 Hey, Remy Remy. Are you there? Hey guys? Good morning Hey, how's it going? I think Alex is new. I don't remember that name before. Hey, Dustin. Hello. Good morning Hey, Tommy. Tim, where are you there? I'm here. Hi. Hello Hey, Doug. Hey, Kristoff. I assume that was Kristoff Um, Nick, are you there? Hey, Doug. Hello. Oops. Let's get your name right. All right. Robert, are you there? Robert Cowardt, cohort? I'm probably butchering that one. Um, R.I., are you there? Hello? Ray, are you there? Oh, no, my kid. Sorry. What about Alex? Are you there? I am. Is this your first time in? It is my very first time of any ENCF meeting. Excellent. Well, welcome. If you'd like to be associated with a company, because we do track participation on a company basis, or if not, if you're just an individual. But either, either way, if you want to be associated with a company, just either add it to the agenda and your attendee list here next to your name or in the Zoom chat and I'll add it for you. Yeah, I'll add it to the document. Perfect. Thank you. Um, Robert, are you there? Okay. Ray, are you there? Yes, I am. Excellent. I know I saw someone else go flying by. Oh, Ginger. Present. Present, official. That's so official. Uh, Lucas, are you there? Oh, no, Mike. Keep missing that. Hey, is this your first time? Are you there? Oh, I'm sorry, is that Robert? This is Rob Coward. Can you hear me now? Yep, I can. Great. I don't think I was working before. Yep. Give me a favor and either in the Zoom chat or in the link to the doc that I just placed into the Zoom chat. Um, you want to add your company name if you want to be associated with the company? You're not forced to if you don't want to. That's fine. Cool. Thank you. Um, Lucas, are you there yet? Hey. Hello. And the other Doug, are you there? About Lance. Yes, I'm here. Excellent. About Brian. Brian Young? Yes, I'm right here. All right. I've got a whole bunch of new people today. Slinky, are you there? Yep. All right. What about Chen show? Oh, no, no microphone yet. Sorry. All right. I know I'm missing somebody. Oh, Meryl. Meryl Blanchett? What about Chen, are you there? What about the other Doug? Okay, I got you. I got you Chen. Thank you. And Doug, I got you. Doug, Doug, Doug, Doug, Doug. Thank you, Scott. That one I recognize. All right. Um, there was somebody else I saw. Oh, normal. That's what it is. Normally you're there. I don't know microphone yet and them. All right. So the minute or so then we'll get started three after the hour. And I'm missing anybody for the attendee list. I need three people. Meryl, are you there yet? All right. Three after, why don't I go ahead and get started? It actually might be a very short call today. So let's see before we jump into anything. Community time. Is there anything from the community that people would like to bring up that is not on the agenda? All right, moving forward. Sorry, I guess I was fast enough. This is this is my first meeting. And, you know, confluent has leveraged the cloud events as a format that we use to send our audit logs for some of our new features. However, we got some new efforts that are ongoing and perhaps kind of going to see a way to hopefully maybe take some other work we're doing around schemas and looking for a project to hang it on to. So I've just started to take this on. And so I'm kind of here to get some experience, but in here with where everything's going, but maybe would like or maybe in the future would like to bring something up as a potential contribution that we could do as well for taking things further in the future. So. Yeah. That's all reason I'm here. So, yeah. Yeah. No, welcome. In case you haven't noticed, Clemens from Microsoft has proposed a schema registry type thing since you mentioned schemas, you may want to take a look at that one, see if that's of interest to you. There's a PR open for it yet. I don't think we've accepted the duck yet. But I expected to go in. But there's a PR. If you want to take a look at that. Sure. Welcome. Right. Any other topics people would like to bring up. Hi. Sorry. I realized I wasn't new before. Not a problem. I'm pretty new to the call as well. So I'd like to introduce myself. I'm working for Adobe and the technology department. And we are very interested on serverless topics, of course, related to our own product API sensitivity and, and providing some value on top of, of our different products. So nothing diagnostic here. And we are really interested in today in the serverless workflows specifications and so on as next research topics. So I know it's not dedicated call here, but I thought it's good to join to meet you guys first and join further in the Monday regular sessions. So it's once per month. Yeah, welcome. And I'm glad you already know about the serverless workflow stuff and their calls and stuff. So yeah, definitely join over there. But welcome. Thank you. Well, as everybody's introducing the new guys are introducing. You guys are taking over. Alex, I did like, I'm interested in the proto stuff that's, that's now actually open for the discussion. The introduction of brought above schema where thing in Apache beam, and I'm kind of a fan of the format and that's why I actually follow up here as well. All right, cool. Well, thank you and welcome. All right. Any more introductions. Okay, not hearing any less chance anything from the community. Any topics you would like to bring up that is not on the agenda. Okay. Normally we do have an SDK call scheduled right after this one whenever this one ends. Worst case scenario top of the hour. However, we have no agenda items. So if you have something you'd like to bring up, please add it to the agenda before the end of this call otherwise you may just cancel that call with there's no agenda. Right. Timur, do you like to update the group on anything going on relative to the workflow stuff. Yeah, sure. Thanks, Doug. Well, first of all, we have started and are working on the move to the new GitHub repository. And I'll paste it in the chat for those interested since there seems to be some people interested, which is great. Thank you. So we have moved most of the documents there. Also, thank you Doug for helping us with setting up the website. So we have started that as well. It's serverless workflow.io and we just have initial website up and then we're working right now and improving it. As far as sandbox project. I was told that in the next meeting that the sick meeting at the end of the month they will discuss this and make a decision on it so we're looking forward to to seeing seeing what the outcome of that is hopefully it's positive. And finally, it's kind of off topic but we were working on serverless workflow group and creating some t shirts with our logo. And I was thinking, you know, of course with cloud events, you know, we're being tied to it so much and if you guys are interested. I'll be more than willing. Happy to create some t shirts with the cloud events logo on it just be black shirts with the logo with the white text. So if you guys want to somehow we can set up some sort of document where everybody can put their size preference and I can in the next month or so see about creating those are shipping them out and it's free of charge of course everything I'll be happy to do that for the community. So yeah, that's it. That's very cool. I'm excited by the t shirts. All right, any questions about the workflow stuff. All right, cool. All right, before we jump into the PRs are there any hot topics relative to PRs and issues that I forgot to add to the agenda, otherwise we'll just work through a list. All right, in that case, slinky, I believe this one is yours. Is there anything new on this one. I think you were going to do some investigation to know whether the actually need something separate here. I didn't an investigation also. So I saw some comments from some people but still. Okay, so no update then. Okay. That's fine. Okay. Cool. Thank you. Any questions for Francesco on this one before we move on. Okay. Moving on then multi part content mode. What's the status of this one this one is yours to isn't it. Yeah. Do you any more thinking on this one. Not really. I will, I would love to keep it there for a while. But if somebody pops up with the yeah it's cool or now it's really bad. But I don't have any idea if we want to progress on this and now so I remember correctly. I think there was a question from lemons on this one about whether we actually need a dedicated content multi part thing or that's supposed to just use the generic one. Do I remember correctly. Yes, and the other and the other question which which I found even more important was always is is to implement it. I tried, I tried to we go and it went pretty well but then I tried with other libraries. I've tried to we're asked to try to each other. And yeah, there are some problems there. So, okay. Well, maybe we should wait then until at least Clemens gets back so I know he had some opinion on this one and he's out today so maybe we should hold off. Okay. Yeah if you want to close definitely. Well, no, I don't want to close I just want to defer the discussion till to the interested parties are on. Yeah, definitely don't want to close yet. Okay, any questions on this one then from the rest of the group. Okay. Jim you are on would like to bring us up to speed on this one because I know there's been some back and forth discussions. Come on. Yep. And it looks like Alex, you know, use this time zone advantage to put some comments just before the call. Okay, that's one advantage of living over there. Yeah, so there's been some back and forth. I know I responded to one of Evan's comments. I'm not sure if he's had a chance to come back on that yet. Do we want to talk about it now, or should we keep the discussion in the PR I mean, there was one of the suggestions that I think Alex had made was to move away from using a map structure to using a repeated field. And my concern that I was going to put in the PR about that is that it would essentially if I remember correctly that then allows you to would allow you to have the same attribute represented more than once, whereas a map would stop that happening. So that was one comment. And I don't know if it was Alex or somebody else that asked around, you know, formally declaring, you know, the optional attributes that we're aware of. And I believe we touched on that in last week's call. Where the discussion really went around, you know, we could get ourselves into a situation where, you know, in, I don't know, the one dot three we add a new optional field, and then the schema, the V one schema would sort of be a little bit inconsistent then because you have some optional fields that were formally defined and some that you'd have to access through the map or through repeated fields. So the decision as as as I understood it as the group was to say, okay, no, let, let's just stick at the major version and declare all the sort of required attributes that we know. And then of course late to the game because I saw it actually yet last week. Oh, it's up on the discussion. And that's I actually wanted to be part of the meeting. And of course, if it was already decided. I just want to find it a bit, a pity because it could be a nice alignment. So in any type in proto. If you had like the data schema. What is it you are I, and actually in any type it's also you are I, where you actually define the type so it's very aligned there is a string. And if you were then have like the second fields like a binary data where you could put anything a string of binary and after a message in proto encoding it's all kind of the same. It's really, really much well with any type. But, but of course the schema is an optional field. And that's where my opinionated few bit is on having those optional fields. Right. Yeah, I mean, so I guess I was taking my lead a little bit from the, and I understand on the wire obviously everything is a byte string. When we look at the jace the way we define the Jason schema for a cloud event, you know we allow the data, if it's binary it gets encoded into the base 64 string property. If it's textual. We actually allow in in Jason for the data field to be either a pure Jason object or a string. Yeah. So we sort of created this sort of acceleration if you know you're carrying Jason content it just sort of becomes one with the entire structured event. Treat it what I went the way my brain was going was being much more sort of rigid in in the spec and saying no you've either got to do this or this or this and it becomes very apparent what those contents are, you know just by you could get proto itself and say, Well, was, you know, is the field a byte stream or is the field text or is the field, you know, a proto message. So we have to we don't have to rely as much on the optional attributes to sort of make that stuff work that that was that was where my head was coming from in that one. But I'll put these comments in the PR. But would you buy into the, the removal of optional attributes. Alex, do you sort of see the rationale behind that. Yeah, but yeah, then the alignment with any type will will go go away. It's actually done back to the proposal, the original proposal right. We'd sort of be moving back in that direction but I mean that the separate discussion I think is where you were proposing using a repeated field. I'm less I'm less opinionated about about that. So, I remember that we had a discussion in in Apache beam there as well, because there's also a kind of internal encoding and where I also had originally like a map. But, but we moved to the repeated fields but that we are like full total control, but I can understand what you say where you can then, of course, can have like multiple entries. And if that's like the main purpose as a defense of them, then the map is maybe a better option. The only downside having a map is that you the original cloud event attribute on itself doesn't mean anything because it needs to be combined with the key. And that's a bit of downside. Could you clarify that event attribute does only contain the value then as a message type in proto and on itself it doesn't mean you anything because you still need to be key. But it's only available in the map. Yes. So yeah, it's it's a bit downside but yeah. I think I understand where you're going. I, it's much more in line with a sort of transport header in, I don't know, you know, I am QP or whatever yeah. So Doug, I think the takeaway for me is to sort of tweak the my commentary a bit more and go from there and then Alex, if you can, you know, sort of take a look after I've tweaked I'm not sure there's much tweaking to do now. I think we may be getting to a, you know, do we all vehemently agree or disagree on the. But it's maybe best to continue in the PR right. Yeah, okay. All right, sounds good. Any other quick comments or questions for Jim, before we move on. All right. Moving on then. Thank you, Jim. The class is not here today. And I don't think there's been a change to this PR, but I believe it's still work in progress. I think there's still some discussions about whether source template should be on the service level or on the type level. I think it needs been the type low but he hasn't moved it yet. So I'm not quite sure where his thinking is on that. I think in general, last time we talked about this, everybody seemed okay with the general idea of having some sort of template thing in there. So if you have any questions or concerns about this, please jump in on the PR, I'm going to try to nudge class to get this in there, or make me get a non work in progress thing for next week so we can try to resolve it one way or the other. Okay. Next is the one item we actually may be able to approve today. So, last week I showed a gist that I put together which just walked through a very basic. Flow of how I thought the discovery spec was supposed to work with the subscription spec. And everybody seemed to say that was at least heading in the right general direction which is good. So what I did is I turned that into a rough draft of a primer. And started talking about some of the various use cases of why we're doing what we're doing this is a primer for both the discovery and the subscription spec. And then talked about, you know, some examples, some example workflows and stuff. Basically, as I said, it just took the gist and turned it into a document itself as a start of primer. I don't think I introduced anything very controversial, but at least now we have a starting point for people to add more comments and text here to help, you know, expand this thing. Are there any questions on this I think it's been out there for these couple of days so hopefully, people haven't even a chance to at least glance at it. Okay. Now, as everybody knows, this is just the first draft that we make lots and lots of changes going forward. But since it has been out there for at least two days now. Is there any objection then to merging this as a starting point for a primer that we can then edit on going forward with additional PRs. Okay, not hearing objection will do that. You guys are too quiet. Thank you. Okay. Now Clements updated his schema registry proposal unfortunately did it yesterday which means it hasn't been out there long enough people to review it to approve it. But I did want to bring it up here to, to draw it to people's attempt to draw it to everybody's attention. So you could go ahead and review it. He made a lot of really good changes I did review it this morning. It seemed like a good flow at least from my perspective. What I'd like to do though is offline is poke him to, if he wants to make any changes to make them before next Tuesday, so that we can possibly approve this and get our first draft out there in the repo. So if the final changes after Tuesday, fortunately, we probably won't be able to merge it because of the time limit type stuff. So, if you guys can take a look at it, review it. If you have any comments get them in there before, maybe Monday, that way Clements might have a chance to make any final edits before Tuesday, then we should be able to review it and get it in there. Let's zoom in there aren't any major objections to it. Any questions from the group. Any concerns with that approach, try to get in there by next week. Okay, cool. Thank you. And last up, I opened a PR last night. I actually don't think I made any radical changes from a semantic perspective, or I'm not proposing radical changes to the discovery spec. I think a lot of it is just more cleanup more than anything else. And there are some things that are a little bit hard for me to follow or there's like some duplicate definitions in there and I wasn't quite sure whether the spec was ready to be implemented yet from just reading the document itself. So I basically sat down yesterday which went from front to back, modifying everything that I could think of that would make it easier for me as somebody want to implement this thing to actually get my job done. Like I said, it just put it in there last night's obviously it's too soon to merge. But please take a take a moment to look it over when you get a chance. As I said, I don't think I changed very much from a semantic perspective it's more just more cleanup more than anything else. But I'm happy to answer any questions now if anybody has anything otherwise I'll just work it through comments and issues through the PR itself. I don't have questions for anybody that might have had a chance to look at it. And you can see I tried to enumerate some of the bigger things in there. But as I said, I don't think many very I don't think very many things are controversial but please look it over and get a chance. Any questions comments. You guys are really quiet today. And that's it for the agenda. Those, those are actually all the PRs that I think are possibly discussable. That's a word now or mergeable. Any other topics we want to bring up. Okay, we're going to have a very short call then did I miss anybody for the attendee list. Here's the list right here. Think I got everybody. Okay, in that case is double check. Any last chance or anybody to add anything to the SDK call. Oh, Eric, do you want to say something. I was just going to come from around here. Oh, oh, I missed you. I'm sorry. I know I put you on the list. There you go. Thank you, Eric. Okay, any topics for the SDK call otherwise we will end this call here and skip the SDK call going once. All right, we're done. That's gotta be record time for both calls then. All right, thank you everybody and please do review those issues and PRs or at least the PRs when you get a chance so we can have some good discussions offline and maybe get some of these puppies merged. Oh, Nancy, do you want to say something. No, just I was going to say. Okay, just like, I want you somebody to speak up. I'm tired of doing all talking. Have a good day, guys. All right. Thank you everybody. Have a good one.