 Hello. I was starting to think I'm on the wrong call. Oh. Let's see how many people will turn us off today. But it seems like there are not much, much issues on the content side on the, on the white people. Yeah. It is quite nice. Very, very much, very much comments out there. Okay. She wasn't the wrong time. Hi. Hello. Hello. It seems like you weren't the wrong time. So. Well, the clocks change in the UK only, I think next week. So they, I realized the CNCF calendar is kind of following some US times on like, and then they changed to summertime before Europe, I think. So I'm meeting them at five, right? And I, and I didn't have, I don't have it in my calendar. I don't know why like it's gone, but I know it is at five. So I was, yeah, well, I was going to double check the middle, but my meeting over and but anyway, I'm here. Sorry. When we're changing. Yeah. They are going to change. I don't know if it was real. It has. No, we changed in, in two days. Two days ago. No, no, next. We changed next week, like in the UK. Yeah. Yeah. Same. I think we were changing on this Friday. Yes. This Friday. Strange. That's really bad. That's realization that you have to wake up one hour there. We're changing on Friday, the day and the day before a big holiday. I don't see those problems. You just arrived one hour late for work one day and you're like, oh, I'm late. Sorry. Okay. From tomorrow. Welcome. How's it going? Yes, you're fine. Thanks. Not as enthusiastic. Yes. So for the, for the agenda today, I thought we'd talk about some comments in the white paper. From the reviews and try to solve them if possible, or to add additional comments to solve them with them. Yes, currently, I think we have a pretty much pretty good amount of reviews. So I think three or four people at least. Until now, we had a lot of very nice comments until now. So let's say this way it wasn't fundamentally wrong what we wrote. It seems so. So let's, let's try to get this out. Another thing, because I think I've wrote it on this lecture on this lecture last week. I'm not really sure how we deal with her with the language reviews and so on of the white paper. We could contact to get this to make this white paper a bit prettier afterwards. Have you got an idea or do you know where we could reach out? What is the phase that you're talking about? I'll open a schedule here. I don't have it. I guess it's the one that reviews of like, basically like editor. Is that what people had in the other white papers? Like what did they do? So it is the one that starts narrative voices. That's the one you're talking about. Okay. Who did that for like the security? For example, the security white paper. Was it somebody who should do it? What is the profile of the person? I'll try to pin Emily from the security. I'll try to find out where they... This was a good idea. Yeah. I don't know if it should be someone from outside to have a different perspective. If it can be someone, one of us, but just one person. And then I don't know, like, yeah, it would be good to just... I think at some point it would be nice if someone would write a negative language. Because I think in all three cases, English is not a negative language, isn't it? And therefore this would be pretty cool. Yes, and furthermore, but I will also talk about... I'll talk with Emily about this. I think we need some version of the white paper in PDF or in Koly. I'm not really sure who will do this, or if we should do this by ourselves and so on. And I'll also try to verify this until the next meeting. Okay. Okay, then let's go to the paper. If nobody has any other issues. I think this procedure sounds like it's there to verify with maybe the security who did their narrative voice, or what sort of person we should search for. Not necessarily a person with the native speaker, but maybe someone who has experienced writing, doing writing in English, or has gone to university, I don't know those things. Yeah. So I'll try to find out how they deal with this. And yes, I will keep you in touch. Since you have something about content. I think so to be honest, but I'm not pretty sure who this is. But we will find it. Maybe sick docs. This could be a second, second place to a second contact. We asked sick docs. Well, how they would deal with this. Okay, but nevertheless, let's look over the right paper. So I've tried to approve as many as many things as possible. Thank you. Just a second. I'll share this. Hopefully anyone can suggest. And you have a lot of requests. Yes. All right. We are very slow. Okay, so we have some, some changed files. Hopefully the new one. Okay. This is also new. Okay. Are we looking at the things that you approved and I'm, and I merged, or are we going to look at this stuff that's still pending? No, we should look up over the things which are currently unclear. So. So it could be in the files changed in the conversation, right? Yes. So it's, I think there. So I don't want to talk about such things there. I think we should, we should simply change them. This is also already resolved, but there is a lot of, there's a large discussion. And I think we will talk a lot. And do you have a plan or what we should change? I think we need to capture. Michael. Ideas. Especially his second comment, which. Explain a little bit more. A declarative idea. And then I think we should. Change the world domain specific knowledge to state, but probably also capture some of Michael more advanced explanation. To be honest and operate the deals with domain specific knowledge. And this domain specific knowledge should be. Specified in a declarative way. I'm not. I'm not really sure if this is only a problem. In terms of formulation. Not. Probably the content. So the domain specific knowledge according to Michael is explaining. It's reasonable. Is the domain specific knowledge is captured in the code of the operation. The API that's exposed is declarative. But that's not the domain specific knowledge that domain specific knowledge of how to run commands against resources. Is actually the code in the controller. Okay. I think I get your point. So you thought about the content of the custom resource when we, when we thought about the content of the custom resource when we, when we were all brought such things as domains, declarative domain specific knowledge. And the domain specific knowledge itself is the operator code, which is absolutely correct. Yeah. So I mean that we need to capture some thought Michael raise, but eventually change the wording. Yeah. Yeah, it's like what is declarative knowledge, right? He's like asking like, what, what does it, yeah, I suppose, because yeah, we have to be very clear here, like and be able to explain that. And then if it's a bit, okay, we mend this can't be confusing for. So don't never seen this thing. Yes, I think with this, with the thing we've specified as domain specific knowledge might be the desired state of the. So we should, we should say that this is the desired state of this application or whatever the operator is responsible for. Yeah. Yeah. And I think this is an action for one of us to. Oh, I'll take it late. Yeah. We can, yeah. Referencing issue. This is cool. How do we call this. Clarify declarative and declarative knowledge. Was it was language maybe wanted to put, I don't know. I mean, this is correct. No, that's fine. I was just saying like, we normally use declarative language declared domain specific language to sometimes like the words, like maybe. I don't know, leave it. This is clear enough. So the domain specific knowledge should be the operator code itself. And the desire says the same remains before. Yeah. So, let's say kind of configuration. How's the resource. I think this is clear enough. And I think we'll assign this to. Yeah. That's it. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. We have a task. Next time. Okay, so this was the first one therefore we have a task now. Perfect. Okay. Then we have the second thing. Nobody was right. This is true. Yeah. Once again. The idea of where we capture things I, the problem is we, we took those two and put it in the controller. Then an operator is just a controller. Okay. So I think this is also a thing we could handle in this task. Because this all this also has to do something with specific knowledge and so on. I think it's very similar. I think that. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. I was just saying that each, each of these ones could be at a different task. And then we can either like if, if Homer feels comfortable to do this one, because it's similar to the other one we can assign to. But I could also try to do something as well here. I think in this case it's the same section. So the same. Okay. So, so. This are two paragraphs under each other. So I think this. Would be okay. You could add the. The link to this comment then to the task that you created before. What do we want to do here? Do we want to move those both. To the controller or do we want. To just change the main specific knowledge to desire state. Because I guess the bit that is here is just like the domain specific knowledge is part of the operator. But the domain specific knowledge is not what describes the. The application. It is just that that's a bit confusing. Merging both things. I mean, I'm sorry. I think at the courts the same. In the previous team. Because we also wrote out the main specific knowledge that describes the state of application and the current way. This is the. Exactly the same thing as before. So you want to say that an operator pattern consists of components. One is the controller. The second is the declarative API. Which is the state of the application and not the. Actual knowledge. So this is the desired state of the application. Yeah. And does it also consist the application. Or infrastructure that it managed or that's part of the controller. So the. Very semantic. Doesn't the controller also manages the state. They state. Isn't that trying to reconcile the state and ensure it is. Yeah, but the state can live without a controller. I can put the state there. It will just do nothing. Yeah, you could. It's the way you can have a type. Like declared. That is nothing. But the controller. Yeah, but you can have a like. I don't know if it's like the type that is. At track. Basically. I don't know if I can call track tour. By the controller that ensures that. That has a state like. Yeah. So when we say state. I think that's. What we're talking about, right? The thing that is tracked by the controller because it's being reconciled and watched. Yeah. So we have a state. We have a controller. The question is. Is the application and the infrastructure part of the controller or part of the. Pattern. As a pattern. So. Let's say we have. We have a configuration. This is the thing we have in the customer resource. We have a controller, which is the base. The main specific. And we have managed objects. So also infrastructure could be a managed object. Well. I. For it about how, how someone could name this. I cannot remember. What I called this. Once again, we can see that the infrastructure or the managed. Services can live without the controller. And that supply is that it should be part of the. Operator pattern and not that controller. Description. But then we need to change that more. I'm done. I think. I think we are hitting the old discussion. So. When, when is. Control. Yeah. And. As we did, as we discussed earlier, this is. Different. This is the type of. So. It's only about. Operator. So. It's only about. Operator. Which can operate. I would typically have done about 10 to 15 years ago. So this is the, this is the theme. How I, how I could remember what an operate. But to be honest, almost every control. So every. Yeah, but not every controller is an operator. I'll also try to describe. That in the comment and. And. Continue that conversation around that. And suggesting some, some solutions. I think the main point in this, in this. Comment was that we also used that we mixed up the domain specific knowledge. And I think we should. We should change this. Yeah, maybe like try to write it again. Maybe without looking and then looking at it. I don't know. If you want, I can try to write these three components and suggest something. If you want to tag me there. Suggest. Yeah, just maybe because then as a new, like a fresh pair of eyes in that. Maybe. If you could add to me, just as like. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe like try to write it again, maybe without looking and then looking at it. If you could add to me, just as like, we'll try to something or, or if you prefer to put me know the task is like, yeah, it's easier. Just, just add me and then yeah, which. I could have to do something. We'll, we'll try to rewrite the suggest. Something like that. Yeah. Now this question. Basically a fresh pair of eyes. Yeah. I think. Okay. That it wasn't clear, but like, it's just like retry to make this. So see a new, a new idea maybe. Yeah. Okay. I think this was a, was a. That was so surprising to see that. I'll fix that. I think this wasn't is a, which, which, which I created. I created this one. I recreated it in a better way. I didn't even know how to use get a black. Okay, then, then you will, you will fix this. This was easier. I think it's a bit easier to say custom resources, which are the cost of users definitions. Why. Okay, I mean, like he says, maybe, maybe if you capitalized it, it would be more like, I saw that we have the same thing with the main specific. I mean, I think if you, if we just put custom resources with C R with the big, yeah, like with the capital, it shows its specific Kubernetes term. And then custom resource definitions as well. And then I think that would. So. I think we could, we could remove the, the thing, which are defined by custom resource definitions. Or put them with like together kind of case, like the way so, and then with the back ticks. So it shows like, I don't know if we are doing this pattern here. Now, maybe not back ticks because if the other parts of the white paper are not doing that, I don't remember. I think we need to change that the word domain specific knowledge there. But let, can we take that question back to sick docs? That's really. And how to write that question. Even took over net is docs. As I wrote this was that you are dealing with custom resources and they are defined by customer source definition. So these are two, two different things in this way. But for me, it would be perfectly fine if we, as it's pretty obvious. If we did, if we remove this, this one, this, this part, because then it would be more or less clear. Because I think we talked really a lot about customers definitions in the, in the life paper. Well, well, my opinion, it's, it's not really, it's just that it's not clear that this is the specific Kubernetes thing because it is not written in the, like Kubernetes way, like custom resources definitions. If it was like that it would be understood that is just saying like there is an actual denomination for that in Kubernetes and that's an object that you define. But I am happy with either. If you prefer to remove. I don't think it's actually I don't think it's so obvious. That's what I mean, like, because people who are new to this will not necessarily know that you will declare with custom resource definitions. But if you mentioned that, maybe I would have to read the doc if it's already been mentioned several times, maybe already know, but if not, it's not a problem to put it there. I think he said you would put a link. Yeah, and like the guy said put the link, like custom resource definitions and then people can, you know, refer to the concept. Okay, so we have a new issue. So this was number 100. So many issues, 100 issues. Okay, so this one. Yes, I think we could simply add this. Yeah. What will happen if you press on the tick. To who? Or beyond the like beyond the votes. Beyond the. So we would add in addition to the default. We could add as a suggestion now as well. Like, and then just. Yeah, me and the more I think like, but we could put beyond beyond the default. You've been there to the API. And then we can tag the guy say, okay. Okay. Okay. So we said beyond instead of in addition. What do you think the. Well, some resources are used to store and retrieve structure data. Yeah. Or we just want to. No, yes. I think we'll ask him if this is what he made. Yeah, I feel that's okay. Yeah, we can just ask him in the reply. Now. Okay, this is. The customer is convinced. That's the desired state. I think that's also also good. The main specific logic logic is in the control and not in the customer. Yeah. Yeah. The application or the resource. Well, would you put that with a capital R to be like, or we don't. I want your opinion because I mean with they are like, is it when we talk about resource, we talk about the Kubernetes specific thing. Or can I just talk about resource. I think at some point it's better if we could if we talk about resources. Okay. I asked a question like about should the resource be with the capital R or not like is is resourcing when you read these or write these meaning a Kubernetes specific thing. Or a generic general thing. This is more generic. Because the resource could also be something different from a Kubernetes specific thing. So I think this would be enough. Okay. Yeah, I don't know the answer is why I'm asking. I was trying. I couldn't think of something that wasn't a Kubernetes thing like either a costume resource or a pod or, you know, so I think that's always true. So if it was something could be something else, maybe some other API, then I would just use lower case. But if it is always a Kubernetes thing, I don't know. I would put capital R. I think I just, just not there. Not telling anyone because I don't, I'm not sure about it. No, I was going to put a capital error. Hmm. I would put a capital R because I think the document. Maybe, maybe, maybe I'm, maybe I'm being silly, but let me look Kubernetes resources. Do they, do they use capital or like I thought it was. It's resources. Yeah, like. Maybe not. Maybe you just forget about what I said. Let's try it. Let's see what comes to play. No, it's okay. Don't worry. It's, it's, it's lower case. Forget everything I said. Anytime I'm reading here on the documentation. When you specify the resource, the lights. Yeah, I think it's, it's with the lower case. So don't. Okay, let's change things again. Yeah. Sorry. Maybe. Okay, then the next one. I'll simply do this. Yes, we could, we could write that we, that this could be applied with Q-cuddle apply. But yes, I don't think it's necessarily this one. Okay, and he wants to. So, he wants to represent. That's also true. There's also a status inside and this would also, would be the complete customer resource. I think the same, but to be honest, I think this sentence is important enough that we should keep it. So if we think that I haven't finished reading, but like we could put the comments there as well. So then at least to like, why, and then we can, you know, if there's a more kind of like a consent, not consensus, but like democratic things to be like, okay, the reason it was, it was not even aware that it was just thought about it and think that. And then like, yeah, yeah. This is okay. Well, we can say that we'll take another look in the narrative phase. To be honest, in a perfect world, it would be obvious to that the backup we make is also restored. But in the last 20 years, I had cases where this was not the case. Is there also a restore capability? What do we would perhaps like, so this backup should be implemented in a way, maybe so then like, I don't know if it would help. So it's like this backup should be done in a way. It feels like, although it's, I don't know, like, does the backup needed to do anything to do with it can be restored? Like, what is in the implementation of a backup that thinks about, well, although, okay, if you encrypted the backup file and it cannot be decrypted or something like that, maybe, but then it's like, you know what I mean? Like, I'm talking about, like, when would I be thinking about restoring in the implementation of a backup? I don't see, like... You could also think about, you are not sure if this is a valid use case, but you could do a backup. Use a randomized file name and don't know which file fits to which backup. Is that a backup if you cannot restore from that? Obviously, you could restore from that, but you won't find it. So this would be one case. Right. So as I said before, the sentence is pretty obvious. But as I said, it's a bit important to define, not to define this, to state it. But if you think it's more obvious than I think, we could also simply drop it. I just, I think it's okay to have it there if you think this way, like, what we want to... There's a thing, what this person thought was that there was nothing useful about this. Like, but you're saying to me that there is something useful, that is that the implementation of the operator backup functionality should be considering the next thing because of the domain knowledge that is there. And then an obvious example is a backup and restore where you have to ensure that when implementing a backup, your restore can discover that backup file. So I think it's worth changing this sentence to ensure that that's understood, that the implementation of one, that the domain knowledge there is important so that you can guarantee some next thing that needs to be done, too. I know I should be very clear, but basically, like, we can put that in the sentence, I think. Do you want me to try to suggest something then? I can suggest something. I mean, I want to change. I mean, I'm just trying to think now, like, maybe that's, like I said, so this backup should be implemented in a way that ensures that it can be restored, like, that it's restoreable, that the file created or that the artifacts produced. I'm trying to think about, like, maybe waste worded in a way that there is some useful information, because it is useful information. Hopefully. Omar made a face. I don't know if it's like. That was a good argument. Okay. Yes, there's one handwritten diagram of John there. I think we should change this and I will change this. So, yes, and then Andy stated that we could write a section about the shell operator. I also told him that he could if he wants. But to be honest, I want to force this at the moment. Yeah, you did right. I think just like if he thinks it would be great, he could add. Well, I like the idea that an operator could be in English. Okay. Yes, that's a more funny part, I think. So Roland wrote the steps to the first step when he tried to get the right operator is that you should not assume that you know what's needed. Sometimes it's a bit closer. Yeah, perhaps he could refer to the requirement engineering to not be just something like a loose sentence right to suggest the thing. Maybe like as something like as a force or something like that. Yeah, I think we could make it clear that it is some, some discipline kind of thing rather than make it explicit. Would you like me to write the comment for him to suggest that Yes, this one. I will, I can, I can do that. You want to share. Okay, let's let me one thing. I just be like the guys reading to where is the where is this PR PR is here. I will, I will just share just as soon as I open up the art there with me there with me. That's it. That's the best. I was thinking like, did you mind making the also the reader isn't like, it doesn't seem to it doesn't seem like out of the I'm very, I'm very careful with like reviews like people I don't like to like hurt people. Like, you know, like, this is I'm like, just it doesn't seem to run them kind of thing. I don't know like, what do you think like I know, I know pretty well, I started with him. And he he has no problem with such comments. Okay, cool. Yeah, because we don't know anyone. I mean, I don't know these people in the community so I prefer to be always very cordial like and I don't dismiss there. I don't think yours was but like I was just thinking to maybe make it even more I prefer to make sometimes extra cordial just to this statement. Okay. I'll comment that is that okay. Do you want to be cool. I guess the next thing. This is the same thing is already we already saw this one right. This one I saw. I'm going directly on the things will be handled. This is the next one right. They were required to play. Well, this one is already. It is another one that you need to be really is that a different one from that one. Which was the one. Sorry. Did you say I think we had some some some. Oh, this is the same time. But another review sorry. This is another review so we'll add do you want to demo then all the diagrams we do. So this is already done. We already have the same background. Okay, so the is this so can we can we can we like resolve this is resolvable. I'll resolve it after we draw the background. Okay, that's fine so so I can leave it as it is now. Okay. Can we also. Okay, these are. We already done this. Sorry, maybe I'm looking the wrong screen because I normally go through the main full request. Did we do this change here the wrong. Yes, because I will. Okay, okay, we already fixed this. We already added this. Okay. This as well. Okay, so I think we did everything. Right. So I think that one. Do you want to change this one are looking. Who wants to learn. Yes, I will simply change this and when I do my stuff. I think we should do this at some point. Okay. Yeah, we can. Yeah. Okay. I guess we have the actions for us then. Close this part. It's already one hour. Okay, that's perfect. Okay, then. I was over. Was a point landing. So I think we have enough. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a nice week. Have a nice week.