 Absolutely. All right. And we are live. Thank you. Welcome to the July 8 meeting, SMI community meeting. We have a couple of folks here. Please add yourself to the meeting notes so that we know who has been around. And yeah, thanks for subscribing, Bridget. And let's jump into the agenda. First item is blog posts. Is that you, Bridget? Did you want to? It is, yes. I finally wrote the minimal amount of documentation necessary so that people can submit their blog posts. I know the fine folks at Solo and a few other folks are interested in writing, and I think maybe Tom and a few others are interested in writing a blog post for the SMI website. So the information you need is right there. And if you want to submit them, we will hopefully get them reviewed and get them out and just build a momentum of people's exciting work that they're doing using SMI on their projects. Cool. Any questions? Does anyone on the call have a question? Everything clear? Cool. Next up, coordinate the SDK release. I added his name because we were discussing it on the Slack, but he isn't able to be on the call today. But what I wanted to do is make sure anyone who wanted to review and perhaps add to that particular GitHub issue. Basically, Stefan sees that as the one blocker. And I think probably Thomas, Michelle, and a few others have opinions about this. I see Michelle is on the call if Michelle wants to tell us what she thinks. Hey, yeah. So I'm going to review this pull request today so we can get a release out. This pull request, though, adds traffic target V1, Alpha 2. I don't know that it bumps us to get the latest changes on V1, Alpha 3. I need to double check on that. So once we've reviewed, we can go ahead and cut that release. I think we need two people to review. So if somebody else is interested. So you think we're not yet through? We're still, like, we need to unblock that, right? Yeah, that's a big, yeah, that's a big blocker. We need people to review. Oh, it looks like we need one approving review to merge the pull request. First of all, we should also change that to two. But if it's just one, then I can do it. Do we have anyone on the call who would fit the bill? I can ask Thomas offline. He might be good to review that. Okay, she could do that. That would be awesome. Hey, Michelle, I might just create an issue for the 0.4 release and tag that PR as a dependency. So would that be worth it? Okay, I'll do that, and I'll fix the approvers too. Yeah. So did we also cut a release of the spec at 0.4? Do we need to do that? I think we did. Hang on. I will check. Okay. Not that they need to be coordinated, but it'd be really nice to, like, make sure that the spec, that there is a release of this solid release of the spec that's clearly defined. And then the SDK can, like, make sure that we're at that matching version, we support that particular version. We can point to it. So let's do two things today. One, I'll definitely go ahead and work with you, Lockheed, to make sure that the spec version is where we're at, and we have the right release tagged for that. And then I'll also review Stefan's PR so we can make sure we cut a release and point to the right version of the spec. Okay. I will add that all to the issue. Looks like it's 0.4.0-wd. Yeah. So let's cut, let's tag a release of the spec first, and then we'll cut the release of the SDK. Okay. Cool. Any other question or comment regarding that? Thanks a lot for helping out there, much appreciated. Cool. Doesn't seem to be the case. Then more like an FYI, unless someone feels like want to discuss something, you might have seen the news a couple of hours ago that Istio found a home. There is a new foundation called open usage comments, I believe. And it looks like Istio is part of that together with two other projects. I have not yet fully understood the implications, what it means in terms of relation. I'm unsure if that is a Linux foundation. It is not. It is not. Okay. Thanks for that. Hi, this is Josh here. So yeah, it's not Linux foundation. It's an independent foundation run by Google staff and some researchers at this point. And apparently all it does is trademark licensing. So it is probably not a substantial change to how Istio the project is run. And does anyone think that in terms of the cooperation or integration or whatever of Istio in SMI, that anything on a technical level, operation level changes? The only thing that I can think of is we currently had not put the Istio logo on anything. And if logo governance is different now, we should maybe look into that because if the open source nature of this foundation means that the logo can be used in this usage, then perhaps it's fine. But I am not a lawyer. Amy is a lawyer. Maybe Amy can look into it. I don't know. No, fully no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah, I heard you create an Istio and assign it to Amy, right? That's what I heard. I think you're going to have to wait for them to get their stuff together because they totally have, I mean like the point of their organization is trademark licensing. But that said, they don't actually have a procedure for trademark licensing set up yet. So you're probably going to have to actually wait for them to publish something that says submit your request here. Seat Chat. Yeah, it says we just need to look at the, there are no immediate changes to the Istio usage guidelines and the open usage comments will respect existing Istio trademark licenses and permissions to use the Istio name. So which we don't have. I mean we don't, I don't think we have. So maybe it changes nothing. That's really the only thing I could think of. I will put this that you put it from the fact in the notes, Lockie. I'm just being as thorough as I can. I don't think there's anything else that affects us. Is there anything else anyone else sees that might affect this project? Yeah, I think it's positive for the project. Cool. And by the way, positive for SMI, I mean, I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah. It's a hopeful, it's a hopeful. I interpreted it that way. All right. Next on the agenda is welcome, John, to the SMI community, Michel. Take it away. Hey, John is on my team. So John, if you want to introduce yourself, feel free. John is working on metrics related things. And it's hopefully going to make the SMI metrics part of the spec a little bit better and a little bit more up to date. So feel free to intro yourself, John. All right. Hi, everyone. My name is John Hewn. I just joined Microsoft a little over a month ago working on SMI. So excited to get going. Welcome, John. Welcome. Welcome on board. Great to have you. All right. I think that was it. That was at least what I see on the agenda. So the door is, or the floor, not the door. The floor is open. Any other business, any other items, anything you want to raise? It seems to be a case going once, going twice. Looks like a short meeting today, Bridget. All right. Thanks a lot, everyone, and meeting two weeks time again. Cheers. Thank you. Thanks, folks. Bye now.