 Good morning, we'll give folks a few minutes to be able to come on in. Hi, Dems. Hi, Kathy. Hi, Emily. Mic check. Okay, up to you. Hi, everyone. Oh, say perfect. Like I do like a small call at like the top of the hour to be able to like, do you need a mic check? Has Zoom decided that your mic no longer works in between the last meeting and this meeting? Mine still works because they're all Zoom meetings. You know, you know, you would say that, but like it changes sometimes between the two. That's true. It's whether or not I have done an update between meetings. Right? Yeah. And I was like, but did the client update? Well, who knows and clear. We'll give folks a few more minutes. Hey, there's Katie. Dems, I am not expecting quorum on this meeting, but we also do not need it. So like rock roll carry on the story time. All right, with three minutes after or so we've got like some items of discussion initially and then from there, we can move on and take updates. So, Dems, I will pass it to you if you're ready to kick us off. This is the usual policy notice. You made it. You're already here. This is where we live. And do you see members present today updated over in the public meeting. Yes. And now here we go. Okay. Tag updates. Yay. New order. So are we doing random? We're not doing random order. It is now reverse alphabetical because previously it's been alphabetical for like, you know, several years and now we're going to move it back to like, you know, reverse alphabetical. But it looks like everyone's got their slides updated today. So, Sounds good. Tax storage. So we're going to do the outstanding to see items for discussion first because I wasn't sure we were going to get everybody here. So, we'll kick us off with that. Okay. Did folks get a chance to look at the first issue. That's a GitHub issue in CNCF to see. Essentially, we used to have a group of people called to see contributors. We used to have different cells to contributors.md in the root folder for CNCF QC repository. This was when we didn't have the concept of work groups or, you know, tags, etc. So this has been there for a long time. And I think it's time to like, stop doing it and tell people to move to tags and working groups. Any questions here on the background itself going once twice. Okay. So now then the question becomes, Hey, let's clean that up. What do we, what can we do with these folks? How do we engage these folks in the activities of tags and working groups. That would be the next question. Any thoughts ideas from fellow QC members or the community. This is a long overdue, but I can kick off discussion with that. Pass me somebody else. Yeah, so I did say, I did go through the list, I generated a list of email addresses from that contributors md, and I sent them all, you know, heads up saying, Hey, this is going to go away. Please, you know, go look at engaging yourself in work groups and tags. One idea that we did have in that issue was, instead of TLC contributors can we have tag and working group contributors so that they, we could also display profiles of those folks working in specific tags and working groups on our website instead of the TLC contributors. But I think there was at least a few concerns there. Emily, did you want to talk about like how it has been difficult to keep a list of active contributors in attack. Yep, I can talk a little bit about that. So tag security has a very wide community of individuals that have expressed interest over the years that the group has been formed. And as this most things in life, it's come in for a season sometimes they come in for a particular reason. And sometimes they just stick around for the long haul, maintaining that list. We've actually within tech security not found it particularly useful as individuals change companies that needs to be updated if they're no longer active in the tag then it becomes stagnant. When information becomes out of date they may not be contacted by that GitHub handle or email or even company information any longer. So it just becomes a maintainership burden to keep those listings up to date, particularly when you reach over 50 individuals when you start reaching around the 200s it gets a little ridiculous. However, there was concerns within tag security that we want to be able to recognize the individual members that are actively contributing. And we've, we've had an open issue with the CNCF about doing some form of badging to show work in the group. However, attendance and just recording name and attendance listing is a good way of being able to from a public record being able to point to point back to participation either in a working group and a tag, or in some other form of meeting, not just through the commits themselves to the repo. Richie. No, I think I mean I totally agree with Emily and that's the kind of participation that you know we've also seen in the observability tag. And it's just that very specific to topics as well as areas of projects that are in and and they're also end users joining in, which is, which is great to have discussions about but there is, there are just a handful of folks who actually are consistently available and participate. So there is a couple of twists to this thing to like I'll ask the question a little bit later. Richie Katie, did you have anything to talk about here. Yeah, Richie go ahead. I said I didn't raise my hand. I agree with Lolita. Most of the time at the people who stick around long term tend to be the same ones, and you tend to see them again over the years again and again. I also agree that a lot of those tend to be in this call. For sure. And I mean open telemetry is something interesting where they basically count contributions and this can be code this can be PRs this can be. This can be reviews on issues this can also be participation in calls and then there's an automated system, or I hope it's automated to to count those contributions and and if you are above a certain threshold you are a member of standing for X amount of time. I find this super interesting as a concept. So DevStats does do that for us. There is one. There's a page for now not that well. It can't hear you. You can't test test test. Yes, we can hear you. So for example, for meetings and such that something which DevStats doesn't doesn't capture. Some stuff and it can't do things that are not there in github. And the interesting approach about what open telemetry does is as far as I'm aware it also count or the contributions in calls and participation and such are also accounted for. Yeah, yeah, I mean it's an overall contribution participation included anywhere, you know, all the way from outreach to code. So where does this tooling live? It's actually typically there is a group community group as a community SIG within the project. So typically, you know, all the participants for example in the SIG meetings or any of the additional discussions are typically noted on the, you know, just as the TSE noted on the attendee list and those are then partly manually compiled and partly obviously synced with the DevStats for a final stats update. So the reason why this is important, this problem is important is a couple of reasons, right? One is when you have to run an election for something or the other, like how do you know who needs to vote, right? Yes. So in Kubernetes also there is a threshold for voting for steering for example. So that in general seems to be like a good pattern to follow. Counting contributions across multiple stuff. There's something else that I remembered but you know it'll come back to me. Matt, did you have a comment? Yeah. I'm just trying to give you one. I joined a few minutes late. I had a meeting run over. Are we talking about the effort around, you know, having something that's queryable or data driven around who's who and what's what. So that landscape graph project I don't know what it was already talked about but that is part of the data model. So I'm just going to start by firming up the interfaces by defining them in GraphQL and the implementation of that core schema is underway now. There's a pictorial version of it up in the repo but I hope this week to have the initial core GraphQL compositional model and all of that. And honestly, we have a few words on it in the tag observability slide, but this was a concern we had at the tag that we thought we might be able to solve for us as well as the communities outside of our tags and the other working. Absolutely. So the other problem that why this is important is like how do we get more contributors to come to our project or sync or tag or working group, right. When they are here, how do we keep them around keep them interested. So that that was the reason like okay if we tag them through some mechanism and we show up on the website, maybe that gives them an incentive to participate, I don't know, or at least, you know, gives them some visibility, gives others some visibility on who is participating in a tag or a sync or a working group. I think that's definitely a good incentive because I do think that, you know, it supports folks who are in different companies to actually get more time to spend on the projects as well as the, you know, just supporting different to see and and see for activities. And I think that that's a good, good cycle to have. They're also, you know, other ways, like open telemetry, you know, has done blog posts to call out, you know, special projects and contributors over time from a project level. And just, just, you know, thank you contributors for working on a specific area. Right. We do. We do have some awards and stuff during KubeCon and a for for recognizing people for sure. But yeah, is that Sony like top cream as so to say. Let me look at the chat. Ricardo, did you have any thing that you wanted to add here. Yeah, the one thing is that, I mean, they're talking about it in the chat is maybe having different levels right with that. That's a longer discussion I think like sort of badges and because you know somebody mentioned that some people show up like in one meeting and then they never show up again but at least we have to acknowledge some of those people too but maybe at a different level and then there's people who show up every day and that may constitute contributors or people who do contributions on GitHub all the time that also constitute as contributors. But yeah, in essence, I think it's just, you know, maybe having some sort of level but I think it's a longer topic. It sounds like everybody is interested in this and wants to be able to figure out the details. Probably need to be able to have another meeting for this to be want to be able to talk about like the graduation requirement changes. Yeah, so what I would say is, please add your thoughts and ideas into into that GitHub issue, and we can, you know, we can call it later and figure out like, are there specific things that we could do specific tooling that we cannot talk across CNCF and things like that. Thank you. So next one is. Oh, who can talk about this. Bob is, are you here. No, Bob is not here. Josh, did you have, did you want to introduce the top second topic. Yes. So the basic idea here is, and honestly part of this came because we were discussing some projects like at CD, for example, that we have projects that get to the graduated stage. And although they may have a diverse set of contributors right now. Their governance rules don't act under set of maintainers now the governance rules. Don't actually include any sort of succession planning for maintainers, and not even any kind of a definite mechanism for how maintainers would get replaced over time. And, and we haven't specifically required that. So the idea was to add this to the section that that already, you know, sort of requires governments documentation and stuff to clarify that that when we say governance documentation that is something that's required. So the projects are thinking about it when they're applying for graduation. And so we don't get in the situation where, you know, the, the og maintainer leaves and certainly we have a problem with projects. Right. Yeah, for sure. Thank you for introducing that so there has been this is a PR that is in the CNC of to see repository. And, you know, there was some churn and comments from different people on that PR, and it's ready to merge. So if you, if you're all okay with this, please take a look at it, and you give us a thumbs up or a thumbs down and we can continue to talk about it, or, you know, merge it in a couple of days. So any thoughts here other than what what Josh just talked about twice. Matt has a hand to go ahead. Matt, go for it. I'll review the PR but there's also the concern of, you know, a singular vendor or company having all of the maintainer ownership rights to a project and over time through incubation, you know, as vendors higher standards, there's a natural trend to consolidate, you know, technical direction ownership potentially. It's another one of the things that that that we want to look at in terms of being able to identify where this is the case and before it becomes a serious issue but but is that part of the thinking around around this PR is as more focused specifically on on committed and maintainer life cycle. Right. We get into So this was to address the specific problems that we found during, for example, the HCD stuff. There are other projects. Also, that have started doing cleanups. And Kubernetes did as well last year and, you know, has codified some of those things, these things on like, okay, when, when do you get off from being a reviewer or an approver for something. Like for a year, you know, you're, you're gone right literally. So, so this is just to off board people so that we know we can take stock of who's around and who's not around so that when, like, we have to raise flags right like the HCD was like, there was a lot of people on the maintenance list, but they were not active they're not doing any work so when the two people who are like keeping up the keeping the lights on left, we didn't know about it like at least so that we could jump in. We could catch problems earlier. But then just writing it down is not good enough. We need to periodically clean them up to so that's another problem that we need to get to once we get this in. But at least there should be a mechanism to get people off so that we can add new people and that that that's the kind of thinking going on here. And just by itself it's not enough. We need to think about the other things as a follow up to. Thank you. Okay, any other outstanding items from the last few weeks. I'm asking the TOC members here. Okay, we can go on to the next one. Next storage. I see Shin here. Shin, are you talking today or is there anybody else? Yes. Yes. This is a Shin from TechStorage. So, from TechStorage side, Qbethus is an incubating project now. OPEBS is also applying for incubation. We send out an email in the TOC mailing list. We have some concerns regarding the status because OPEBS has a few storage engines each with a different level of maturity. We are wondering how we are going to evaluate that during the DD process. We got a couple of responses. I believe the suggestion is that that should not be the reason that presented from applying for incubation. So I think right now we are waiting for TOC sponsor. Anything else that we TOC need from the TechStorage side on this? I think Richie ended up talking to some of the folks involved in that. Richie, did you want to speak to the updates here on OPEBS, what we are thinking of? Sure. I mean, the current status is I didn't, like I tried to speak to them. I managed to half reach some people and the update which I got was that there's, like, let me start at the beginning for the benefit of everyone who hasn't read this on the TOC channel. So I didn't see a lot of recent movement on OPEBS and it seemed a little bit stale. In the final line, I heard that there was a company acquisition and that led to the majority or all of the contributors to basically be pulled away or joining other companies, but in short, brain drain from the project as such. So I decided to write this by reaching out to the project that didn't go very far. Then through back channels also try to reach people more and got partial replies, which are basically that people are trying to onboard new people onto the project, but haven't seen any movement on those since then. So it's been, I think, a month, maybe one and a half month since then. And that's the current status. It doesn't look great at the moment. Yeah, so essentially at this point, we have to hit the pause button on this right now. And we'll take a checkpoint, maybe in a couple of months to see if they're able to get back on their feet. And worst case scenario, we have the archiving process that we can apply to this. I mean, before we archive, we would probably reach out to see if there's like do some PR work on, hey, are there interested maintainers? Do companies want to step up and sponsor maintainers like all those things would I think come before we go into the archiving process, but as you can tell from us, naturally talking about the archiving progress process, it really doesn't look great at the moment. And I'm glad that I'm really glad that we caught this before incubation. Do you talk to you, Nick, Connie, that he is the one who has been communicating with us. So she just reached you with with the name later on slide. Okay, sure, sure. Okay, discussion there. Would you go back to where you stopped? Yes. Okay. And curves three system. It's applied for a sandbox. They presented at text to meetings. We recommended it to you to see for a sandbox. Is it waiting for a vote now. I'm not sure what the status for curve. Don't think they reapplied. Yeah, they haven't reapplied. That's that's what I'm seeing from sandbox that's in CFO. I'm not seeing them on the list. So they should be applied. That would be the next step. Oh, yeah. Okay. Google form and do a fresh application. Okay. And update with the whatever they talk with you. Okay, maybe, maybe you can let them know maybe they don't know about this. Probably missing a step. Thank you. Okay. All right, thank you. And we also have a cloning to PG they, they are applied for sandbox. They presented at our meetings. So it's a pretty interesting project. I would like to bring them back for further discussions to understand more about the operator and how that interacts with storage. And also for the white papers, the clone native disaster recovered by paper is now published in our repo. And this other white paper on performance and benchmarking still need some final work to wrap up. Asking since they have stored projects to do a project update in our tech meetings. So far we have got leaders and a city that has done a project update. So we'll have a group and long form coming next. That's all. Sounds good. So for the paper that you already published in the tag repository, is there something that we need to do to get it out so to say some publicity or something like that. Oh yeah, that would be nice. I'm not sure I don't know what we had this white paper on the storage and it's probably before. I'm not sure what is normally the process for this service desk for design work and we'll take it on from there. Yeah, tax security also has the process documented in their repo for the processes. Highly recommend taking a look at that. Okay, I'll take a look. That's it. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Next one. Hey, push her. Please go. Yes. So couple of three small updates and one big update for everyone who doesn't know me I'm one of the tax security tech leads are joining on behalf of everybody else. So the first update is we've been trying to make our meetings. All time zone friendly. And one of the problems we had was we didn't have a liaison who was in a different time zone, which were non us. So now that Andrew is our chair. He is he's starting to have our first EMEA friendly meeting on third August, which is tomorrow. And we're going to see how that goes and kind of continue to learn on the job as we get more feedback on doing those meetings. Second update is we started creating a draft on how to apply the best practices written down in the supply chain security white paper. We have been discussing with a couple of projects. If anyone of you are interested to see how that can help your project, please drop a message in the issue on the slides. Last small update is we have had quite a bit of presentations lately about four in the last I think couple of months or so. We do this occasionally on our in our regular meetings. If you have a topic, we have a issue template that you can use to request one for yourself. Next slide Amy. All right, so this is a big update, mainly because this was a long driven project for quite a few months. The gist of it is tax security has a process to review and assess projects that CNCF projects and help them make it more secure. But there was no process to assess or review sub projects of a graduated project like Kubernetes is a graduate project but a sub project like cluster API. We weren't sure who would actually do it so eventually we ended up combining our powers together with CNCF tax security Kubernetes security and sick cluster life cycle that owns the sub project. And we came together kind of to start this pilot. So last, I think a couple of weeks back, we finally merged the assessment which was basically a self assessment driven by all of the three groups. We have about 22 findings from using the stride model 15 tracking issues to make sure that those findings are addressed. And as part of this we also did our first CNCF fuzzing engagement for a sub project in Kubernetes for and the report of that is linked in the slide. That's it for me. Sounds good. Any questions for Pushkar. Thanks. Thanks a lot, Pushkar. Thanks for that. Tag and time Ricardo. Yeah. Everyone. We haven't had a lot of meetings in the past month, but we have a few updates. The containers and runtime space. There's a project called Unicraft that addresses unicolonial development and tooling. So we reached out to them and so they present in our meeting. We have a presentation from a schedule for this project called bumblebee that provides a Docker life or Docker like experience for ebpf. And that needs to be rescheduled that project apply for sandbox but it was to reapply later or to look for other I think it was to the ebpf foundation or the ebpf working area within the Linux foundation so that was part of the feedback but we still want to have them presented our meeting if they would like to And in terms of workloads, we had a meeting schedule also for Ray and Kubrade and this project was applying also for sandbox. It addresses distributed computing. And I think there was some feedback related to whether you know, you want to include just Kubrade or just Ray or what was the, I mean, for the project to come back in and provide more clarity in that area. But the presentation also got rescheduled and we're looking to reschedule this. Our motto is another project that addresses batch workloads. This was accepted into sandbox. So the folks for the project from G research are pretty excited about that. One of the main maintainers. And there's another project that just apply for sandbox is called cured. It's from WeWorks. It basically allows Kubernetes reboots or safe reboots. So we reached out to them and also expect them to present. In terms of tag runtime activities, we continue to reach out to existing CMCF projects so we get more involvement from them more presentations and more updates. In the batch system initiative working group. It's actually working on a research or more like a survey, I guess it's to to identify some pain points in the space and in terms of running this high performance and large type of workloads. And finally, the Kubernetes IoT working group completed its migration to the CMCF and under the umbrella of the tag runtime. That's all the updates that I have and happy to take any questions if you have any. Thanks, Ricardo. So I'll give you a couple of things that we can probably take back to the projects when they talk to you again. So the Bumblebee present when we will to see was looking at the Bumblebee one. I think what we were missing was how does it help with applications that are deployed on Kubernetes. For example, and I believe they also talk to tag observability also around, you know, around the same. How can you use some Bumblebee to develop something that will help you with your application or workloads. I think that portion was missing from the submission and it was missing from the we couldn't. It didn't come out clearly when we were looking through the website and looking through the documentation and stuff like that so when you talk to them. You ask them also about like Bumblebee as it is presented using the quick start and all is more like page. There's a template you just write some code then you can deploy it as a container in in defense and so on whatever right. So how does it relate to, you know, the cloud itself other than just being a container is basically what we need to ask them. Ray and Q Bray was around here. Ray has its own community separate and Q Bray wanted to be was actually in the submission only the Q Bray portion, and just for it to be an operator. We still have to kind of like write up a policy on like, do we allow projects that are only operators and they don't have anything else right. Some of the storage ones, for example, hey, there is an operator but operator is not the only thing in the project there is several other things around it. Yeah, so we need to kind of like where do we draw the line we need to talk that talk to that like if you get more information about like what exactly are they thinking on how using Ray, but also solve the other problems that we have in the cloud native space would be like a good thing to talk to them about. Sounds great. Well, thank you for the feedback and I'll pass that on when I meet with them. Thank you. Any other questions. Nikita, you had your hand up. Yeah, so hi, I'm making that regard of this was me who reached out to you this morning that I want to get in. So you mentioned that the three, if I recall correctly, so the three working groups in fact that is that another working group other than the BSI and the IOT working groups. And my second question was that are there any big ticket items planned or just like what what initiatives are planned for the IOT working with going forward. So we have three chairs in that working group. So we'll probably reach out to you can reach out to them to find out more details about plans if you want to get involved and want to tackle some of the issues that they have outstanding. The other working group that we have in the tag is the container orchestrated device working group, so they're working on how to define standards for devices in containers or device. They have big mappings and yeah, how do you talk from a container to like a network device or or some sort of CPU or or other types of hardware. So, yeah, happy to provide any info just reach out and I can connect you to the working groups and, and happy also to have you contribute to the tag. That's useful information. Thanks, Nikita. Kathy, did you want to voice your question. Oh yeah okay so so here what you mean by migration to of the IOT workgroup to CSF and doesn't mean that it's now you know part of the tag runtime. Yes, yes, yes, correct. Yeah, so so they, so the IOT working group was under Kubernetes, the Kubernetes community. And basically, they wanted to expand their scope to not just Kubernetes but other things that like our edge related and IOT related. So they said that they think it's better to be under the CNCF which is more of a general umbrella. Thanks for helping them through that situation. Ricardo, thank you. Yep. Any other questions for Ricardo. Okay, next slide please. Observability. Who's around today. Hi. We've just got one slide so I'll try to be again brief. So over the last really two months, there has been a number of meetings I want to say seven six or seven every few weeks about adding profiling as a new signal type to open telemetry to join logs metrics and traces. And there's been a number of weeks for those interested there's a slack channel and a number of documents that are, I wouldn't say primordial, but, you know, are definitely still in work in progress, although consensus is beginning to be consolidated and co less. So the next steps for that effort after basically a good, a good amount of discussion from a broad range of people sort of inside the CNCF bubble and inside the hotel bubble is, is to generate sort of a vision document and Otec, kind of like a KEP and open telemetry enhancement proposal that that doesn't get too prescriptive about design and just kind of gives everyone something that we all agree on, you know, around main goals and vision and and like the top level scenarios. And then we want to garner feedback not just from, you know, the communities that are already already there and represented but from some of the other folks that probably don't know the effort has happened, both in sort of the edge hardware space, where profiling continuous profiling can be an important signal. We've reached out to tag security, or s tag, I'm not sure the right way to say it. Now, as you know, continuous profiling that's pervasive and systemic can form a really interesting useful signal for anomaly detection and for intrusion detection and building, building models and all manner of things, but normal looks like to identify when things are not normal or, or, or many other use cases outside of just application operator type scenarios where somebody wants to see how their stuff is doing but this affects cluster operators network operators, you know, all manner of personas and so we want to reach out to those. However, we can throw up and have professional networks or otherwise. Next we've started. We've talked about it in months past but we've actually started an observability speaker series. Our first speaker will be on our six on August 16 and it's Liz from Jones from honeycomb that just released. She's one of the authors. They're one of the opera authors on a new observability book from a Riley that's been well received in the domain. The project that we've kind of mentioned and passing in meetings past it has been gaining steam up on a couple of links there about sort of current work and current thinking. I think in the last few weeks to a month that the biggest thing that's crystallized I think is how we're going to move forward with composing, you know, a super graph of a bunch of sub graphs, so that domain experts, for example, folks from the app or folks from app deployment if we if we go to measuring deployments or the to see itself on how we're modeling, you know, working groups and and various tags and roles that humans have in projects and groups within the to see within the to see on CF, you know, all of these things are our different sub graphs where we will, we've wanted to spend some time putting together a compositional mechanism so that that can horizontally scale. So we don't have a monolithic schema, and then we can test independently and let domain experts really inform the designs and the models that we eventually compose into a cohesive comprehensive graph. And then lastly, our coup con maintainer track for coup con North America and Detroit has been formally accepted and so in the coming weeks to a month. I'll lead and I and some tag members, whoever's interested really will start in the open constructing sort of what we'll talk about and how how we'll do that. And just to that, Matt, thank you. Just wanted to say that we'd like to see more, you know, boss sessions, perhaps from the tags, especially for observability given it's such a large community with, you know, a lot of different projects and participants showing up at coup con. So, again, we'll follow up with Amy and probably the CNCF team to figure out, you know, how we can actually do that in a more organized way. Yeah, buffs are usually the space problem right exactly. Yeah, so yeah, that's going to be tricky. We might just do it in the hallway but that's right. Everybody show up here. Take a picture of the place where you have to meet or something. Be there done that for sure. Richie list fun Jones. How, like, who's the audience and how are you inviting people from the community for this. So, the typically dance what we do is we'll kind of just post and, you know, announcement on the different observability groups such as project groups and on slack. That typically does, you know, pull in a pretty good audience as well as obviously social media and word of mouth from the speakers themselves. And that's what we've typically done. That's a question right. That's very good point. I mean, again, I think that we don't leverage the CNCF blog as much as we could. But I think that's also very great good channel for being able to get more folks involved. Okay. Yeah, thanks. Next one please. Tag network. Hey guys, hey, it's Lee here. Well, the service mesh working group. It's the most active working group that the tag has the latest set of work or the newest set of work has been a continuation of service mesh patterns. So it's been a call for participation in defining a collection of deployment models, best practices, like different patterns by the way in which, you know, people are using various features of service meshes and, and those are being codified. There's a collection of them that are starting to emerge in mesheries catalog, which is linked there. So whether you're interested in helping create new patterns and define what those look like. What's the best way to configure the sensitivity level of your circuit breaker. Or how many retries should you have between two services or what like those are kind of examples of things that these patterns try to address. And the catalog that's there is nascent but the hope is that those will be shared with the community that was a part of the initial effort of defining what those patterns are and then beginning to codify their orchestration. So there's a call for participation there. Last time we met there hasn't been progress on this, but we said like hey that there's a need for a subsurvey one that gets really specific about deployment patterns of service meshes. How they're being used and where and there's kind of there's a litany of questions that different contributors within the tag have. And that just aren't quite covered with some of the other surveys. So, again just another call for participation, if that topic is of interest. I'll skip over to the right hand side and say I think I believe that the the upcoming presentation that we have would be from network service mesh and at the NSM project. I will present on another generic term application service mesh, which is NSM acting has a mesh for other meshes or mesh to help facilitate interconnectivity between Kubernetes deployments operating at a lower network level, and then facilitating deployments of application meshes. So that's an upcoming topic. Most recent presentation I think it was the last time we met the Istio project presented. There's a, the recording and slide deck is in the meeting minutes. And the most recent adoption into tag network was the Iraqi mesh, which if you recall, has a focus on on filtering specific network protocols or specific application level protocols that that you that are used, you know, in communication between microservices. And so, yeah. Sounds good. Thank you, Lee. Any questions for Lee. So one question I had Lee was, has the Istio folks settled down in the new home at CNCF. They're, I'll say it like this, they're eager to be formal, you know, to be through due diligence or they're, they'd like to be updated on status or which is a great thing so yeah they they had a great presentation just very well done presentation that they had given tons of. I mean, you know, just tons of statistics that were accounted for various considerations around roadmap and integrations with related project or projects that are within the CNCF. Yeah. Thanks Lee. Yeah, next slide please. Is that you Josh today. It is. So real quickly, the design for contribute that CNCF that I was going to be changing the Linux foundation design folks are making consistent with the rest of the CNCF sites, and honestly just much better looking in general. So we're looking forward to that. We're, we've drafted an email template to go to projects after they have their annual review, which is often a time when they need to be thinking about working on one of the things with the project that tag contributor strategy can help them with the. We've already gone over the, the lead, the maintainer to commit a lifecycle issue there. The one thing here is the mentoring working group vote has been open for like a month. And I think we're still missing one vote to pass it. The mentoring people are doing all kinds of things. And they're really eager to actually be official officially a working group. So if we could please have that additional vote from from whatever to see member needs to give it it would be nice. Among other things, maybe doing a mentoring survey soon. They have a bunch of folks in New Zealand and so they're going to be going to New Zealand career fair. So they'd like to be officially a working group of the CNCF if that can get voted in, please. Yeah, thanks a lot for that call out, Josh. Any of the TLC members are here. If you haven't voted please go vote and let's unblock this working group please. Thanks, Josh. Next slide please. Yeah, we've reached the a series. Who's on for today for a delivery. I'm Hong Chao in case you didn't know me I am a co chair of the tech app delivery. I will give a quick update on the tech. So, first of all, captain has been approved for incubation and, and another project has been applying for sandbox but was recommended to propose to the tech meetings. One of them is XSI works for Alibaba. I also see the cognitive PG has been proposed to the tech storage. Another thing is a coupon. North America is coming. We submit a tax section for one of our 10 lead Josh also submit a session on Kubernetes API resource model as a universal management API. In the past, a couple of meetings were like we sing on the multi tendency white paper it's almost done we we will publish it probably soon. We will be working on the operator white paper trying to draft some ideas and get it more ready. And we also discussed like writing an article about cooperative delivery and how it fits into assistive model and and like involves multiple projects like backstage those and crossplane. Those are CNCF projects. Yeah, that's our updates. Thanks. Any questions for Hongjo. Once and twice. Yeah, thanks a lot. Next slide please. Okay, it's very time. We've got Clark custodian in voting. Dave is currently out. That's Aaron's on the call for key cloak. Come back to that one. Sure manager actually yeah all of the things that are currently out there with sponsors like no one is here today so we will. No way it's Biffy Spire but Emily is already gone as well so because we believe that here. Okay, I think that's, that's a good way to end today right anything else. Nope. We made it in on time which I was a little worried that we were not going to be able to do that. Unless somebody has a question and wants to stick around. A very brief one. This is the best way for tag code chairs to interface with the TLC around sandbox stuff. Just in terms of communication. I kind of this topic for a future future to have. I'm sure of it. But as an example like, we just saw phonio was added in a quick look. It's like, Oh, that's GP. That was already covered and talked about but like, yeah, would have been possible. Well, the simplest way to use the slack threads in hash to see or started email thread in the TLC mailing list. Those two should be fine. Let's let's just use what we already have and, you know, like keep it light and not make it into a thing. Okay. Okay, thanks a lot everyone. Thank you. Bye.