 Hey John. Good morning. Can you hear me? Hopefully. Yeah, I couldn't hear you for a little bit. I don't know if it was my end or your end. So something weird was going on. Hello. Welcome to. All right. Hey Mike. Hey. Hey Hines. Hello. How you doing? Not too bad. Kind of enjoying the fact that now everybody's doing what I've been doing for 25 plus years, which is work from at home. Yeah, not that bad. I actually enjoy it and prefer it. As long as your job can allow for it, which is I think is really cool how many people nowadays actually have a job that allows for it. I mean, obviously it's not a enjoy to the people, but it's enough that it's interesting. Exactly. And a lot of the times in my earlier career, the work was actually at the client's site. So what do you need to have an office for when you're never there anyway, right? Yeah, true. All right. Ryan, are you there? Yes. Hello. Hello. Hey Tommy. So Mike, unless I missed it, it didn't look like you had a chance to address any of the concerns in your PR. That's why I moved it to the end. You want to write about that? I have like four comments left to go and then I can maybe get an update push before we get there. Okay, that's fine. I just want to make sure I didn't miss anything because I didn't think it was quite ready yet. No, sorry. I got pulled into a special project. So I am not really working on this full time. Not a problem. Just want to make sure I didn't miss it. Hey Mark. Hey Doug. Hey, we're going to need a password on this thing at some point. I don't know. It hasn't prompted me for one. I did. I did think it's interesting that they require a password now just for, you know, the free tier. Yeah, I thought they were going to enforce it for all meetings, but hmm. Hey, I got on with that one. Yeah, me too. That's a good point though. Maybe I'll try to remember before next week's call to try it like on Wednesday or something to make sure a password doesn't automatically pop up because if it requires one, I don't have one. And I'm not a host. So let's see. The ping, I guess Amy. Hey, Ginger. Ginger, you there? Yes, I am. Hey, Ginger. Technology finally kicked in. That's okay. Let's see who else in MS. Hey, Scott. IPNAR. Remember the first name? Roland. Okay, thank you. We just call him R. I. Okay. Yep. All right, Ray, are you there? Yes, I am. Hello. Hello. Francesco. Slinky, you there? Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Hello. How about Vladimir? Vladimir, are you there? What about Lance? Yep, I'm here. Hello. Hi. All right. So Scott, I asked you last weekend, but last time, on last week's call, but unfortunately I was actually on mute. I was asking you. Are you doing any new exciting wood, wood shop type projects? Scott. I lose you. Sorry, I stepped away for a second. I was just wondering if you still, do you have anything new in the wood shop? Oh, well. I am rebuilding the wood shop right now. And by me, I mean, I, I'm paying a bunch of people to build a bigger building. The only thing I've been doing is hanging pieces of plywood for walling so that I can have a higher speed projectiles and not destroy my house. That would be good. Cool. All right. Let's see. Vinay, are you there? Vinay. Yes, I am. Hi, Doug. Hello. What about Jeff? Yep, I'm here. All right. And Vladimir, are you there yet? Vladimir's in hiding. All right. One more minute, then we'll get started. Oh, hey Vladimir. I got you. And thank you for the notification about Jim. Hi. Hello. Somebody was going to ping. Oh, Eric. Hey, Eric. Good morning. Are you raising your hand? Just get my attention. Just trying to help. Thank you. Ricardo, are you there? Hello. Hello. Is this your first time on the call? Actually, it's the second time. Second time. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Go on. Get the attendance. All right. Three after one, we go ahead and get started. Let me show you. All right. Let's do this thing. All right. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Community time. Is there anything from the community people would like to bring up that is not on the agenda. All right. Moving forward then. So Mark and I presented the sake proposal to the TOC this week, I believe it was on Tuesday. And not unexpected. They had a lot of questions about our relationship with some of the other SIGs in particular, I believe this time, more of the focus was on SIG app delivery than SIG runtime. So what we're going to do is to try to set up a meeting hopefully for tomorrow. If we can get everybody on board. Have a discussion with the SIG app delivery folks to see if we can crisp up the separation between the two SIGs. I don't. I don't think we're going to have any problem. I think it's just finding the right wording more than anything else. Cause I do think most people agree that we probably need some sort of SIG to handle what I would sort of call these oddball projects like cloud events and things like that, but I don't think we're going to have any SIG. But maybe serverless is the right word or just need to find the right wording or something. I don't know. But anyway, we'll keep you guys up to date in terms of how that goes. If it requires any significant changes to the, to the charter. We'll raise it up so you guys could take a look at it to make sure you guys are still okay with it. But aside from that, I don't, I don't think anything's unexpected in terms of the questions we got. Mark, anything you want to add to that? No. I think, I think you sum that up and we just need to work through figuring out how we feel with all the other SIGs. Yeah. Just might take a little time. All right. Moving forward. Oh, are there any questions about that? All right. Moving forward then. No SDK called this week. Cause we had one last week, I think. Can anybody think of anything worth mentioning? That might be of interest to the group at large. Okay. Not hearing any moving on. I don't see anybody from these workflows subgroup to give a status there. I don't, I do kind of watch their PRs and stuff. I haven't noticed any too exciting go flying by worthy mentioning. So we can probably move forward then. All right. Into the PRs for our stuff. Cloud Cloud clarifications. Um, Francesco, you were going to implement this just to make sure it worked from a coding perspective. And I noticed you added a comment in here that you did that. I think. Did everything work okay when you actually did that? Where was that? Well, yeah, I mean, there are some, I think small needs like, uh, the name of the partition key. It doesn't respect the, the attribute naming convention. Small things. Okay. I know. Generally it works. Okay. Good. Yeah. Cause Clemens had a, I think just hasn't had time to update this, the PR itself. Now your comment there about the attribute name, not matching. Is that mentioned somewhere in one of these comments? Or is that something that you need to bring up with him? Sorry. Well, you mentioned there was a, there was a mismatch, right? Between the attribute name. Oh yeah. No, here that there isn't any, uh, mismatch anymore. I mean, now it's really clear that when you, uh, it clear states, uh, what is a Kafka key? And what is the partition key? So now, now it's fine. Okay. Good. Okay. So it sounds like what we're really waiting for is just Clemens to do, but I consider really small editorial type changes and then it should be good to go. Okay. Cool. Thank you very much. Um, okay. So Vinay, I think you made some updates with this. And I think they're just minor wording wordsmith changes type thing. Yeah. Like I said, you know, I wanted to use that opportunity to go through and read all the docs and, you know, provided some, uh, edits where it made sense. Yep. Now I know you made a couple of edits last night just to address the comments in there. And I don't think anything was significant. So I don't feel uncomfortable asking for people to prove the PR. The one thing I did want to draw people's attention to was this, this sentence at the very end right here. And I'll give you, let me expand this a little so you can see the whole paragraph. Just this to be clear sentence. I think it's right. Um, but this is the only one that jumped out at me is, uh, is maybe not just strictly a typographical type of change. I want to make sure everybody agrees with that new sentence there. So I'll give you guys a chance just to read that. And keep in mind, this is the primer. So it's not, it's not normative, but we do want it to be accurate. Okay. Does anybody have any questions or concerns with this PR? Okay. Any objections to approving? Excellent. Thank you, everybody. All right, now onto some stuff that is not ready to be merged, but it won't drop those attention to it. So Francesco, do you want to bring people up to date on this one? They just opened up today. Uh, yeah. So, uh, if you're interested in HP multi-part content mode, uh, there is a bigger wall of text than three. So I've merged the, uh, the two ideas of having multi-part starter and multi-part binary in a single multi-part envelope. And I've also created an experimental documentation explaining how it works and how it fits inside our SDK. So yeah, three, two, uh, to provide any comments. And I've also added a little, um, some to do at the end of the, you know, a little bit more detail of the PR explaining what might be, um, we should do that. For example, the first thing is should this content mode live in order some spec together with the matching, which I think it's one of the most important questions here. Okay. Any questions, comments? None. Okay. Let me, let me go ahead and raise one. Um, I believe it might've been Mike last week raised this or maybe I think it was Mike though, was asking about the relationship of this versus ACP two, I think. And why we're not just using that or something along those lines. So I have that, right, Mike? Yeah, Mike. So I replied in the other PR. In the five, nine, two, I think. Okay. Yeah. So I guess you take a look at that and see that it just, your concerns. Okay. All right. Thank you, Ryan for volunteering to take a look at it. Anybody have any questions, comments? Okay. If not, then please take a look at it when you get a chance. And, uh, If you vote on it next week, if there are no questions or comments on it or concerns. All right. Thank you, Francisco. Um, So. I don't have a whole lot left on the agenda that graph QL. I don't, I didn't notice Mike, were there any comments left on this one since last week? Uh, I don't feel like I got any. Emails about it. So, yeah. And I know, unfortunately, Clemens isn't on the calls. I know he had some strong opinions about this. Um, how would you guys like to proceed on this? Um, I don't think we had unanimous agreement last week on which way to go. Is it, does this, it's kind of thing that needs to sit there for a little while for people to think about it more? Do we need to do, take some action to force a decision? Like for example. You know, PR is always good for forcing decisions. I wouldn't want to make someone open to a PR if we know it's going to get rejected. Yeah. We should, we should decide, decide what we want. Like I, I, um, Unfortunately, a jam is also not here right. He's a person who suggested this in the first place. So it'd be good to point in the finger. I love it. Have some advocate for it. Um, yeah, I don't think it matters much. I don't think it matters much either way. I don't think that, um, from an implementation standpoint, one, one is harder than the other. From a consumption standpoint. Um, I think graph QL is actually nicer to consume. In terms of like the way it provides field masking and things like that. So you can, you can get just the subset of the data that you actually care about. Yep. I will run your hands up. You want to say something. Yeah. I'm sure there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered in the other PR that might affect how this works. Um, That might be important to focus on that first. It's from my perspective. I mean, say the other PR you mean, uh, mics or the PR? Yes. Okay. Okay. Well, I don't get the sense that we're necessarily under rushed to make a decision on this. So if you guys, if you think that, you know, Addressing that other PR first and then tackle on this one is right, right. So, so totally like we should, we should make sure that the, the shape of the API and the objects in the API and the way they relate to each other is what we want. And then we can decide how we want to present it. Yep. Yep. I agree. Okay. Any objection then to sort of put in this one to hold until we at least get the, uh, the shape of the data model, right? That's fine. All right. No. Okay. Thanks, Mike. No objection for anybody else. We should make it so. All right. Um, Okay. In that case, last item on the agenda, Mike, you're up again. I'm going to just bring us quickly up to speed on this, where this one is. Uh, I'm down to. Two comments left to address. So I'll have a, I'll have a, an update. Uh, there's a couple of things that'll, there's a couple of comments that will remain open. Uh, for discussion. Um, let me see if I can highlight those real quick. Um, one is about the kind of cardinality on the. Um, uh, producer entity. So there's question. Yes. Right. Right there. Doug, you're perfect. Uh, can there be more than one producer for a given provider and type. Um, so my answer to that was no, that that is the composite key. Uh, provider name and type name. I think this is something worth, worth discussing. Um, Okay. I'm trying to pay. I think there's a memory. Go ahead. This is like really a weedsy thing right here. Like if you're not deep in the, in the API design. I think there's another discussion around just being a bit more clear about what a producer and a provider is. Um, so I think to a lot of folks that wasn't, wasn't clear and it's hard to answer this question without answering that other question first. Yeah, where was that? Um, further down. Maybe. Oh, there he is. And that just serves me right. So this is, this is a, um, difference between pretty producer and provider. So I was using, um, In the, in the very first draft. I was using producer, um, Uh, throughout. But since that actually has a well-defined definition in the cloud events spec. It couldn't be repurposed. So that's where the, the concept of provider comes from. Um, if you go back to the, um, You know, the word, the, the, the Google doc where we were originally talking about this, this alludes to that concept of discovery funnel that I had, I talked about. Um, we're thinking about how. A, like a UX would look around this. Um, And, um, you know, I think that's where the concept of, um, Having like a giant list of the event types available in the system isn't probably super useful. But as a consumer, uh, of events being able to. Select in by, by essentially product name. Um, It is where the, the concept of, uh, provider comes from. And I would love a different name that isn't so close to each other, but it's just, it's just the, the, the, The both are with PR, right? Or PRO actually, and that just, I just get mixed in the two up in my head as I was reading it. And I'm not obviously that smart enough to keep them separate. Yeah. I think that makes sense. I think it's just my comment there. Um, like the definition, we do define. That term, but it's not defined. It's a bit too generic. Um, and it uses the term to define itself. Um, Okay And if anybody has a suggestion for a different name, yeah, I'll try to think about that, too Okay, so hopefully an updated commit will come in soon people can review it Any other questions or comments from Mike, okay Please do review it when you get a chance obviously this is very important. Yeah. I'm sorry Mike go ahead Yeah, I'll have a I should have an update question, you know within 15 minutes of the call ending No hurry. Thank you though. Okay That's it for the agenda unless someone can think of something that I forgot to add to the agenda Are there any other topics people want to bring up? Wow short call. Okay in that case We'll just quickly do the attendance the last last chance for the attendance thing Clouse either. Yes, I'm here. Excellent Dustin Hey, I'm here. Hello Nick Nick you there. Yes. I am here. Excellent normal Yep, I'm here. Excellent. Do we this is your first time on? No, I have attended I think three weeks ago Okay, okay. Do me a favor just in case I don't have it if you want to be associated with a company Can you just either add your company name to the end of your name here or in the zoom chat and I'll pick it up Thank you Kathy Yes, thank you. I'll go. Yes, I'm here. Sorry for being late. No, no problem Doug the other Doug I'm here. Excellent. Okay. All right. Did I miss anybody for the tenants? All right in that case. I believe we're done early. Excellent. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you everybody. We'll talk again next week