 good morning Alex you have a new background I know it's messy right yeah switching it up good morning good morning how are we doing for people we've got folks rolling on Anna it's still only one minute into the hour isn't it yeah yeah I know time what is it oh no I think it looks like lots of folks are here so should we get started or here's our normal slides you made it to the meeting and we're back over in the public meeting working duck people wanted to be able to see who's here yep here's our agenda great I've just realized on this one yeah it's got oh you're right it does have Brian Grant yeah okay I'll fix it on the next one the the accurate one is definitely over on the CNCF public meeting working duck and I will put a link into chat for that as you can tell I haven't been using that one that's one this is one I've been using there you go yeah looks like we are doing a quick update on the things that TSE folks need to be looking at and then the sick updates okay Amy tell us what we're hey fun hello friends things that are still currently outstanding annual reviews this is the last week that will be kind of kicking these out for both public comment as well as the three TOC sponsor set up here as of the 11th we will be moving towards just a simple vote that means that it's going to be a lot faster and these will go a lot quicker so last chance on some of these also lots and lots of votes out right now there are links to each one of these votes currently up we've got tech lead nomination for sick observability Rook for graduation Thanos for incubation Cortex for incubation Q-Bitch for incubation TIKV for graduation and K3S for sandbox so lots of stuff out there I'm sure I'm as guilty as everyone else on the TOC but hey TOC folks let's try and get through these dear friends there are links here for all of you to be able to make sure and click through directly so um that was it as far as my end we will now happily move on towards the uh SIGS in here so girls ask if we can have some additional discussion on K3S we do have space at the uh the end of the agenda so okay okay I don't think that we're gonna run into time issues today but you know sometimes we're a chatty bunch who knows hey you're here come on in yeah yeah so yeah let me give a quick update on SIGS delivery so um we recently just cleaned up all our backlog backlogging over Q so there's currently no ongoing review effort recently so it's kind of good news and the second thing is we are actively working on an important item which is regarding to the sensitive landscape because a lot of people or feedback that we may want to uh revisit the current sensitive landscape regarding to application management and delivery so there is a proposal here to create a tab which name is application management and delivery in the sensitive landscape so we can category our application delivery related project into a separate tab um the we're still discussing about that so there's no concrete plan to or timeline to do that but there is a rough idea like you know trying to reach out for collaborators or volunteers to get some more input and also dropped a refracting proposal on this new tab on sensitive landscape and the last update is the pretension in cloning some in China regarding to the challenges in application delivery so yeah this is basically what we have recently so the main working item is the sensitive landscape part just sort of make sure we're using the same terminology what what do you mean by a tab a tab is a separate tab in sensitive landscape for example today's serverless serverless has a has a separate tab okay so that is what we're talking about and this is the one of ideas that we also have another idea that we create a new category in sensitive landscape I mean in the front page the issue is if you look at today's sensitive landscape it actually including a lot of virus of things like database and the messaging as part of the application definition the management part and this is kind of confusing based on feedback from our our community members because we don't we don't even know why I need to care about a specific database as a developer so the idea is that we want to re-categorize the current structure so and most of the people based on our previous community meeting there tend to create a separate tab yeah but this is still open for discussion because we are trying to collect more input and feedback from the community members that is a plan we want to we may want to create a survey to get more input from based on uh regarding to that yeah I am looking at these I've got the landscape open myself and I'm thinking it's certainly odd the way that um database is yeah an amazing development and then there's a separate storage thing that's part of runtime I don't know how those you know exactly how that rationale is yeah that's why we bring up an idea that we may want to re-categorize or restructure the current landscape right so do you think that some of the things that are currently on the app definition and development some subset of those would be the proposal might be to move those into this new application management and delivery tab yeah yeah I think so and also and also there are some part of it we can't we kind of also have another category which name is CI CD so there in that part we also mixed a lot of things together so there are also some part of that belonging to the new uh yeah yeah yeah I agree that database should not be part of applicant delivery I also agree with that so but but but no time there are some tools in that category maybe part of the activity I'm still we are still looking at it but the general idea is that the current the current category is really really odd to to most of the community members I'm also wondering whether we should try and draw a clearer kind of have some consistency between what's on the landscape and what we have in six so this is really interesting yeah yeah yeah I'm also thinking that maybe we want to reorganize a category based on the six yeah starage runtime thing like that yeah so I see some other comments talking about possibly moving databases to storage category yeah yeah yeah I feel like this is a possible whole area of conversation about how we could maybe map somehow try to map the landscape towards the six in a sensible way yeah that is also we are trying to propose we really like the category of the sensitive landscape based on the scope of the the six and it will be much clearer and I will guess and other six could be involved in this work I will try to actually reach out the other chairs of the for example six starage six runtime I will see this as a collaboration effort but we have a lot less six than we have catheteries here so there is no easy mapping yeah I think that's part of the that's part of the question here isn't it one of the ways to do it is to just um add that as an overlay you know you add it as another filter yeah you know leave the categories as is and then add as if you know a view that people can see I wonder if it would be in it would be an interesting exercise to take the existing landscape and kind of try to figure out how yeah that overlap would work like if you put the sigs on top of that landscape do they look in any way coherent or are they all over the place and yeah maybe it's time for a refresh of the of the way the categories are divided up Ken saying the landscape is based on the architecture from the TOC leverage the architecture instead of the landscape I guess arguably the architecture and the landscape should be consistent it's clearly some work here anyway we don't necessarily have to make sort of arbitrary groupings to to the mash to say great necessarily um sometimes it just makes sense for people to be able to look at the landscape and the area that they think they'll find it you know I mean yeah I guess yeah I think you're right yeah Liz the architecture is definitely the landscape was based on the architecture was driven from that so it definitely is is consistent and that's what I'm kind of saying if we look at the architecture you keep the technical part of the TOC in there instead of the marketing landscape be part right so I think we want to be more technically seen in the industry not marketing for this group but isn't the I don't think I have a completely formed opinion yet but isn't the intended audience of a sick different from the intended audience of looking at the landscape whereas the six are as broad as possible to catch as much of a topic as diverse as it might be into one into as few as possible six whereas here you're breaking out stuff for potential end users who who are interested in solving one particular thing at a time instead of having that fire hose of well everything of this roughly matches that other topic I'm not saying it would necessarily be a simple thing to do I'm just wondering whether our language could be more consistent to all these audiences and maybe it maybe it's too complicated maybe it's yeah Bob making a good point that not everything in databases would fit in storage PG in memory databases interesting point yeah I mean yeah approaching approaching this from a different angle maybe it would be better to talk about labels or tags so people can slice and dice this data as they want because for example with tank I had that thing is it CICD is it application definition application management and delivery also fits it so now we have three categories which in theory fit that use case so maybe it's more about pivoting from this hierarchical structure to labels so people can can select based on their needs and have something more malleable than a thing which is defined once and then never changed I like that idea and I mean I think a good starting position would be just to tag the CIG responsible for you know those individual projects I mean there's obviously still things in the landscape which aren't CNCF projects but if we could just tag those projects that were responsible for that that would be an excellent start yeah that is an interesting idea although it seems like it will be a lot of effort to re-architecture the current scene of the landscape right yeah just adding tags is you know like adding another view another filter that people can even if it's um whether even if it's not visually represented in the the diagram which I'm sure is well I know it's quite easy to do based on the ability to assign a tag and filter it but even if that was just a um bulleted list of projects associated to a CIG and the reason I say that is because when you do if you were to apply such a filter you know such a view that showed projects by CIG it well it might actually be um enlightening in in context of the discussion about databases being shifted around because what it might show is that some of those associations are quite disparate you know that that some of the projects that are associated to a given CIG are maybe strewn across the landscape or you know yeah absolutely all right interesting sorry yeah just to answer that that one point about the amount of work in my experience and coming from Prometheus I have had this conversation this I I saw the story play out several times it's in the end in my experience simpler to assign proper labels to something and then allow people to slice and dice the data as they see fit as opposed to arguing for that one hierarchical structure where everyone has different needs and goals and you can never find a true consensus so it might actually be easier and quicker to to the labels instead of re-architecting one single static overview yeah I think the labeling idea could well have merits and I think also just taking a step back and seeing whether we think the categories are quite right we and you know potentially talking with the end user group about that as well to see what they're finding useful yeah it's a really interesting point so CIG App Delivery you have opened a giant and interesting cannibalism yeah that is not bad right the goal is one then to make make sure that everything is not confusing at the day so it will help the community a lot although maybe you want to take this step by step you know small changes by small changes to make this happen TOC folks anyone got any objections to this working plan of CIG App delivery at least starting to look at the app management and delivery side of things seems like a good place to start then yeah so I'll also try to reach out to other co-chairs and team leaders I hopefully for example six-star region CIG runtime could be involved and to make sure that this actually go to the right election based on the current architecture of the CIGs sounds good and Richard saying important labels not tags as in key value pairs right all key value paris all right uh which CIG is that next thank you come to me just speaking of paris what's in fact Paris come on in key value paris is going to be my new twitter handle I think thank you Richard anyway Josh you're on here too do we want to co-present this do you want to do it how do you want to take the car here go ahead are you about databases what do we do tell no no I do not want to write databases the um yep tell me what I'm speaking all right well let's just let's just tag team this all right um I still left the uh the link to the letter that we send to maintainers because we still have only gotten one project out of 60 filled the survey out which is fine um that either means that people have survey fatigue which is cool because I've been going to community meetings anyway um but it also just could mean that the survey is too long whatever we need to look at it this is really just a discovery survey it wasn't necessarily like a CNCF survey let's like uh let's pull the let's pull the world it was really just like let's get us up and running but now that we're up and running anyway it's kind of like it's kind of mute but uh if you can if you're part of a project please read that letter it's just our intro about what we're trying to do here uh and of course the like the discovery survey like do you have uh code of conduct things like that because we're trying to focus on stuff that uh projects really need uh as far as since since Josh is on the line I'm going to skip the governance really quick uh but just some of the sub project activity that we've got going on right now we've got the maintainer circle and the contributor growth as well as the governance groups that are really taking off I'm actually going to say the last bullet now which is we've had quite a lot of new contributors join us within the last two to three weeks and I would love to thank all of them for powering these sub projects I see some of them even along the line now like Don Foster, Jennifer, so many other people and it's really really been awesome um as far as the maintainer circle Karen Chu and I are going to launch a sort of first round birds of a feather early September thinking post-cube con EU to give folks give folks a little bit of a breath um thinking meals with maintainers as we go forward reason why then we can do uh we can have sessions in the very early morning like at PDT lunch PDT dinner etc uh so that it's not taking up ample time but the session ideas that were already that were already getting logged in now people are coming to us saying hey these are things that we would want to see are things like how to build values and principles uh how to maintain them uh inclusive language and inclusive meetings etc so those are the kinds of things that you're going to see from us in September and go forward there uh the maintainer circle I did not put on uh on this slide but it's hashtag maintainers dash circle on cncf slack uh and in the contributor strategy uh github repo we actually have issues that if you want to see something like a certain uh subject or have a wild idea about something that you would like to see from a maintainer circle feel free to just log an issue there uh and that's where we're keeping everything straight um um we're also in the middle like literally when I say in the middle uh we just started discussing it last Thursday so we haven't really even gotten off the ground with like a very good media issue yet um but we're discussing about making an identity for contributors and or maintainers instead of uh instead of what we got right now uh thinking something like contributors dot cncf dot io or maintainers dot cncf io right now maintainers dot cncf dot io resolves into the public toc spreadsheet which we could still house on this type of a maintainer's site but now that we're doing tons of templates and guidance and things like that for both contributors and maintainers and building their projects it would be super awesome if we could house that somewhere outside of a github repo and have sort of an identity and things like that so that's something that's tvd that's in discussion if that's something that if that's something that is sounds of interested people uh you know plus ones and things like that would be helpful uh and then last and then i'll let josh go uh contributor growth uh is another project that's been steaming along quite nicely uh now that we've got an issue sort of tracking uh all of the things that we're trying to work on uh and we've created a cncf slash project uh template repo where we're going to put the majority of the templates and the guidance so that you as projects can just work and go for what you need uh and go so all of that stuff is underway we've got teams of people now working on templates for contributor ladders as well as contributing markdown files and the good part here is there's tons of research and things online not even necessarily online but just tons of research that's actually happening as well that's powering a lot of this so we're not necessarily recreating wheels here so it's just kind of all coming together so if you're in a project right now that has uh either a really good documentation for contributors or uh has some kind of um like documentation that you feel like uh not a lot of projects have and that you you think that they should be shown off as sort of a best practice please get with us because we would like to include that kind of documentation and our stuff um josh why don't you kick it with the last piece which is the governance and and head us out here yeah so the templating effort of course is both contributor growth and governance because if you are bringing a new project into the cncf you need both you need both the uh contributor growth information um and you need um uh governance information um plus a lot of documents like things like a contributor ladder is both a governance document and a contributor cultivation document um we've we're also exploring this idea dims brought up this idea of a badging concept um for cncf projects um as a quick reference for which of the requirements they've fulfilled um we are still fleshing that out um expect to see that in um as a proposal uh for next month's uh uh sig toc meeting josh to to clarify the these are these are upcoming proposals for requirements on projects um well actually the badging concept was going to start out centering around uh two things existing requirements um and second um things that are in the annual review um so the idea is just initially because we actually published a lot of information on projects but it's not very penetrable for the casual user or casual contributor um so um i we had the idea that a system of badges would make it a lot easier for somebody who's coming to the cncf who's looking for a project in a particular area to evaluate which ones they want to participate in um the um yeah make make sense make sense so eventually we probably would um well i mean obviously maturity levels would be one of the badges um then um um then for example whether or not a project was multi-organizational which is one of the requirements um the um uh whether or not um they have some of the others whether or not they have um contributor onboarding um in some concrete form um there were a couple of others eventually it's going to lead to proposing some additional things for annual review or due diligence as you know we come across things that are really going to be really important to users or potential contributors but we really want to start with the things that already exist please just posted the link to the cii yes yeah and and that's where we got the idea do you think we should be just using some of these i i'm not really sure in detail but i make sense for us to just wholesale use the same criteria or something different well i wasn't really impressed in the cii badges were all security related right or they're they're harder in nature if i can use that term um yeah whereas like you know hey do you have a procedure wherein people can report vulnerabilities or do you have licenses assigned to all your things or just sort of like it's basically there are a lot of security centric things but also just general hygiene for products or projects themselves whereas um the softer side of of contributor strategy you know to to liz's point maybe maybe that could be those could be overlaid on the same you know program or you know but yeah yeah i i mean if we you know i mean for that matter i wouldn't mind surfacing the cii badges as well um because that's that's a good system but it doesn't necessarily cover everything that people want to know um i mean i mean to give an example right if you are a potential contributor you really care about whether or not the project has um some form of contributor onboarding um that's maintained um i and that's not something that's part of the cii badge system um the um um you know and for that matter you know if you are potential corporate contributor you're going to care whether or not a project is already multi-organizational um the um because you know and here we're talking about sandbox and incubating projects right because graduated projects have to be multi-organizational the um so um because approaching a project that is still backed by a single sponsoring company is different from approaching a project that already has multiple companies sponsoring however like i said we're not quite done with the proposal yet we want to go back over the annual review criteria and the due diligence criteria and come up with a sort of concrete initial list of badges there's also the issue that because we're going to a thumbs up thumbs down system for um evaluating the annual reviews it's um we then need some additional auditing probably by a contributor strategy of the content of the annual reviews because um project leaders themselves tend to be very optimistic um about self-evaluation um so yeah although we haven't changed the criteria for sandbox annual review it's still i guess actually that is something worth pausing on we moving it to a vote so that it's consistent with the application process um we had a brief discussion earlier in the week on on Slack about whether or not we need to well basically the format of that annual review document for me that annual review for sandbox is a forcing function for both the project and the TOC to just take the pulse of the project you know so filling in that document is is a useful kind of exercise um yeah yeah it's more you know somebody eventually needs to check these things because i mean take for example contributor onboarding right a project that has a good first issue list right has contributor onboarding but only if it's maintained so eventually you know and they're going to tend to fill out the first annual review saying hey we've got that and then the project themselves is not necessarily going to fill out their second annual review and say oh we don't have that anymore so at some point someone else needs to take a look at it and say hey i just glanced at this and none of those good first issues have been updated in a year and a half um so you don't really have new contributor onboarding you know unless you put it somewhere else um the um so um you know so there needs to be some level and that's actually one of the reasons why we haven't made a proposal yet is when we need to figure out you know what the sort of level of review is going to be because if we have a bad system but those badges are not accurate then they don't help anybody true okay there is a note from Paris and chat about how both the governance and contributor growth working groups meet at later times today if anyone is interested i think that's it for us okay let me take saying thank you and hello SIG network hello uh boy sorry you get uh you get a conversation going in slack and then SIG network updates so with respect to projects uh there are a couple that have been in queue to do a review on one is meshery another one is the service mesh performance specification the there is uh the network service network service mesh has an annual review that's been posted and is ready for review and i'll admit that that i've had from from my own part speaking only for myself i'm i'm not sure i'm not sure if uh that's i'm not sure how to advance that or if that's a with some of the changes of responsibilities is that is kind of a SIG responsibility or not so uh so i'll seek clarification um projects that are actively under review is ambassador as proposed for incubation so due diligence is ongoing there chaos mesh was proposed for sandbox and uh came in at a time in which uh the or well uh yeah it came in at a time in which we were you know changing up the how to do a proposal and so they they just kind of resubmitted under the new form and i think they were evaluated this last go round they're here they're with us oh very good yes all as well oh okay okay and so i think you know i think that they're still in process they're still uh i think they'd gotten some feedback on this last go around this last set of evaluations about sandbox projects so so any feel free to correct me on any of the stuff i just said if that's you know i'm used to it uh next was an update on the service mesh working group that um that well is uh is formed and um based on a lot of folks being busy um hasn't established a regular cadence of meeting just yet but has uh really kind of these three initiatives that are uh some of which are further along than others some of which have been defined and have been in progress for a while um some of which are um just have their first level definition and we're trying to make sure that we're we've solicited all the interest our interest from all parties that would want to participate but to be frank we need to just start um uh hosting some a regular cadence of meetings for that that working group i figured that we would give uh an update on two of the three initiatives that are to be stewarded within there and so that's the next couple of slides um one of them is uh the notion that one of the projects within SIG network is SMI um there has been an outstanding need for a set of conformance tests and and tooling to verify whether or not a mesh is uh you know implements SMI specs um as they intend to or in some cases as they don't intend to not all meshes intend to fulfill each of those specs and so um and so there's been progress made on what's really been kind of a long-standing need for some time um the to to sum it up um briefly i'll say that that in order to verify conformance many of you that i'm speaking to are familiar with well are everyone's familiar and concept with conformance but to facilitate it like in context of a service mesh uh in context of many service meshes in order to provide um a utility that will provision any number of service meshes provision you know any of those that are participating in SMI provision a sample workload on top of them um define uh tests that need to be you know things that need to be asserted and then validated there's a bit of tooling that needs to be created for that um it's kind of a lot and then finally it needs to generate a report um against whether or not you know those tests are passing or failing so that's what this initiative is about providing an appropriate pause now we'll go to the next slide on another one that we've spoken about I think on this call a couple of times and that is uh also beginning to take shape and has undergone some initial revisions something that had an organic start at Google and I'm not even sure how the how old the genesis of this set of of this body of work is but um in preparation for cube connie you this the the teams that are involved have been working to uh better describe the the effort and the spec that's that's um being formed uh which is about um well yeah which is about capturing and describing um the performance of a service mesh there's something that the thing that this spec directly does today is to capture the details of the environmental details the mesh details that configure the mesh to can you configure the workload the performance of it we kind of I think I think I'd presented that previously with this spec those that are adopting of which a number of the service meshes have been pretty keen to and to implement the spec intends to facilitate other things from there some of those that are participating currently are suggestive of building in some patterns best practice patterns for how people are deploying a mesh and then using those um or the spec itself facilitating for those common patterns to be tested against and so um but so both of these projects um young but good to air out some of these initiatives that are being worked through in the working group because there's a call for an inherent call for participation for those that are interested um which is mostly what um the people that have been involved have been spending their time doing so that's sig network I had to check if you had another slide but no this is good ken uh I see that you're muted anything from your side nope this is perfect comments on that sick observability yes um the votes thing um was already mentioned by Amy thank you very much for this um so fyi for the for the tech lead ever since we started we have basically already been behaving as if Bartek was a tech lead because we needed one and he volunteered but we would still love to have this formalized um same for like uh Thanos to my account already passed the 7.3 uh required mark by having eight binding votes which is why I didn't list it here for cortex I think we still have a few outstanding ones and we can also use this talk uh or this time slot to to talk about either of those votes if there's any questions or such by to see um the rest for the third chair we are still looking um we had some initial conversations but those cooled down and for or just due to all the holidays we basically decided to pause the meetings and not have those two meetings in August and that's already it from my side except someone wants to discuss either of the votes then I'm more than happy to I think you do now have a couple of votes a couple of binding votes coming in on that tech lead nomination at least I would be very much appreciated yes indeed thank you very much sick runtime yeah hi it's Ricardo here so yeah project updates for sick runtime so Q batch it's applying for incubation due diligence is complete thank you Alina for driving the due diligence in the toc so the vote has been called for so the it's out there in the cnc the toc mailing list so please go ahead and vote uh so for those of you who don't know Q batch is a project that allows you to run uh edge type of workloads on top of Kubernetes and it has a central component that runs on on a Kubernetes cluster in a centralized location and then it has an edge component that allows you to run the workloads at the edge on the Kubernetes nodes so that's Q batch another project that is in the due diligence stage and they're applying for incubation is quay so there have been a few comments in the due diligence documents are publicly available and I think the maintainers reply to some of the comments I think unless you actually put in some comments so if anybody from the project maintainers are on the call please follow up with the comments and you know see where you want to take the project forward and if you want to continue with the incubation path and I think another project that falls within the runtime scope is k3s and so there's going to be some discussion at the end of the call as far as our working group container orchestrated working group so there's a specification that they're working on the cdi container device interface so right now they're just talking to the different runtime projects and groups container d and cryo and some other runtimes so they're trying to get everybody together and making the idea popular so everybody's on board so they're planning to have a POC pretty soon and have a spec in written in go lang so that's for cdi and as far as presentations and community outreach so at our last meeting we had a presentation from the node resource interface this is from Michael Crosby at apple so this is a new way to interface with the nodes try to make it in a common way following the cni footsteps like container network interface so hopefully this will becomes a new spectrum as followed by the different teams and they're also talking to sick node and the Kubernetes community so they're on board with the idea and for new projects a schedule for presentations we have tinker bell in our next meeting and that's basically bare metal provisioning of notes in it so that that will be very similar to what we have with metal queue right so we'll see what they say in our next meeting so other projects that we're reaching out to there's a project called seldom or that's basically allowing you to run AI type of workloads on top of Kubernetes so we're trying to look for some of those gaps that are missing in sick runtime so AI ops is one of the projects that we don't have and so hopefully we'll get a presentation in one of our next meetings so they said they're interested in presenting and last but not least we had an intercession at the virtual cloud native summit in China and we're also planning to have an intro in a deep dive session in cubecon north america so we're planning to to submit that session yeah and that's all for the updates for sick runtime so any questions if there's a question on the chat that says how cube edge k3s k3s so i mentioned in the beginning cube edge uh runs on top of kubernetes k3s is kubernetes distribution so those those are two different things so cube edge has a component that runs on top of a centralized kubernetes cluster that has notes at the edge and there's this edge component that runs on the edge nodes so and then they talk to the centralized component in a central kubernetes cluster so that's that's what cube edges and k3s is more of a kubernetes distribution for people trying to run workloads at at the edge but then installing the the whole kubernetes cluster at the edge location and i think that's the difference right so uh hopefully that explains you know the differences any other questions i i would still debate the characterization of k3s as a distro but i think that is actually the topic i wanted to get to here before we run out of time yeah so yeah that will be talked about at the end so but thanks for the clarification yep okay let's try to see quickly with three security and storage so we can get to that k3s discussion i'm actually playing the rule of the six security folks today um as as the tech leads are tech leads and chairs are not available here but they wanted to be able to highlight this for all of you um being able to show off like membership from 63 members from 45 different affiliations which makes it one of our bigger sigs um previous highlights include a checkoff presentation and working around the security reference uh reference architecture for cloud native applications and again another landscape conversation but that's coming up soon cloud custodian is completed a re-kickoff so they're in assessment um and they're currently looking for volunteers that will be a highlight of the wednesday meeting at 10 a.m pacific and key cloak is currently near completion um and they have a cloud native security day a virtual event on august 17th so see in security day is the hashtag for that and that's security very well represented enemy storage um okay so we can be pretty quick um the the one thing um i'd like uh some help with is um uh if a t of c member um could uh could raise our hands to to work with us on the due diligence for for profigo going in at at incubation um as uh i've sent an email around anyway so so hopefully we can we can find somebody there um the ti kv and rook are waiting for their graduation votes and we have a couple of other really interesting presentations there's a there's a pariahs project um which is from dow clouds and uh lint store uh which which are considering a sandbox submission and we have a presentation from ibm for a data lifecycle framework which is an interesting way of making data sets declarative uh and it's used in in some research situations but i think its scope can be can be expanded um as you might be aware we've also been working on the performance and benchmarking white paper um it's kind of recently stalled but in the sort of um in an attempt for perfect not to be the enemy of goods um we're going to uh we're going to take the the content that we do have which which actually is pretty decent already and and and try and target the v1 based on what we've got and look to iterate rather than delay it any further um and also we we did recordings in live q and a for the for the virtual summit in china and the recording for the keep gone in in europe as prep that's me great so that's all the six i think isn't it is indeed great so thanks everyone bob do you want to talk about k3s or ask questions about k3s um yes please um hang on a second trying to get my video to start there we go hey thanks for letting me um say some words here uh i felt especially after the email the email threads that were going on it deserved a little bit more discussion um i i i think i'll i'll put this by way of a request to the toc for a couple of things one is um to maybe more carefully does to define what a distro is versus a fork and i'm not sure that this is a um uh kubernetes specific request i think this is just the first place we're hitting we're hitting this um uh and i know for example the um uh thanos cortex prometheus topic was raised i i see that uh and i might be wrong on this just personal opinion it appears that some of the motivation for um cortex and thanos to come into the cnc f the sandbox projects is actually to merge the projects in the long run with prometheus which seems like a great direction um it seems like the k3s is actually k3s approval into sandbox is not motivated by that but is i think uh uh i would say creating conditions for more forks um i i feel pretty uh like pretty convicted that if you look at what's going on inside k3s not not at the number of lines of code but actually how it's constructed that it is it is a fork um but i really think that the toc and like uh there are motivations there are let's say marketing motivations to not call it that with if if k3s comes into sandbox which it appears it will um there are i think it's going to open the floodgates to a wide number of projects similar projects that are going to want to come in uh so anyway i um i guess i'm just trying to raise the alarm here that the um k3s coming into sandbox has a significant long range impact on the cnc f on the kubernetes project and uh i think we need to look ahead on the implications as a result i do look at it through a different lens and the lens is that k3s is an experiment in running kubernetes you know on on four edge devices on smaller you know having a smaller footprint k3s and that experiment you know took off i think way beyond sort of the original expectation i think it was originally just like i'm just going to try doing this thing it's gotten a lot of attention and the sandbox is a place for cloud native experiments so you know we've had a conversation with the kubernetes project it didn't feel like that was going to be a successful place to try and force it in there's a parallel universe where maybe that experiment could have happened within the kubernetes project i don't think we're in that universe so um you know do we do we want to encourage the experimentation of using kubernetes on small devices i think we do i i think um exactly this way i'm not so sure but i i think that your um your perspective there leads directly back to the long running discussions about what's the purpose of sandbox and i i think to the degree that um the purpose of sandbox is to do exactly what you're saying then um i have no disagreement but if the purpose of the sandbox is to also get projects to incubation where they do have kind of a life of their own then i think it's a different question and i'm not actually at all concerned or object to the um the perspective you have there about k3s as a sandbox project my deep deep concern is k3s on a track to incubation as a fork um and i think it would actually be helpful for the toc to take a clear stance on the fact that k3s is a fork um and i think there's technical merit that can be made to explain why that's the case as opposed to a distro an opinionated configuration um and i think even combining the two would be worthwhile in other words acknowledge that it is a fork and the reason why it's in sandbox is to provide this area for innovation but i think the current i think the current confusion is um is that if it's on the track to incubation as a fork or even as a distro the pattern that that sets um in the community on a wider basis has very high impact yeah i think that's fair and i i definitely don't think that a floodgate's worth of forked projects are going to get necessarily welcomed by the toc um so yeah that's certainly not our intention to encourage lots of forks um maybe there's something we can do there around language either specific to the k3s situation or uh yeah i mean just in making the point the sandbox doesn't have to be a route to incubation um yeah maybe we need to clarify that i i would i would request the clarification um and um i want to also highlight gatti's uh point from the email thread today and he's in chat here as well which is that um the k3s project is not part of the kubernetes um psc so that means that that the cve management and there's a lot of it that's going on in the kubernetes project proper is not actually extended to k3s except as an afterthought um and as a downstream and i think that's completely fair and would be there are some significant issues there yeah i think that would be a significant problem for moving into like incubation or graduation stage but i don't think it has to be a blocker at sandbox okay but yeah thank you for listening enough hearing it out it's fair it is fair and we do need to make sure we're not um sending the wrong signals yeah all right we are one minute over so uh i think unless anyone has anything pressing thank you very much everyone that's what you see thanks all good to see you