals and stuff like that. So having some Um wording that communicates what How people can get involved and then if If there is any official areas that are helpful for us Then those are documented and then how they relate to governance and stuff is the main thing and agree on Let's take more time to discuss these This item and the related stuff like the pr approval I think one thing that someone mentioned Earlier and it actually came up on the tag is purpose. So what is what is our purpose in any of these? and at the highest level on the CNF working group we're trying to find and and promote adoption of best practices for networking applications that Are going to help the end users service providers and integrators and everyone else So that's at the highest level. So then what is our purpose at a lower level with Having leads or anyone else? How does it help us to that higher level purpose? curious everybody's very quiet like What do people think on the idea of additional leads? Do we have any initial thoughts on like what the bar is set? I do think that whether we call them a tech leader or something else that people who approve pull request should be voted on because My assumption would be that people would want, you know basically a vote of confidence that you know the Documentation here is going to be maintained and it'll be people who are willing to take the time to read through stuff I'm You know, if you're someone who's super super busy and looks pull requests once a month And only like a few at a time Do you volunteer or do you instead try to go for a community lead and try to help lead projects and then Dive into PRs and weigh in on when they're specific to something you're interested in um This all seems a little bit complex to me Uh, I feel like we've been spending months on no building the bureaucracy for this work group uh If if our esteemed co-chairs think that this is the best way to move forward Honestly, I'm like whatever Whatever works best For the co-chairs in terms of management if if co-chairs feel that they need this very specific assignment of roles and responsibilities In the end the work group will work when people step up to do the work um You know, we we can make this official Uh, I'm I'm in favor of making this a little bit looser. I think we we we just have I don't know too too many roles and then too much Too much specificity, but if this works for you guys I'm fine with it Tell part of the point with this is it's not to say let's Actually specify 30 different types of leads and you need to tell us which one It's actually to make it more general and say We need we may need leads actually we can decide, you know, if we're going to move forward at all on that But it should not be specific to tech leads. That's really it So if if if we need other leadership besides co-chairs Let's make it general and if someone wants to say Yeah, I want to be a lead for this And that's what we want to document. That's fine. If you're just saying I want to lead, okay Whatever that means But making it more broad and allowing it to be more flexible is the point Well, the problem with that is that if we don't know what those things are And we don't know whether they even need to be incorporated into as tell says the bureaucracy And then maybe we're just over designing this Um I I think to me the issue is I'm fine with you know trying to understand what the group is doing. I think this is good I guess what we're really trying to divide here is between active members who participate and members who don't participate calling it a lead Well, we can call it lead if you prefer but in the end we're talking about people who are uh We're making we're more formalizing the idea of when people step up to actually contribute Things to the group to the work group. Um, so we want to I don't know give them A title But you know people who are not tech leads or leads. Um, they can still Comment they can still contribute um So to me this seems to be more formalizing okay Who wants to step up and to be a more active of the work group member of the work group? And let's formalize it in some way and create a list of responsibilities Um If that's what we're doing cool uh I just want to point to tal's point to right um The previous one we looked at around how many tech leads versus how many community votes, etc It doesn't say whether or not you can like supplant both tech lead votes So, I mean if we're just saying then that the baseline bar is six community votes Then get six people to review your stuff and then it's merged ready. Then we should just call that out. Um I mean, I don't have strong opinions Sometimes people like to have you know these things like they can tell their boss that oh I'm doing x y and z in the cnc f and it helps them out So i'm fine with putting this in place if if we want it. Um But at the same time too i'm kind of like As long as we decide on something I'd like to start spending these calls going over like the use cases and arguing about layer three networking in kates versus um some of these more procedural ones as soon as possible I'll I'll add another point, you know if this is about people stepping up to to take a more active role I I don't see why we need to vote on anything. Um anybody who wants to Be this kind of active member. It could be just an open list add yourself And uh, that means you have some responsibilities. Um Uh, we yeah We also have a fantastic set of uh of co-chairs and We can rely on them and their judgment to so if someone's acting in bad faith Or is damaging the repositories and uh, we we have some level of control where we can Remove people So I think though the process is important But I I would also recommend doing it as lightweight as as possible Well, my point is Do you guys really think that any of the people who Stepped up to be tech leads or whatever we're calling it Are not going to receive enough votes. I mean we're we're happy for any warm body Anybody in this group who wants to be more active. I mean we'll we'll celebrate that um Like I wonder if you know with this more expansive definition of what it is Do we really need uh to be voted in I mean any but this is a volunteer position So anybody who's volunteering to do more work great and Well, I I agree with you on all of the volunteer and anyone stepping up absolutely We want to get people that contribute and or celebrate that So the the main issue here is if and if we can split it is about Acknowledging who is there to help So that other people can come in and find them So if you're working on something tall and other people like I mentioned that I want to help Or whoever it is then that helps new contributors So that's one side and that can be a just an easy list That has nothing to do with governance. So the other side has to do with How we're doing like PRs And then further than that would be when we get down to adoption and promotion of best practices when we go Here's a set that we as a group if we separate those things and Which will probably mean an update to the charter And so have a separation of that Then it's a lot easier to do what you're suggesting. How just let people Say without voting I'm working on this if and I'd like to help. Okay, great. Just add yourself to the doc And there's no voting. You can just say that Separate that from PR process And we deal with the PR process separate But the problem right now is the PR processes at least suggested was it's tied to these names Um, so maybe we can go back on that PR. We don't have to now But the PR process maybe we want to rethink and have it what I think someone else suggested a few minutes ago maybe we have The PR process is only individuals community individuals and if we need to add something about board representation fine but the PRs And then deal with stuff like adoption of best practices that are promoted also separately I'm in favor of that, you know, as as frederick said, um, our co-chairs are making sure that this repository is okay So the look at PRs if we really have some rogue members somewhere accepting PRs willy-nilly The group will be self-correcting our repository is not a code base, right? There's nothing If a PR comes in it's not going to break everything Uh, I kind of feel like we'll be fine Less the less bureaucracy the better I'm in favor of just having a list people can add themselves to the list. We don't I don't think we need to In my opinion vote things in All right using natural using natural language to compile the straight introduction Right CICD exactly Yeah, when we say PR Another thing is what are we saying PR, uh approval power to change The charter to add a best practice all of it Change the future of the benefit Yeah, so we have that problem of what the power is of a you know PR kind of flipping in Uh, this technical Uh power and it's actually this broad Actual power that goes behind it that I think hasn't been described. So I think that's why people are reluctant or concerned Um, the other thing that was brought up is oh, we're taking a long time to accept these PRs that uh, that's because We don't agree That's what I would submit because we don't agree on what the things that we're talking about Should be in the charter or whatever. It's not I don't think that it is because We don't have enough people assigned to it or that it's a you know that no one's Responsible for it To press the button so Those are my things that Yeah, and nothing is set in stone, you know a PR gets accepted and let's say somebody looks at it and says Well, I actually disagree with this so other people You know, we can Revisit a PR that has already been accepted and do another PR that fixes it Um A repository. I think we all understand it as a living document a living set of documents that will evolve and change and maybe move back um Yeah, as I said, I think we're overthinking this I've got a I just got it because I have to drop but I want to point one other thing out and kind of like to tell us point is When we go to like the next cube con or something like that and we try to sell this We don't want people to think that the barrier of entry is like, you know Here's four thousand weird things and this place has run like, you know some former You know crazy country that like has like 50 layers of bureaucrats standing in your way like if you want to come in and get Involved we want that barrier of entry to be pretty low in my opinion Hmm The only thing I mean the the thing to me That this could do for us which would make us better than we are before Actually plays back to tell's point that we keep discussing bureaucracy because all our pull requests are on the bureaucracy Because all our pull requests get discussed in the meetings because no one's really sure When the right moment is to push the button and say let's commit it And that's why I think they're actually Spreading that responsibility around and actually officially assigning it Would really serve as some good because then you know things will happen in between in the week rather than you know on the meetings Um, I think this reiterates what Started with this we need to rethink from the PR the PR approval process and team leads We need to rethink how to make it easier to enter And we also want to make sure that things are Are are we Protecting anything that we need so maybe re-evaluation of that and say is there anything that we need to have bureaucracy around and then Um add it there Right now it's spread all over uh, and this is something um Jeffrey and Ann and I can focus on like from the governance share site and and looking To some of the I think part of it goes to representation so we can go talk about that and then go back to say how can we At least it's been expressed How can we go to limiting make it smaller amount of bureaucracy? And what are the important things That we do want All right, we're top of the hour. Thanks everyone These are discussion items um as well. So please at least from the standpoint of what Ann you're saying There is discussions and feedback which would help make these calls faster if you go in and Add information and especially references if you have thoughts on something and can give links and references then that'll help So that when we get in these calls They can move forward faster and potentially get completed online before the calls have been here See y'all next week. Thanks everyone. Bye