 Okay. Jimmy's here, I think he'll set up the streaming and I think he might be able to give up and out hosts. Can you do me a favor and forward me that link. The zoom link. The email because I've got a workshop tomorrow and I'm not getting. Oh, the right one. The email I got from Jimmy was like personally to me so I think. Hi, I'm here. How can I help. We need to be hosts. I've got. This is a different length than was in the email we had from you. So I just passed it to Megan Lisa Marie. I'm just a second. And if you can confirm my link for tomorrow morning. I'd appreciate it. Okay. Any or no. Host. Okay. Lots of new things. You've got the power. Yeah. I noticed those are. I noticed those are really cool feature this morning when I was host, there's like a. A request to mute. But which was kind of neat. Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and share. The ether pad. Yeah, so I updated the ether pads this morning, Amy, with all the. Zoom links. Okay. So if you look at that, that should be correct, but it was the same color text as someone. You had been commenting. Oh, okay. And they had put that in there. So yeah, it is very close. I see your point now. Sorry about that. Yeah. I put that in there this morning. Apologies for the confusion. No problem. We've had a lot of disc. We have more discussion on the ether pads for this topic than people showing up for meetings. Yeah, I know it's been a bit divisive. Well, I'm going to pop out, but if you need anything, please don't hesitate. Thank you, sir. Okay, thanks y'all. Can everyone hear me. And can everyone talk if they want to. I can hear you. Okay. And obviously people can talk. Okay. So. For those of you have been following my emails on every. E-mail list for every project within the OSF. We've been working on a directive from the board as part of the diversity inclusion working group to come up with a stance. From the OSF, which we should update this now to say OIF. I'm just how we feel about the device of language and what we want to do and what kind of what we're targeting. The main thing we've been trying to get across to everyone is that the board is not driving what words were changing the timeline or everything else. That will be in the hands of the individual technical technical groups for the individual projects. So every project is going to have their own say. And we're going to be focusing on what words they want to use and so on, because it was brought to our attention very early on in the very first meeting that, for example, triple O had replaced blacklist and white list with multiple words based on the context of the use. So just giving people a list of words that these are bad words and these are what we should use was not going to work. And which is why we have not put out a list of these are our recommended words. The D and I working group is available to anyone who has questions wants help picking words. But as I said, this is going to be driven from the technical groups themselves. So the first thing I've got up here is the stance. If anyone hasn't read it, as you can see, we've been very careful in our wording to say, you know, this is the type of language we're including. These are the reasons why we are including that type of language, but that the actual work is going and decisions is going to be in the hands of the paint projects. Now, if we go further down, we've got some stuff I'll let Muhammad go over as these were things he added in in blue, but we already had some conversation going on within the ether pad. So I do not know who Mr. Yellow is. If Mr. Yellow is here, I would really like you to step up. We did have another conversation on the original ether pad where we were doing our drafts. And, you know, we asked the person to identify them. Funky and I just happened to be on the ether pad and had an actual conversation in time with the person and we got a really good understanding of where they were coming from their European, you know, words mean different things, but pointing out, you know, you know, we asked him, is there anything you feel we have left out that we should be covering? And there wasn't any of that. It was just a lot of the feelings that, you know, we were driving this from a U.S. base and we're really not. So those conversations were helpful. And it was a conversation. Here we have comments. But without the person stepping up and owning to them. We have someone's viewpoint, but it's hard to have a conversation. Which is why I'm saying if Mr. Yellow is here. That would be really great to actually have a conversation. Mohammed, do you want to go ahead and start with your. Or we'll let's go back up here to the stands. Does anyone have anything they would like to say about the stance before we go any further? I, the only suggestion that I kind of was thinking about was while I agree with you that the board shouldn't be involved in deciding what the language choice should be. I thought that having a list. Could give the users or the developers some alternatives in order to select one of these options. Cause. You know, it's possible that someone might just kind of want to go through it and not necessarily like. Feel like it would be a lot of work to reach out to kind of a diversity group and have that whole discussion. Whereas, you know, they can see what the different. Replacements for a specific word is. And decide. Based on the context at the time. And maybe that'll help pushing these things more forward. I've seen some places where they've had a list of. Suggestions. And they can be very helpful and able to. Identify some of the. Some of the things that need to be like some of the alternatives, but also something that I found also interesting was a lot of times some of the divisive language that we didn't, that you might not have been aware about. You actually become aware of them. Like I will be honest. I never thought about the words man hour until someone had kind of suggested that. And so that like may click in the developers that, okay, you know, it's not just, you know, the, the slave or related things. There are other things that you probably are slipping off the top of your head. Okay. So even things that we may not have. In our documentation and definitely not in our code. You think would be helpful because we were trying to avoid doing that. But I think it's important to give more, and this is important because you're currently the chair of the technical committee. Do you feel as in that role that if the D and I group came in, gave you suggestions that that was impinging on your ability to. Lead this from the technical side. I think suggestions are wonderful. They would be super important. And they would come from a group that is a lot better. Probably at coming up with suggestions that we would. You know, I think we would have to leave it up to us to go from these suggestions and figure out the next step. We're trying to avoid that's not step on toes. As long as I mean, again, I don't know everything, but I guess as long as the suggestions or suggestions and they're not like, you shall replace every. Like every time this word. It must be replaced by that word. That might come become a little hard. But if there are suggestions, then it kind of leaves it up to us to work with the choices that we have. So I think that's a good point. People think in this was a search and replace and the triple O example of them using different words and different locations within their code. You know, really suggested that this cannot be a search and replace solution. Yeah. There's other TC members here too. Left to hear what they have to think also if they kind of agree or feel the same about. What I'm talking. Speak up, y'all. So it's not an active TC member. Current, but. I think a list is good. I also kind of see the point where we don't want people doing search, just find searching and replacing. Some of that has already happened though. And I think we just kind of need to accept that. At the same time, we also, I think part of the reason why we didn't want to have a suggestion list. Is so that we didn't end up in a situation where projects felt like they had to go. And so that's why we didn't want to have a suggestion list. Right now, navigate trying to rename the master branch. Which. We've, I know there have been some quiet discussions on what would this take. And it's. Would be a massive effort to try and do that. And it might not be. Actually good for the community to try and. Just go do that one thing. And that would be incredibly interruptive. Right. Yeah. Each thing kind of has to be planned out and. That's going to be. Up to each individual community or sub community or sub project or project. To take on as they have time. Ability and spoons. And with as long as the fully in process of this wrapped around it. And I think this is. You know, I think it would be a good idea to do that. In a weird way. If we have multiple suggestions that almost eliminates the copy and paste, because they will have to trigger some sort of discussion with what are we copy and pasting this with. I don't know if that would always work. I like that idea actually. If there's only one choice, it implies that this is the replacement. But if there's multiple, it's like, okay, now we've got to take a decision on this. But if we adopt a more recent version. That has their changes in it, we're going to be given the changes. Because it doesn't make sense for us to come up with our own terms to replace light master and slave. If the community whose project we're using. Has already done so because that would just be confusing. So. I think maybe multiple words of suggestions might be. Whoever you are, Mr. Page, please sign up. So we know who you are. So, hey, one thing. So, when this actually came up before or initially, I was very confused on those things. The thing is like, if it's internal code change and all, I think we can do it, but when it comes to the external APIs, and we have to change that. So that we didn't really need to think whether it's worth or not. Yeah, it's a good because yeah, because it's not easy to change those external API C1. The region is like wording and all. So what's our stand on that? Are we going to do it only just internal code chains? Or do it in. API is it. I think this is the part where the TC and the separate technical groups would figure out how to do. Yeah. On that note, though, I, I want to say this and I said this earlier. I'd like to propose this for the people who are here. In my opinion, if. The person who's throwing opinions on the ether pad is not here, not having that conversation doesn't want to put a name behind them. I'm going to assume that that's just a troll. And I would just suggest that we. You know, There's no names in the participants list that I don't recognize. And yeah, so in that case, I think anybody just. Yeah. I think comments like that are just not okay. And this is the point of this. I completely agree. And. If someone. If someone isn't willing to stand with her name because they're. Well, they're saying they're unable to connect. Well. I don't know. I don't know. Links at the top. This is not what we stand for in our community. So if that person has that view, then I think. They're entitled to it. And I think that. Belongs to our community. Right. And that's how I feel about it. Join the conversation. Because we can't have a conversation with someone who's just typing and not hearing what we're saying. And so. I'm just going to go back to your point. About changing the IP. APIs and everything. And that's why we are being very specific of saying these decisions, these timelines. Are within the community's technical groups. Because we can't. You know, the board, the diversity and work. Inclusion working group. We can't. You know, imagine. Without digging into the code and knowing everything. And then, you know, you know, how long the work it's going to be, how long it was going to, it's going to take. And ultimately, you know, there may be a way of doing it where an API didn't need to change or something that is a better solution. So. Yeah. That's why things are. Being thrown back into the technical groups control. And I would have indicated an approach where we. Can use the pit. The pit. The project. The project ID, the project ID. We're for backwards compatibility. We've made. We made it essentially an alias. So that somebody could use. Tenent ID and it would work. But all of our documentation or exposed. DPI's reference project ID. And that was, that was what was presented across the board. We just kept that alias under the hood for backwards maybe not all cases, but in many cases could get us most of what we want for those. Yeah, that's one way I think we can keep supporting the whole as a deprecated things and all. The thing actually came up for me is this blacklist and white list, this very common wording is being used in testing toolings like Tempest or NAS tester or test tools and all. So that will be one of the like big chains there. But yeah, I mean I agree with any point. So we can discuss it in technical committee. Yeah, and we'll go ahead and put a list of suggestions together. And that is actually the word combination that I heard that triple O has like three or four different alternatives they're using. I'm scrolling. I think the suggestion we can say these are the words or whatever, we should not use it. Apart from that, whatever like projects or they wanted to use, right? So we just, we can say like, okay, these are the things let's stop using these things and... And these are some possible suggestions. Yeah, possible suggestions or whatever, like you prefer for better wording or anything. Now, one other thing I do wanna point out because someone asked the question about going back and changing blog posts and everything. The intent is not to go back and change all of OpenStack's history, that's impossible. So basically we begin the work, we go forward. If the technical committee decides that they wanna backport to the previous release, that's a decision of the technical group. But as long as code and documentation and articles and blogs are identical for a version, there's no reason to go backwards. Let's just go forward, make the changes going forward. If that makes sense to everybody because going back and changing everything in every use of a word in 22 releases, not that all of them are supported anymore is just more work than I think anyone wants to take on. I think that effort could also be used towards like fixing current things rather than just backporting these to older releases. I mean, there's value to learning history. There's no reason to change the history, but it's important to move forward. And each individual project is going to move forward in the best way they possibly can. And some cases that might mean that certain words get orphaned in the code as backup auctions are hidden but it still supports over compatibility purposes and that's going to be inevitable. I think that's okay. Now, I think I know the answer to my next question, but is there anybody not involved with OpenStack on the call? Any Starling X? Well, Fungi would have been here and he would have been Zool, but Airship, Kata, and Aldeco's in Starling X. Yeah. Well, I am in Starling X, but the Starling X community has a lot of discussions around their release right now with a lot of headaches. So it just wasn't really a hot topic lately. So I don't really have a lot to report in this context. Okay. I would if I could, but it just wasn't sorry about that, but just didn't make it to the top priority list. But I will keep on reminding people that this is happening too and they should keep an eye on this. I just want to make sure everyone, I mean, I know everyone on this call understands this, but this is not just OpenStack, this is everybody and everybody has a say. In fact, I think the only person who's responded on the emails who did want a list of suggestions, so we'll go back and do that, was someone from Airship? So this is Rico. I'm not from Airship, but I do some course search and I don't know it's so sound like slave, the worst slave or others sharing out in the airship. But it turns some concerns I have right now is if we would love to do this, maybe it would be nice if we do this from a more higher level, like from an entire OpenDay infrastructure point, because if we're going to plan to, like just like GitHub to replace master with man as a default repo, maybe we should do it like to set a specific ways and timeline to every repository should do it together. And otherwise, it's very nice to have a list of suggestions and those suggestions are like replace the words in specific each projects. I'm just like considering if we are also want to replace like the master branch, what is the best way we're doing here? So it's funny we can't circle back to this. I actually, no, no, it's fine. I've actually had that discussion within for folks and it's going to be pretty much a nightmare to redo the branching or to change the main branch and everyone has to change the branch on their end. And it's navigatable with lots of communication but each individual project kind of has to make that decision at that time when it's appropriate for them. We just need a standard and need to kind of map that out. But for airship that might look completely different than OpenStack as a whole versus a project like Eronic versus a sub project. And it may be that we can start individually moving some of these things on their own but each in each higher level project needs to explicitly say, here's kind of what we're expecting and that has to be a technical decision and the board can't say that. The board can say that it's a technical decision and that it needs to come from the projects downward. And I guess it's kind of what we're trying to do here. Yeah. Yeah, I agree with you. So the point I would try to make is that we need to make like specific things like which part that the project can deal by their own but there are things that we need to do it even from the OpenFast Social Foundation. I mean, the board decision to say those things should be done. I guess to kind of give me a moment to rephrase what you're saying, you're saying that you think the board should provide in the list of things that we recognize maybe not really renaming the master branch as a great idea or even feasible, but each individual project has to make that determination. I'm gonna say yes because like, let's say we actually have a lot of words that is, that is in our infrastructure for all our communities, right? To those infrastructures are maintained by the foundation. So I think in certain level, I'm just saying insertion part of this work should also be triggering those decisions. But a list of suggestions will definitely be very first thing to do. And I would say a lot of projects will definitely work to do changes. And also I agree with you to change to the master branch we're going to get right there. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly we're going to keep pushing because I don't think there's anyone here going to say no to police changes, right? To push it forward is something that I keep trying to have, like it had pictures in my mind here. So Rico on that, I think that's the whole point of what Amy and the group is suggesting is that it's up to the technical communities to decide how they wanna do this and the pace that they wanna do this. I think we're all pretty technical people and sometimes we get sucked into the technical details, but it's important to kind of maybe take a step back and realize that like change isn't gonna happen in like a couple of weeks. This might be a multi-year effort, but for example, documentation changes to stop mentioning master's leave are probably something that can be, I wanna say relatively trivial. Code changes are probably a bit more tricky and then brand changes are probably the most complicated, but it's just like starting the path and maybe at least from now on, new projects always start with a main branch instead of a master. That like at least starts getting the, like it gets you in that habit of getting that out of your kind of mindset and eventually progress. Yeah, mom, I totally agree with you, like that just like exactly what we do to the project and 10 and things, right? So, and that is exactly the reason I think it would be great if we have something more high level because right now as like from maybe from a foundation level, we're going to keep adopting projects. We're going to might be creating some other official project. I mean, project like opening for leave, like airship and we might need to set up some standards there to say those are something that we suggest to the new joint projects as well. Yeah, that definitely makes some something we can put together so that new projects that are coming to the foundation have a guidelines of things that, you know, based on the stance, things they need to be aware of and taken into consideration. One thing I did want to mention just because you were talking about the main branch. Now, if all the projects are on Open Dev and the Open Dev Infra folks say, we're going to be doing this, this is our timeframe, et cetera. So if Open Dev Infra said we're switching to main, everyone would eventually have to adapt. I think Cota, however, has all their code on GitHub. So they might be influenced by changes that GitHub is making that if GitHub says, we no longer have master branch, everyone's main, they would have to adopt on those times scales. And it kind of goes back to my comment earlier about MariaDB and the replacement of master and slave. They've already chosen their words. They have a timeline. Once we upgrade to that version of the database, we would then have to make those changes at that point. At least as far as documentation with master slave, we can describe the concepts of master and slave without using the words, but until we adopt the version that has replaced those, we would still have to have those words in the commands. I don't think there's any way that we could get around that if we somewhere in our documentation say, go ahead and turn on the slave using slave start. I don't remember what it is. But in those cases, we can adapt and we can improve the documentation while still having to abide by our upstream code provider. And I think that's important to note also and will affect time frames. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think so. Maybe what's necessary is the board also to have a call of action to say, projects we expect by within the next three months or something that you basically have an action plan to move forward or your sponsor next steps. And in that night include, here's the rough plan for changing master branch or here's the justification for not. And that's a good idea too. That could be in the project documentation and live on from there. I mean, we're talking about stuff that's kind of organic in nature too and that will evolve. And as someone posts in the bottom of either path, this is a regular discussion which should be having because the meaning of words do change as time goes on. Julia, if I understand you mean, like if say technical committee make a plan what we are going to change and what we are not going to change and board of directors approve that and then we do it or it's all up to technical committee. So I think it's more of a, the board should have, should A have the high level guideline, B also do a call to action of calling, they're saying projects should do this, not actually put the requirement of the project you need to go down all these paths because there's a lot of legitimate reasons why we might not be able to do everything or why we might have to do some stuff around or it might be a multi-year plan. And the community goals for a release. That's actually a very important point that's what Rico was trying to convey and I think Christy also mentioned and I completely agree with that. Whether we should do it like completely and in a consistent way irrespective of leaving like, okay, this project has done, this is not doing, that's fine. No, let's do it in a very consistent way. I think that will give us a much more benefit. So there are multiple layers to this, like for the Git branch, that feels like it is the same thing across all projects and there are no nuances and different technical challenges for each project. So it's something that we as a community can decide on as a whole. For other things, which are documentation related or code related, it is better to provide suggestions and to let the community coalesce around them rather than try to decide for them. But all of this should have different timelines and different urgencies. And also we as a technical committee, I think we are open stock centric so we do not really have the pool to prescribe these changes to other projects like Cata or Airship. And that is for the board to be more engaged in, I think. Rika, right. So while I'm using the words technical committee for Cata, it could be the architectural committee. So each group, each project should be driving their own efforts. That's why I was just confirming that there wasn't anyone who really was an open stack related in the meeting because just because this came from the OSF diversity and inclusion working group, well, there's always been the assumption that we were just open stack. But the working group reports to the board therefore is a resource for every project and under the foundation. So this does affect every group. And when we're saying technical committee, we're talking Cata's, Airships, Starling X, Zools. So Mohamed and... Body is better. Right, Mohamed and his technical committee isn't making the decisions for Cata. But these should be, but Cata's technical group should be making decisions. And the board and the working group are here to assist. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. So again, this group just happens to be very open stack heavy, but I have joined every group's mailing lists. They are getting the same emails that are going to the open stack discuss list. Nobody's being left out of these discussions. It just seems that nobody is attending from these other groups. Yeah, so on that note, I think that's probably why Julia's suggestion of not necessarily a timeline for implementing, but almost an acknowledgement of the different technical groups of the different open infrastructure project to say, okay, what are you gonna do about this? And maybe this could be something we can bring up in the next, the joint leadership meeting where all the projects usually do the other updates and as part of their updates, we can, I don't use the word mandate, but ask very nicely to say, hey, what have you done about this? And that could be part of the things we'll ask on an update on. And whatever metrics, that kind of stays up to the projects to figure out to kind of something to track the progress of how things are changing within the community, just purely from a point so that this doesn't end up being something that's published and really not being actionable, something that's followed up by different people would really help, I think. Yeah, just one thing. So in etherpad, I can see only two things, slave master and blacklist, whitelist. So are we going to do some kind of audit, like what all things or what all other words, we might want to change it at this time or we are just going with these two changes. These were our suggestions of words and word types. So Fungi did a really good job awarding this. So I'm just going to read the first one, the use of slave or master in reference to slavery-oriented relationships as currently found in databases, domain names. I hadn't even thought of bind, you know. Yeah, yeah, for these two, I think, yeah, we have a really good explanation, I think, but I'm wondering like, do we- Other types? Other types and should we do complete audit of these things first and then go for this project technical committee? Okay, these are the things and all. I think that it might be better to go a different way and I wrote this comment down at the bottom and that's to say, we're going to do these now, but we'll revisit this at intervals. So because people's language changes, people's awareness of language changes. And 10 years ago when OpenSack was founded, there certainly was not the level of attention to these terms that there is now. Next year, two years from now, there may be attention to terms that right now we wouldn't think of. And so I think that's, it's better to, I think, build a process around it rather than try to do it as a single action and then we're done and we don't have to think about it again. I don't think we can sort of take that approach feasibly. Having said that, I feel, and that's just my opinion, maybe we're going down the rabbit hole of the technical decision-making on how this is going to be accomplished. I was thinking the exact same, sorry. Just one thing, we're at three minutes left. Okay, so one last question I have. So if the technical committee, you know, this is going to be a very big effort, I think. So as board of directors initiating this, so I'm going to ask whether they're going to provide the resources or some contributor help in that or we are going to ask every project which are already overloaded for their project work and all feature. Because in community goal also, we are facing this problem. So this is the new thing, which is really good to do, but is there any resource or contributor help from board of directors? I think the answer to that is this doesn't really come with the resources, but the other thing on the other side is there's no requirements for anyone to do this, like at least from the point of view of being like, this needs to be finished by the end of 2020, otherwise bad things happen. I think it's more like, let's just at least moving forward, try and eliminate some of these things and keep them mindful. And if the resources are lacking, then resources are lacking. It's just kind of an unfortunate scenario of an open source community. But if someone comes in and they feel that this is an important thing for them, at least they maybe have a guide or a path to go towards that. And I think that's one of those things where it might be a little bit easier on someone who's maybe looking to contribute into open source and it's a good way to drive positive change in multiple parts. I think Ganshom, I think your concern is that this is like a quote unquote order and I don't think it is. It's, I don't want to also say suggestion, but maybe Amy can find better wording than I am. Yeah, because we've got our best not to make it sound like an order, this is a direction we want to go. It's a stance. Yeah, that's actually a difficult situation in open source. So you want it to change, but by just saying suggestion, it's very hard and difficult. So something like if we wanted to do it as a community goal in open stack project, then we need a contributor and volunteer to help it. I agree. And I think we recognize that. And I guess with my work member hat on, it's one of those things where it's like, if we were GitHub and we decided to force everyone to change their main branch, would that be a good thing? No, it probably wouldn't be a good thing. New things probably perfectly fine, no one will notice. So it's kind of, we kind of recognize there are way too many things for us to say, you must go do this, but we want people to be cognizant of it. We want people to consider changing where appropriate or where it needs to change. And this is why it's moving forward, changes not going back and ripping things out, changes. Exactly, let's move forward. And it could very well just be that once we announce this type of stuff, more people will start to be aware about it and we might just see small natural changes inside different projects, like Triple O did on their own and other people will just, it'll just increase awareness. If at all that will at least help a little bit. All right, we are at time. I do not know if our room is going to shut down on us, to be honest with you, but if folks want to continue the conversation, we definitely can. I did sign up for some PTG time for next week. We can continue discussions there. And I figured this would be larger, broader discussions. And if we did want to get into the technical details next week during the PTG, where it's a little more appropriate, we could use the DNI working groups time or I'm more than happy to get in and reach out to me on what time your group is meeting. I might be discussing this and I'll join the different projects. So. And Amy, can you like put the possible PTG schedule on top of this is the path? So other people might be able to know that there's, there's chances this can be discussed in the PTG. Yeah. Kendall, do you have the ether cow candy? For the PTG. PTG. I have like the PTG. The PTG bot. Well, words are hard. Okay. Ask the PTG bot. Well, the PTG bot shows like the schedule just like the ether cowboy faster to search. Also, Amy, I don't know if you said this at the beginning because I had some connectivity issues. This is Lisa, by the way. Hi, everyone. I've been kind of quiet, but it's been really great to hear all of you. And I just want to remind everybody, we have monthly meetings. So we've been discussing this all summer and working on it. And, you know, first of all, I really want to thank Amy. I hope somebody did that already at the beginning of the call, but Amy has been amazing at really pushing this and writing the first draft and working so hard on this all summer. And it's been, it's a really important issue. And we, we got support from the board, but we didn't get a lot of people joining the monthly calls. And actually we were doing them by weekly for awhile because this is such an important issue. So I just really want to give Amy a huge shout out for not ever dropping the ball and for keeping us all on track and pushing this forward. So yay, Amy. Thank you for being you and being awesome. And I just want to encourage everybody to, because as someone said earlier, this is a process and we're going to have to keep on it and keep revisiting it. So just reminding everybody, we have the monthly working group calls and it would be great if I know it's another meeting, but it's great to have more voices and more opinions on those calls throughout so that we don't get to a point like this. And I mean, you all have been so great and agreeable, but we don't want to ever get to a point where all of a sudden it's like, oh, wait, no, we need to go back to square zero and we waste all that time. So please join the monthly meetings. And, but thank you for participating in this now. And it's so great to see everyone. Hi, Mohamed. Hi, Ildigo. Hi, Julia. Hi, everyone. Hey, so we've definitely been working on this in the open. So. One sort of housekeeping thing. Some of the troll stuff that's in the ether pads were actually really offensive. Can we strike it at least? Yeah, I'm in favor of that. I was going to ask for that too, but I was wondering, Amy, are you going to cut and paste this whole thing over to somewhere else where the link isn't published as widely? Or, because I agree, I mean, can we just erase it or what's the etiquette on just? Let me double check with Fungi. I mean, it's going to be an ether pad history, but yeah, and it's really just, it's on call for. Yeah, and that's why, I mean, when we saw something come up, we tried to address it immediately. And that's why having a conversation the person on the other ether pad was willing to give their name and we had a really good discussion with him in the ether pad. This person, Mr. Yellow, is not helping the situation or anything. And I do agree, but let me just make sure that we aren't violating anything by removing it and Fungi will know for sure. Let's actually ask in the actual summit room what's the etiquette on cleaning up trolls or troll techs? Yeah, I agree with this. Oh, I'll go after it. I've got it. Okay, cool. Yeah, and especially if someone doesn't identify themselves, like the stuff in mauve or peach, I think you were calling it. That's clearly not a community person. Well, in the yellow, which is why I was afraid to click on the zoom link on the top. Yeah. So now I agree that this should be cleaned up because this doesn't really, like I don't want someone who is outside and outsider that comes in and looks at this and was like, wow, look at this community and what they've been discussing. Like, you know, I think it leaves a very bad taste. And they've got all of our email addresses that are right there, right? So, I think I would love to put some of that. Well, they're gonna have those. Yeah. Well, I'd be in favor of removing it. And if it doesn't get removed, I would love to hear why. That's just. I'm just double checking to make sure. I mean, I think it violates our code of conduct, but. Yes, it does. I just want to make sure that we're not violating anything by doing it. Well, the keynotes have started a couple of minutes ago and I think I have to go hang out in some other room. Let's go ahead and end this and I'll work on cleaning. But thank you so much, Amy. Thank you, everyone, for attending. This is really important stuff to be talking about. Thank you, Amy. Bye-bye. Thanks, Amy. Hey, Carol. Thanks, Amy. Bye. Bye. Hey. Everybody's been in me. Hello. Just. Quiet. Like yesterday, I just did the regular booth and no one came into the chat. So today I figured I'd do the video booth to see if anyone was in there. I was only in there for like 10 minutes. I'll go back after we talk in regards to what part. I mean, open stack isn't the focus, but it hasn't been in a while. I kind of get that at work too. So I just kind of do my thing. Understand why we're not the focus and I fully agree with the name change and everything else. I mean, I voted for Facebook community because I agree with what they're doing, but if they're not bringing Magma for sure, which they weren't committing to, I wonder why they want to get involved. But everyone pointed out they were paying for three years of membership that was, and I have to wonder where the board's going because Suicide did not renew if I'm right. Does that mean we're losing Alan? And he's been our head for how long? Yeah. See, I'm torn by the fact that it is always easier to be reelected as an incumbent because that gives you consistency, but at the same time it gives you no new blood. And that goes for the TC, UC and everything else. I mean, it's not just the board. I am so over virtual summits to be honest with you that I go to my things, I sit in the booths which don't get any traffic, none of them really do. So that isn't different for here just so you know, we got nothing at KubaCon either. So, and we're getting a little at all things open and I'm getting a lot of direct messages at all things open. And a lot of it's just to say hi and I'm finding that a little weird, but I've never been in a real live all things open. So do you get thanked for your support and thank you for coming? So I'm getting a lot of that in the chat. So I mean, the general, there's not a lot of traffic. There's, I was, I probably had the most contentious event that's gonna happen at summit this morning. I honestly think that forum session will have the most discussion out of everything until we get to the closing one and people ask about what happened. And for a DNI thing to have up to 18 people that was really good for us. Am I surprised no one from any of the other projects came? But yet it's only been one airship person who's responded to any of my emails. And he wanted, and he suggests that the links foundation networking group, we are giving suggestions and I was under the impression that we weren't giving suggestions to leave everything in the projects. So we will now come together as our team and put together suggested name changes because we knew no one was gonna want to be told what to do. I mean, it's open source. It's open stack. We know our community, which is why we were trying to give concepts and not directives. So now we'll give a little bit of a directive. I really liked your idea of like, just tell us what you're gonna do. What you're thinking about doing, just give us a hint because yeah, I get no response. I mean, maybe I need to attend all the technical committee meetings because they don't read their discuss lists. But yeah, I mean, it's crazy. So because of one user is what I'm saying. Two users now? Okay, I hadn't seen the update to two users. I seriously wonder if why did we have to go to stack? I told Aaron and Ashley like two or three weeks ago when, or even longer when I met with Diane about possibly co-hosting an OpenShift Commons on the platform, they needed to tell people what they were using. Now there's a lot of things I really like about this platform versus Intrado and the others. But if you knew you were expecting how many, and maybe it's because I used to work in a monitoring company and run load testing for customers. Why didn't you try it? And they said they were gonna last night. And the positive things are, I always try to have positives and negatives, but it's, at least then I was just such a, it was just such a big day for us yesterday and we fucked up. They figured out a workaround, but y'all still fucked. And this late in the year after this many conferences, maybe you should have spent the money and gone with a try and drew platform. They were between this and Hop and Tube, by the way. I did get that information. And I do like this better than Hop and Tube, but at least Hop and Tube's been used. Yeah, I mean, and that's one thing I've noticed. Everyone's left, even starting with thingy, except for hiring in China, they haven't hired anyone for community. Sunny speaks Mandarin. I don't remember the guy's name. So they've added those, but you've got your event people being community managers for all the different projects. That's not their jobs. They don't know how to do it. They don't know the tech. They don't have the drive. It's not what they do, but you're covering things with other people. So, I mean, think about it. They really haven't replaced anyone who's left except for those two hires. I was really surprised about your comment in the email about the ether pads not working. Just directly going to an ether pad or? Okay, because that I haven't tried, but I was like, I use multiple browsers to separate my stuff I'm logged in as Amy at the Marco and Amy at Red Hat. They're extremely concerned in the leadership of the foundation. I think there's a little, I'm... So by coming up board member, I thought we would know more. And to be honest, as the years have gone by, I know less and less of what's going on, if that makes any sense. And I don't know if it's because people are doing, wearing way too many hats or what's going on. And I realize some stuff is confidential, but we are the board. We've all signed NDAs. Why when we ask what projects are potentially coming, do we not get an answer? And I still don't understand why fiber home doesn't get a priority over Wind River. They're a current gold member. They should be top of the list. For moving to platinum. And that was my feelings. And I did bring that up. And I kind of just hinted around the, I don't quite trust Facebook community coming over thing. Cause everyone was like, they're committing for three years. Okay, but they have more money than God. They can commit to three years and walk away. Oh yeah, I saw that. They weren't ready in time. Which they're big open stack users, but they don't contribute anything that I don't know of. I like to live in my Disney world and see the bright side of everything. I know. And then I'm just bringing that to the forefront of this conversation. But yeah, I've got head concerns lately too. The fact that we're not, like I said, I mean, I figured we would know more. We could make better decisions. Like I just joined the governing board for chaos. And I said, are there any meetings or anything you need me to attend or whatever? Just let me know. I'll put it on my schedule and stuff. And they're like, well, you don't have to. And I said, well, to make decisions, I like to have as much information as possible. How can you make decisions otherwise? Unless you're just doing it to say I'm on a board. So sometimes I think we don't have what we need to make decisions. Sometimes I also think it's, you might have more because you're also work more closely with the engineers and people forget I'm out there. So I'm in a weird position being in marketing. I don't know if I really belong in marketing. They're telling me that I can just be me, but we'll see how long that lasts. What could you do? At that point, what could you do? I mean, if we had more information ahead of time, like what the hell the platform was, I was told Nintendo was using it before we were. I was pretty sure it was gonna get hit. I mean, if you even think about it, Red Hat Summit did not get a black guy because Open Shift Commons ran the day before and ran into the issues. If we had run OUI, which wouldn't have had that many people, but some side event on Monday that took some of the hit, we could have been fixing things on Monday because I was in over the weekend, but how many of us were? I've always started coming in two days early, especially doing OUI, which usually runs Saturday, Sunday. Even if I have leadership on Sunday, I'm there by Friday so I can OUI or there by Thursday, so I can OUI on the weekend. And that helps with the travel and everything else. It wasn't well planned. They should have, what, I mean, they were concerned about numbers registering and I'm like, well, if you let people know the platform, it would help. Oh, you're using someone, so I like that winner. I don't know that winner. Even Grace Hopper fricking changed their platform the day before, they managed to pull it off. They realized that the other platform wasn't gonna work, so obviously they did testing and other things. I mean, it totally screwed up Red Hat's booth plans, but hey, I didn't have booth duty. So a lot of the hiring and type things were really affected by that, but they were still able to pull off their conference. But again, it didn't look real good that they changed it the day before. Yeah, at some point, I mean, you don't go into Black Friday, I wonder if they're gonna change that name, alerting. I used to work at alert site. I used to run the infrastructure. We used to run load tests. People tested their sites going into Black Friday to make sure they'd stay up to sell. I haven't heard that name in ages. So all that expensive, and we could have run it ourselves. You know, I think you're right. I mean, to some degree, I think they're spread way too thin that they can't look at the little details. And people are doing jobs they weren't hired for. Now, whether that means that, they might really wanna do that other job, which is, hey, cool, but then hire someone else to do the job they were originally. It's like, sometimes I'm tempted to tell my manager, why don't you just like dotted line me over to Jason Brooks as realistically, with the new cycle on open stat, do you really need a full-time person? Does he really need a full-time person? And I don't really know enough information to really help him fully. So I just be Amy and do stuff. Cause that's my directive to be Amy. But yeah, it's like, people are gonna go where they wanna go. And I think people have gotten frustrated and left because they couldn't take it anymore. And they weren't getting the recognition that they needed, you know, like, I'm going blank. I blame the two concussions. Ann, was it Ann or Tuti? But she wasn't really hired to run Cata. And that's one of my examples, but then she seemed to like it because she went on to a similar role. So maybe she wasn't getting the acknowledgement, the recognition for what she was really doing and what she was now performing versus being a marketing person that she was hired as. Brain dead on names, two concussions. Two in two months. It's been a year though, it's been a year. But yeah, so I think that has a lot to do with it that they may not wanna be doing what they're doing and they're not paying as close attention. And as, why haven't we heard that they've been talking to Facebook community for a year? Again, NDAs. We have NDAs. See, I have an NDA with them from going through the user survey data because I've seen the raw data as part of the user community. But how hard would it be to give your board members an NDA so you can have discussions? You have a confidential board mailing list. Yeah, I haven't checked in with Fungi since this morning when he apologized that he wasn't gonna be able to help moderate the session because I was counting on his eloquent tongue to diffuse things, but Mohammed did such a good job there. But yeah, I mean, people are just spread to thin. There's not enough transparency. They wanna, I mean, the one thing I'm happy about with the bylaw changes is that if they do go over on the number of Platinum's that the gold and the individual members will continue to balance that. So we won't suddenly be drawn into whatever the new Black Platinum members who know nothing about our community want. And I am happy that Wind River, as much as Sean Cohen would be upset. I am glad they're stepping up because all the projects need some representation on the board, even if it's just the individual members. And again, it goes back to that incumbency thing where it would be very hard for someone in one of the other projects who was not already in the open-stack community to get elected. They don't have the numbers behind them. I didn't attend a whole lot of the non-leadership meetings. And that's kind of why I've been hanging out on the TC channel before I ran for TC. It's probably kind of backwards that I've done everything else. And now I'm circling back to TC. But I think I have a clearer view of everything now. As a board, we're pushing a lot of stuff back to the TC, which now also is the UC to make decisions. And I don't know why we're not considering if that's kind of what we're doing, maybe putting a governing board layer in. I know it's more layers, it makes more problems, but leadership would be closer. But yeah, if you look at who's showing up for meetings and stuff, even the individual members, people aren't showing for the meetings. And it's hard to tell who's on what committee and if they're doing stuff outside of, I've always thought Allison was kind of weird to be on the board, but she brings, she's not really a member of the community, but she brings so much knowledge a long time ago when she was at SUSA. Okay. But she brings such a wealth of knowledge that we'd probably be kind of lost without some of that. I'll go back to Booth Duty. So you, me, Mohammed, who else? Okay. Interesting that it'll potentially be all three individuals. I suspect Arcady would join because he's not usually afraid to speak his mind. And again, he's someone who's been on the board for a while and seen all the things. So if we have perceptions that we're not seeing things, he would actually be a voice of reason to say whether this is new or not, if you know what I mean. All right, well, let me know. And if we all wanna get together before we do something official, just let me know. Okay. Take care. Bye.