 Yeah, good morning Steve. Well, just a minute. I just got my earphones in I didn't hear what you said Is it just you and oh no, I see six more Yep, I was just saying good morning. All right Good morning folks. It's a to two. Let's get it one more minute and we'll get going. Hey Quinn. Are you out there? I am. Hello. Good morning. Good morning. Yeah, I didn't didn't ask you ahead of time but I I threw you on the agenda to just Welcome you to the SWG officially and maybe give you a second to chat about your new roles in TOC and Where you're gonna do this SWG? Oh? Yeah, sure. I can do that. Is that fair? Yeah Looks like we've got about 14 15 people. I think we usually have about 20, but let's kick it off this morning I've I think we've got a pretty light agenda the the plan for today was Kind of one key thing which was just reviewing with the group the slides that we put together and the plan for our QCon EU next week and We do have open space here today for other topics that folks wanted to cover And we didn't get a presenter to talk about a project for this week But you know if you wanted to chat about something feel free to go to the agenda and add your topics there You can fill in the end of the time or we can cut it short today The the first thing that we did that I threw on the agenda was Wanted to get Quentin to kind of speak a little bit about his new role as a TOC member at the CNCF And talk a little bit about you know, what he wants to do here within the SWG So let me kick it over you Quentin Thank you Yeah, so some of you may or may not be aware I was Asked to join the TOC a couple of weeks ago now, which I accepted and One of the things they have asked me to do is help you guys get some clarity on what the TOC would like out of this group Understand that historically that's been a little challenging. It's been not entirely clear what the TOC wanted you guys to do and I'm very new into all of this stuff. So please do Feel free to disagree or correct me along the way if any of the impressions I've gathered are not accurate or different from with the impressions in this group So yeah, my my thinking and this is still pretty formative is to just put a proposal together as to what I think would be both useful and I think ideally relatively Uncontentious initially just to get a get some groundwork laid That we can then build on top of and I understand there are some more contentious areas like recommending storage approaches for cloud native, etc. Which understandably there are many different individuals and companies with ideas about that and Understand that some of those have created some stumbling blocks along the way for you guys so I'm here to help and I have a draft proposal of what I think might be both useful and relatively Uncontentious to start with and I'm hoping that that can lay the groundwork to build on to some of the more ambitious goals Cool. Okay. Anybody have any questions or comments for Quinn? I actually have a request I'm not that familiar with the people in this group. I know some of you but not all of you would it be Too much to ask for to do a quick ground table and have a quick intro of the sort of active members of the group Yeah, that's great Alex you want to kick it off? Sure, so Met yesterday, but yeah, so so my name is Alex Kirchhoff and I'm one of the founders in the C3R of StorageRS And we're building storage systems for Kubernetes and containerized environments Cool, and are these mostly software defined storage? It's it's all sort of fun storage. Yeah, okay Hard on Can you assure yourself? Yeah, I'm already on Congerloo. I work for NetApp and I deal with NetApp's integration with Kubernetes called trident And I continue working on that. Thank you How about a Blaine Gardner? Hi, this is actually the first CNCF storage group meeting I've been able to attend In person I work for Sousa on their stuff product and I've been getting involved with Rook and I guess as Besson would say trying to make Rook awesome Cool How about Brad from Red Hat? Yep. Hey, I'm Brad. I work at Red Hat with the container storage team We do quite a bit of work upstream and Kubernetes with container storage enablement And then also on OpenShift Caleb, all of your general dynamics. I'm just new to the group looking to learn Excellent David Hey, David Von Thenen work for VMware work a lot around the CNCF ecosystem with Kind of like the the hosted projects within the CNCF. So yep Sorry, I missed your last name there, David Von Thenen Okay, gotcha. Yep Uh Deep you deep. I think you unmuted and unmuted. It's okay. If you don't want to introduce yourself. It's all good Sorry about that. Yeah Yep Okay, this is deep Debrae. I work for Docker and the software engineer there and kind of focusing on some of the storage areas We're cool. Thank you John Strunk Um, hey, I'm John Strunk. I work for Red Hat on Gloucester Matt Smith Hi So I work for Dayterra, which is a startup in elastic block storage I mostly do open-stack development, but also a bit of Kubernetes and Docker Thanks Matt, Saad Hey, I'm Saad Tech lead of Kubernetes Storage here at Google Thank you, Saad. Mr. Wong Uh Steve Wong, I've been active in storage on Meizos and Kubernetes for almost three years now But I've recently moved into a general role at VMware that Encompasses the cloud provider which would include storage networking compute and other aspects Thank you Steve T Paul Yes, I'm T. Paul Lee. I I work with a few people on the Iskazi target library in the cloud space and We are working to add CS CSI to the front end and then we wrapping up the back end with a few back backend storages and In progress is we are doing the gateway portal the protocol gateway for Iskazi and we have We are interested in seeing what this group is doing. Thank you And what company are you with T. Paul? Oh? We are not associated with any company put okay independent. Thank you. It's purely open source Shane I work for Huawei on the open SDS project, which is open source project on links foundation I am currently working with the team she from Google and also other folks Six storage to add a snapshot support to your CSI and also over the support entry in communities Thank you Shane And I'm Clint I lead a team at VMware, which does our upstream contributions to Kubernetes and cloud native oriented projects Founder of the the rex rate project Cool. Thanks very much for indulging me Please we'll to know where everyone's coming from and what their interests are I Interest myself. Oh My name is Luis Pavon and I work for a startup a story starter called port words. We do container I Storage Where we can deploy with a Kubernetes system? I Participate in CSC FTO stores take a group here. I participated upstream with sad engine on Kubernetes CSI I am CSI products Cool Louis some of that was cutting out But did you capture that Quinn these from port works? I did. Thank you. Yeah, okay Excellent. Thanks, Luis. Oh, sorry about that. Okay. Thank you. We got anything. Are there any active contributors here? Active contributors that are generally considered part of the kind of core team here who are not present today Um It's to attend these right? Yeah, Ben Hinman tends to attend them I Think that Steve Watt tends to be one of our more vocal people that aren't all on the call today Steve is from red hat Yeah, nice deep low. Yeah Eric four jet. He was on some of our planning calls For the cube concession he tends to be on I'm just kind of like grooming Yep Yeah, Bussam I know well is Mike Rubin involved here much Now we haven't seen Mike pop on here. It's an odd hour for him. So but he stays in touch through me. Okay Can I tell you can he would be another one Here in MOBA from open EBS Let's jump on Yeah, I think that captures it pretty well though. I'd say there's about you know 15 to 20 15 are so decently active and then you know 20 or so more that it's regularly attend. Yep Thank you. That gives me a good background. Yeah. All right And we have any other intros or comments or anything? No, okay? I think that that probably goes, you know Quinton's intro goes pretty well into the next thing that we had on the agenda which is talking about the advanced session at cube con What we what we said talked about on this call was trying to get a someone from the TOC to come and chat with us We can have a nice round table discussing, you know, the future of the SWP and TLC wanted from us think Quinton's already gotten back some of that information because he's been working with them to You know agree on that But we are gonna have Alexis Richardson who's gonna come join us at the conference during our advanced session So we'll have, you know, not only Quinton as a TOC member, but also Alexis He's been there a long time giving us some more Guidance on what we're thinking about and I think that that's a pretty good time to come and you know pepper them with with questions And that's that's pretty much what I wanted to say for the advanced session anybody have any Comments or questions about it? Cool. Anything from you on that Quinton? Say again anything from you on the the advanced session or I have Some writing here, which is a proposal. I've sort of passed it past some of you I think I guess some of the previous meetings I've been to have not included everyone I don't know if those were like a splinter group specifically for the presentation or whether I missed something But yeah, I floated the idea of what I think a useful first step would be And it seemed to be reasonably well received So I've actually passed that by the TOC and that's been well received there, too So I can put that down here in writing somewhere now if someone can tell me where to put it It's just cut and paste out of an email. So I'll have to clean that but at least we can all put it in front of us and and Decide whether we think it's a good idea. I put a link to the the meeting notes in the chat That's probably the okay Okay, so the tech that the formatting is not great, but hopefully we can read that is anyone presenting the notes on this call Maybe we want to do that thing, okay, sorry about the dodgy formatting But hopefully we can clean it up into something useful And some of this overlaps with what you've done in the past and some of it is based on my Take on so I went through all the material that you guys had produced Over time and spoke to a few of you in a couple of the previous meetings and spoke to the TOC And as you're aware, I think some of them spoke to some of you guys as well and got some Feedback and so this is kind of an attempt to distill all of that wisdom Into a what I hope is a an achievable set of goals That will be useful to the group and to the CNCF in general And which would be considered, you know An interesting thing to produce by you guys, which is you know equally important So maybe everyone wants to just take a minute to read through that blue text there quickly and and then we can Open it to comments or questions or Whatever Yeah, that's much better I think this looks really good. Quintzen. Thank you excellent So just to be clear about the non goals. So these are not Non goals forever. They're just non goals for what I would term we can call this phase one So phase one we tackle the goals and we explicitly don't tackle the non goals Um, and then at the end of phase one We decide what the goals for next for the next phase are and maybe those include what are currently labeled as non goals So maybe actually we should Make that explicit and say non goals for phase one just so that nobody gets confused Because ultimately I do think we need to Come up with some kind of idea that that in a cloud native environment, uh, you know, these things work well Or have more More pros than cons and these other things tend not to work well And I think most of us have intuition as to what those groups look like But until I think we have a common understanding of what's actually done in in cloud native environments at the moment And what all the terminology means and how it relates to each other I think it's difficult to have the discussions that are required in the non goals section And my take on some of the stumbling blocks up to now have been that We maybe tackled what are listed as non goals Before we had a common understanding of the stuff listed under goals yet so Does anybody have questions comments disagreements? I realized there's a pretty substantial departure. So there was A group within this group that favored focusing on on I think the simpler aspects volumes And just focusing on that There was another group that thought the scope should be broader than that Um, and my personal opinion is that there's this overlap between any one of these things and any other one Such that it's actually quite difficult to Start with the leaves of the tree and describe them in detail without, you know, knowing what the tree looks like yet um So my proposal was to to take a wider scope obviously, you know, one has to limited one can't go into Excruciating detail on all these areas up front because you'll end up with a 500 page document that nobody will read But what I have in mind and I don't know if any of you have read the serverless working groups, uh, white paper that they published a few months ago Um, and they they took on a similar Goal within serverless Um, and that was quite successful So I would actually recommend I can try and pull out the link now Stick it in there. But but I think that provides a pretty good um example of a similar exercise done in a different domain that was very well listened and Fairly uncontentious, I believe Nick when my I guess a couple things here One is Is this broadening to to all things storage has that been kind of ratified by the to see that that's what they want us to do at this point um they I've circulated it to them and um You know, I haven't got a positive act from every single one of them But all the ones I've got feedback from gave me an hack um, and so I I haven't seen any Uh objections to that yet Okay and on the You know the depth, but I think that you know, we're kind of defining this as trying to go wide to be comprehensive for storage Uh, and I think I agree with you there What I'm concerned with is the the depth like If we create a white paper. Well, if we look at the serverless white paper A lot of that territory was Was new I feel And so it made for interesting reading along the way because you're not covering things that have been You know solidified over the last 30 years of tech Yeah And in this case we're talking about storage like the fundamentals of it I think that whether it's block storage key values databases like you know A lot of that stuff's been covered in a bunch of different places And so what I what I'd be worried about is is creating the that Much of What's already out there or what you know tries to clarify too much of what's already on paper in other places Like a history book. Yeah. Yeah, and I think it's fine to you know, provide links to that material where it exists and where we think that we don't want to duplicate it um But I and I think even within all of these like buzzwords that I mentioned here block stores key value stores, etc I mean, I think there are a couple of different dimensions to all of those Um, there's distributed versus non-distributed Um, there's you know, various different permutations and some of those are relatively recent um, and then they're also, you know the Different variants that exist out there today are sometimes built in different ways Some things are built on top of Local block stores some things are built on top of distributed block stores Some things are built on top of distributed file systems And they're things like fuse and there are a lot of way places where the sort of classic Layering of a storage system is not adhered to anymore for sometimes good reasons So I think just clarifying all of that stuff And maybe I didn't make it clear here that that I think there's quite a lot in each one of those areas In terms of as I say distributed versus non-distributed enterprise versus Commodity hardware, you know, all of these different dimensions where It would be worth at least having a paragraph or two on each of these saying this is a this is a thing It it has these this is why people do it because it has these strengths It has these drawbacks. This is, you know, how people mitigate some of those drawbacks, etc And just go through the list like that just to explain why all these things exist and and uh, and how they relate to each other Yeah, I think the the challenge with that, you know being technologist is just being and involved in this tech So deeply and passionate just being objective as you're going through those Different bits and pieces and how they work together and they're making the judgments or at least being clear about it Yeah, yeah, and I'm sure there'll be some debate and that's why I proposed that we focus on on stuff that actually exists and stuff that is in use And and if there's any kind of debate as to how this should be or whether this is better or not It it boils down to well, you know, who's doing this like Show us a case where this is done and if there is a case where this is done Then let's say this this is done in this case And ideally give, you know, some reasons why whoever did it that way did it that way Yeah, I think the real value comes out of perhaps standardizing interfaces to these classes of storage or stateful services And once you go get into implementation details Those could be endless and I'm out to vendor sales pitches and things and it's potentially really treacherous to Do that deep dive into these? I mean I wouldn't be against Having occasional sessions and presentations for those interested But kind of cross industry discussions going into deep dives of particular implementations just sounds like, you know Mine can beat up yours or something and I don't know how We definitely want to avoid that. I agree and just just to kind of Clarifying everyone's minds what I have here. Maybe we should put it explicitly so that the serverless document I believe is in the region of 30 pages long And so, you know, I can imagine if you take let's say there are sort of 10 key Concepts across all of these things. We're talking about A couple of pages about block stores and a couple of pages about key value stores and I And and it's by no means going to be exhaustive And it's by no means going to be a deep dive into all the possible implementations of these things But it is hopefully going to clarify the terminology And clarify, you know, to whatever extent one can do in in that amount of space how these things tie together Yeah, I think an attempt to Identify the commonality so that we could attempt to standardize an air face or maybe Discover that we can't standardize because you also have to allow particular implementations to Differentiate themselves or you know expose unique features And I think that's that's useful information to say that there is a standard called x And many vendors extend the standard, you know, right to differentiate themselves and Common extensions include, you know, blah blah blah snapshots or whatever it happens to be um Yes, I agree I'll dig out that link to the serverless paper that everybody wants and I'm having some Operator problems here. Hold on one second Do you want to say something else? No, I was just going to say I mean we You know just just when we tried to discuss this before I think there were a variety of different things we we wanted to cover, but There are probably Architectural issues, you know, like Centralized versus distributed and those sort of things There's there's a bunch of differentiators around um Sort of Delta plane and the actual data part, you know, is it it's a block device Is it an object store? Is it accessible over any pi is it accessible via a system interface? Is it is it a A local file systems is the short file systems with the distributed file system those sorts of things um and then there are the the The controlling type stuff and that's where we come to the interfaces and and how We get integration um to The orchestrators and things like CSI and those sorts of things um and we may We may also want to Discuss about how it's how the different solutions or how the different options um are Provided so perhaps, you know Differency between, you know software options and hardware options um and cloud options And versus on premise options, for example um, and also whether the solution can be Managed by an orchestrator. So, you know, the more and more there are lots of solutions, you know, like crook, for example Where it's a software solution and it's being deployed and managed by an orchestrator Um, and that that's probably pointing out to sort of but I think if we covered those those those areas, maybe Maybe we need to kind of split up the topics and and get a couple of people to consecutive sections or something Yeah, I feel like the I mean you just went through a lot of stuff and I think you know some of that is what we've been talking about along the way and you know, I feel like one of the most important things that we need to do when we start is that we Narrow down the scope and we figure out like who is the actual audience and and how deep is going to go because From a cloud native perspective You know if I'm just looking at the public clouds, right? They provide all these different data services Yet I have no idea how they're operated and maybe I shouldn't care Uh, I have no idea, you know, they they tell me what the availability is But I really don't know the details of how that happens behind the scenes and maybe that's just enough information You know from that consumer's perspective, they've got a service And it provides this certain functionality to support its application And that may be the level of information they care about You know, if you're lower down in the stack and you're thinking about running these data services yourselves in your own cloud Then you may have different concerns about you know, what to consider and how to actually build and operate these things so it's like Just different audiences and I think capturing both in one white paper is going to be difficult So at least we don't know who that audience is for this white paper will be important I mean if we if we stick to to, um Sort of three main Categories of information done one is the control plane. How are you going to request an interface and you know orchestrates the storage and then the second part being the data plane, which is how you access it And you can access it via block and file and object and various other things and databases and key value stores and whatever else um And then the third bit is You know where it's available. So is it is it on premise? Is it in In the cloud, is it a cloud or only offering? Is it software? Is it hard or whatever? And and if we stick to those those are probably less contentious and then you know, if we want to go any further We can talk about we can talk about a fourth category, which is architectures and stuff like that, you know and have the Have the pros and cons of centralized versus decentralized versus distributed and whatever else and you know talk about um Latency and access models and things like that but that could easily be like a phase two thing But if we if we talk if we talk about those those top three So how you interface and the control plane how you get to the data and the data plane and How the how the storage solution is made available whether it's you know software hardware on premise or cloud service That sounds like a like a very good starting point to me and I mean, I can imagine we may want to add to that so I mentioned in One of the the last item on the goals there is to compare and contrast To take take a fundamental set of properties of storage availability scalability consistency durability performance And without referring to you know specific implementations But certain certain approaches are fundamentally You know higher performance and lower availability for example or Less scalable but more consistent or whatever the case may be um That I think that could be a subsequent step. I I think what you sketched out as a first Bunch of steps is is a very good one and we we may call it a day at that point and say we reduced the scope of phase one And we reduced something useful and we left out, you know goals Three and four or whatever that case may be and we're going to tackle those as phase two Sounds like plan Yep, so it sounds like uh after hugon will we'll kick off I mean, what do you think when do you think we want to make the The biweekly call the the working group for the the white paper or or do we want to you know set up a separate working group? I'm I'm open to suggestions. I mean in my mind I've got that this is maybe a like a three month exercise But you know if you guys think differently, uh, let me know um And what I have in my mind is is maybe a small number of what we'll just call them primary authors the Let's say two next to throttle to make sure that this document gets done in three months. Um, and they would be Uh, kind of responsible for putting the framework together. So let's decide what The first step is in the next three weeks. We're going to try and define, you know, the following terms Uh, and we're going to put them in the document And we're going to review them and you know come to conclusion and then we're going to You know carry on from there and then as many and and maybe maybe A step in the process is to break it up once we've you know taken a first pass at what the Structure of the information looks like we perhaps carve it up and say right this block store expert goes and writes two pages on block stores and explains to us, you know pros cons, uh, whatever whatever we decide is important there And they can fill in all the meat there and then bring it back to the to the main doc for inclusion and, uh, review Does that does that sound like a reasonable approach? Mm-hmm Yep, and this does sort of three months to produce a 30 page document I mean it might be a little optimistic given people's time availability and kubecon in between but uh, let's say we're We start in may may june like end of july Does that sound To target for possibly the next kubecon Um, I think that might be six months as like A little bit further out But that seems like the next big event that they would probably want to make sure that they have something by Yeah, I mean perhaps a draft In three months where this group at least is you know fairly comfortable and maybe working through the final comments and then You know send it to the toc and have it actually published officially and ratified by the following kubecon That sounds reasonable to me How about a comment from anyone else on the call? You know how we use the the swg time in the in the next few months Um, because we've been doing presentations from the community about different storage related projects and I've I've enjoyed that But if if others want to divert the time and just make it all about working on the paper That's also an option too How does anyone how does everyone feel about you know the time spent in the swg? for the next few months I think considering the goal of this group is now going to be focused on getting this white paper out It would be useful to use this time to review Uh portions of the paper as they come in Um, make sure there's agreement discussion that kind of thing Okay, do you still want to see presentations from the community about other things as well? Like a combined agenda or just strictly white paperwork? Probably next to yeah, sorry go ahead. I would love to see presentations from the community Especially if you are covering A broad spectrum of data storage solutions Um, assuming the main purpose of the white paper is education, you know I think we can really talk about these technologies in a very abstract way not referring to specific solutions I think what the rail was last time was uh I got quite contentious was basically Turning the white paper into a cloud native landscape where we have logos and For different vendors and solutions and try to say why one is better than the other I think we should probably avoid that as much as possible focus mostly on technology And even there it can be quite contentious and somebody if you prescribe Let's say if you have to use a distributed file system instead of key value store or some other solution or no sequel so as Versus sequel or you know, so we have to be quite careful about How we navigate this document I agree, but you know, I think what quinton clarified for us is that we're not about reducing scope or saying what is or what isn't that native where we're describing, you know, the terminology and um, the different categories of interfaces and the different categories of, you know accessing your faith and that sort of thing and I think That should be Not contentious because it is a list of stuff, right? So it's not it's not this is better than that the other thing Yeah, I'm fine with that but Yeah, as long as it's not turning into a cloud native landscape where we have logos of different products and solutions. I think This is a very valuable effort Yeah Um I just want to had a quick question. So have you guys been meeting once a month or more frequently than that's up to now? bi-weekly Okay, so every two weeks So I guess one one approach might be to have a monthly presentation and the intermediate bi-weekly meetings being work on this document Just a thought Or you could split each meeting in half and have you know one presentation and some work on the doc Anybody feel strongly one way or another on that one No, that seems reasonable to me Yeah What I would suggest just based on previous experience is that the actual work on the doc happened Not in those scheduled meetings because otherwise you probably won't get anywhere but you know People need to go out and this is sort of these primary authors that I mentioned There's there's background work, you know I think it's usually better to write these kind of documents in a quiet place when you can think clearly and Put some thoughts on paper um And then you know bring that back to the group for review So As a high-level target, um, I'm unsure what the next When the next working group meeting is but should we maybe Try to have Like a very high-level table of contents which we can discuss And then we can maybe pick a couple of authors Um, or or you know people can self-limit themselves for different areas to to work together on actually fleshing out the sections I I mean we do have kubecon next week And so the the next meeting we have will be the the following week after kubecon um, I don't know if that'll be a little ambitious to To try to get everyone to sign up and start coordinating schedules with that big trip in the middle of it Um, I'm all for it. That's what you guys want to do But I think realistically like there's probably gonna be more participants if we start kicking this off after After kubecon Yeah, that's probably fair. Yeah, I agree one approach might be to um For anyone who's interested in being the primary author to go off and produce a Kind of wireframe of what they think the outline of the document might look like um, and Perhaps have more than two weeks time um And then we can look at those things and you know, maybe and this is just a brainstorm You know don't put a name on them. Just put them in front of people and say, you know, here's the four wireframes we've received Uh, which one do we think we we would like to align ourselves behind? And uh at that that person becomes the primary author and then we flesh out that that one further. Does that make sense? Cool, yeah So your proposal there is to just you know, if you want to be a primary author on this or involved as an author to Warframe up and then, you know, bring it bring it back to the group and we'll see which one is the right structure And go from there Exactly and and you know, hopefully it won't be terribly contentious and I'm sure some of them will look similar Assuming that people have kind of digested what I put on writing here and hopefully I haven't left out too much But you know, ultimately something in the region of a 30 page document. Have a look at the serverless White paper if you want to get a flavor of the level of detail and the kinds of headings and things um and then With a bit of luck we'll end up with a few of those that look not too different from each other I mean if they do look very different and we have two camps of people who Line up behind very different documents. We will and I have to resolve that but hopefully I would assume that is unlikely to happen If this blue text in front of us is is I mean it seems to be reasonably well received by this group, so Sounds good to me. Yep Do you have any further comments about that? No, that sounds like Self-nominating I'll put a wireframe together Hopefully there'll be a few others that we can compare I guess Okay Great stuff. Okay. Um, so let's move on to the next thing on the agenda here I put links into the the agenda under the kubecton EU under the intro session so we did have that subgroup that that formed and You know, thank you for alex for actually putting together the slides that we now have There's the first link is the meeting notes where we just captured some of the ideas And then the second is the actual slides that we're going to be using for the the kubecton intro session today one wanna like is the group interested in in Seeing these slides or chatting about them Or alex, did you want to run through them? What do you guys think? Is there anything left to be decided for the session? I had to cut out a little earlier the last meeting so I didn't I didn't hear the conclusion too I think the main thing that needs to be decided is who's actually All the panel and who's actually going to be there Unfortunately, um, something's come up and I'm actually be able to travel next week. So Um, I'm going to be able to to to present this or or be able to unfortunately But we need we need some volunteers to actually be able to go through this Okay I will definitely volunteer to to deliver any portion of this that's that we need Who else is going to be there who wants to play a part in the session? I'll be there Okay, it's love Anybody else interested? Yeah, I'll be there as well All right, hard to learn Okay, anybody else Could you could you write your your names and the on the Yep second slide So it sounds like me sod and art along Yeah, I might be tentative. I'm going to have to look at my schedule for possible conflicts. So not a hundred percent sure yet I'm happy to help out if you guys want me or Sitting the sidelines either way. I'm happy. I will be at cube conure This is quentin. Sorry. Yep Okay All right, so maybe the so it sounds like we got, you know, three to four, you know folks that they can play a part in the session Do you guys want to Sink up later this week separately or do we want to spend the next 10 minutes and just Kind of nail down, you know, what pieces of this presentation that That we can do or what you guys want to do here Might as well use this time Okay Anybody else have any any objections to that? Is there anything else that you guys wanted to cover for the rest of the day? All right, so let's use the rest of the time for for finishing off this deck and making sure we're clear on On what we're going to do I know that uh So art along and sod you guys were both on the um the planning calls steve. I don't think that you were um What is there any portion of this deck that uh That are on that you're more comfortable with or sod and that you're more comfortable with that you wanted to cover I can probably do the introduction of what the storage group is and Maybe the next couple of slides Why storage is critical and uh What the goal of the cncf for storage is and what this group is about I don't know maybe a couple of those slides Okay Okay, so we go from a the section of hey, what is what is storage? What's what's a working group? and then we go straight to uh projects and architecture And then there's patterns um Art along that it sounds like sod maybe like slides what like three to To six are kind of grouped together Yeah Does that sound right? Yeah No, that sounds good to me excuse me And the patterns Okay, so slide that's uh eight to What eight to ten Patterns are 10 to 12, but I'll be happy to un-flexible. I can't cover that. Yeah, that's fine If you want to do 10 to 12, that's that's eight and k and then that leaves me covering Uh seven eight and nine Sounds good. Let me just put So actually I'm thinking it doesn't make sense to have multiple presenters or Do just one presenter and then have a panel for q&a I find that when you try to break it up into multiple presenters It kind of just gets a little messy and especially if you're switching back and forth I'd be happy letting you do the present the full presentation if you're okay with it clint Same here Or I'm I can volunteer Don't want to put you on the spot. I love consensus I actually agree with you sad I mean, I think two presenters maybe with this one split in the middle is kind of doable But but four and jumping backwards and forwards gets uh tricky. So yeah, I would If you just want to sign me up, I'll do it if you want to split that's fine with me too. So whatever the group thinks I'd like to sign you up All right, it's does everybody okay with that or does anyone else want to sign up to do it? Happy me I think I think that's a puzzle for folks in your prison things Okay, so I'll I'll make sure that I uh, I'm prepared to do this. So I'll deliver it and then in terms of the panel Yeah, we could put that at the end and just say here are some folks who've been involved with the group And you know happy to answer any kind of questions. Okay Now I I haven't been involved up to now, but this is the session listed as storage working group intro Yes, we're talking about Okay, so I just opened it on the cuba con schedule agenda And maybe we have to get in touch and reform this then because it it lists more or less a panel of Ben clinton and uh quinton right now I'll uh, I'll have this as my action. I'll reach out to them and update the the description And we'll make sure that you know, it's clear what what people are going to see in the session and who's going to be in that Quinn do you want to be on the panel for this? Uh, I'm happy to um, yeah, I mean, let's figure that out in the next couple of days I'll speak to ben. I mean whether he wants both of us there or one of us there It seems like at least one of us one of the two of us should be there To kind of create the right optics And um, and yeah, as you say we can update the agenda those those things were put together months ago. I think so There's no shame in changing them. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah, the other thing it indicates is intro skill level so Probably assume we get users who have never heard of this or the topic Yep All right, sounds good anything else uh Any other comments about the deck? Nope All right. I think uh in terms of the agenda. I think that we're we're done Any other questions that people wanted to throw in here last minute All right, well, thank you everyone for joining today. Uh, looking forward to seeing everybody out at uh, at a kubecon And uh, you got about seven minutes back in your day. Okay. Bye. Take care Thanks guys. See you guys everyone