 Good morning. We'll give everyone a few minutes to come on in. Good morning. Giving everyone a few minutes to come on in. See a lot of folks online. So we're ready to get started. I think we're probably caking away. All right. I'm seeing most people in here so all right. Go ahead and kick us off Liz. All right welcome everyone. Hopefully uh you've all made it here so you all know about antitrust and you all made it into the meeting from logistics and that's all good. And I guess that Amy is keeping track of these attendance. It's automatically updated but they are all taken care of so. Okay good right. So um before we get into the actual agenda I wanted to do a bit of meta agenda where because this is um especially about the TOC and sick chairs and I'm not sure we have a kind of process for assembling the agenda for these meetings. So I wondered if we should have like a a bit like we have for the TOC regular meetings. We have that public working doc and we can kind of have suggestions for the agenda going into that. I was thinking maybe we could have something similar for this meeting but focusing on the TOC meeting doc for the this is a TOC meeting and that doc is available for comments and and notes and things that people want to be able to put in. Okay so do we want to have a separate section in there for items that people want to particularly raise on this sick chairs? Okay that sounds good. I will put in a future agenda items and people can ping me as needed with whatever whatever comes up. So thanks. Yeah okay sounds good because I think now that we've got this regular session it's great but we don't really have a kind of a process yet for sort of figuring out what we want to talk about. But I think that Amy you need to talk about process. Staying at a special request actually as far as being able to make sure that we walk through the graduation process review for sandbox incubation graduation and this is based off of Michelle's great work and there was a request to be able to document where things go in the repo so yes after this meeting we will be documenting where sick chair things live. So that was that was today's kind of special request. I'm happy to be able to drive and I'm happy to be able to let Michelle come and give more color as well and there was a note around TOC survey results. I do have an area in here where the sick chairs can be able to kind of you know phrase things up. I know that there are some questions of projects needing input from at least one SIG and we'll have an opportunity to be able to put more in so with that I wanted to be able to kind of pick us off into graduation process review. I have a read me in PR for comment. The idea here is that it creates one source of process and it kind of outlines our project lifecycle and includes project stages, the proposal process which I know has been kind of influx and people want to be able to actually get totally clear around what's required. Talking about project graduation process there's a little bit around the archiving process which I did not include today and there's bits about annual review and they're happy to take comments but wanted to be able to surface this as I know there's been a request to be able to make sure that that process repo gets a little bit more aligned and this is one way of doing it so just a note on that. And I'm just going to note that on that PR I did suggest that we don't duplicate because there are also I think the information is pretty hard to find so I'm all for how to read me but I think maybe we could link out to the existing dots rather than duplicating. We you know we put in quite a lot of effort last year to remove a lot of very confusing duplicate information so or duplicate and slightly conflicting information so I'd really like it if we could just have you know one set of documentation for each process. Sure other thoughts comments? I'll come in here can you hear me okay I've been having some issues. Yeah you're fine go ahead. Okay great thank you. Yeah so I was reading the document and you know what I think I I've been hearing like two different ways to describe the process one is how do you graduate from like a level and get into another stage and then there is the like how do you just enter a stage and I think it gets a little confusing when you when we say when we describe the process as graduating from sandbox into incubating or graduating from incubating into graduate I just think that maybe it'd be helpful for the community if we could just talk about how do I enter a stage instead of how do I graduate a stage so just because you don't necessarily have to go through sandbox to get into incubation XYZ so I don't know if people had thoughts around that I've just been hearing it both ways so I thought I'd suggest well especially one way of describing graduation as a level I think that's a important point Michelle to the same overloaded term but I do I have talked to a couple new projects lately and they were confused they thought they had to enter is sandbox and like go through the progression. Yeah and I would love it if we moved away from that because yeah it we should be really focusing on like incubation and graduating projects shouldn't we say that sandbox is it's a thing but it's not really where the really good projects are today right the important ready CNTF you know stamp of approval really kind of is kicking in much more strongly at incubation level. There is a note in chat from I believe Bob around how sandbox can be a terminal place for neutral collaboration as well and from what I'm seeing for responses everyone is like more or less aligned that that's okay absolutely yes which actually brings us directly towards the sandbox highlights that I wanted to be able to highlight here and this is what we've said has been the goal of sandbox does this still fit is there anything we should change in here I would not want to rewrite the definition we have a definition somewhere else I'm not sure okay you know it's a good reason why don't we use the existing definition we can I mean I'm okay with trying to compare this to the existing definition but you know then I think we should come compare them not just try and rewrite it from scratch yeah I think there's like a mismatch between what's in the repo and what's on the website and this one's on the website correct this one is actually coming from the repo oh okay never mind the proposed repo not or is it from the this is from the project proposal um that Michelle put in in February I did not write this okay so it must have been something from a previous uh a previous um converse or previous document that I edited but I did not I did not like okay all right just a quick comment on the last sentence if somebody just wants to enter in sandbox and see their incubation is not in his plans did that be mentioned here too because there is the last bullet yeah I just see it says that any project that realistically intends to join CNCF incubation in the future which is not necessarily the case for every project yeah I think that last bullet bullet is actually misleading because it's suggesting that you have to join a sandbox in order to join incubation and that's just not the case yeah I think we can be a little bit more explicit about you know uh the ability to just stay in sandbox indefinitely I feel like also I mean this is a a good high level right of what sandbox means to everybody but it's just I think we need to be more explicit about what like a project gets out of sandbox and maybe they just go in for a neutral collaboration and that's okay just think that it's confusing when you're a new person to understand just to ask the question because I'm fairly sure we covered this before but I don't think the intention was a project stay in sandbox indefinitely right there was a review process and if the project wasn't progressing it would get archived so so I think I guess that the intention is that it does move up the graduation stack it's not about keeping them there forever so I found where this language comes from this language comes from the uh sandbox guidelines v1 which I think uh originally might have come from like Alexis or Quinton uh so it does actually have that bullet point about any project that realistically intends to join cncf incubation so that does actually already exist but I still think it's misleading um and I'm sure that somewhere in here there is a an expectation it does say that the very end of this let me send the link they'll say at the very end cncf sandbox projects can stay in the sandbox indefinitely although before there is a bullet before that says they're reviewed on an annual basis all right I think correct it's uh if you'd like to be able to put more details into the pr that's out there to be able to like align this further that would be amazing um in the interest of time I'm going to be able to move us on towards what I believe is the sandbox proposal requirements I think one more point that I wanted to talk about but the project can stay in sandbox indefinitely and they can do reviews but um and that's for the health of the project and um you know in the in the reviews something may come up where the project is not longer being used anywhere and it can actually be archived right so yeah so that's um I think that's the process right yes any other comments there's a interesting point from Josh about proposing to raise the requirements for incubation um do you want to talk about that idea I think that sounds interesting yeah well we've been organizing a new SIG the contributor strategy SIG um and my part of that is the governance sub project yeah and so for example I'd expect in month or so I'm proposing that we add a governance requirement to incubation um and if the TOC agrees that that's a good idea then that would mean that the sandbox would become a place for projects that were otherwise good but did not have any kind of governance together yet um so I mean basically anything we do to raise the requirements to get into incubation um which in general I believe that we should do um then mean that the sandbox becomes more important for projects that have a reason to be affiliated with the CNCF the technology is interesting but they don't have the project parts of being a project together yet that sounds really good we do have a few things let's say questions that are raised in the due diligence guidelines so it's not like a firm criteria for incubation but uh I think actually tightening them up into some better governance criteria I would be really interested in that any notes around the proposal requirements here um there's a particular note about how sandbox is not required to undergo due diligence an incubation would require end users activity and contributors and then just a quick review around how the process is currently running which is a project being reviewed by a SIG chosen by the TOC to review and then the SIG makes a written recommendation to the TOC to review and three sponsors are required for entry any questions here comments so there's um somewhere uh written I guess that an artifact is needed from the SIGS to uh for the for the TOC to basically review the the project and find out whether they want to sponsor or not right so um is that somewhere or I mean or um or do we need to add it the written recommendation part yes I'm I'm not sure what the question is uh yeah so do we need to add it to the GitHub repo or is it documented somewhere I think it is in there I will check just to make sure but yeah yeah okay so as part of that template that should be part of the written recommendation in that so so long as all the SIGS are using the same template I think there was still some contention in the PR around that um where we need to come up with I mean maybe there's different categories of things we want to cover but I think all in all we probably want to come up with a standard set of things we want to collect and then each SIG can maybe do like a cube customize on their for their specific things but try to keep it consistent I have a question as well does this mean that the projects would go first to the SIGS for a review or the first point of contact is going to be the TFC which will redirect them to a SIG review and then reevaluate the latter I don't think we're changing the prices so you asked exactly the right question here um Katie does this answer your question so does that is that formally is there like a process that's formally saying you are in this stage so I'm a brand new project I go out here I create a github issue in just the normal repository and then I assume it's going to be put in a queue that the TOC is going to provide some sort of assessment either to send to a SIG or postpone three months six months I think the the idea of having like being in this project purgatory is um frustrating for some projects so how can we better communicate where they are in the process I mean do you want to talk a little bit about the project boards yes right now there are three project boards to be able to say where you actually are in all of this and I didn't actually get a screenshot of those but that's actually included in the the README PR as well and it basically says here's here's the lane for people who have come in they need to be triaged around like which SIG they should go towards and at this point in time we've most of the time put everything over into like the the SIG gets chosen and then from there the presentation happens um does that answer your question Erin may I add to that yes of course so I just pasted the link to the first one that people kind of projects go into and so we call this for the initial project triage and sandbox project backlog so once the once the project is triaged um say it might be triaged for the incubation backlog um so we'll take it out of that column and put it onto another board paste that board here there is a similar one for graduation each column highlights the stage that the project is currently in um uh and you might be wondering like you know who triages these and what none I don't know if we publicize that we're on a rotation but um the TOC has been on a triage rotation for the last several weeks so there is one person that is um responsible for going through and ensuring that the this backlog is is moving forward so um I feel like that's been going pretty smoothly for the last few weeks it's a new process but I think given that context if there is some additional feedback here on how we can improve and I'll be very welcome absolutely I love this uh board do we have a link to it that people know where to find it when they're going through this document like it's could we have it as part of the flowchart like check your status um I don't know I'm open to suggestions Michelle tell people yeah I think so um like the projects are linked currently in Amy's new uh document um so we could follow that uh kind of follow that pull request and ensure that it's in there but you know I'll just create an issue real quick or you're welcome to in the in the issue queue and we can figure out what where the best place to put that is and maybe that's the read me maybe that's I'm not really sure um but we can take suggestions there but yes that's a great idea and we should make sure that the links are are publicized Liz you unmuted did you have something that you wanted to add I was just going to say plus one to adding a link to the project board from the process docks I'm going to be very helpful yes when that gets merged that that will be in there please put more comments about where things should go um lots of conversation in chat anybody want to be able to move it to voice could we use this process and see if they felt like they could find everything easily I'm wondering if we suffer from we know where everything is compared to a brand new person um is there any couple new projects that we could go back and do a post mortem with them see how they figured out how to get things going to better customize let let miss chaos might be um might be a good one I know they're putting new ish uh in the last month or so okay let me go too uh yeah yeah we still have a great idea we still have new potentially new projects coming in that don't have a sig that covers them yet right I'm just curious if we could take someone who's like I've never dealt with TOC I don't know how to get into the CNCF here's how I went about it like I mean we're already tainted we we've done it old ways new ways future ways I just would like to get a a non-biased opinion about how they found stuff and if they knew what they were doing or they were lost in the process because that would give us a good way that we should be changing things so I want to do that I just I was just gonna say I think the um to read me the idea of having us have read me to sort of bring these process points together I do think that is without that it probably is pretty confusing for people so yeah it's definitely confusing I I've spoken to a lot of people who are confused by it so I think this will be very helpful all right other pieces go ahead we can certainly come back having to be able to get more review on this one but I wanted to be able to move on towards incubation which I think is kind of where maybe josh is moving us towards as well in chat this is the piece where due diligence would come up and would be available here and this is actually where I think the governance area for the SIG contributor strategy is going to be looking at making more recommendations here is that correct yes I'm working on governance I know that Chris has requested that somebody do a review of the project health information I don't know that it's assigned yet but but which means we might not get to it for a couple months but when you when you were talking about governance requirement earlier josh were you stating that a project should follow a specific type of governance or were you talking about requiring like a stipulation to governance and that you know maybe the core maintainers need to be like from multiple companies I was envisioning actually sort of a two-tier government requirement for incubation versus graduated where for incubation the requirements would be that written governance has to exist although it can be relatively skeletal at the incubation stage and so that is there has to be somewhere a process document preferably contributing that MD because we use that that explains for example how you get to be an owner or a maintainer whatever term the project is using the in that the governance process has to be non-discriminatory that is it can't be dependent on like for example you could have a document that says I get to be an owner because I get hired by red hat to work on this project that in my opinion should not be acceptable for incubation that is it has to be even if the project doesn't have more than staff of one company as um project leads yet it has to be possible for you know people anywhere in the world people working for whatever company people of whatever you know background or description to become project owners, maintainers, leaders, whatever the conception is even if it hasn't yet happened and that's the kind of requirements that that I was planning on drafting for proposal of TOC not done with that yet we just formed contributor strategy two weeks ago so um still working on that awesome thank you uh thanks for explaining that and I'm looking forward to it um I think Bob had a suggestion around requiring um uh multi-company governance I don't know how to say that the way he did because I don't remember the exact wording but um Bob I think if you uh want to talk more about that or submit that as an issue on the um uh TOC issue that'd be great okay happy to do that it's come up a bunch of times including even in board meetings so I don't I don't think I'm the lone voice on this we I'll uh I'll add something no you're not I I had mentioned this to some of the other TOC members as well and I actually drafted up a long issue about it and accidentally closed out a tab a few weeks ago so um so anyway do you want me to comment on that thread is there a link you can post here in the chat what are you talking about you were saying there was an issue you opened on this oh now I I didn't actually press it so I didn't if not uh Bob within the next two weeks I'm going to be proposing um the governance requirements well hopefully two weeks um when I propose the governance requirements please bring this up because like I'm going to propose that incubation stage it has to be possible for the project to be multi-organization but that we don't need to require to be multi-organization yet um and sounds like you want to propose that actually at entrance to incubation the project has to be multi-organization correct and it's something that we should hash out um as the TOC should decide on so I I would love to hash on it with you okay cool um I'll ping you over kubernetes slack awesome thank you hey just just one small thing um because this often kind of falls through the cracks in sandbox there is a requirement that uh or there's one set of criteria that that that is um the project has to adopt the CNC FIP policy so you know things like the Apache license and those sort of things and while it isn't a gate to incu to to sandbox it's expected that sandbox projects do that as part of their membership um so it's kind of implied that that's also a requirement for incubation um but but we don't often specify that set of requirements for sandbox even though it is so so I'm just kind of highlighting this this kind of sometimes falls through the cracks um when explaining it to projects I didn't quite get that so um I am seeing the IP policy uh on the sandbox requirement uh area um and on the incubation stage it says to be accepted to incubation stage a project must meet the sandbox stage requirements plus and then it has like a set of bullets so um I'd love to understand more about you know what is specifically confusing or where that information is missing it's it's on this well it is a little bit confusing in that the sandbox projects specify that um you have to use the IP the CNC FIP policy as entry criteria but in reality um that often requires the CNC F's help to get them to that stage so we have had cases where projects join at sandbox and then adopt the CNC FIP policy while they're sandboxed members but there isn't a you see what I mean but but there isn't a formal so there's a formal step that says they've actually done it before incubation I I think they I think it isn't already there because it has to be they have to meet all the sandbox requirements plus the incubation ones uh in order to go to incubation I also think that uh you know the TOC meant you know if we were not checking for things like the IP policy that would be pretty weak due diligence uh and I think just the I mean the sandbox data requirements are pretty clear you're right that in practice they actually do the trademark transferral and the IP policy as part of kind of moving into the sandbox but I don't think I don't think that's really is that really caused confusion I mean I can see I can see where where this is coming from I think because I don't know I've been around the CNC F for a few years now so I understand like you agree to do these things and then there's a transition period where the CNC F staff helps you actually make the transition like the specific company while the project is under a specific company their legal team may not allow you to actually uh you know make those kinds of changes like license changes and things like that and I think because this happens sometimes in that transition period like if we want to continue that process of course um then we should explicitly write out that there is a transition period and that you should agree to these things and once your project once this pull request is merged then we will start this transition period of actually you know getting these things you know making the change actual changes on the repo and then after that you'll become a full-fledged project sandbox project does that make sense yeah that that's kind of what I was referring to it it's sort of implied that because the incubation requires the sandbox criteria that that the IP policy has been done but the IP policy tends to be an unbounded transition period and it's not necessarily guaranteed so that the incubation that is actually done unless it checks its it doesn't have to be done for incubation because if you go into incubation without going sandbox the IP process will take place after incubation so I don't think we can make it a requirement anyway but I think it normally happens within a few weeks and and I think although I think projects are accepted implicitly I think they would be kicked out if it doesn't happen within a few weeks so it would be great if we had part of that template that did have these sandbox things that need to be checked off if they come in through incubation I mean it would say like if there were already a sandbox project that would already be done we'd already have that template filed and be ready to roll but yeah we'd need to include any expected criteria entering incubation to be done as well and though it would put that it'd just be nice to have it right there up front. We have actually captured this now I think in the new sandbox template so we capture like the repos and the licenses dependencies and everything else so that should be used as the source when doing the incubation due diligence if it's already a sandbox project. I agree but I'm saying if it's not if I'm a brand new project and I have like tons of companies and tons of support and that's a really healthy project and I'm like I'm going to go for incubation out of the gate I don't know why logically I would go look at sandbox requirements when I do that that's all I'm getting at like we need to make sure we say we assume or something at the top of the incubation template that all these pre-requirements have been satisfied and it has that section we have in the sandbox template without duplicating I guess I'm meant to be remembering but I thought that that was sort of at the start of the each um higher level phase that it it said all of the prior all the you know the level prior was Matt but maybe it doesn't say that but Aaron to your point it seems like that that's an easy enough thing to have. Yeah you may be right I it sounds like something we would put in there but I I don't know it's there in the graduation criteria documentation I don't know about the template. Is it in the incubation process though to say we assume that you've been this to be accepted to incubating stage a project must meet the sandbox stage requirements plus and then a list of bullets and similarly at um graduation stage it's got to graduate from sandbox or incubating status or for a new project to join a graduated project a project must meet the incubating stage criteria plus and then a list of bullets but I guess the the question there is how we make sure that the templates reflect the this documentation. If so let's just check the incubation DD documents and make sure that it has a section on the IP policy and if it doesn't we can just cut and paste it from the sandbox template that's easy enough. Are you not a great idea? I'm gonna quickly move us on towards like that this is like the current flow chart that exists in here it sounds like everybody is more or less in agreement that all of these steps are are good and we're kind of looking at what should also be included in the DD diligence template correct anything else? Just one quick question we have had a couple of instances where a project didn't neatly fit into a specific SIG a needed to go through more than one SIG I'm kind of thinking do we do we deal with that on an ask talk basis or do we want to serialize those SIG presentations or parallelize them or I'll suggest that you know that that project has a parent SIG and if there are additional recommendations then they all go into that one recommendation doc but we think about those additional recommendations as just affiliated we want those opinions too but I think that the parent SIG should really own the whole process of getting all the recommendations yeah sounds good yeah I think the process has been going on for a while for example we've been doing it with harbor right so harbor needs a review from SIG storage SIG app delivery and SIG security right and then we're on SIG runtime and then so we have a consolidated document with all the feedback from all the SIGs and that will be I guess the final recommendation from the SIGs to the TOC and that's for graduation I think maybe in every stage there will have to be maybe some sort of consolidated document you know so far I mean incubation as well so one question I think I had about the TOC person driving the due diligence is that something that TOC chooses or that that's something that you know for incubation or is that something that somebody just comes up and says I want to do it right so from the SIG point of view is there something that SIGs can do to find somebody to drive the due diligence thus far it's it's always been a volunteer from the TOC you know stepping forward you know depending kind of on their expert expertise with the project you know time available that kind of thing behind the scenes Amy usually sends the TOC like a list I think it's every week right and she's kind of every week she kind of like lets us know like hey these these projects need incubation review and and where everybody is actually whatever calls to action there are so we kind of pick from that list based on availability like Liz said just add some color yeah it's a good point we do have some process going on behind here that Amy is very helpful with it is a long email reminding people where everything is because they know it's not necessarily available for everybody to look at the boards so in the interest of time I do want to be able to move us on this is our graduation stage and you're you are correct in that like this one does say Liz that like projects that wish to move from incubating to graduation there is some documentation in here that a project could come in at graduation have we ever had that happen? I think Kubernetes might have been the only one no it's never happened in theory but this is the part where we have talked about governance and Josh it sounds like you want to be able to move some of this governance requirements back into incubation so happy to be able to see what you're you're thinking in a couple weeks any other notes around graduation comments questions I don't see anybody in chat and I don't see anybody like you know dancing around we may have run everybody out of energy which understandable but this one does not actually have a flow chart for this right now we can certainly look towards being able to build that but right now this is really just like here's the criteria and process this point is being able to have a TOC sponsor being able to call for a public comment and then being able to move to a vote my recollection and I'm just checking it is that it does that it says that it's the same as well doesn't actually say it the idea is that it's the same process as the uh incubation process no uh was actually we changed that I don't know if you um it's pretty new yeah we did no you're right we did it in you new one yeah it would be good to have um a flow chart for it um we changed this a little bit um just to make things simple and the process is laid out I think in a bullet or like number like one two three format but there's no flow chart for it I don't see the due diligence process here so as I understand there's a due diligence process for graduation correct um no there's actually not really the standard due diligence process um so like the due diligence happens at incubation and then I wish I could find the actual um I think I found it actually okay so um let's paste the link here um but you referenced the due diligence document from incubation and if there are things that uh have been laid out in the incubation due diligence document that were highlighted to make sure we address before graduation those are addressed during the process but there is not necessarily a new template like a new due diligence template that you have to go through so the process is you there is a graduation template um it does include a link of course to the due diligence requirement plus a place to fill out all the graduation criteria um at that point the TOC the TOC member walking that project or graduation kicks off a two week period for a public comment if he or she or they feel that there is nothing left to address um and in that time any SIG any community member can raise um any concerns or endorsement or anything like that uh SIGs can take some time to discuss um if you know they want to discuss more about that project um in their own meetings or on their mailing list at the end of that public comment period um the TOC votes uh if there were issues that were raised during the comment period then um the TOC can also at the end of the public period move to have a full TOC presentation for that graduating project before calling for a vote to address any concerns got it that that makes sense i mean that's what's been going on with Helm right now i think so yeah okay the other comments or questions around stages graduations there's a little bit in chat um i have a question so we are raising we are raising the bar for graduation and we are moving the governance from sorry for for incubation and we are moving the governance base from graduation to incubation would there be any changes to the graduation process are we ready are we raising the bar for graduation um i don't know yet i think this is a conversation posed currently by the zig conservative strategy who just formed um so i feel like that's probably going to be answered in the future um josh paris well you could uh you could definitely see that that would certainly naturally follow particularly if you take a look at the first bullet point here which is uh yeah we have committers from at least two organizations yeah and so yeah there's and so as those terms committers maintainers etc owners gets defined i would expect that this would probably change this would this would raise up a little bit that first one yes this is things that they are currently written um not future things and i think lana you're looking towards like what will happen in the future and the answer is wait for a second tribute strategy i think that's good um i wanted to be able to move on in the last 15 minutes or so this was a time that i was going to kind of well 10 minutes now um uh i know that there was some questions from zig app delivery i don't see any of them on the line so we will follow up offline with them um but this is the time for any of the other sags to be able to surface anything that they wanted to kind of put on either like you know short conversation here or an agenda future matt are you here what was the question my question was if matt yannis here but um if he's not then i'm just going to do it uh that's richard for a signal observability there is three points of order just as a general fyi um first we will start having bi-weekly meetings every second tuesday uh i'll send this around to both the siglist and and the toc so everyone is aware second uh we were talking to to steve flanders um who's at splunk and he's also involved with open telemetry as the third chair for the sick which means we'll have the three the three chairs which which six should have and also as announced we will be suggesting bar tech as um the first tech lead i think he has a document prepared which he can put into into chat for everyone to see that's it and that doc is available over in chat else who wants to be able to bring anything up i'm not seeing folks from security here definitely seeing storage storage wants you know the floor uh richie h decided i mean i've decided sorry requested um to have voice for a second yep i thought i was muted but yeah already done thank you nothing from storage anything from network um just that we've got a couple um projects under review and one the most recent was chaos mesh or is chaos mesh and they are in process of soliciting toc supporters the sig review of that project isn't complete but they were asking um about how they should best go about soliciting support and i uh promised that i would bubble that up here as a as a venue for that so is that being proposed as a sandbox or incubating project sandbox i mean amy usually does the hard work of sending things around um and we kind of just take things as we're available um if anybody has suggestions on how to improve that or anything then let me know or let us know but it's the process right now i'm happy to be able to work offline to be able to move that forward so um runtime anything from your side yeah we have one project we're reviewing for sandbox metal cube they presented our our last meeting on thursday and so we're we're gathering some information to kind of create an artifact and write a recommendation to the doc so that's the only project to we have another meeting or another presentation schedule for quay which is a container registry uh so that's gonna happen at our next meeting next week and that's for incubation so yeah that's that's pretty much what's going on so there's a lot of stuff around trying to get more participation you know so reaching out to several uh not six but um other groups you know like um the projects from container runtimes and uh some other projects related to uh how you create standards for containers so and yeah that's that's what we've been up to can i give a quick update on storage sorry i missed my sloth um so just as a quick update um we're we're looking at um the graduation of the ikv and work at the moment um and we also have um where we've also got to contribute something to the due diligence for harbour um one interesting thing that happened which doesn't normally happen is we we did a presentation um we got a project presentation of a project called profiga which is um a storage streaming system and uh for storing events and that sort of thing um and one thing which was interesting was that they were kind of wondering if cncf was the right place for them um so i guess as a question to the to is do we do we go out and court these projects and try and sell it to them somehow um because i i guess this was slightly different in that they're they're considering different options or different foundations that they that they might join that is uh that's really interesting um there's a few different thoughts i have about this but i think we should actually raise this as an issue in the toc issue queue to discuss further so that everybody has a chance to to talk about it um there's a few different ways you could go about it so let's just raise an issue also that's likely to take more than the four minutes we have for this particular meeting that's completely fair however um happy to be able to take that as a future item on um this particular meeting um contributor strategy anything from your side that hasn't already come up um look out from our communications from us nothing that's um come up from this meeting though but we're going to be sending out tons of for us and maintainer circle information and all kinds of fun stuff here within the next week excellent cool um and we have a contributing line now it's prd in it's not officially approved but contributing dot md we've got to read me we've got so much meta stuff um but yeah nothing else unless josh has something nothing from his side um last piece in here again we've got three minutes or so um wanted to be able to highlight the toc survey results this is the first time that we have done a toc survey and part of it is being able to see like what people are actually talking about what people are are thinking around how the toc and the six are working out and um there's a lot of details in like the further documentation which is at the very end of this but i wanted to be able to highlight this to the group and let like both the sig chairs and the toc know that this is out there and something for them to be able to dig through questions comments on this last bit sorry is there any feedback in terms of how can we improve that experience overall or is it just a a marking kind of survey type um there is definitely some feedback in there the full results are available in here and i knew that we were going to run out of time so i'm perfectly happy to be able to put this as an item on a future agenda because i know we had a lot to cover today and i think my last question is was this helpful should we do this kind of format again and what else should we be talking about yeah i think it's pretty helpful but i think the agenda might change depending on so super helpful i think so yeah so try to get more information uh to people who are interested in working under six and the toc and it looks like there's other people on the call too that are not necessarily sig chairs and toc so uh for transparency i think it's helpful so and i think and i saw some of the the survey results and i think some there were some comments about uh being more transparent so i think uh that would be that would you know having a meeting like this would be more helpful for that definitely i'm seeing plus one in the chat i'm saying yes please um anything else before we close i'm not seeing anyone directly on me so all right i will call it we are actually ending on time it's good to see everyone be well thanks all thank you all thank you thank you