 Hello. Good morning. Hey, is that John? Yeah. Hey, good. Thank you, sir. My gold star for the day. That's exactly right. Yes, you get gold star All right, which Dan is that on the call? Dan Burger and Joe Sherman either Joe. Are you on mute? Yes, I was on mute. I'm here. All right. Cool. Thank you. Hi, Eric. You're there. Eric, you're there. Cool. Thank you, Louie. I think hello. How come it shows up as Henry? It's kind of interesting. Yeah, that's my email. Okay, we actually might have a low attendance today. It seemed like a lot of people had conflicts. I do expect Dan and Clemens to call in so they should be. Oh, excellent. Cool. Actually, it's kind of a shame that Google can't make it because I was hoping to be able to discuss some of Thomas's PRs, but I guess not. David, are you there? David Lyle? Okay. Oh, David. Yes. Oh, there you are. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And Chris, are you there? Yep. Excellent. Thank you. Bruno, are you there? Bruno, are you there? Excellent. Thank you. How's it going? That's a, never mind. Viome, are you there? Yep. This is Viome here. Excellent. Thank you. See, it's interesting watching these people's names bounce around the participant list trying to keep them in order. And Sarah, are you there? I am. You might be the only Google around the call. The other, no, not Sarah. Rachel. Rachel said the other folks might not be able to make it. Yeah, well, welcome. Jim Curtis, are you there? Jim, I see you off mute. I'm going to come back to Jim. Klaus, are you there? Yes, I'm here. Thank you. Austin, are you on the call yet? No. Okay. What about Jim? Are you there yet? Oh, Steve, are you there? Are you there? I'm here. Excellent. Thank you. You guys are really, really today. It's good. William, William, are you there? No, you're there. I can sense it. And Doug Jim says he's here. He's having Mike issues. Oh, okay. Oh, there he is. Okay. Thank you. I miss that. Okay. All right. The list just grew. So who did I miss? Eat it. Are you there? Eat it? Yes, I just joined. Okay, cool. Thank you. And let's circle back around to William. Are you there? I'm here. Excellent. Austin, are you on the call yet? Sean, are you there? Sean Peltman, I'm here. Excellent. Thank you. Let's see. Clemens and Dan just joined. Clemens, thank you and Dan. Okay. And that is Rosan over, right? Yes. Excellent. See, I can eventually learn these things. Hey, I see Austin now. Thank you, Austin. Hey, Doug. Hi, everyone. Okay. Did I miss anybody? Is there anybody on the call who does not have an asterisk next to their name? I think I got it every way this time. 21. Okay, let's give people just another minute or so, and then we'll get started. Hey, Lee, are you there? Lee, are you there? Hey, Doug. Hey, happy Thursday. Happy Thursday. And Barbara, are you there? Yeah, I'm here. Excellent. Okay. Let's go ahead and get started. But one last quick call. Is there anybody on the call who I did not add to the attendee list with an asterisk? I think I got everybody. All right. In that case, cool. Let's get started. I assume you guys can see my screen. Thank you, Austin. All right. Oops, let's get this out of the way. It's blocking me. All right. So first up on the agenda, a reminder for KubeCon. As of right now, we are still planning into being an official meeting or the face-to-face portion of our event there. We'll be at a meeting soon. Assuming we can get a dial-in, which will probably be the Zoom call. So assuming my wireless, we should be good to go. Just a quick question and in a previous phone call, people asked if they could get to the face-to-face meeting without actually buying tickets to the conference itself. We were wondering, is there actually anybody who's planning on going to the face-to-face meeting who is not going to be attending the conference? Frankly, I'm torn of whether I should go to the conference proper. OK. So as of right now, you have not bought a ticket then, right, Clemens? I have not yet bought a ticket. OK. But if I need to, I will. OK. I believe Chris was supposed to be on the call and he was telling me earlier today that we should be able to make an exception for people who want to attend the face-to-face. Now, if you if you wanted to join the face-to-face, but not the rest of the conference, were you also hoping to attend the BOF session or the Birds of the Feather session? Well, everything that's related. Yes, I thought. OK. OK. So let me double check with Chris later. It's not that I'm cheap. It's just the point is I'm not sure how much I I will be at that conference. Understood. Yeah. OK. So I'll check with Chris to make sure you can get in. Can't spell. All right. Cool. All right. I know I have an additional section later on for talk about the COOPCOM planning stuff. But in this particular thing, just about just about the topics listed here. Are there any other questions or comments related to that? All right. So just to let you guys know, we were we did ask for a BOF session and we finally got it approved. So it's going to be Wednesday, May 2nd at 4.25 to 5. I guess it's nothing really much more to say that we will talk about later on the call, you know, what we want to do with that. But I just want to let you guys know that we do have the BOF session set up, which is all good. So before we get into some of the other meteor discussions, I did want to address Kathy's PR that was supposed to have been talked about last week, but unfortunately, I messed up and dropped it from the agenda by mistake. So hopefully everybody has looked at this. She just wants to add an event correlation use case to our use case doc for consideration by the working group. I believe it already has one LGTMSI from mine. Are there any questions or comments on this one? OK, is there any objection to do accepting this one? All right, cool. Thank you guys very much. They quick review of that one. Oops, hold on. All right. Now, I believe last week's call, Austin mentioned that we should probably try to gather the list of issues and PRs we want to include it for consideration for zero point one release. So Bill referred to it as an MVP, but which are we want to think of it? We decided on this week's call to discuss that as of right now. I don't believe I've seen anybody comment on any issue of PR saying they want it included aside from the one that I tag, which is to get an ACP mapping proposal out there. I'm sorry, was this one want to comment? I agree. OK. So so let's let's start with the one that was tagged as wanting to be included. Does anybody have any comments on whether it should or should not be included? Let me go ahead and open it up in case you haven't looked at it. This was from Clemens. He basically talks about two different four. Actually, I'll let you talk to Clemens. OK. Yeah, so I actually made progress and I have pretty much an ITF RC style document about this now that I'm going to make available later today. I just didn't get it on the last night because of travel. But it's in the spirit. It looks kind of similar to the straw man here, where it's not exactly the same some variations because I thought about it a little bit, a little bit more. But this is effectively taking our properties that we have and creates a HDP mapping for them where I have two models. One is the binary model, the other one I now call the structured model where you can take a cloud event that has data. And so the first one, the binary one is if the data is something from let's say an IoT device that is in some proprietary format that you simply want to go and describe with metadata, but then route on as is. That's what the binary format is for. So all the for the HDP projection, all the cloud events properties go into HDP headers. I've been toying around with there's two options here. One is to go and make a single header and then put JSON value into that header that has the problem that that header value may run very long and then may run into very practical limitations of HDP servers. Also, people may want to use do some filtering or anything in terms of logic on HDP server based on the values that on the header values without forcing them to parse JSON. That's why I exploded them into digital headers. The other one is a more compact, one or more friendly one for routing where you have a JSON protection in this case for the event properties. And the JSON what I chose to do and what you'll see today when I go and put that PR in is actually submit two documents. One is the HDP mapping. The other one is a JSON event format. The JSON event format basically codifies what I have here. And obviously, this is based on an earlier graph that we have, which effectively says this is how you take these events that we have so far defined and how you put them into how you first of all define them individually or express them individually as JSON values and then how you put an envelope around them and also how you specifically treat the data property. If the data property contains JSON, then it's going to be projected as it is here. If the data property contains something that's not JSON, it will be base 64 encoded and then the content type will describe what's in there. That's also addressing a question, an issue question that Doug you raised this week on how data should be represented. So that's the JSON event mapping. I have that almost done. And then the HDP mapping basically picks that up and then uses that mapping to do what I call the structured mode. So you'll be able to go and read this sometime at the end of the day. The reason why I split this up in this way is first, we certainly down the road want to go and define transport mappings for MQP and MQTT. I might actually go and immediately following through a straw man for one of the two, just to make sure that the HDP mapping doesn't have any weird HDP isms in it. Or sorry, that we know that this can be mapped to two transports and then for the JSON event mapping, I don't think that necessarily stands alone. People who are concerned about footprints, specifically in IoT case, may want to have an alternative and may want to use, for instance, message pack. And so by splitting these things up into the core spec that we're working on right now and this event, the event encoding or event format plus the triangle of specs that are composable. And that's what I'm aiming for. OK, so let's circle back around without getting too much. You'll be able to see, as I said, you'll be able to see that this afternoon, sometime when I have them ready for submission. I'm like two hours away from that. OK, cool. And so at this point in time, let's not necessarily dive into a deep discussion of the technical details of the PR that's coming itself, but rather I'd like to get into a discussion about whether people think it's valid to include this in our 0.1 milestone or not. I'll jump in here, Clemens. I can still hear you, Clemens. Yeah, we lost connection at some point, but I don't know when. I think I heard you most of the time. OK, good. Yeah. Well, then it just dropped just in time. Sorry. To chime in on Doug's question, Clemens, I think you did a great job here. These simple examples are worth 20 pages of documentation. I think we should absolutely make shipping these examples with the first version of the specification mandatory because they explain everything in a very simple manner. So just to be clear, though, Austin, I believe we're talking about not just shipping examples, but actual spec text around what they actually should look like. Are you OK with that as well? Yes, cool. Yeah, if you a dog, can you give me the screen for a second? Yeah, sure. Hold on a sec. There you go. Go for it. All right. Just just for you to get a feel of what's there. Can you see? Yes. OK. So so this is the HV transport binding. And I basically have so I just let you just scroll through so you have a sense of what's there. I define the relationship to HDP. What I'm not doing is I'm not prescribing any use of any methods or how the URS should be shaped. I'm basically just making this a mapping to HDP messages. This can be mapped to a request. This can be mapped to a response. And I'm not making any hard constraints about whether you should go and send an event with a put or with a post, whether you can you can return an event from a get. It's just really how the the event is exploded onto the HDP message. And then if we want to go and create a further spec that defines how Webhook functions, we can do that. But this thing here kind of composes with anything you want to do with HDP with events, whether you want to send them or want to solicit them. This year, Describes what I just explained with the structured and the binary content modes kind of the overview talks about the event formats, then references the JSON format. The JSON format is started here. I have a I do have something that is required as a bug fix effectively for the existing spec based on the base type system because we're currently referring to a base type system in the core spec, but we're not defining it. So, so Clemens, just I actually do want to hear all this. But I think right now I'm at a high level and not going to the technical details. But one minute. OK, go ahead. And then I define how we're using the properties. I'm not calling them all out because I want to keep that that thing flexible for all the extensions and changes we want to make. So I just call out what I need to call out and then I define the message mapping and then down the bottom I have effectively the examples that you just saw in the issue. I have them here for this is the binary mapping and then down here I have the the structured mapping. So you'll be able to go and see this today. That's it. Excellent. I'm moving forward to it. It looks like it's on the right track for my opinion. Nice job Clemens. Yep. OK, so I've heard at least a couple of people's voice and opinion about including this in 0.1. Are there any other opinions favor or against? I see plus ones in there. Are there is anybody on the call who objects to this going in under 0.1? OK, not hearing any. Hold on a sec. Oops. OK, so are there any other issues or PRs that currently exist or ones that you feel we need to open that should be included in 0.1? Yeah, so based on what I just said, I think we need to define the type system. And I can basically what I'm thinking is that the text that I wrote for the JSON mapping, I want to have that sitting in the base spec. So I'm going to break that out into the PR. And the type system really is like we're using string and your eye and timestamp and map. And then we have we have data as loosely defined as arbitrary data. And I think that should be object. And so I'm going to give PR for that. And that's required for me to go build on. Otherwise, I haven't seen anything. OK, and you said that PR is coming today as well. Or is that follow up? Yeah, I'm going to have that all at the end of the day. OK, so is there any discussion around, including a defining our type system as Clemens currently expressed it? Depends how controversial it's going to be. I'm literally not adding anything. I'm just I'm just taking the expressions that we already have on the side of the properties and say this is what these are. So what if we take the approach of it sounds reasonable, pending, actually looking at the PR and if it gets too hairy, then we may revisit that decision. How's that? Yeah, sure. OK. Is there any? I'm sorry. Go ahead, Cathy. Yeah, so I hope this will also cover in addition to HCT event, also cover other event type like storage, like timer or any other like street like messaging. I'm not sure whether it's going to cover it. So the goal of this is how you take a cloud events event and send it over HTTP. That is the scope of that one specification that I'm writing. And then there can be other specifications that say, here's how you take a cloud events event and route that over MQTT. And this is how this is how you do it over MQP. A storage event is. If you want, if you want to have a way to define how an event ought to be sitting in a storage system, you can certainly create a binding for that, but I'm not sure how that would look. So what you mean is this will only cover how the events will be sent over HTTP, right? That is correct. Yes. That's the first step, because I think that's where everybody is using as the baseline. Yeah. So basically the HTTP API gateway event, something like that, this will cover something like that, right? It's literally how the cloud event event is projected onto an HTTP message. And this will work for requests, it will work for responses, and then it will work for every API that you're using today with HTTP. Okay. Yeah, okay. I see. Yeah, I guess to keep in mind that this isn't obviously the only thing we may do in the future. This is just for 0.1, which is our goal for a coupon. So over the next three weeks, beyond that, we can obviously add more later. Okay. Yeah, it makes sense. Thank you. If I might clarify to validate my understanding, this is about how to send events, not about what kind of events those are, what source we have. Yeah, correct. Correct, yes. Okay. Any other comments, questions on that? Sounded like Clemens was talking, but he muffled. Clemens, are you still there? Yeah, I am. Are you? Yeah. We weren't sure if you were trying to talk or not. It's okay. I just wanted to clarify, it's just a mapping. I'm actually making the points in both specs, so I'm not redefining anything. Okay. So let me circle back around then. Do we conditionally approve Clemens idea for defining our type system? And obviously, as I said here in the notes, we can revisit that decision if it ends up being something that's beyond what we want to do for 0.1, but conditionally approve it. Is there any objection to that? Okay. In that case, are there other topics, PRs, issues existing or too soon be created that people would like to include in 0.1? Go on once. There's a release ticket. There's a JSON sync up ticket. I think there are must also for 0.1. Okay. Yeah. I would agree with that. I'm hoping we can actually close that one today, but yes, I would agree. Yeah. For people. I think the JSON mapping that I'm proposing should be that. Yeah. I was actually hoping your PR might actually kill off some of the stuff we've already agreed to, to be honest. Yeah. Because we don't have a JSON serialization. We have something that looks like JSON maybe, but we don't have a formal JSON serialization. That's why I ended up writing one because I was at some point like, how do I do this? So I have to go and write one. Yeah. What I posted in the chat, I noticed in this examples that it's referencing some ideas that you wanted to promote, like instead of this source being your URL, where I like having topics and subjects and stuff, like to just include examples to what we already agreed and not to have like 0.2 in there and then we release 0.1. The PR that I'm going to file today is actually synced up with the spec. The issue is not. Right. So let's put it this way. Is there any disagreement then with the idea of just making sure that whatever form of serialization stuff we talk about, whether it's Clemens PR, the existing document we have in there, we need to make sure those are all in sync by 0.1. Yes. Any disagreement with that? Okay. So let me rephrase that actually. Hold on. Okay. So we approve that for 0.1. We'll figure out with the exact PRs that falls into later. All right. Any other potential 0.1 issues, features or requests? A quick comment on this. Doug, we have in our roadmap, we have almost a kind of a list of criteria that we'd like to ship with 0.1. Clemens just added a few things for including specifications for mapping cloud events to HTTP and for mapping cloud events to JSON and defining a type system. Can we add these into our 0.1 roadmap? I don't see why not. Sure. Would someone like to take the AI to do that? I can probably do it right now. Just be the GitHub UI. Update roadmap with our new requirements, right? Yes. And Clemens, this type system, how do you describe this? How would you describe this? Define a type system for cloud events values? Yes. And it's, yeah. It's really just because we are using a type system already, I just want to go in and have a declaration section upfront that says these are the values you can use. So if we currently have like event type, an event type is a string, but nothing says what the string is. So the point is I just want to have a preamble that says here's a set of types that the following properties are using. So it's not, I'm not redefining. I'm just capturing the fact. Got it. Okay. All right. I'm assuming no one would object to updating our roadmap to the line with what we just talked about. Is that correct? All right. Cool. Any other topics then or any other issues for 0.1? All right. Cool. That sounds like actually I'm relatively small list, especially once Clemens gets his PR I was in today. So Doug. Oh, yes. Go ahead. Sorry. This is Stan. I don't know if it had been talked about previously, but I just wanted to call out the notion of something like integrity, like payload checks some or something along those lines, whether or not it's been talked about or full include something like that in 0.1. I don't believe it's been mentioned. Anybody have any comments on that one? TLS doesn't for you. I'm more so talking about the, I'm not talking about the specific statement of like a malicious middleware that's reaching in and updating fields on a payload more just that we can verify specifically that no bits have been mangled along the way. Or if we want to try and guard against something like malicious middleware. I think they're separate use cases, but just curious if it had been talked about. No, it hasn't been talked about that I'm aware of. So we have just anecdotal evidence. We have that in an APP, for instance. And it was a giant circus to go and add the footer, which is then was supposed to host the signature. And I'm 10 years in. I'm not aware of anybody using it. Fair enough. I just wanted to kind of call out, like if we're not going to explicitly say, like we should explicitly call out as out of scope, it's not part of the specification, right? The notion of like generating checksums related to the envelope, the payload or both. So I think that might be a broader discussion. I think deciding whether it's in or out of scope is probably a good topic for later on when I think I went after, I think people have a chance to think about it. But let me ask it. Let me ask more focus question. Is there anybody on the call who believes that dealing with this integrity should be a mandatory for 0.1? Okay. So I'm not hearing any consensus around including that for 0.1, but I do think we should have the discussion later if that's okay, Stan. Yeah, absolutely. I just wanted to put it out there as a potential topic. Okay. It's because I haven't heard any conversation specifically about it yet. Yep. Nope. That's a fair question. And that's why we're doing the brainstorming to make sure we don't miss anything. So I appreciate it. I've had a similar interest in signatures and other things. Okay. So Stan, can I get you to open up an issue to make sure we don't forget about talking about this later? Yep. I'll do it right now. Excellent. Thank you very much. Whoops. I could type. I have a quick question for Clemens. Clemens as we add on more documentation on how the spec is mapped to various protocols. Can you design your PR in a way that will accommodate or establish a clear place for these stocks to be added in the project? What do you mean? For example, just a clear kind of organizational format as we add on docs for the various other protocols. Maybe some protocols folder or something like that. Yeah. I have a, I call these, I call the protocol, I call the transport bindings and format. So I have currently have HTTP transport binding and then I think we're going to have an MQT transport binding and an MQP transport binding and then I have a JSON format and I think we're going to have a similar format. Okay. All right. Okay. Any other potential topics for 0.1? All right. In that case, I believe we are done relatively short list in my opinion. So hopefully Clemens PR will be out there today. Please review it. As always, it would be nice if we can get that in there relatively soon because the next thing I want to talk about is what are we going to do for KubeCon and our CNCF Con? In particular, I'm interested in knowing if people would like to look at some sort of interoperability event since we will have a 0.1 hopefully by then. So I heard a yes for Clemens. Anybody else interested in some sort of interoperability thing? I'm absolutely interested in that. It's just a question of what it does, what it looks like at the end of the day. And just so you know, Mark, Mark Peek sent that earlier today with a doodle poll for some offline meetings next week to discuss what this thing would actually look like. Anybody else have any comments? We're game. Okay. Yeah, one quick comment. I'm not sure. Is anyone else speaking about this at CloudNativeCon? No one? Does it sound like anyone else is talking about this? Okay. Well, I have a talk at CloudNativeCon and I was going to cover just this effort and announce it and hopefully show off this great interop demo. How we do that, I'm open to all suggestions. You know, some goals I was kind of thinking about is would love to show off something that's pretty exciting and would love to include a lot of the people and their organizations and their technologies in this interop demo, although that could get very complicated. But I'm open to that. I think it would be very cool if we almost had, you know, a nice group showing of all of us working together doing some type of interoperability demo. And I don't know what that looks like, but I'd love for that to be kind of the basis of the talk. And open to even having other people come up on stage and talk a bit about it, but that, you know, we only have limited time, so I'm not sure how well that will scale. But anyway, I just want to put that out there so everyone knows and I'm all in favor of discussing this further on separate calls. Yeah, I think that'd be a great topic for the call that Mark is setting up. And I imagine multiple people would be interested in that. I don't know if at least from the IBM side we would be and I suspect Clemens would be as well since he already expressed interest in this kind of stuff. Yeah. Doc, we're also interested in this. So when is that meeting? Because I'm going to go on a business trip this Saturday. So. Right. Mark sent out a note earlier today with a with a link to a Doodle poll with some potential times. Oh, okay. Yeah, you can see it in the agenda doc out. It's right here. Basically I've highlighted. Okay. Okay. Good. Okay. So I'm assuming during that call, the little more concreteness will appear around what we're doing around an interop type of event and related to Austin's talk. Are there other things we should be looking at doing? So for example, we have a be a bird of a feather session. Is there anything we'd like to do in preparation for that? So for example, I was thinking we should have a potential list of topics or questions that we can ask ourselves that people in the audience, you know, if people in the audience don't ask us questions, you know, we don't want to be silent to sort of opening up. Yeah. Could you explain the format of a BOF session? I'm not sure if I've attended once. I'm not sure how they're usually structured. So usually the ones that I've attended have been fairly free form. Usually it's more people come and ask questions. But if they don't have, if the audience members don't have specific questions of the people running the show, then usually they'll have a list of questions to help prompt people to ask questions or to just provide some overview of what's going on with that piece of work. At least that's been my experience. Other people have had different experiences. So anybody else want to speak up? Yeah. That's been about my experience as well. Sometimes the presenter will give the shortest of intros or maybe walk people through a couple of slides but with the intention of stopping and having a relatively lengthy discussion at any point in the slides. Really trying to facilitate discussion more. The slides are being there to facilitate discussion more than in the house. Does that help, Austin? Yep. Okay. So as I said, my initial thought was, well actually based on what Lisa there, I hadn't thought of it before, but yeah, it might be good then for us to maybe put together a very quick set of slides just as a quick highlight of what we're doing so we can maybe talk to that for people who are completely clueless as to the exciting work that we're doing here. And maybe just have a list of potential list of topics to bring up for the audience editors to get more information about it. But Austin, I would think if you actually have a formal talk, we may be able to steal some of your slides, right, for that kind of thing, to provide an overview. Yes, it depends. Yeah, we can structure this various ways, but certainly can steal slides in that talk. I'll also direct people to the birds of a feather meeting and say, hey, if you're interested in this, go to this meeting and we can have a nice interactive discussion about it. Okay. So maybe what we'll do is as we get closer, we'll put together a Google doc or something for a list of potential sort of leading questions or leading topics for us to discuss at the birds of a feather if the audience members aren't as engaged as we'd like them to be just to keep the conversation going. And then beyond that, we can look at what you come up with for your talk and see whether we can do that as a quick intro. And if not, then yeah, we can create our own version of a short intro just for the birds of a feather if necessary, but I think we have time to decide that later if that's okay with people. I think if we can either in a presentation or questions to talk about what are the typical use cases on the serverless or the events will be, can be useful. So people will have you know, about the value of our work, of this group's work, work groups, I mean work. Yep, I would agree. Makes sense. Got that in there. Thank you. Yeah, I have some use case slides I can send it to you. Okay, that'd be great. Thank you. So some people are experimenting, implementing this already actually. So this could be a good time for people to show off, you know, their various implementations at the spec. Yep. Yep, and feedback that they have for us in terms of issues they run into perhaps. Yep. I also think a great goal for this meeting is going to be to start recruiting people who aren't infrastructure as a service providers. People from various verticals and try and get them into this group so we get those valuable perspectives. Yep, makes sense. All right, anything else? Okay, now Austin you had an AI here to find out how people want their company participation mentioned. And we have PR54 which basically adds a list of contributors or something like that. It was Sarah's PR. Do you think that's sufficient or do you still think we need to do something else relative to your AI? So first off on that PR, I think that's sufficient. I think there should be some language in there saying, you know, this doesn't constitute an official endorsement on behalf of all these people. You know, we're really collaborating or something to that effect. However, at the same time I've been talking to a lot of people in this working group and a lot of them as long as we can get this release out and they're comfortable with it, feel comfortable with their companies kind of being showcased as being associated with this. And I don't know if there's any other way to do it then for me to just, I guess, check in with them and say, hey, are you okay if we put your logo on this? And we can also put text on there saying this does not constitute an official endorsement. We could just say, this is a this is just a collaborative effort and these are people who are participating. So you said, you said logo on this, define this. Oh, logo on marketing materials. So first off, probably our website for cloud events and then in presentations, in slides either for the talk that I'm going to give at Cloud Native Con and the birds of a feather meeting. Okay. So you will reach out to everybody for any logo you choose to include. Yes, or people can just send me an email. Okay. Yeah. If some companies were missing here how does that work? Do we send another PR or correct? Yes. If you want your company added, yes, submit a request against contributors.md. Okay. And as far as effective participation as well, like just curious is there any criteria here because I don't know there may be some names that don't actually actively participate or it doesn't really matter. Yeah. As of right now, we have not defined any sort of minimum bar. It's basically if you if you participate at any level and get your name as a contributor list, then you're there. There's no there's no criteria to get added other than you exist and you want to be there. Does that help? Okay. Thank you. Yep. Okay. Um Okay. So the last topic I had in this section was the face-to-face meeting itself. Um what were people's thoughts in this space for people assuming it was just a regular face-to-face a regular working group meeting and we're just going to go through the list of topics like we do normally or there are very specific things people would like to do there because we're at a conference. So for example, Austin, I know you mentioned possibly doing an interop event during your talk. I hadn't thought about that before. That's why I was wondering whether we student interop event during our face-to-face meeting, but if we're going to do it during your talk then there's no need to do it twice. So what do people think? Yeah, I think the goal I have in mind for the talk I'm going to give is to show this to the world. Show this to new people and you know, excite them as to its potential by showing them some some examples of interoperability. I imagine that the face-to-face meeting was just for us to talk about, you know, just to meet up with each other, get to know each other. Um and perhaps probably discuss what 0.2 or 2.0 looks like. I find those face-to-face meetings very productive for just figuring out what the future will hold. Rather than going through the process of, you know, checking of list items from the list, but rather just go and do the, it's really hard in the format that we have to go and speculate about things or throw ideas around. But I think in the face-to-face it's going to be easier. So I would probably do scoping discussions and then see in the scope that we kind of figure out together you know, what are the things we want to do and also who does the work. Right. Okay. So it sounds like what I'm hearing so far is we would like to keep the face-to-face meeting to be more sort of an internal discussion. Obviously other people are free to join. But it's mainly for us in terms of planning purposes or design discussions or anything else related to our work itself. It's not there necessarily to showcase our work to other people. It's for us to actually get some work done. Is that fair? Is there any disagreement with heading that direction? All right. Cool. Okay. Then is there anything else relative to planning discussions around KubeCon and CNCFCon? I know we'll probably talk about this in the future, but as of right now, are there other things people want to discuss? All right. In that case, Austin, I believe this was your topic, website status. Yeah. This is a quick one. I just wanted to check in with Dan because I saw some activity on the website repo and I just want to see how it's going. Yeah. First of all, I don't think he made part. Oh wait. No, Dan, you are there. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm here. Yeah. I'm working on it as we speak. I haven't used Travis that much so I'm running in some issues, but I've almost got it publishing. So I think after that I'll be able to figure the get-up pages on it and it should be publishing and then we can have the custom URL and move the URL over to the DNS entry over. Great. It should be done in the next couple of hours. Well, first off, Dan, thanks for doing that. Super, super helpful. Our cloud events domain is currently down. So let us know as soon as you have something up and we'll ping the Linux foundation to redirect it and redirect those domains to the new website. Okay. Yeah. I'll definitely have something up here in the next hour or two. Cool. Thanks again for your work. Yeah. Any other questions for Dan? Excellent. And of course, thank you very much, Dan, for all your work there. I appreciate it. All right. So PR reviews. A couple of hopefully easy ones. Someone's just opened up today. It should be used instead of used in this sentence here. Everybody just take a quick look at that. I was going to approve it, but I thought I would wait for at least one more LGTM that I never got. So I decided to force it on you guys right now. Any objections to this one? Seems really straightforward. All right. Thank you guys very much. Oops. Okay. This next one was syncing up our JSON with some of the PRs that we resolved last week. Unfortunately, when I first saw the JSON serialization, there were just some fields I just flat out missed, like event time and content type. I have no idea how I missed that, but those are just additions. The biggest change was changing source to be a URI and getting rid of namespace. Now, obviously, this is probably going to change based upon what Clemens is going to do with his PR, but at least gets us in sync as of the current version of all the specs and documents. Are there any questions on this? Yeah, it's fine. Okay. Let's get this into approving. All right. Cool. Thank you guys. Next one. We have a status section of the spec that I was looking at the other day and looked at it and realized this is pretty much old. It has a mystery list of things we're going to do, not going to do, which are issues now lists. Some of it is just just doesn't apply anymore. And given all the other stuff that we have related to this between our milestone documents, our issue list, and stuff like that, I just don't have a section anymore, so I'm proposing that we remove it. Any questions on that? In particular, since it also talks about the scope, we already have a scoping section in the spec, so we don't need to duplicate it. Any questions, comments? Any objections? Okay, cool. This one is kind of related. We have an old section of the spec that has decided all the additional topics and questions. I kind of viewed this as a list of potential to-do items. Not all of them though. And I'm not asking for you guys to approve this today, but rather take a look at it. And if you think there's anything in here that we should actually discuss to please open up an issue for it. But otherwise, I don't think this section is necessarily appropriate for the spec going forward and I'd like to remove it. So I was going to give everybody until next week's call to see if there's anything in the list they'd like to include, and if so, open up an issue. Otherwise, I'd like to propose next week that we remove this section. Again, I'm not asking people to vote on this today, but are there any questions on this? Are there any objections to heading down that path? Okay, thank you guys very much. Thank you. Okay. Since Thomas is not on the call, I'm inclined to skip his two PRs unless there's somebody on the call who would like to talk to them on his behalf. Okay. I think these are important ones. I wish they were on the call today. But I think everyone should go and check this out because I think these are some of the more controversial pieces of 0.1. So if everyone can weigh in on these, that would be super helpful. Probably the most helpful thing you could do to move this forward. So I think the first one, adding namespace into event type will be very helpful. The other one is kind of sparking a discussion about what are we going to do with custom properties. And that's something that might be a good topic to discuss face-to-face. Right now extensions are pretty good for that. Because I can see very many different contexts in which you want to have extensibility and so therefore I don't want to have 10 buckets of custom properties. I think that's a discussion that we need to go and have. So let me ask just a quick question. Because Thomas isn't on the call I don't think it's fair to have a deep discussion but I am kind of curious just to get a sense from the group. Adding namespace to the event type how do people feel in general about heading that direction? Ignoring some of the nitpicky details about must versus may and all that other stuff. Just in general, adding a namespace to the event type, does that seem like people are in general in favor of that direction? Okay. Is there anybody on the call who thinks that would be a mistake? I think nobody is happy with this source as a URI and if nobody is happy and there is an alternative, why not use this alternative? How do you feel that nobody is happy with sources URI? Just from the comments I saw and everybody coming at least there are two known proposals how to change from using sources URI so like... Well, we just accepted that last week, didn't we? Yeah, I know, but that's my impression that nobody is really happy and that... We are excited about it. Okay. I think people are more excited about that it was gone off the table than that it actually saw No, we love it. Okay. Anyway, I think I got my answer. People seem to be generally okay with the namespace and the event type, we just need to work on the actual wording. It's just fine. And I know the other one is a little more controversial so I won't ask about that one. But before we move on, just to reiterate what Austin was saying, please review those so we can have some good discussions preferably offline if possible and then maybe even resolve them next week. Please take a look. Yeah, one other note on the source labels topic. I appreciate Thomas's kind of thought leadership here and the problems that this could potentially solve. I'm kind of okay with passing on it for 0.1 if necessary just because I do feel like this is something that we're kind of adding at this time and we could potentially add it later. Well, so keep in mind we did not actually talk about including either one of those in 0.1. Are you suggesting that we maybe should include the first one in 0.1 because we haven't actually tagged this as such? Include the namespace into 0.1. The namespace and event type. I think this is a pretty important one that's critical. Clemens, do you feel otherwise? I think that the risk for collision is so low that I don't feel this really needs to be there. I find namespacing is mostly an esoteric exercise in most cases and so I'm not I'm not opposed to adding it but I'm also not I don't think it's critical. Anybody else in the comment opinion either way? Is this something maybe we should perhaps revisit in the next week's call once people have a chance to look at this PR a little closer? Okay, I'm seeing Austin shake his head. I think so, especially because Thomas and our Google colleagues will hopefully be on that call. But in general, just as we approach each thing right now, we've got 26 days or something to finalize the specification and build some type of demo based off of it. Each thing we're looking at right now we really need to raise the question do we actually need to focus on this right now? Yep, okay. Alright, anything else related to Thomas's English Muffins or PRs? They need to be re-based once these sync up stuff is merged. Yeah, obviously yes, definitely. Okay, next one. This one, Leo put up a poor request against the working group not the cloud events spec but the main working group thing to add a non-goal as identify I'm sorry, a non-goal is identify one is project to rule them all. This I think may have been originally added as a joke but it may actually be a good thing to include in there and before I just approved it I wanted to get people to take on it. Was that filed on April 1st? I don't know, was it? No, it was not. Just check it. Lee, is there anything like you'd like to say on this one since it's yours? Hey guys, it's phrased somewhat comically and not done well but it conveys the sentiment so if we need to rephrase feel free. Does anyone disagree with the sentiment? I love the sentiment. I love it too, yes. I love it too, yes. Okay, so let's ask. It's not terse or you know. Is there any objection then to approving it? Keep it in verbatim. Exactly. Okay, any objection? Done. Okay, now unfortunately we don't have very much time left so I don't think we're going to be able to get into some of these other ones that are kind of meaty but please do take a look at those PR's and get some discussions going out there. We're trying to do as much work offline as we can. Before I circle back around and do attendance, are there any other topics that are very quick that people would like to bring up? Okay, in that case Stan, I heard you. Kathy, I heard you. Rob Dolan. Rob, are you still there? I saw you earlier. Rob? Hey Doug, this is Rob Dolan. I'm here and I'm finally off mute. I'm just listening in and for those of you who knew me from my previous life, I'm currently now working at Oracle. Welcome to the group. Thank you much Doug, I appreciate it. Seems like you've been doing a great job of chairing. Thank you. Farad, are you there? I apologize if I'm butchering your name. Farad? I don't see a little microphone next to his name. Mark, are you still there? I think Mark had the go. Is there anybody on the call? I wasn't muted. Yeah, I'm fine with it. Oh, sorry, is that Mark or Farad? That's Farad. Sorry, okay, got it. Okay, is there anybody on the call who is not on the attendee list? This is Ryan. This is Ryan from Alibaba. Got it. Okay, thank you. I apologize for missing you. Anybody else? All right, in that case, last chance for a very quick topic in the last five minutes. In that case, please remember to go fill out Mark Peek's doodle poll for the offline meeting to discuss in interop event. We're hoping to get that going relatively quickly. So I think it's hoping to get something going early next week. And with that, I believe we're done. Thank you guys very much. I appreciate it. We got a lot done today. Amazing. Yeah, very good. Thank you guys. PRs for me later today. Yep, I'm looking forward to it. Thank you. Thank you.