 Hello, everyone. Just give us a few moments. We're going to give everyone another minute. We do have a lot of folks on the call today, so that's pretty exciting. Okay, Amy, do you think we've got enough folks to get started? I just ran through. We've got six TUC members. We've got 23 on the call, and that's pretty much where we start anyway. So, hooray. All right. Let's go. All right. Thanks, everyone, for joining us today as a reminder, your participation in these abides by the Linux Foundation's antitrust policy. And if you've made it, you're aware of the meeting logistics. Next slide. We have several TUC members present today on the call, but we are not making any decisions. Our agenda today is discuss the moving levels task force that is being executed out of tag contributor strategy. There have been a lot of comments on the issue. And we want to ensure that we have a good dialogue around kind of setting expectations as well as making sure that any volunteers that are interested in participating in this kind of understand what it is that they're getting into. We have attempted to define scope, but I know that there were a lot of questions on the issue. So let's go ahead and move forward. So overall, a little bit of background around this is we've had a lot of feedback and comments from both projects and community members as well as TUC members around the entirety of the moving levels process, the experiences that projects and community members have as a part of that. Some of the challenges with the existing criteria, the existing leveling framework. And we want to ensure that we are using information based off of past experience to improve the process overall. So think of this activity as a retrospective where we're taking some of the information we've gathered both from containers from TUC members interactions with projects moving levels as well as community members that have moved projects themselves so that we can ensure that whatever changes are being made or actionable and relevant and serving the needs of the community and the projects as well as the TUC. So the goal of this group is to work with the data that's been collected both on the particular issue where we've had folks provide comments as well as several other issues on the TUC repo regarding moving levels and the maintainer feedback survey regarding the experience overall some of the challenges areas that worked and what didn't work. The intent at the end is to come up with a series of recommendations to adjust change in even restructure how the TUC determines technical maturity and viability within the CNCF for all life cycle stages and for projects and their growth and that that last sentence becomes pretty important as we move forward. So we've attempted to define some of the areas that are in scope, such as defining levels of maturity within the life cycle criteria and common characteristics the distinguishing trait there being that not all criteria may apply to all projects for instance not every project is a specification. So we might need to make determinations that are unique to specifications versus are more traditional thinking around projects. We also need to do a better job of defining what archiving projects is as a state of growth within that there is also this concept of supplemental as a state of growth in the TUC has seen this significantly more both in projects that are applying as well as projects that exist within the ecosystem and may have shifted slightly from when they were initially accepted into the CNCF. So they may not reach a high enough level of maturity. We would see widespread rampant adoption throughout the ecosystem and high maturity, but rather they perform a supplemental function to the overall ecosystem and we are not expecting them necessarily to meet that higher stage of growth. I know Liz had a question about this, but that was a little bit of the thinking around it restructuring the process and for each level in a state of evaluation that occurs at that level. Defining who the stakeholders are and who's responsible for executing each portion of the process at each step. And defining what if any additional attributes should be recorded or captured to express the domain specific maturity characteristics and evaluation by which those attributes could be expressed. So there's a lot of information there we tried to make sure that we were hitting on the key areas of scope that the TUC is looking for some of the specific areas that are out of scope are defining CNCF benefits to project at levels or states. As well as identifying any CNCF staff specific roles functions or activities as part of the moving levels process. And the reason why those two areas are defined as being out of scope and I believe Craig or Doug had this as a question on the on the issue and I'll take a look at it and make sure we've addressed them all in a moment. Is the TUC is responsible for the technical direction so as part of our moving levels and process criteria, we are not necessarily in a position to dictate how the CNCF resources are directed towards projects. That is a recommendation I believe and Amy you'll have to correct me to the governing board by which we can request additional resources of CNCF to be applied to projects at various states so I'm in my mind I'm seeing the CNCF benefits and the staff specific support functions for whatever recommendations come out of this and what the TUC finalizes to be a recommendation to the governing board to allocate against that does not mean that this working group can or I'm sorry. This does not mean that the working group should exclude recommendations in this area but more importantly that that's not the focus of this activity but if there is something obvious such as paying for or coordinating security projects for projects for instance it's an existing benefit and it's an existing criteria we need to make sure that that's still accounted for within this process. Let me just double check some of the other questions and comments that we had on here. There was a question around examining the purpose of the levels themselves and I think that is definitely in scope it's an area of discussion if we don't understand what the purpose of the levels are and what they're trying to convey both to the community to the projects to potential adopters. We're not really going to be able to make effective change to the overall process so definitely getting a definition on that what is kind of the intent what is the focus. What was another one and I'll have to request folks if you do have additional questions feel free to drop them in the chat or TUC members feel free to chime in as I toggle back and forth between the issue comments. Amy if you could help highlight folks with questions. All right so Doug has done like a hand in the old fashioned way so come on in. Yeah I can. I can't seem to find the little thing to say raise my hand and zoom right now it's really weird. Anyway my question was relative to the levels and stuff. Let's just take an extreme example. Let's say this this task force is what it's called I guess decides you know what we don't need levels. We want to do something slightly different. Is that within scope. I would say. I'm going to incline on the yes side and the reason why is my understanding of the original moving levels process was based off of the chasm and that is a lot of what we talk about it from early adopters to to some of the laggards from like a project maturity perspective and our levels were defined based off of the chasm model. But as we see CNCF projects come into the ecosystem the chasm model assumes that projects have an end when they graduate. But what we've seen as of late is that projects don't end we expect them to continue to exist and sustain and evolve with. The community with industry with whatever the needs of the organizations and adopters are and whatever brilliant ideas our community members come up with to create new projects. So for me I see that there's a little bit of the existing technical maturity that we have in the current levels but I also see a little bit more of. An SCLC kind of overlay on top of that so maybe maybe we don't call it levels maybe we call it something else but the intent is that. For me that there are periodic points in which the TOC can engage with projects and the tags to understand their technical maturity to understand their adoption to ensure that they are set up for success. As they reach more widespread and rampant adoption by community members and organizations within the ecosystem. Does that make sense. It does and short answer is yes it's within scope and that's that's all I cared about so yes thank you. Other TOC members do you have any comments observations and opinions on this I think definitely you and I have talked about this in the past. Yeah. Yeah I was you know I was thinking that given the demands that we have for things coming into the sandbox that part of the part of the effort could be to understand the definition of what sandboxes. A little bit better right to to determine like is there a phase in moving levels where in we we kind of change the way that sandbox works to include to to. To use that as a defining period for whether the relationship between a project coming into the CNCF and the CNCF itself can actually establish a reasonable relationship before actually committed to another in that way right like for the most part right now we just let Pete we we evaluate projects for inclusion and then immediately they are a part of the CNCF and that means that our sandbox. Q is growing pretty significantly and the number of projects that we include into sandbox continues to grow and so when. When those projects are included into sandbox there they may not be incentivized necessarily to move out of sandbox from sandbox to incubation or from incubation to graduation. Because they have effectively accomplished their goal right it's a third part it's now under a third party entity other contributors can contribute to it a lot of the rewards or a lot of the value of being a part of the set the CNCF is already achieved at this time. So trying to understand the incentive for projects to continue to grow into that space is an interesting one. Yep. Others. Okay. Have done Davis with a hand up. No they already did it or do you do you actually see my hand up physically I'm just curious because I tried and it couldn't make it happen on my side. I don't I just see a note for it. Oh no that's okay that's all thanks for mentioning you know I appreciate it. One of the other items that Liz called out in her comment on this particular issue was that the principles in the CNCF Charter State fastest better than slow and the foundation enables projects to progress at high velocity to support aggressive adoption by users. And I want to ensure that while we're while the task force is considering all of the data that's been collected and presented both in the existing to see issues on our repo as well as the comments on this particular issue and whatever community members suggest for recommendations. We want to meet. We want to ensure that whatever process comes out of this whatever that architecture or leveling framework is a maturity model that we're capable of adapting to the speed at which projects need and a way that considers any maturity requirements or needs within the domain that they operate. And what I mean by that is, we have a lot of information available at our fingertips and right now we are spending a significant amount of time both in community members as well as within to see members and even projects, providing a lot of information that exists. In a in an API that exists in some other metadata that is informative both to adopters and to see members and evaluating projects. So I would certainly love for this group to consider what information can be automatically collected and presented to show progress to show growth to show expansion and technical maturity and make recommendations both to the to see as well as the CNCF about how we can ensure that that information is more up to date instead of one or two years old and then requesting projects come back in and update their PR is that we would like to be able to do this as quickly and efficiently as possible, while still considering we have to plan for not only 200 or maybe even 300 projects coming into the CNCF within the next few years, but also that we could see significantly more so this process has to work for everything. And a lot more of them with the current constraints and resource limitations that we have as community members and volunteers. What other questions comments to folks have Amy next slide. So here's some of the timelines that we're considering so the TOC did provide some scoping and we're providing additional clarification here. Like anybody that is interested in participating in this group to comment on the issue I know we've seen several folks that have expressed interest and have recommendations they've already provided comments. What we're going to do is we're going to look at kicking this off on the week of August 21. And we will have two TOC members that will be a part of this group to ensure that the rest of the TOC is informed of like what's going on, as well as ensure that any considerations that the TOC has as far as moving levels are suggested as community level community member input to this group. And that way we have better lines of communication and we're not surprised by anything that comes out of it. I'm excited to see this work happen. I know Duffy had expressed an interest in being one of the TOC members to participate in this. Are there other TOC members on the call that are also equally interested. Matt. I just had a brief question. Is, as far as projects in the sandbox, is there, is it a goal to have some measure of how they're collaborating with each other? Are they merging? Are there any indicators of sort of, I remember a few years ago talking about the intent of the sandbox in the discussion you were referencing before with Liz and whatnot. That that was kind of called out as an ancillary goal. I don't remember if I read it or if I heard it, but is that still sort of a sandbox goal that. It's easy to enter the sandbox and then you bump into other projects and you might merge with them because that's something that we want to incentivize as a foundation or that the foundation or other ones to incentivize or is that not a goal. I'm going to say that's entirely up to the projects, although the TOC does recommend and encourage projects to partner and work together to see where they can optimize for integrations. But we don't necessarily dictate one project should interact with or merge with another project. We would like to see that where it makes sense and it's reasonable, but that's not true in all cases. Josh. Yeah, I'm looking at this timeline. And if discussing whether or not we should even have the levels that we have is in scope. I can't imagine that the committee is going to deliver concrete recommendations within eight weeks. I mean, I mean that that debate by itself could go on for quite some time. I'm certainly understandable. I think part of it is while the while we can talk a long time around what what does it does not work and some of the recommendations. I want to ensure that we're we're time banding this so that we have recommendations that come out of this group. I don't want us to continue to stare at the problem. We've been doing that for a long period of time. We haven't we haven't actually moved forward on it. So I want to make sure that we have an end goal and insight. The other item that I will say is I want to ensure that we are focused on iterative improvements. So the deliverables or the outcomes and the recommendations of this group can certainly be long term vision and like this is where we would like to see everything moving forward. But ultimately we need to have smaller steps to be able to get there. That way we can try something out so we can adjust it and then we can make additional changes on top of that. So I want to be able to be as flexible as possible and agile with this process. So it sounds like Josh from your recommendation eight weeks is definitely not enough. We could probably push this out. Ideally we were kind of targeting around. Cube con to talk through a little bit more solidly around some of the recommendations but I certainly understand that that may not be possible and this is. Go ahead. Yeah I was going to say alternately if if the committee was scope to recommending improvements in the levels that certainly something that we could do in eight weeks. It's just that if there's concurrently a debate going on about whether or not we should have the levels at all that's going to prevent any discussion of specific improvements. Okay. Do you think it would be reasonable to have an initial focus of this group on immediate improvements and then a more long term revisit of the levels overall. Yeah, I mean because the levels of all that's going to be a long discussion right we've had them since the CNCF was created they've been tweaked a number of times. People can be discussion, the projects that have gone through getting to graduated are now very invested in the system most of them. So I, you know I see that taking a long time to resolve it's almost like we would want to have a separate committee. And debate that, you know to discuss that particular topic, will somebody else just works on incremental improvements. Okay, Doug and then Matt. Yeah, so I don't have a problem with pushing the date but on the flip side, I do tend to like forcing functions and so having a sooner date with the assumption that if something happens we can make that date then we can move it out of needed. So I like the idea of having something rather sooner, because otherwise people get busy with their real day jobs, and then things get pushed out thinking you know what's the there's an expression about things fill the time is needed or fill the void you know kind of stuff. So I like the idea of forcing function with the assumption that if it, if worse comes to worse and do more time than the TOC will allow more time if needed, but either ways technically fine with me. Yeah, I like the idea of a forcing function revisiting the levels is probably me that that's a highly contentious and political thing you've got graduated projects you've got companies you've got projects and they want to, you know, there's just so much to that and so many angles and you open that up, and the people who are dealing with it are going to have people coming out of the woodwork to try to influence it. So it's going to be much more contentious and debated, and it doesn't solve our short term problems. Right, our short term problems is how do we manage the current set of projects that we have. And I think I like the idea of breaking it up into two things one deal with the big hairy one later. Short term, things we've got to get done to communicate more clearly and expectations and how do you do things within the current structure. And I think that will even help, you know, create learnings that can feedback into whatever future things we do right sometimes dealing with the situation in front of us we can learn a lot to help influence the bigger restructure later, because I think there's a lot we just don't know and don't realize. I like focusing on just practical things to help things moving and move that big hairy color of the bike shed conversation off, and just focus on real world stuff and if you focus on things that will impact, you know, things given the current levels. I like the idea of having a time boxed as well. That kind of forces people to focus on it. It has a realistic output, because we're going to have a probably a TSE presentation at Cube gun, right. This is one of those things that hopefully will have an output from we can talk about a cube gone. These ideas then can be run across people in person, right we can talk about it there with people and that can influence maybe things maybe we'll get feedback there. And then at the next to see meeting will be able to talk about some of that feedback, but I think it feeds us for those in person meetings which I think is good to. So I like the idea of having time box, even though I see it as really scary, given the fact that I'd like to be involved, but I also don't think I have the time to be involved, but I'd like to be involved. I think you and many community members share that concern and interest. Kathy, I think you just volunteered. I'm fine with that. Kathy, go ahead. Yeah, I think I share the same view point as Matt, I think Matt summarized it very well. I think we should, we can have some short term, you know, focus goals and delivery. And then for the long term thing, I think that may need a lot of, you know, they will involve a lot of debate. And also we can learn as Matt mentioned, I think, you know, from this clarification passes. I think we can learn something. Yeah, and then for the long term discussion. All right. So what we will do is we will modify the scope on the issue will also reference this recording so that if folks do have questions around why the modification, or feel like they didn't understand some of the comments that were being made will have the responses here. So what we'll do is we'll modify it will focus this timeline on initial and iterative improvements and then with the expectation that there will be a follow on activity. Once those improvements have been applied to actually reconsider the leveling framework that we currently have in place. Probably starting next year sometime does how does that sound for folks. I don't want to lose the momentum on this. So I don't want it to be this time next year when we're having the same conversation about moving levels. So perhaps around early spring, mid late spring, depending. One. Can be all had a good comment and chat about considering the projects that are currently going through the process today and the ecosystem knowledge that they've possessed as a result of that definitely needs to be considered for sure. The items I don't believe it's clear on the issue but I think I've mentioned many folks that have reached out to me is that we do need to consider the projects that are currently in the process for moving levels as well as the ones that have already applied but are not assigned to a TSE sponsor to start the new diligence. So whatever recommendations come out of this group I'd like to see some versioning or migration for anybody that's currently in flight. Whether or not that's volunteer base that they want to try the new process or purposefully be excluded from it because they've already started. There should all be considerations as well. Yeah, I think that I think there is a good great point. So for the current projects that are already in the, like in the process of moving in the process for moving levels, how should we treat those parties. I mean, as this change come in. Yep. Okay. Any other questions on scope or timelines or focus. I think, you know, good. Sorry, I think my question. Yeah, I was going to have like, what were those current projects just follow the existing criteria, even there some there's some sometimes they're not very clear. Or should we evaluate against a new criteria. I think that's part of the recommendations to come out of the group is to provide that. Yep. I don't want to make that decision here because we do have a lot of projects that are in the middle of moving levels and throwing in new graduation criteria right now seems a little inappropriate to them, particularly if we're about ready to open them up for public comment. Yeah. Yeah, but so if those parties are impacted, we need to let them know. Otherwise, people are going to think, you know, it takes long, you know, time, you know, all those changes or disruption. So let's see what the recommendations from the group are some of those improvements maybe adjustments to criteria I do know that tag contributor strategy has an open request for evidence governance reviews for graduated projects. And I do know that there's been some other discussions in the past about modifying some of the criteria at various levels. There is a question about whether or not we had a lead yet for this. Amy, did we decide whether or not that was a voting function or a self organizing function. I didn't. But basically, like, I'll go back to timelines here like the intention, at least right now is that I'm the one that's going to be able to like schedule the meetings get us to a place where we actually have recommendations to be able to give to everyone. If someone volunteers to be able to lead, I'm happy to be able to partner with them. But realistically, I am kind of your your non voting kind of like shepherd that kind of moves everything across the line. But I'm also going to highlight a new staffer with us. George Castro, who I'm bringing in to be able to help me out on this one and George wave to the crowd. The reason that I want George involved because George has actually been with a project to be able to move between levels and he's now a staff member as well so I can task him with things. Thank you. Awesome. All right. I'll give him a chance to be able to say anything here. I know it's just the cloak and come off camera. He might be like hardware muted. Right game on basically like that's that's exactly where like I want to be able to like have at least a few of us kind of like paying attention in here to be able to make sure that we do have actually get this crossed line and have like reasonable recommendations to be able to bring to the to see. Okay. So for to see members right now I know that definitely is definitely interested Matt is also interested but might be time constrained. I know that I am also interested but will also be time constrained. So at the very least you've got one to see member available and got at least between Matt and I we can probably make up that second one. I'm not interested but time constrained is like a qualification for joining this conversation I'm happy to be there too but like, I have no idea how to rank the three of us on who's the most and or at least time constraint and which ones of us make up that second one. We can certainly figure that out amongst ourselves. Yeah, I'm right. Yes, I know it's time consuming. I may not be able to draw the meetings but I can try some. Maybe we can take turns, you know. The thing is to be able to not have this be a meeting heavy focus like just between time zones and all of that. And I love all of you but we really want to be able to actually have work happen more in writing and less in like meetings. Yep. Okay. Great. So what we're going to do for the kickoff that's going to get started Amy, if you could put together the meeting. I can certainly go in and update the issue with the scoping information to talk around the initial iterative improvements and then with the longer term expected to happen in early early to mid spring of next year. And then we can go from there. I'm not missing anything. No, I mean, we'll try to be able to do a kickoff meeting but again, it'll, the real focus is going to be towards like documentation and being able to like write things down. So, yep. Okay. Any other questions for today. Well, if that's everything. Thank you all so much for joining us on today Kapil. I was looking at that foundation issue on the impact of Azure corpse license change and was this curious if there was any timeline on a talk statement or guidance. Not a talk statement, but there's a just drop the link in the chat. We have source available recommendations that have been published over in foundation. Thank you. Like, not necessarily talk issue right now, kind of looking at this more like broader foundation pieces, happy to be able to take questions. And on that particular issue, which I will go find and drop into chat as well. The, if you do have pieces that you know that you're using in your project, we would love to be able to know about them, kind of just looking for data right now about like where and what might be impacted. And hi, I'm Adam and the Hashi corporate representatives of the CNCF. So happy to answer questions for any of the TSE members by assistance in understanding what the change means for registers projects being engaged with a few people already and actually tracking issues 617 so happy to help if I can. Yeah, I was being able to gather data really just like come come help me help understand all of these pieces coming together capital back to you. I've dropped my projects data into that issue. I'm more just curious, like, do we have any guidelines from a foundation level like before using it and I don't know that's the appropriate one to be fair. Like, we're using functional tests. We have some uses of libraries, libraries are still in jail. Thankfully, but I'm just curious where, where we should be drawing where the lines are so speak. And I'll go read that document that you just posted. Thank you. Yeah, start with that document come back with questions. We might not have very many answers right now, but we at least have some things we're starting from. So. Yep. You know, it may be useful to know just for general the CNCF projects. They've got to be under the Apache to license and there are only a lot certain licenses that are generally allowed and the others have exceptions. And there's already a policy around that you can find details on that in the foundation repo alongside the source available recommendation. So when it comes to your dependency tree and what's in there, there are already certain things that we do generally need to follow. And knowing that whole picture and the process around it may also give some useful insight if you're not already familiar with it. So I tried to ask you if you're not a lawyer to refrain from making commentary about this. That's an opinion. It is an opinion. Yes. As TSE member, you came. You, your opinion carries. I'm not a TSE member. Okay. So if you folks that have more questions about the licensing change that we've been talking about, there is an open issue on the foundation repo that was linked. It's number 617. Please go and provide any comments or additional insights there as well as please review the file that Amy graciously linked within chat regarding some of these changes. Thank you everyone for your time today on the call as we learn more. I'll be providing updates both on that issue regarding licensing and as we move forward with the moving levels process, please sure to check out that issue on the tech contributor strategy repository. Expect to see some changes coming out shortly today. Thank you everyone. Thank you.