 Hi Frederick, how's it going? It's going well. How are you doing? Not too bad. We'll see how successful all the Americans are at switching time zones today So I just dropped the link to the meeting minutes in the chat for everybody that's ready Then we'll get started Probably about like five after so thanks for joining today Once again, thanks everyone that's joined so far I dropped the link to the meeting minutes in the chat if you just want to add your name there. That'd be great Okay, once again for people that are just joining. I just dropped the link to the meeting minutes in the chat And we'll get started in about a minute here So thanks for coming today Okay, it's five after I think we can probably get started last time meeting minutes are in the chat in case you Need a link to them Thanks everybody for joining. This is the weekly seen up working group Meeting we meet every week at 1600 UTC so for people in the US. Yes, that did just switch for people in Europe We'll switch and I think like two weeks. So time zones are fun Before we get started. Is there anything that anyone would like to add to the agenda? We can probably Jump right in then so the first one is the use case template That book put together so This one's been open for a little while now See Ian on the call But I went through mostly comments before this all the ones in the file Have been resolved The only one is Sorry, it wasn't Ian's comment. I think this is actually Victor's yours That Missing what Qnative is in the glossary documentation Yeah, well, basically he refers to cube Cube native term So basically the comment is like if we can add it in some place Maybe not in this argument, but probably in a glossary where we can use it as a reference I Mean I was arguing about Off-tangent I have to say I think I think Victor's exactly right if we're gonna use the term and it means something It would be good idea to write down what it means to us. Okay Yeah, I guess I Think this has been open for a while. Would you be okay if created a separate issue for that? Yeah, I think I mean, it's not related but as long as we address that concerns, it's fine Okay So So I'll add that after this meeting. I guess Beyond that, I know there's quite a few people on the call here who Haven't approved it yet, but they've made comments. I guess is there Does anybody else have any I guess like It's comments, do you think we can merge this like thoughts? You'll see the comment I've just literally added two minutes ago might not be on your screen yet at the very bottom I think that one does want addressing There's two parts to it one of them I care about one of them not so much the one about numbering Don't care one way or the other just make a choice The one about the sub directory. I think that one does want dealing with a sub directory be a much better idea Because you tend to want to include images and stuff in these documents. So having a sub directory means you've always got somewhere to put them Okay, and you're saying There'd be The sub directory under this use case for like images You're basically what happens it what we did for the other one is we made a sub directory Which should have the name of the file and then the file would become a read me in that sub directory Okay, I got you. So instead of this being Directly under it. It would be in a different folder. It would be that slash read me MD. Basically. That's all it would take That's the only thing Yeah Okay, um, I Guess I don't see look on the call I guess I get what you're saying there, too Yeah, okay, yeah, maybe and then yeah, actually the problem was like The scope of the SPR was increased. I mean initially was Yeah So I guess like the templates find it just we want to do the actual like use cases and dip slightly different format Yeah, so probably we can request to split it. I mean, I'm okay with the template, but now I have to review the use case Okay Maybe we can ask to like split out the Like the templates fine and then make the use cases as a separate pull request Yeah, and then I guess maybe we have the discussion on that On that PR then too And yeah, I think Ian. I think you make a good point where We potentially want to do as a as its own separate folder and then I guess maybe we Also create an issue that the BGP use case means to Numbered at some point too Yeah, the one thing I would say about numbering is again for now at least we can choose but I Can see that what we might run into is if we start getting a flood of use cases They're all going to take number five if it's the next number going and they'll conflict with each other So that one might be a minor irritation, but again, it's not the end of the world It's it's like ten minutes of anyone's time to deal with so either way will work Yeah Yeah, I think I think we can probably cross that bridge when we come for right now. It's It's a potential for problems, but Okay for now Cool anything anyone else wants to add on the use case template. Okay Cool next one is the defining the different actors and the roles This one's been Open for a little bit I guess does anyone of you want to raise their hand and volunteer to Define the actors and their roles. I know there's a lot of content around this I mean, we can also leave it open for right now, too. I can have a go. Where are we gonna put it? That's up to you Okay, fine Then we'll make a top-level file for it and another one for the glossary that we keep talking about and That and if we want a glossary then let's add that as an issue as well Okay Let me do that now Are you creating an issue for that? Yeah, okay, great. Thanks, then I'll just note that down in the meeting minutes, too Okay, great. Thanks, Ian Then I know this one sparked quite a bit of discussion at the last meeting about adding the maximum representation for Roles, I know you and you write out wrote up quite a All long note on this I guess the question being Do you want to add any of this to the pull request? Are you fine with the pull request as it is? if We are concerned about this. Well, I'm not terribly bothered if it's a second pull request to be honest But it wasn't me who had the concern it was Shane and towel particularly worrying about their their IBM compatriots, so their choice but I Think this is big enough and might lead to enough debate that a second pull request would actually make a little more sense now you say it Okay Tal do you have any thoughts on this? um It looks good to me, but Shane was the one with More concerns, so I see he's not on the call today. So If you'd rather wait for him before emerging or Well, if we make this a separate pull request, we won't be merging it with this We'll be merging it without and saying we haven't quite got there. We'll fix it up And then there will be a second pull request and that will make him easier Easier for him or you or anyone else to edit, you know a couple of words within it if if that's what you want to do Yeah Check the slack real quick because didn't he comment on his concerns in there and potentially them being addressed Yeah, I'm saying it was okay, but I guess he didn't actually put it on GitHub I've read your comment and I think it represents and resolves my concerns completely Yeah, Jeff had one that I think was more about Wording and you know a response I'm giving him in slack is not what's going into the pull request So what he put in there might be might be worth a little bit rewording as well But if we make a separate pull request, you can deal with it then and there and then it will be in the right place Okay, so I guess the consensus then is to merge this and then there'll be a separate pull request Kind of addressing the discussions from last time Is that correct? Yeah Okay, and then I guess in the question is do you want too many creating an issue for that or? Yeah, I wouldn't normally but if I don't create an issue I'll forget so that's a good idea actually Yeah, can you just copy paste this into? Like an issue that'd be great and then And then I'll merge this for now. Okay Um, so thanks for that And the next thing is around the PR approval process. I know this is like something that is that was brought up a little bit earlier around Like who should have the ability to like merge your process or like how should we do it? I guess is there any more like discussions or ideas on this on what we say is like What a PR has these approvals Then we can say it's ready. I guess the thinking one of the ideas last time was there's a minimum of three approvals and Someone should have a veto power. I guess maybe I can I'll take it on myself to Maybe put together a first PR for this out of the discussion so far and then maybe that'll Kind of spark some further discussion Yeah, they'll look to me if I remember correctly. It's like this was depending of the the roles or like another PR that we have So I think that you merge the other one so maybe that can clarify This discussion as well. I think so Oh, you're you're talking about what the The roles yeah, I think so now that we have that one probably That discussion can continue or yeah, but if you carry that the PR would be much further I think Are you talking about this one? Yeah, so you're saying I should add to this PR. Is that correct? Yeah, I guess is you Yeah, once that you create a PR maybe You can refer to these ones. Okay Yep Yes, is there anything anyone else wanted to add to the discussion overall on the call together? if not people can also Add it later to or message me or just add it to the discussion. Okay The other thing is I know Oliver made this I think about like two weeks ago of creating like a high level roadmap of ambition for 2021 I was wondering if people had a time to look at this had like any thoughts about this I mean, we could also say this is something for the co-chairs to figure out to once they're elected No thoughts discussions ideas. I guess we can also wait for the co-chairs to Provide more insight once they're elected to Before we get into the elections I saw there is also Ian you had a deployment use case. I guess did you Want to add anything about that? Yes, I'm a terrible person. I wrote this weeks ago Run it around a couple of people who are variously objected to it So I need to kind of back off on the opinion in it, which is completely fine It should be unopinionated that cell point But the idea here is And I would add there's a couple of other basic ones here I Should know how to deploy a bit of cnf right? I start with a network that has nothing running on it And I want one cnf to run in the network possibly in a variety of places I want to know how I get from a to b basically and I would add the next one that follows that is probably debugging use case Which is I have cnf's running on my network and the network isn't working the way I expect it to How do I find the component at fault and the reason I think these two are important is the first one deals with Elements of Orchestration that no one's really defined terribly well in this like you know, how do I get the software installed? How do I actually start a cnf because there's no such thing as a Kubernetes application in that regard the second one deals with Responsibility boundaries, so how do I know which cnf is broken or if the platform is broken? And that one I think is the one that we were talking about weeks ago that would say well privilege is important lack of Privilege is important because with privilege in place if you're allowed to have privileged containers You can break the platform and nobody can tell who's at fault So I think once we've got those two written down then we can start getting quite creative with the use cases At that point with the sorry with the best practices at that point because we'll have something to hang them off of And you know, we aren't doing much in the way of writing best practices at this point. So that would actually get us moving Cool Yeah, so it sounds like you have like quite some thoughts and probably even a document behind this stuff Other people are interested. It sounds like Ian's the person to talk to Yeah if you have Your own thought about what that deployment use case looks like or what that debugging use case looks like I would Greatly welcome your input to be perfectly honest. Even if it's only basically a chat in Slack for now, that's fine Because you know, I don't want this to be entirely my opinion and nothing else. I want this to be Well, we're all going to have to sign up to it at some point And there's no point in doing that, you know in a long rambling argument in the in the poll request So sooner you get the your thoughts across the better the result will be Okay, cool. Yeah, so the people have thoughts or experience on deploying stuff, uh, please message Ian cool um Is there anything anyone else wants to add to that or ideas to throw out right now? okay And that just brings us to the last point On the agenda Is the elections. Um, so currently for the co-chairs for the service provider chair We have self nominations from jeffrey and uh book From for the cnf developer chair. Uh, we have ian victor and gear gay For the kubernetes community chair. We currently have no nominations. Um, the nomination trade is also open until The end of the day So if you're considering run running for the kubernetes community chair Please feel free to throw your A name in the ring. Um, the only other thing is Um with shane, um, he nominated himself, but he didn't say which chair So I don't know. Tal. Have you spoken? Uh, with shame. Um, yeah, I Uh Can you remind me what kind of chairs we have should be obvious? Yeah, so it's the Service provider the cnf developer in the kubernetes community chair So we are we can only be I think a community chair Okay On one point there, I wonder if we can just save ourselves a little bit of trouble because I realized that I made a mistake In my nomination and I think it's fair to say the others did as well Where everybody who stood for a chair can we just basically make a blanket assumption? They're also standing for a tech lead Yeah most people nominated for both and Nomination period is open till next week I guess Is there is there something specific you wanted to address the man? Well, I've been to know if I need to send another email But I mean I think to be quite honest anyone who's stuck the name in for chair is probably well qualified to be a tech Lead as well. That was really the thought Yeah Yeah, I think you're I think you're you're right that the nominations can carry over So I'll follow up with Shane and In slack and ask him to clarify in the mailing list Which position which position he's going trying to run for Um The other thing I wanted to point out. Is there anyone on the call that hasn't added their company to the interested parties That would like to vote in the election If you're interested in voting, please feel free to add yourself to an interested party here and well Happening merge that too So how does that work if The company I'm not it's not really interested in this particular space But I personally am interested in possible votes um I guess would you feel comfortable adding your name? Yeah, I'm fine with that Okay, I mean I Think that is fine too if you don't want to put down your company's name but since we do have organizational voting obviously we can't just have everybody putting down their name but um Say for instance like I'm just picking an example like tal and shane can both put down their name because their employer is red hat and so That's what it goes back to so I guess technically you would Be listing yourself as the interested party, but you'd be representing your company Or you'd be voting through your company Yeah, that's the problem is that the company I'm at is a healthcare company and they're really not interested in this kind of stuff And they won't want to be represented in this kind of a thing. So that's where that comfort comes from Yeah, I mean, I think it's Like quite fine unless anybody else has any disagreement about that Um, if we go kind of barric room lawyering then basically that seems to make frederick an individual contributor and shut his company um You know show any more interest in the area in the future Then we can the rules that I'm supposed to be writing regarding Company representation would start to kick in somebody could say but frederick stands for his company. He isn't individual anymore Yeah, yeah Um, that makes sense to me and I'll I'll also add that I uh I'm surprised we don't have uh academics involved too. Uh, I know a lot of universities do research on these things and graduate students are writing dissertations Um, uh We we obviously want to allow participation from that part of the community as well So if we ever do get somebody I think they They would also count as an individual contributor rather than say representing a university which Just doesn't make sense really Is there any reason not to list individual contributors in the interested parties? I mean Well, I need to drop for another call, but uh, you know, thanks. Thanks for listening to me on this Yeah, thanks frederick I would add I would add arm in the list as well Okay, um Without us fill up, right If if unless anybody has major objections, I can also just add this on the call right now Just wanted to say hello. Uh, I joined in the meantime book is here Hey, look, how's it going? Bit busy What what's um Pretty probing Is it two L's it's one lwp Uh, sorry Is that correct? Yeah Okay, I'll merge that too. Does anyone else on the call want to be added? Also, feel free to add a pull request too and um Yeah, thanks for people that are adding the notes in the background for me too And all the miss camel. That's great Bill what's the timeline Yeah, what's the deadline for adding to interested parties? Um Right, I think we can be kind of friendly about this. I would say probably like to like today ish Like if unless you don't think you can make that deadline like I think we're trying to encourage participation not block people out um So we're happy to add more people like if you if you need more time, I think that's fine too. But um Yeah, I guess do you know when you'll be able to Have um yemwear well Uh, I'm not sure I need to uh get some uh confirmation. So uh, that's why I was asking because you know Today's a good deadline to put in an email and say hey, we need to close this So thanks Yeah, so if you can do that, that'd be great. Um, if not, I don't think people are going to be like Absolutely, we can't do this because you missed the deadline We're trying to encourage participation by everyone Hey, bill Yeah, should we come up with some type of like Quarterly by annually something like timeline to use like as cube cons roll through this and that um Obviously, we don't want like just kind of constant tsunamis, but you know The example just given like I know in the past um Typically like if you have a anal legal department like I do they want to go and review, you know repos things like that. So Um, you know, it's not always just like I unilaterally make a decision to be a quote on quote contributor. Um Do we want to set some type of um You know things for like, you know, maybe like after every cube con or something We do like an update to the contributors list. Um, or interested parties list Gives people on the chance, you know, they go to cube con they go back talk to their bosses, etc And we kind of make some type of formal thing. So Like we're encouraging participation, but we also kind of give people like Things that they can point their employers at like say like hey, you know the next round to like become an interested parting Start voting is that Specific timelines and deadlines for that. I would go more for a like a more agile approach Like if somebody's interested then they can just put themselves I'm okay with that as long as people aren't worried that like You know, some wedge issue shows up and then like a bunch of people suddenly add themselves Like I mean, I'm personally fine adding whenever as long as you know, people don't mind managing the list I would go with this like organic way I'm just from personal experience saying that if there's something on the repo that says, you know next round of whatever Is it's such in such time? It's easy to send that to a legal department. Say please don't procrastinate on this. That's all like It's not about like creating artificial barriers to people. It's just if you've dealt with like some of the kooky illegals you've maybe Looked for some of these types of verbiages to pop ups that you can kind of pressure them a little is all Yeah, definitely um I guess the question then is like, how do we balance it to not discouraging people from Participating but also like encouraging that I guess Maybe Jeffrey would you be interested in taking like a first stab at that language just because I'm not super familiar with what legal would need Because I haven't worked at a large company And then I think we can have a discussion About if we think that fits the needs of the community I let it go here. Just a quick question for this one. Um Could that work if we use like the election date the next one because I assume that's what we need the interested parties for as kind of the The date for legal that I want to participate in this and for that I need to be or I need the company to be listed here and that's your deadline Could that be a solution without creating extra deadlines and rounds on this? Yeah, I guess Yeah, I think that's that's a bit less confusing than Than having to connect to deadline And do we think that like I think the company name is the problem for legal or Contributing anything to repo is a problem for legal I think it's more just motivating legal departments that aren't like super Motivated to like go in and look at things to understand your motivation things of legal in this because like I think the company name Is more like trademark issue than legal Um, yeah, so I think that was a really good suggestion. What if we say Uh, we can add companies at any time, but the deadline to be in each election is Like two weeks before the voting starts or something like that Yeah, and then I was thinking the same thing bill Like when Ildico made that suggestion is just like you can add people anytime, but like I said, um So to your gaze exact question like I will submit something and like I mean I had to go through an approval process At the very beginning of this to like have chargers name at the bottom like You know, like do we put our name on something yada yada like let us review. Um, it's just a thing and I mean, I'm not saying that it won't always happen. It just sometimes it takes way longer than I would like it to Like our VMware friend, you know, it's like I I'm going to try like it's it's helpful to have the by the end of the day email, right? So like I said, I really like the more participation the better whenever we bring people in the better I just know that sometimes if I can point to a link and say look elections are coming up at this time Can you please, you know Get off your hindquarters and make this happen for me. It sometimes is advantageous for me I second that I also think that it's not entirely clear What what does that mean if you're interested party, uh, if you put your name out there What is the commitment and that's for sure the first question lego is going to ask well What are you committing to do if you put your name there? So I don't know if we want to complicate it that much Yeah, I'm insane here from the arms side. I've not run that past our legal. Yes. I'm principle We are interested but the legal implications of that I would I think if if we can clarify bill, what does that mean? um If you're if you're putting your name on the list and they would probably go a long way for those of us who has How should I say this a legal department that likes to weigh in on things Okay. Yeah, I think That definitely is not especially clear right now Um Because if it's an initiative with some bios and kind of membership agreements, it's much clearer and different in this case. It's not quite Yeah, let's make sure we it doesn't backfire because as someone who works on a relatively rigid corporate We managed to get our name there quite easily Because there were no definition of commitments and so on and so forth if there are I think our legal might weigh in so we need to balance this. Yeah That's a good point. So ronnie you're basically saying since it's not specified Don't throw a name in there and legal will be fine. Let's say I like that. It's a pragmatic approach No, I mean that's kind of the approach I took Full honesty and really all I told legal was that um, you know, our company name was like We're going to say that like, you know, we should be following best practices, right? I mean, we're not writing standards or anything here But like the thought would be is that if our name is on that list at the bottom and something's the best You know practice that you know charter agrees with that and that might change later once legal looks at this harder I don't know. Um, but that's kind of the pitch. I said was like a we're putting out general guidance and trying to Get some type of conformity around rfps and like vendor engagements, etc I think uh legal would Legal would always be concerned about whatever the liabilities are and I think it could be clarified that there is no liability Uh involved here Or maybe it's not so clear, you know, what what happens if we do Put some best practices and somebody is hurt And decides to sue cncf for whatever reason and I'm I'm being very wild here with my uh imagination. I know Um So I think the legal liability is Is under the license. Um, so it's apache 2.0. So I think I'm not a lawyer, but it's basically It's up to you All right, what you do with it is it is your responsibility in terms of What the interested party means, I think This is like a bigger discussion. So I'd like to like create an issue about this and like move the discussion there because I think there's been some great points on this call and I guess we don't really have the answers yet Right. This is like, I mean, this is the first time we're kind of doing this in this group um, and so maybe the Kind of like the loose definition is work so far. Um And it'll work kind of like through this initial phase, but as we kind of Build out and get a little bit more structure we can Yeah, I guess maybe define that a bit more too I guess to like legal departments aside too if we have people who You know, never attend a single call never read a single pull request this and that Do we just let anybody vote like I don't know if there's like a bar um I'm not saying that there needs to be but like the whole interested parties thing is really like literally just at its base definition I'm I'm just saying that I'm interested in this Yeah, I mean we we wanted at least at the beginning to keep it very loose to encourage participation and discussion from Anybody who wanted to be a part of it. I think as this becomes larger, you know, right like governance Scales as the organization or like as the community scales I think we've seen this a lot of different organizations or different projects across the CNCF and so I I would actually leave this up to kind of the Co-chairs that get elected to define If they want to change the governance process Like what like what's a better way to do it? Say I don't think we're going to solve it today I'd say and yeah, should we create a bar like potentially But yeah Well, if somebody creates a pull request to add themselves as an interested party That pull request isn't automatically merged. So yeah, I guess it's uh It's up to the co-chairs, right We're not the first one to do a project in this In this organization, right? So why don't we get bill? Why don't we figure out for CNCF who What are the bylaws or what's their guidelines and just add this and though It's like the millionth project, right? Yeah, there's a lot of stuff in CIG contributor experience Under CNCF and that's actually a report like the organizational voting from and so there's A lot of great information there. So it's a potential source to look at if people aren't familiar They're a contributor strategy. Sorry Um, and they you're right. They do have a lot of stuff on governance and so let's just say this follows the CNCF governance blah blah blah contribution strategy and We don't need to reinvent the wheel. We just we refer to what everything else is being Being done, right? Yeah, that's the funny thing about CNCF though is we require Open governance, but we don't say how you have to do it. So every project can do it differently So we just have to choose one of them. I'm not saying We can't point to one. That's I mean, we just pointed to fluent D for doing the voting Um, and so I just copy it's just like which one do we want to do, right? How did Because CNCF is all about choices Yeah, um, so I think this is a super good discussion. Um And I think it's definitely something that we should track for the future Um, I don't think it's going to affect this current election unless people See any really big issues um Yeah But I think it is important to discuss as we kind of get more and more formalized, right? This is the process of Building out the actual structure of what we're doing at the same time Okay, um Are there any additional questions comments concerns issues pull requests? Actually one thing Look, are you still on the call? I'm in here Yeah, I guess you were just so so the comment that you want You discussed before to split the use case example use case out of the template Yeah, exactly. So if you can Split the example use case good, um out we can merge the template and then I think people want a little bit of time to look at the use case specifically and Ian had something here where It might be helpful to have a structure Where you have a sub directory and the readme file is the actual use case Because then you can add images and other things like that okay, I Told adding an example according to the template Would be also helpful for understanding template And it's a real use case example at least I Try to to find out the one that is not that long, but that's still descriptive and illustrative so I Might either put it in a readme or or simply just for a time being leave it out Of this merge request and then create another merge request separately so that we can discuss that use case I don't think anyone's got any debate that you're making sensible choices in applying the template But yeah, you don't want your template to get hung up just because your use case You know wants discussion. So I would I think it makes sense to separate the two for all that You know logically what you're trying to do is demonstrate the use of the template Yeah, so I think everybody's agreed the template's great and we can merge it and then We can discuss your use case separate and then yeah Okay Do that Awesome. Thanks cool Anything else? Otherwise, I think Everybody can have back nine minutes Okay, thanks everybody for coming today. I really appreciate it Thank you. Have a nice day. Thanks bud