 Hey everybody, please add your names to the list of attendees on the agenda doc and just base it a link to the chat I am big can you hear me? Yes Okay, you're cutting out a little there. Can you be a favor or send me a note? With your yeah, because you should be on the edit the doc everybody has right access to at least add a comment No, it works from a computer. It doesn't work for my phone. It could be something wrong with my phone Ah, gotcha. Okay. That yeah that I can't help with Yes Okay, but I have your attendance listed. So thank you Steve are you there? Yes, I'm here. Okay. Good. Just making sure I can track you. Thank you, sir Many of these days. I'll actually start learning people's Names by voice, but not today People can have their names the tenants. I appreciate it. Hey mark And hey Austin. Hey Doug. How are you? Good? Oh, yeah Good to hear. I'm calling in from a ranch in Northern California because our company's on a retreat right now You're trying to make us jealous, aren't you? It's certainly the most beautiful setting for a call. I've had in a while And David, hello Yeah, Doug, can you enable right right access to the document? Yeah, I want to just sec Who is that speaking? Louie for you. Okay. Thank you. And David Baldwin. Are you on the call? Yes. Can you hear me? Yep. I got you now. Thank you And Daniel crook. Yeah, I'm here. Good. Oops. What your name right? Let's see Mr. Rikowski are you there? Thank you, sir Joanne from SAP. Oh, yes, I'm here. Okay. Okay. So I'm sorry. I'm mispronounced it. I apologize. No, no problem I'm gonna have to say this every call. I am horrible when it comes up to pronouncing names. So I apologize to everybody in advance All right You're on either we have a Joe K on the call Are you there? That's your harness. Oh Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Oh Sorry, I'm not aware which nickname I choose. Oh Yeah Okay, and there's someone. Oh, actually, I'm sorry that someone looks like they're from 415 830 3446 Is that an existing person or is that someone new that we should add to the list? Hi, that's me. I'm representing Kathy. She's on business travel Okay, gotcha. Thank you And that you're you're for hard, right? That's me. Thanks. Yeah. Okay. Got it. And you're on. Are you there? Yep. All right. Gotcha Okay, and Sarah you there Yes No, and let's see Rachel what you're jumping screen Rachel Myers All right, cool. Thank you All right, give you a little 30 seconds or so. Oh, we missed you. Oh, hey, hey So used to seeing you there you just sort of I just assumed Really there it's just a bot He plays a video in the background. It's a very good bot. It's an animated whiteboard. We just All right, and let's see David Lyle. Are you there David? All right, I don't hear David yet. Then let's see one more person then we'll get going. Oh, I'm a machine is slow Who was it Klaus? Are you there? Yes? I'm there. Excellent. Thank you All right We'll do the roll call thing again later after the end of the call see if we missed anybody Sorry, David Lyle. I've only found the mute button. Excellent. Thank you, sir Okay Are there any changes to the agenda people would like to make I tried to cover what I thought some of the hotter topics Okay, so let's get going then first of all we have no AI so that's kind of cool um The way they were status Well, we do have an AI. Oh, I'm sorry So I did a PR for changes to the governance model and a little offline I think there's been a lot of discussion on it. I've updated it and I had an offline discussion with Doug that I'm gonna try to separate it into individual specific PR's but I would like people to sort of comment on The ideas in it because it's definitely like a work in progress It was like exploring a bunch of ideas for a governance model that would encourage offline participation So I think it I think it needs more discussion Which we can do offline and and so I just wanted to alert everybody that that's in progress And I can add a link to the doc Excellent. Cool. All right. Cool Um All right, so white paper status It is still going under the final review process by the I'm not sure what the title you'll give to these guys but the PR type people within CNCF who want to do the final cleanup and touch up with the doc itself Last I heard they may have some minor edits. They want to make to it I haven't actually seen the proposals yet But obviously people should get a chance to review those before they finalize everything but it is still in the work So that didn't to do there for our group yet, but I just wanted to let you guys be aware. What's going on there? Let's see PRs Well, okay there I think there are three PRs that are technically ready to go. Let's look at the first one here See if my machine behaves properly. So this one there are more edits that need to be made However, the reason I decided to add it to the list for discussion right now Is because all the edits that I think need to be made are strictly typographical in the sense that The PR still references Open events instead of cloud events like you can still see her online one stuff like that But I think those are really the only edits that people have suggested to be made in there So what are the wondering is whether people have any Concerned with this PR as it stands today and maybe we could approve it conditionally on Austin Swapping out the appropriate name and doing the rebase or whether people still need more time I'll leave that as an open question Well, I just suggested that the roadmap be a separate item because I think that the like That's I mean I didn't realize that we were meeting weekly. So I missed event meetings. So I don't really know the Story behind the roadmap so Sarah when you say a separate item, do you mean a separate PR? I meant a separate. Yeah, I like a separate PR and Doc And doc, okay, right he's in it like it sort of stands by itself But I we really really need like a read me that gives an overview of this thing Okay, did you add a comment to the PR itself for Austin to take a look at her as a reminder. Okay, I thought I did Just want to make sure there's something in the oh, no, I'm not used to the new github thing. So I didn't Submit review Sorry Not that new but All right, so I've submitted it. Okay, so let's do this then since there are outstanding comments then let's go ahead and hold off And it's in there So that as a reminder to Austin take a look at that and we can try to get this thing pushed through next week Is that something I almost have them swapped out already Doug excellent? Okay, so let's take a look at the next one Actually was this one ready maybe I've jumped the gun here. It's double check Yeah, I like that the use cases on a separate doc I think the same thing like you know, like when we have separate things and separate docs and It's easier to manage all the PRs. Yeah, Sarah. What do you what do you think the main read me should be? I think it should be about like What we're like, what is this and what's it for? And maybe you could also should also include a table of contents to get to all the other docs Maybe yeah, those that maybe those that are cloud events specific There's a whole another set of docs about the working group itself It may also want to include just a and I think Doug may have said this before but the briefest of blurbs about what it's not To the extent that helps clarify and I think you know like ideally and we may not be like quite There yet, but maybe somebody feels like they could draft them like what are we looking for? What kind of engagement are we looking for? right now Because I think we're good like I'm hoping we'll get to a place relatively soon where we're looking for People to implement the spec, but we're not quite there yet and that should be clear Okay, I can I recommend that we did all great comments Can I recommend that people put the comments into the PR itself as a sort of a Nagging reminder to Austin try to address those that way we don't lose track of them or open issues well, this is just a PR right now, so I Prefer comments on the PR itself that we've Austin can figure out how he wants to address them It's a PR and then they've been obviously if they're not addressed and yes, open up separate issues After the PR gets merged or rejected one of the two. Oh, it sounds like there's some future topics So there's just the issues, but not work for glitter the current content. That is true Yeah, obviously. Yes, if you have other things you'd like to see change open up issues that they throw outside this PR Okay, I think those are all great suggestions by the way. I agree with all of them Okay So Austin on the next PR, which I believe is number eight. I know there was at least one comment That's relatively new by mark And there are a couple asking the comments mainly typographical type things Are there other things in here that we need to discuss or is it just a matter of addressing the comments? So that one comment it's your own I'll try and add it to the read me just before we move to the next one on Overview again made this comment before just a logistic of editing. I think we also want to address the API not just the messaging I Don't think it's clear from this description that eventually as a serverless working We want to make sure that the serverless consumption model of the event is sort of standardized uniform Whatever we want to call it So you're on with that fall into the definition. I'm sorry into the scope of This specification, which is about the event format or is that a future work item for us to tackle? Why do we need separate? You know because a format eventually need to be consumed if you're creating a format then everyone consumes it in a different way That sort of misses the point. I don't think we really Need more event structures, you know more pop sub engines are enough of them Like what we really want is a definition of how a message looks within a pop sub No tunnel or whatever and how you consume it Okay I would recommend then that you add a comment to the PR is a reminder to Austin to try to address that in there So Doug, I mean, I mean that the spirit of GitHub is to you know to keep it PR small I mean we should have PR comments be reflecting the if we Closing the current content issues if they're future things are things that are additive are new We should get this PR approved through and approved and then future topics future suggestions augmentation should be addressed as issues That's the spirit of pull requests to get them. You can't you shouldn't keep them open Adagnozium and have scope creep. That's that's my concern I definitely don't scope creep that's true. I don't want you forever ever I am I added a note about like I mean I agree with this like in terms of the roadmap like I Think that my understanding is that is the same as whoever was just speaking that like The format is not sufficient and I don't know I think it would be nice to keep the format as its own spec and have a different spec or guidance or whatever we decide about How one transports that format in such a way that there can be interrupt between two systems Yeah, but that's a by the way, sir. It's here on from it was yeah, I think the point is that Let's assume we want to implement some of that. Okay, just like you know, we've seen open messaging and others So you're going to implement the spec and what would be the implementation? You know, uh, Jason structure a you know, uh go add, you know, what message Format is probably when you're saying we're going to implement it You're going to implement a library that consumes a message and generates a message and that essentially gets you to an API I don't think that we can disconnect it to So Austin, I'd like to put the burden on you if I may since this is your PR I'd like you to decide the scope of the changes you'd like to see but in this PR versus Asking people to do follow-on PRs and issues to add text. Is that okay? Sure. Yes, and a lot of these comments are important If they could be tracked as issues, I think that would be super helpful So they don't get lost, right? So if someone if someone makes a comment on your PR that says hey be great to add this and you think that's better Served as a separate issue then please just they open up in a separate issue. I've helped on with that kind of decision Great. We'll do Okay Is that okay with everybody? Yeah, I'm making an arm or just a note Austin to suggest that people open issues if He feels they're outside of the scope of the PR. Yeah Because as Matt was saying we do need to make forward progress We don't want to keep things open forever because we could work Smith things of death. We're very good at that kind of stuff Yeah, man, I don't think it's word smithing. It's actual scope like it's actually that people disagree with the the roadmap or feel that there needs to be more scope in the roadmap and then Committing to a roadmap that doesn't seem to accomplish our goals is like not Everybody isn't aligned with However, having a starting document that we edit, you know is also a good process, right? so I think that that's where we're at and and I like the idea of there are open issues, right that indicate that There are open issues, right? Yeah, absolutely my the spirit of what mine was suggesting. So thanks for staying. It's a brilliant way All right, are we done with this one? I just want to say one closing comments the roadmap was just a first pass just to get something down and I look forward to other people's ideas and suggestions as to what should be in there So I prefer issues where it's kind of written out clearly and concisely Yeah, I look forward to this. Thanks Austin. Yep All right, moving on then this this issue number eight Austin that says that I think there are a couple of open comments on this one Are there things you want to discuss here as a matter of you addressing the comments and people looking it over? I just submitted some changes. I thought last night to address all the comments Maybe there were a few that I Felt needed to be discussed. I can't remember. Can we look through them real quick? Yeah So let me go back to the dock. Hold on a sec. I can do it. Cosplay machine is slow Come on So basically the in the spec itself, it looks like you've moved some spaces there. It's fine. You basically ripped out the the use case section and put it into a separate dock and then Let's see Where'd Mark's come I go, oh wait, did I turn off that little checkbox? Hold on. There it is Yeah, so open eventing changed So there's this comment Mm-hmm normalizing events across services and platforms facilitating integration cross service platforms looks like two aspects of the same use case Highly likely Let me let me think about that further Offline and respond. Okay in a comment. Okay It sounds like between that one potentially this one Now I just be a wording change, but then Mark had a different one What was it? And then there are a couple comments down here It sounds like there may be some edits you want to make so this one may not be quite ready to merge right now. Is that fair? Correct. Yes. Okay, so let's take this one offline then And then hopefully up next week's call we could try to Nail this one down. Yep. Sounds good. Also. I want to say I opened a contributions on the use cases And there's a lot of a lot of people in this effort already with a lot of experience and if you have suggestions Maybe you could just open an issue for it now and propose a propose a use case. That would be super helpful Yep. Hey Austin. Where was that? Where'd you want that? Any issues? All right, I think again, we need to we need to think about pushing this content out as Interim to make it easier to add additional PRs Yeah, right any other comments on PR number eight All right moving forward. I'm a screen will move Okay, there's this one that I opened up Number 15 which tries to make a first pass at adding some normative language around The properties themselves, you know, which ones are optional which ones are required I don't think I changed the semantics of anything. I did try to remove some extra text that I thought was just sort of Commentary for lack of a better phrase. I think that was necessarily appropriate for for specification I'm not gonna necessarily ask for people to vote on this here because I haven't had any comments on this So I assume that means people having it have not had a chance. I so I did comment There was one place where the I believe the semantics are changed But I have to give it another careful read to be able to articulate that So I again just sort of recommended it being into PRs Okay, I just can't see your comment. I suggested did you actually? Yeah, it's PR as a whole. Oh, maybe that's why I'm saying it Okay. Well, anyway, it doesn't sound like we're ready to actually merge this today I'll take a look at some at your comments, but I would only Um Chad giving it one LG 10 just 26 minutes ago. I feel a little uncomfortable merging this right now So just as a reminder, please everybody go look at this. I like I said, I tried my best not to change any semantics But if I got it wrong, obviously jump, you know point it out to me. I'll try to get effects Myself and somebody else on my team gives it a careful review because I do just to double check the I do think there was a Semantic change there and not that the original spec was super clear about the meaning of a couple things Yep, so please take a look at that I think Once this one is in that gives us a nice baseline to go forward and then we we should be able to do, you know Much more smaller and focus PR is going forward to do individual changes But this lease gives us a hopefully a baseline to work with. Yeah, I think it's a great move Okay, any comments on this one? Hopefully not since we're not gonna merge it right now All right, I believe that's it in terms of peers and I'd be ready So one of the things I want to talk about next were areas of the spec that we thought it needed work or that we need to take action on and The lists that I put here are just things that popped into my head just to sort of get the conversation going in particular the things that stood out to me are Inside the spec right now We have several places where there are things that are listed as to dos or notes and they're basically things that need discussions So I thought okay, what we should do is remove those from the spec itself and turn each one of those into an issue Seems like a fairly easy thing thing to do The other thing is There's a section called content at your backlog. I'm assuming that's just a list of Potential attributes that haven't been agreed upon by the people that originally worked on the spec So what we should do is open up an issue for each one of those just to decide whether we want to include them as a As an approved property or not So just open up issues for those and we can remove those or I'm sorry Leave them in the spec in that section for right now But then open up issues for each one that says either remove it or make it a full-fledged properly We agreed to and then once all those issues are resolved that entire section will go away Because there won't be a backlog anymore. So those are the two sort of action itemy type things that I wanted to mention first Any comments about those disagreements that seem reasonable at the starting point We put the backlog in the Google doc because we were working out of Google Docs now that we've moved to github I think it makes sense to maybe remove that backlog section from the specification itself and possibly put that All in issues Okay, shorten the document make it an easier read And then just put those in the format that is We're an easy Debate can take place I'm okay with that too It would anybody like to take the action item to remove that section and then open up issues for the backlog of PRs Don't everybody jump up at once Louie, thank you Excellent, all right. Um, what about converting all the notes and to-dos into issues Anybody want to jump up and take that one? Somebody You can you can do one with PR aside, I would just suggest and that maybe somebody wants to get involved in the PR writing I'm happy. I'm happy to write them up as issues and that's Rachel correct. Yeah, excellent. Okay, cool. Thank you Okay, the other thing that I thought might be worthy of doing in terms of work that's in a spec is to Pull the current set of or poke on the current set of providers out there To make sure that the the current set of suggested properties Aligned with their view of a good starting point in terms of a core set of properties So this is basically nothing more than just make sure the Big guys out there are looking at this stuff and paying attention to it and and they're okay with it I don't think it's necessarily a formal thing other than all of us go back to our respective companies or partners that we work with To get them to look at think that the spec and make sure that the current set of properties That's what they want and they don't want more or we're gone too far That was the way the list I come up with so far I'm I'd like to sort of open up the floor now to see if other people have other ideas for major areas of spec that They think need work well, I think that Go ahead Sarah one of the things I'm not quite sure whether there's something that we can pull Maybe Austin has some ideas, but like I think that there's a huge amount of context about how Events are being used in the wild with in the different cloud providers and What is why exactly all these decisions I have been made and so I Don't I don't I can't think I'm sure there is something like out there in the world That is like this is a picture of how all these things work together Or what is the context for these particular type of events? And so I I think that's that's the thing that's missing because like I'd like to see people who in addition to the major Cloud providers, you know Google being one of them, you know and my team like that like participated in this this initial thing and have implementations right that we'd like to You know in serverless calm like we have these things that like are They're they're so logically the same that serverless calm could make an implementation that makes them all But maybe there are other players like That are not yet involved that have an analogous thing or consume them like I'd like to see other like like tool makers or like some outreach to You know and Rachel and I were brainstorming people who are writing applications based on events So that this is also vetted by people who are consuming them in a different way Well, let's go back to the use cases. I mean first, you know first of all I want to go down it's about the it's always about the data is about the event producers what I'm hearing You have to identify a set of event producers to go after in different domains or spaces There'd be IOT or whatever who's ever producing events today You have to ask them why they've made decisions produced events the way they have and what are they and see if and you also see if the receptive to alignment with the standard David Baldwin was clunk. I actually I do have a checkpoint to go back and take this with our architecture group as well to get Some feedback so we can also if you want to call it compare it gets other mechanisms other mechanisms We've seen Yeah, I mean, I think this is all for like us the film. What are the next action? Well, I think it greatly influences like the how we how we do routing and it's gonna come down to event types Different event types will carry different types of data and some will have protocol requirements So I think those are those are the things that need to get at a higher level of what type of events we're dealing for which domains So I want to just go back for a second Sarah to make sure I understood what you were saying Are you saying that inside the spec itself? We need to include something like an architecture diagram? Or something that kind of explains how it all fits together into a bigger picture I wouldn't say inside the spec, but like what I'd like to do is like I know people who are Who are sort of part of this ecosystem in some way, right? They are Consuming events, they're writing tools around events there They have application architectures that completely depend on events and like and so I'd like to be able to point them to this However, for most for many people the spec stand alone is not sufficient For them to understand what we're trying, you know, like how does this fit into the whole puzzle and part of it is it's not done per our prior conversation and part of it is like Just like well what like like so for example within Google we have a lot of different things that some people call events and There's a lot of discussion in you know kind of this The subset of the working group that you know is tack chat that sort of Austin convened and different Things that in our events implementation with Google Cloud functions We've sort of separated into events and messaging Right, and that's conveyed in what's kind of now the read me right and it's moving out of the spec Which I think is a good idea, but it's that context of like in overall events in the world Like what part of events are we paying attention to? Which would make it easier to put things in context than invite people into Make comments on the spec so it sounds like you're looking for sort of a secondary document with the white paper Some like that just something to help provide context for this is that right? Yeah, okay And so so that the previous document I wrote against your own or the CNM and there was another one I did cover sort of the ecosystem the difference for a pop-up mechanism particles and the differentiates just like Sarah between Message and events again because for some cloud provider Events that may not be a message or the message will be cloud provider internal thing that you don't even care about the message structure Yeah, so you can take some some information from my previous doc or reorganize it to fit what Sarah You know Sarah, maybe we can work on that together. I don't think seen that doctor No, I'd love to see it. Yes, if you feel free to hit me up on Slack or Adam if you have a link in here if it's public Charles senior there were a few documents that are separate and we can find combined it will also diagrams of use cases various use cases and Which represent different aspects of that? Okay, sir. Is okay if I sign you an action item to open up an issue so we can track this make sure we assign it to the right milestone or Definitely and Serum if you would put your github in here, I'll tag you in it If I've got your name right You're talking about you're on you're on here. Oh, you're on you're on from iguasio. Yes, great now for your name, right? There we go. Got it. Okay Anything else people think we need to address inside the spec itself or here is the new work There's still a naming conversation. I think we should we should have at some point for the proper Then Austin you cut out there a lot down and drafted Whoop, can you hear me? Okay at the moment? You seem to be cutting out a bit. You may want to start over sure I think there's still a naming conversation or a naming pass We should do on some of the properties that are within the specification When we drafted those those properties, we agreed to not focus on the name Just focus on on their meaning so I think if someone wants to take a shot at Seeing if there's opportunities to name those properties In a better way that would be helpful. I've been thinking about that a little bit I'd be open to be taking a pass at this unless any unless someone else wants to try Yeah, and also I don't know if people have I haven't given a lot of thought to rationale for naming but like Austin if Or the other people who've been involved in like sort of standard stuff like if there's any rationale For why we're naming things a certain way would love to settle on that first like oh, we're gonna take capitalization from this, you know Way of doing things or we want to be consistent with this kind of a thing like you know like sort of agreeing on some kind of Philosophy and then we can work with it would be awesome. If there if you have any suggestions anybody My first suggestion would be brevity so the data itself is gonna take up so much space so the the the context is given by the event event typing from the spec that Leave the key names or identifiers as short as possible. That's my suggestion It's gonna be full, you know our goal is to get to a million, you know, to Agree with a million events per second. My connections coming out. So I thought you stopped talking I'm saying it see the goal is to get to a million connect million events per second and to do that you need to Reduce the wire format of the event content itself. Go ahead Austin Austin do we lose you? Austin can you unmute? Okay, I heard Austin volunteer to take an initial pass at this I assume if someone else is also interested you'll reach out to Austin to work on that If Austin doesn't do it I will open up an issue so we can assign this in terms of priorities and workload and stuff and sign it to Right milestone stuff like that just so we could track it Any other things people on the spec people think we need to it to deal with one once They're a fairly good list so far All right, not hearing any I have a whole bunch of AIs to do things. That's all good Okay, the next thing I thought I could talk about is How we're sort of a more of a process type question in terms of how we're going to decide What we're going to do for each release because I've been kind of assuming and this is actually up for debate Is that we have at least three different releases sort of an alpha beta and then a version one? So let me sort of start off with that as a baseline question Do we need to Have a have more Releases in there other than those three or do people want to say no we're just going to keep sort of Working and then every now and then we'll say oh, we're going to cut a version 1.2 And then a 1.2.5 or something you know and just sort of play it by ear or do we want to say no? Let's let's have some concrete releases alpha beta type thing that way can we can assign issues to those milestones You know how do people how do you like to move forward on this in terms of laying out our target dates for things? I was just assuming we would have like Versions right like if we change like anytime we change The semantic meaning of something or the name of something or or maybe we would say that we're going to be Like there's going to be some versioning and then and when we hit some like you know point nine or point eight or point seven Or whatever it is that we say oh Now we think it is complete enough that we would like people to make implementations of it And then when we have at least two interoperable Implementations provided we don't have somebody who's like wait. I'm almost done with mine that then we would declare it We would welcome additional implementers and Then it would be 1-0 when something you know some milestone of interoperability or something something Right so we definitely could do that you know just keep an increase the number and eventually at some point was well side when we go to version one and Not have necessarily formal alpha beta type thing that that's works as well Because I guess I I've never heard of alpha and beta for a specific I get that's typically used for implementations of something rather than the specification, but maybe I yeah Apart from initial version, I mean, I think that we should keep it fluid I mean you should follow again the GitHub spirit and Encourage people to come back and not wait for something That you know apart from the first release where we get the base content down This group should basically on a weekly basis be able to anybody can nominate or even apart from the group via Offline communication saying I think we've added enough content through a PR or whatever that this PR it wants in the point release and then Then we do it, you know based upon a page fault system Right, so just let you know to sort of my thinking behind the alpha beta thing And you're right. That's no maybe more associated with code than specs is Because I didn't want to get into a numbering thing I'm saying that I think that I want everyone here Affirm in the fact that we want people to write code against it So so I think that the code follows me at least back in the way in the GitHub world. It works is of course, you know People will follow point releases So it's important for us to realize that we can't hold back people's code in debates We have a significant pull request we all agree upon that could warrant a point release No, I understood and let me just finish what I was saying there the mat I was assuming that once we get to a version one that the normal semantic version thing will kick in exactly as you were describing Sarah Right, you know may change the semantics has to do a major version bump or something like that Non non-breaking changes can be point releases, you know adding things without breaking things three point releases that kind of stuff But I was trying to figure out the best way to get us to the version one thing I mean do we want to do it assume that Periodically we're gonna just do a v0.1 than a v0.2 and just keep an increase in the number and eventually we'll say yep Now we're at 1.0 Because that's but to Matt's point though I think at some point we do need to decide when we reach this Level what do you want to call it beta or you want to call it dot nine? That's when we're that's when I feel like we need to be able to tell the broader community We feel like the spec is stable enough that while we were hoping people were implementing up till now now It's really stable enough believe that you should feel confident that we're not going to completely revamp everything on you and Implantation should feel free to implement this about too much fear I was my original thinking behind this process and that's what I thought beta was going to be and Alpha is more like hey, we think this thing isn't embarrassed is not embarrassing We want to share it to the world right and that's sort of like once you get past this initial stage of adding the RFC Keywords make sure the naming looks a kind of right kind of stuff and you know get us past the initial hump I was my original thinking behind those three sort of layers or steps Most important have milestones, but I still say apart from the very first place when it's when you can start implementation There's enough to implement people just follow the commit hash so People if I read code, I would just say I would reference the commit hash for the document level that I followed Okay Any other comments on this I'm about to make a suggestion right to your view of you'll thank Well, I'm trying ultimate proposal so I think I think what you're probably proposing there is It's not that we can look at Well, I Guess I'm trying not I understand the I think I understand the intent of saying like of declaring something alpha or beta I just think that that's confusing when like you know if a if somebody has a GA product and Choose we want to incent them like a general availability like released You know mature product and we want to incent them to implement the specification We would want them Well, I'm saying I think I think the same thing we first of all we don't we have this thing called market freeze You say we're gonna we're wait till this date to free people won't look at it So as soon as that people have a chance to beta it has enough content We want people implementing because they can pin their commit hash and they can and they can choose to freeze Their implementation based upon that level and upgrade as they see fit Yeah, I'm a little nervous about saying, you know when you have to independent implementations then then we go to one Oh, I'm not sure that's the criteria. I would have put out there. I definitely want implementation So they're wrong, but I think it's more we have implementations. We don't have any unresolved issues They're a tag for version one. There's I think there's a several different things that go into play there And that's I think why I was hesitating a little and But my suggestion was going to be was rather than try to necessarily nail it down on this call To suggest that we a group of us go offline and come back with basically a poor request to document the proposed Process we go through for dip for defining releases That's not fair. I guess I'm confused about like I mean, I don't want maybe I'm getting a text I'm not sure what the release of the spec is because it's unlike. I mean are people envisioning that there would be something that Is machine readable that a piece of software could be attached to in terms of a commit hash I mean like I haven't heard yet that there would be some kind of way to I Don't know make this be something that would be like built into CI or something like it. That's outside of the what I heard Okay, so I think we was going to say something I believe we're gonna say something in there. Yeah, I don't know how productive this is right in some respects. I don't know how much How much we aren't necessarily Having a discussion somewhat ahead of where we are but I guess I suppose it is it is healthy It's maybe it's needed here nor there whether it's alpha beta or dot or we're following a different semantic versioning scheme Yeah, generally people consider it. I think alpha beta is certainly Convey a certain sentiment people associate 1.0 with a similar sentiment about production readiness I think that it is like to the extent that anything's a Specific a standard I think more and more at least from my perspective our industry is generally trended towards That being reinforced by implementation So I think Sarah, you know, I feel like that's a good direction like hey the those that are actually using it You know, that's the fact that it's an actual standard or a meaningful standard getting giving providers to or framework providers to Have this implemented prior to a 1.0. I'm meeting with the amount of momentum behind it We won't have that much of a challenge But I could see that being a challenge so I get them getting them to invest to the point that they would do it prior to understanding that it's it's Unstable in terms of its spec Yeah, and just so that people understand sort of my reason behind bringing this up now was a couple reasons one is As we start asking people to open up issues. I feel like we're going to need to have some sort of Scheduling of issues or listing a priority of issues right when which ones we think are critical Which ones are can be deferred and a lot of way people do that is to say, okay They assign issues to particular milestones And so I thought it'd be useful to have sort of a roadmap of what the milestones are and we can say this issue Should be assigned for a point nine versus this one needs to be done immediately for point one Right and so we can sort of weigh the priorities there I thought that might be useful to help order things that was one reason behind it but the other one is I think it slightly touches on what you were saying there Lee, which is We're looking for people to implement this stuff, but in my experience there's a lot of companies that will not touch a specification until it reaches a certain level of maturity and We need to decide how we're going to indicate That that that bar right whether it's called beta or some other name or some version number We need to decide what that level is so we feel confident telling people that yes Now it's it's ready for you to implement if you haven't done so already So that was that that was the reason behind my pushing for this sooner rather than later just to get the discussion going Well, I think we brought an interesting point. I think that it and this goes back to what I was saying about depending Right co we're depending on our commit hash of a dependent library those library change owners all the time I think the scope of this group was to include tooling Around it even even as as soon as possible from what Austin was saying at some previous meeting So maybe the signal is is when that code is actually When our group feels that we have enough content in the spec to start creating tooling around we can invite people to Use that tooling. I think that's the the key indicator when we start working towards more formalization But until we reach that point, you know, the question is You know, what what it goes back to scope what should be the scope for version one that would match milestone one And I think we only have a milestone and everything is just featured milestone Yeah Maybe I can add another thing if we're looking at open messaging just as an example. You open the github, you'll see reference apis for go php python, you know java cpp, etc Okay, I think we should have the same we should have part of the repo apis examples And some frameworks, you know We're willing on our platform to just have a branch of Okay, for example that implements that even if it's not really the production stuff It's just something that uh for someone can experiments with With those apis. I don't think we want to keep it as a document I think we want to move just like open messaging did and start at least conceiving defining Uh implementations, you know, just think about the linux way. You're not waiting Until you have a full ga standard for people to implement. You're starting with something You have a strawman proposal and and you're you know converging on that over time So, I mean taking a step back it goes back to identify use cases we agree to address in milestone one That determines the scope for milestone one then everything else is future milestone Yeah, actually that's that's very useful. Matt. I agree. So unfortunately awesome job from the call So sarah since I think you're the one taking notes and again, thank you for taking notes I'm here actually I'm dialing in via phone. Yeah. Oh, cool. Okay So I I tuned in halfway through this through this topic It sounds like there's a few things being discussed at once that is like how we do versioning And what the scope is uh of this of this initial version that we're putting out I keep in mind that the specification right now actually has a property in there that indicates what version of the spec that you're using Which should hopefully Mitigate a lot of issues and I think that should that should be one of the first priorities for us It's just to focus on that and make sure that that's easy for people to reference and use They could work with the spec if it changes in the in the near future As far as versioning goes i'm a fan of just using Simple versioning and not using words like alpha or beta just because I think that it will It will probably steer people away When we actually need to build momentum right now, and I think that's that's still one of the most important things and furthermore, I think that Anything that's version zero whatever it's kind of implicit that it is Uh a beta or kind of a new a new effort Um, so anyway, those are those are my thoughts on versioning Uh, I agree with a lot that matt said I think we need to you know Continue to talk about the scope of this effort. Uh, again, there is a scope that's drafted up in the specification um I think just Settling on what that scope is should be one of the top priorities for this group Um, if people think that this that there should be more Uh, or something else in the scope we should we should chat about it right away All right, cool. Thank you Okay, so um, I think we've sort of exhausted the time frame on our time on this one Other than I think the next steps here would be maybe some some of us go offline What if I mentioned you didn't refer to that that uh, since you're having Also the api reference as part of the repository that correlates with whatever we're writing Yes, if we do an api reference, I agree they need to be correlated. Yes Yeah, but I having an actual api just like open messaging has under the same repo of examples for each Individual language different people can own different languages Mm-hmm Makes sense So what I like to do is suggest that we don't spend more time talking about this one I think there've been a lot of great ideas mentioned And we'll take some of us will take this one offline And if there's a pr that can come out of here that maybe Defines our release process or something like that We'll we'll submit a pr giving people something concrete to to look at and review But this has been good just for gathering ideas of what people are thinking in this space And that was really the main point of it All right The next topic is reference implementation. I think people have talked about or dance around us a little bit already Um, obviously we're hoping that people actually implement this for real in their products but Is there Is the is a reference implementation meaning sort of a shared open source thing around this First of all, does it even make sense and two is their interest in doing that? So let me We have interest to go help in that and throw some reference implementation Okay So that's wait a minute seems like more than one person's type. I can't tell Okay, so yes, there is a push for an implement reference implementation. Okay. Um So when we talk about reference implementation, are we talking about How may I understand so Lee since you said yes, or I think it was you to suggest You said a conformance tool, sorry But uh, yeah, I mean I think maybe back to that other sentiment that I was conveying before I think that um, could reference implementations make the spec more easily understood and potentially palatable by Others that may use that as a boilerplate for their own implementations. I think it Ulsters the project and makes adoption of it easier Um, the same kind of then for the conformance tool It also helps in terms of those that are implementing, but it also can be used to As a point of validation or to the extent that anyone anyone ever put the cloud events logo next to their Product that that they would maybe need to pass that conformance test And so there's probably a whole other set of concerns within there, but Yeah, conformance tool. I think that's that's a good one. I like that. Yeah, who's not in chargers? Eddie's um conformance test. I just to build on their experience maybe how they've gone through this. I know it's more complex But yeah, I'm part of that working group. So I could help answering questions around that if we have any They said my my company has a as a few things that we'd like to contribute for reference implementations. Um, I think that there's A few things we could we could make that would be that would help people use this right away A few tools for example some type of middleware that you could put in your aws lambda functions to convert aws events to this specification before it actually Enters your function. I think we could build a simple libraries and stuff to support that I think that would be a huge use case. We'd love to contribute that to the cloud events repository Also, we're looking at it some type of story with Kafka as well. I think that would be Very useful and add a lot of legitimacy to this effort And then of course we have our own event gateway project, which we've been working on for a long time Which is going to fully embrace the specification Okay, so austin, would you okay if I assign you an action item to open up an issue to start gathering thoughts around The scope and what and what a reference implementation would look like Yep. Yeah, we got it. We have several ideas excellent and lee. Is it okay if I tag you to with an ai to To open up an issue around what a conformance tool might look like Sounds good Okay So hold on a sec. So that's I've written it up under the conformance tool thing. Oh excellent. Thank you very much Thanks for facilitating so well Oh, we're almost out of time Thank you very much. Okay. So um Okay, I don't want to get this is a little bit talk about process a little again But I just want to start the discussion around at some point it seems like it'd be useful to Make sure that as we start adding new features to the specification There may be some bar other than we think it's a good idea before something gets in for example Other specs a lot of times what they'll do is say nothing No new feature goes into the spec until there are at least say two implementations that implement it So we could see how it looks people can play with it They can see it in action And actually see that it's real and it's not just some pilot's kind of thing that people are thinking of Um, I'm not sure we necessarily have to decide anything right now because the spec is so immature But I would like people to start thinking about whether we want to introduce that bar into our process at some point Because I do think as a lot of people have said in this call Code talks these days not just paper specs And so I think we should Try to get to the point where we have code behind this at some point to justify what we're doing for each a step of the way So let me just stop. I thought the bar is that it's within the agreed upon scope Yeah, that's that's that should be the bar. I mean and one thing I think we're jumping ahead to like transformative toolings like that I think the first thing we did in in the previous day in our work downs We should be creating libraries to help people create conformant Events so for all the different languages so whatever tooling or whatever language I have on the client Or on the server side for that matter that we we give them a language that implements the spec that this group contributes And that we host on our github And then the the issue of creating conformance tools Diminishes because they can describe the libraries that we endorse and we know are conformant to a certain version of the spec Yeah, so let's back for a sec. I think it was Austin who said the scope should sort of dictate what we put into the spec I'm not sure that's Fine grained enough personally, right because that won't necessarily help us to say oh someone wants to add a foo property And it's because it's something that they need in their specific implementation But no one else sees any value whatsoever How are we going to decide whether that goes in or not? Right because if only one person is ever going to implement that I'm not so sure we want that to go in So we need to have some sort of process we're going to use to decide whether that's where they That's our normal process They submit a pr for the thing and we evaluate or we evaluate as a group when we vote on it through our governance model And then we can we basically say that that property is not supported. It can be ignored And and doug api's need to be extensible So the the way we suggest that and I think also an austin spec will suggest that Attributes could be added so the api If an api that is limited to a set of attributes and we cannot add the Tributes later. We're probably doing something wrong and that's that's clear that you're Make everyone happy. They're always going to want to carry more data So you have to have allow for additional fields tags annotations to any given event that are domain specific Obviously, yes, it's really needs to be there. I mean just i'm just from experience. I've seen in other specs I've seen them have this bar in there and that's why I wanted to raise the question But whether we wanted to have that bar there and the sense I'm getting is as least as of right now We probably don't want to think about having that bar and that's fine. Well, actually, I completely agree Which was why I was working on the governance modifications and you know doug has opened an open an issue to specifically talk about Moving towards a process which would allow for More async normal kind of lgtm So I think this is really under that governance thing Some people think it's premature to get into that type of governance discussion So I think we should just you know keep talking about it offline and in issues Because I think it's actually super important right now. We are favoring This discussion over async participation and I think we're seeing the effects of that Because everything is about of this group that meets in live Instead of being a result of discussion on prs And so but I think everybody wants to move to more async stuff. So I think We're getting there. Yeah. Okay. Anyway, I just wanted to start having a discussion. I think I've got a good input there No resolution or no action taken from this at this point in time We are almost out of time and I just don't think we have time to jump into a new topic However, I do want to make sure I get people on the roll call is appropriate So let me just go through the list of attendees that do not have a star next to me and the I confirm they're on Jim Curtis. See you there. See you on the chat Jim Okay, what about Chris? I'm here. Oh, it's Jim. Thank you. Okay. Sorry Yep, and chris annachuk Yeah, I'm here. Sorry. I was muted No, not a problem and or it I don't think I've heard you yet. Are you on the call? Yeah I'm here Okay, is there anybody on the call who has not put their name on the attendee list and they would like to be uh noted All right Cool. I think I got everybody. All right. I think with that I think we're out of time Thank you guys very much and we'll talk again next week All right, and thank you. Thanks there for taking notes. Yeah, no problem. Thanks everyone. Thanks Okay, bye guys. Bye guys Thanks all