 Alright, there we go. Well, we don't have a few more folks to be able to come on in. Hooray! Dimms, I was hoping you were going to be able to help today. As Dimms comes off a mute, or maybe not. Hi. Oh, perfect. That is your mic check. Brilliant. Okay, so are we missing this today? I don't think so. I'm going to give it a minute or so. I don't have anything direct as I check all of my various things about like where people might be. We'll give it a minute because I'm not sure we're going to use the entire time this morning. We'll see. Hey, sorry I'm late. Excellent. Super. I was not sure if like the, you know, I was giving it a minute or so. Yeah, my fault. Sorry everyone. All good. All good. We have actually got, um, uh, frankly, most of the people I expected today. So, um, I have already informed Dimms that he gets to be able to lead a lot of discussion around, uh, what we're going to lay out in here. But, uh, Liz Dimms, I'll let you all kind of. Yeah, yeah, pretty much. Let's just welcome everyone. Hi everyone. Let's go through the usual logistics and antitrust and things. And, uh, then I think we only have that one topic, which is about the proposal to make graduation smoother and easier and lovelier. So Dimms, do you want to take it away? Sure. Thanks, Liz. So I'm sure a few of you here, if not all of you have gone through the graduation process. And it's kind of nerve wrecking, right? And part of the issue that is nerve wrecking is having to find the TOC sponsors. And, you know, how do you do that? So that's part of the bootstrapping issue that we have. Like, yes, sometimes some of the TOC members might be part of your project, then it makes it easier to, you know, just hit them up to become a sponsor for your project. But most often than not, you know, you don't know the people and you don't know who to approach, you know, so there's a bootstrapping problem here. So we were trying to, as a TOC, we were trying to think about this problem where we want to kind of like avoid people having to go hit up all the TOC members and, oh, hey, would you like to sponsor us? And also, you know, the CNC of staff and like, so having to go through that process of, you know, one on one, trying to advocate for your project and not knowing who might end up being your sponsor. So that's the setup here. Did anybody agree, disagree with this kind of setup that we have right now? Yes, Mukilika. In our case, obviously one of the TOC members was working on the project, so it helped to find the sponsor. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so, so what we ended up doing was, you know, when a project is ready to do this, you know, they want to get into the process of like, okay, we want to tell, hit up the TOC members and say that we already, what can they do, right? So we said that they could give us a one page, one pager, we'll go through a template later. And then the one pager would be like a PR template that they would add to the TOC repository. And the TOC would review in private and hopefully one of the TOC, you know, steps up as a sponsor. And if not, if then the least that the TOC as a body can do is get back to the project and say, hey, this is the feedback as the whole of TOC. And, you know, if we can't find somebody who wants to do this, or we feel that the project is not ready, you know, anything of that sort, give them feedback and say, you know, we can come back to us later or give them enough guidance to say, here are some of the things that you can do and you can come back to us. So we don't want to do this. The PR is going to be public. The review is going to be in private. And we are not trying to, like, remove the tags from the equation either in on the PR that's public, the tags can obviously give their feedback also. And if the feedback is going to be sensitive, then they can use private channels to get the feedback back to the TOC as well. The other thing that we were trying to think about was, like, if most of the process is in private, then it's probably not a good thing either. So, and we want to provide some time and space to the projects to advocate for themselves. So, you know, we want to set up some project reviews in a public setting where we can go through the template. You know, the TOC can ask some questions and the project team members can answer those questions and ask follow up questions to the TOC advocating for the project. So that is the tweak that we are proposing. And this will be right at the beginning when one of the projects wants to, this doesn't change any of the existing stuff. This just gives a streamlined way of getting some feedback, concrete feedback without having to hit up individual TOC members. Does this make sense as a concept? I think there's one little detail that I thought we had changed, which was the idea of the public meetings being scheduled because I think we actually decided that if they, this only comes up if there's a project where the TOC has decided, well, we've looked at the one pager and nobody wanted to volunteer and we had some feedback for the project. We give them the feedback and then maybe the project disagrees, which is completely fair. And in that case, we want to have a public discussion about it. But I think we decided that should just happen as soon as possible. We shouldn't just be trying to schedule on because obviously we don't want this to be a blocker. Right. Yeah, and best case scenario, you shouldn't have to wait for the, you know, a scheduled public meeting. Yeah, it could happen out of the box. You do the PR, everybody pulse on the PR and there's a TOC sponsors who steps up and you're all set. Right. So it's not trying to, this is not even trying to add more barriers. This is more structured towards giving you concrete feedback. Okay. So this is a one more page, Amy. So, some of the things. I don't know how do you want to do this list. Do you want to go through this. I don't think we've this was really just here to be able to show what the current criteria is and then talk about like how we're changing it as well, because I know that that was something that people had questions about. I think this might be a good segue to add to the go to the other point, which is, there are some things that are objective and there are some things that are subjective. Right. So the one pager when we get to the draft will cover both. You know, the also the idea here is like we don't want to keep repeating the same information in multiple places. So the one pager will not cover, you know, the things that you already know, and you you're already, you know, on the hook for during the process. So it sounds like you're ready to be able to move on to the one pager. Yes, please. I mean, after the call today, maybe we should open up a PR with this template to write. Um, yeah there's an issue currently open as far as like being able to link to this but if we think we're ready to go then yes being able to drop in like PR saying this is but like the new one pager is likely to be. Right. So, the questions here are kind of like free form, but we do want to limit how how much text that you would, and we don't want you to copy paste text from elsewhere and drop it in here too. So it's structured to like elicit a response. Like, why do you feel the project is ready to graduate. Like, and what are the kind of things that has changed after you joined the intubation. So we want you to like spend some time thinking about these things and like giving us an answer, rather than, you know, a canned answer, or, you know, a copy paste from somewhere else. We want you to like, think about it and give us something exactly what you would say to our face. Right. So that's the way we were thinking about it. So some of these questions, and it's, it's not, if you take the third question, it's, it's not like we are trying to, you know, put a barrier for graduation and say, if you can't answer this question right will will not graduate you. It's not meant to be that way. It's more about like, how are you thinking about this. How do you think we should do this in the long term how can you set yourself up the project as well as the users. You know, thinking about them as well. So, can you scroll down a little bit. Yes, the last one is definitely something that I really like which is like, who is going to be the best advocate for your project. Who should we go talk to, to get real information about like, you know, how useful it is to them, or how good their experience has been and things like that. So, any questions here about, you know, the questions themselves or what they are trying to make you think about. Are these questions instead of the previous. No, criteria or these are just a way for the project to answer those criteria. This, this is just part of the one pager. The project summits when they are when they want to see sponsor. Right. Josh, should that answer your question or should we use more words. No, no, no less words is good. The point of these questions is that it's the kind of subjective things that we're trying to evaluate as the TOC when we look at a project that's up for graduation. And it's not a, because it isn't a checkbox thing and because there is some subjective evaluation here, why not ask the project, their view. You know, if you are a project you should hopefully be thinking about these things already. You should have a view on these things. You know your project best you know, you know how the, what the plans and visions for the project are. So, why not ask for your view upfront about these things that we'd be trying to consider anyway. Right. And if when you're going to do a one on one pitch with a TOC sponsor you would end up talking about these things. And here we are trying to get you to put it in a form where it's readable by all the TOC members in one spot. Ricardo, did you have a question. Yeah, question so how often will the TOC review is one pagers as they come in the. They come in Ricardo, we have a private session going on, you know, every few weeks. So we'll, as soon as the PR for the, for this comes in, we'll review it immediately. This some question in the chat about a table is spreadsheet that maps like members projects are sponsoring this is currently available up on the public to see Doc and I see a bunch of people clicking on and so perfect. I'm hoping that answers the question Bob, but happy to take more. Thanks Bob. So this is just to make your life easier. And ours to in the process. So we don't get it up from multiple people at the same time, and you have a way to get what you need. So, if there are no other questions, then we can continue the conversation in the PR for the template and, again, we are trying this out. We'll see if this works. If this works will continue. If not, we'll tweak it. We like the fact that this makes clear kind of the top concerns of the TLC when they're reviewing the project. The PR that you fill out, it's obviously a bunch of information that should be provided, but it's not clear like what level of focus or importance each of those items. Thanks. And also thanks. Thanks everyone for really taking a look at this. You know, and many people have gone through this process and there's been a lot of, I think, variants in the process. So I think it's really timely to reexamine this. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thank you. I think we we appreciated particularly that we don't have a great format for not exactly saying no to a project but giving the feedback to a project that we don't think it's quite ready yet. And it makes it difficult for TLC members as an individual to sort of say, well, I personally think actually we are individual opinions are not really so much what's important it's more our collective opinion. So I think this gives us a nice format for the TOC to have that discussion and figure out what feedback we want to give to projects. Yes. It would also be really useful if projects have more guidance in preparing for the graduation process. I guess today it's left up to a lot to the SIGs, but of course each SIG kind of handles this process differently. And the preparation and expectations going into the process. There's also kind of high variance in depth. So I would probably, I think that the projects would be in both a better shape when it actually comes up for review as well as make the graduation process smoother if we can make kind of clear, you know, what exactly what should be done. The process all kind of, you know, some slides in this deck, saying, you know, making clear what is required versus, you know, what are things that are evaluated, but the process may be a little subjective. But of course, like the criteria, as much as possible, we should try to make objective if we can. Whether they value it is objective or not. I think it's important to uniformly apply them to. I agree somewhat yet. But the trick here is, if we make it all objective, then it's easy to. No, that's what I was saying. It can't be made all objective. It's good to clarify what is, you know, like a check off item like Liz was saying. Right. Yeah, and, you know, in the end, we have to think about like how we, we are going to ensure we as a community are going to ensure that the end users of our projects. You know, can rely on them for the long term right and how valuable it is going to be to them. And that is going to be subjective at some point. And it would also be good to get official consensus opinion or write up of the to see from each evaluation. Not just a collection of the opinions of individual members, but what is the consensus. Exactly, that that's what we are trying to do here when you have that PR you will get feedback in the form of either p o c sponsor or some feedback from the to see as a whole saying this is what we would like to see from you, or an invitation to the next meeting and say let's let's go talk about it in a public meeting. Right. The process should be going forward. So obviously this is not it's just not an easy problem or process. And so I'm really glad that the, you know, the to see is taking a look at this issue. Thank you so much. You're welcome. I have. Sorry. I wanted to ask one question about the proceeding page or slide and it made one note of the independent security audit is now a good time for that or should I show that. So go ahead. Thank you. Good day. My name is Matthew and helping out a sick security. One of the previous slides just noted that it, there's a need for a independent security audit and I was just curious if that should necessarily be a one provided by sick security you should there be like a landing page or a collection of all the high level pieces of the audit or can it be pretty much any entity from some list or meets that some sort of sign off criteria. So actually, the audits that get paid for by the CNCF that the kind of professional, you know, somebody should be paid, you know, proper money to do a full security audit. So the security assessments that sick security do are, you know, great and valuable and volunteers. So we definitely, you know, see that as a very valuable way of helping projects earlier on in their life cycle. But at the point where we get to graduation, I think in terms of actually telling the end user audience. You know, this is safe to use. It behooves us to have a, you know, paid for third party independent audit. And that's what this is referring to. The proposal was to make the tag security assessment something that happens before the first security audit eventually so that it lays down the groundwork for, you know, what the project sees its threat model and responsibilities as and then that would help the security audit when they're doing pen testing and deciding which bits to focus on. But that's not a strict requirement yet but probably will be eventually. My only follow up question is, is there a specific criteria for those agencies or those businesses do they require specific certification or is there a recommended list or do they actually get sourced by by CNCF stuff I don't have Chris's on the call, but it's been organizations like trailer bits in the past. Right. Yeah, that was my comment it was going to be like in the past we've used your 53 views trailer bits. And if there's other ones that we should know about happening now. Okay, and there is, I don't know if you, if you're aware, there is a RFP process, we took it put together a RFP and we send it out and vendors respond to it. And this is actually really familiar with this. Thank you. Great questions. Anyone else, any comments on this proposal that they'd like to raise now or questions. I think the one pager and the PR, you know, available for for comment and people have any changes they want to propose will make that correction to remove, remove the scheduled public meetings. I think we've got some notes on that somewhere. But otherwise, I think we had one more question which is, is it only two meetings in a year. We want to remove that that shouldn't be there. So we have public meetings twice a month and private meetings twice a month. You know, give or take some some breaks around Qcon. So we should be able to I think the, the goal should be that we should always be able to get through a one pager within a month, because we'll have two meetings should should be no reason why we can't get to them within a month. So if there is feedback that then needs discussion, we should just be trying to schedule that in the next available public meeting. Okay, okay. I think these, these public meetings don't normally have a hugely packed agenda so it should be completely possible to, you know, if there is a project that needs public discussion, we should be able to schedule it within one or two meetings I'm sure. Okay. I think that's pretty much it. We've got no other slides in here. I'm happy to be able to have the floor open for any other questions or things that people wanted to bring up. Just want to say thanks to Dins for presenting that and working on the, the one pager and so on. Yes. I had something brief. I think we have on last meeting. We have, we have a couple of tech leads that we intend to nominate for tagging their ability. And we're assuming that the email processes, the still the right one it starts with an email to the TLC is that the preferred process for nominating techniques. So I think, and other six feel free to sort of shout in with the way that they've done this, I think typically within the six themselves they might have had a process or an election or a call for nominees. And we just saw a good example of this come through from, I think it was sick at delivery wasn't it. Tag. Tag, sorry. I'll let you go for a little bit on it. Come through and we'll be doing something similar. As we head into the next meeting for the tag work will surface these two nominees that have come up already wanted to make sure that we were just in alignment on process. Yeah. Yeah. And if you have questions, talk to your tag liaisons. Historically, the nomination of tech leads or the assignment of tech leads has been, I think to how Liz had described it. Sort of left to the tags themselves and so they're not necessarily being an outstanding requirement for such formality, but, but to you know, teach their own correct me if. Yeah, they do need to be elected that there is, I can't quite remember what the phrasing is, but there is a kind of election process. And just to make sure that the, the to see a sort of getting oversight that the, you know, the qualified individuals. And then the tag comes together between chairs. I mean, I don't think we've ever yet seen a situation where it's been controversial but it's it's just a pie it's to keep us all in the loop so we know who. That's exactly what I was asking just trying to make sure I follow the right process. I guess the best practices, get some nominations and, and, you know, keep it transparent and, you know, no, and finally send us an email. One more quirk here I think we were not supposed to vote on the PR itself right. We need to figure that out on our end. I know what happened in here we did a trial run of being able to actually have GitHub we've never actually formalized moving things to GitHub. We can, but the canonical thing right now is please vote on an email, and I will remind all of you where the emails are. Yeah. Thank you. Doesn't sound broken. Great. Is that an open item? Speaking of that is that an open item like voting on GitHub or voting on. It could be but I want us to get through graduation first. Okay. So put it in the backlog. I think you know we did an experiment. Conclusions from that experiment. Any other questions or points anyone would like to discuss today. Okay, I think we are good thank you very much everyone and hopefully steps forward to a more efficient graduation process. Thanks very much dims. Thanks all. Okay, thank you.