 Hey, Josh. Hey there, how are you doing? Good. How are you doing? Buried. Sorry, you know, the way events go, whether they're online or in person. Somehow everything for all of the events during like a six month period ends up being due at the same time. It does. Yes. I'm with you there. Yeah, I was just looking at the recordings for Kew County. You are due. Like, I don't know, like in a few weeks. Yeah, I better see what kind of help Carolyn needs. Yeah. Yeah, I think they were due like, well, I think they were due beginning of April, but I'm going to be, or maybe it was the end of March. Okay. It's due when I'm actually taking a week of holiday. So I'm going to have to do it before then. And it's a new talk, so I actually have to write it. Yeah. What are you doing to talk on? Evaluating business risk for cloud native projects. Oh, wow. Cool. Okay. Yeah. So I'll talk about things like company versus, versus foundation contributor risk, organization, that kind of stuff. I've been doing some internal presentations on that because I'm trying to get, you know, there are certain companies that have been more problematic than others. I'm trying to get people to think about the business risk of adopting their open source projects. But I've got, you know, I've got a great example, right? I've got the whole like elastic search cabana example of, you know, the licensing risk that can happen with company owned projects. But I've got some stuff to work with. Like I said, I've been doing some internal versions of this presentation. I just endorsing them. So I'm trying to get the new SIG storage track leads, SIG storage chairs for CNCF. But I did actually get a chance to work on, or start work on loosely, start thinking about the charter resource doc. So I threw that on the agenda. I haven't actually written anything yet. I started looking at it and then I just had a whole bunch of questions. And I was like, well, the meeting's today. So. Yeah. Okay. I wonder if anyone else is. Okay. Well, let's go ahead and get started. So. I guess one of my questions is. Let me give you some background. So I approached something like this. I like to, I like to just look at some examples. That's always how I start something. Let me see what other projects have done. I clicked through the GitHub repositories of every single CNCF graduated project. Searched for the word charter in that organization, GitHub organization. And came up with. Not much. What I came up with was several of the projects said that they follow the values in the CNCF charter. And Kubernetes and TicB had sync charter templates. But no, I, even for Kubernetes, I couldn't find like the overall. Charter for the whole org. Like for the whole, like Kubernetes as a whole, which I thought we had. And interestingly enough, several of the. Charter projects have been in into several references, or if you'll talk about, you know, the charter of this project isn't to do this or is to do this, but it's just like in conversation, but I couldn't actually find the charters. Which led me to the question. Is this. So, so is this something that we believe that CNCF projects need to have and it doesn't need to be something different from. So, so like, do we need this? Or is there something else I should be working on instead. If we do think we need it, like, I do think charters are important to define. If we do define it. You know, is it just, is it just something optional? And do we define it as like a template or series of templates? Or do we do just kind of an informational how to resource it? So I'm not shocked like I did with the leadership selection. I just want to get your ideas before I went any further on this because I was shocked that I couldn't any charters. You've graduated projects. I'm, I'm actually not shocked. I can't think, I can only think of a handful of open source projects I could name. That do have a formal written charter. Okay. The, I mean, like fedora has one. I don't know if that's a good idea. But, you know, fedora is partly because of the project's relationship with red hat. Kind of extraordinarily process oriented. Yeah. The. So I think what a situation, regardless of whether or not open source project should have, should have charters. If we're starting down this road, we're going to have to start from the question of why should they have a charter rather than starting from the question of what should be in it. Yeah. I think it's worth exploring because if you think about it, one of the biggest sets of arguments you have in an open source project is scope. And scope is one of those things that you define in a charter. Yeah. So, you know, so you actually kind of wonder how many, should we emerge this. Arguments that could have been dramatically shortened if the projects that had charters. That said what they did and what they did not do. Yeah. The, but. And the charter can be relatively informal. It doesn't part of the reason I suspect I'm not finding a. Charter is that if I look at the first few paragraphs of like, either the governance docs or the read me docs, I'm probably going to find something that looks a little bit like a charter. And so maybe. Maybe we don't need a. Charter charter, but maybe we just need, you know, to analyze what, what your project doesn't, doesn't do. Yeah. Although. I mean, that said, I can think of quite a few projects where the governance docs tell you who decides, but they don't tell you. Yeah. Anything about a mission, for example. Yeah. And our own templates. Do not have a section for mission and scope information. So, you know, one of the other questions about that is. Is whether or not we should be adding this to our own templates. Because if we think it's a good thing for open source projects for senior projects, their charters, then our template should reflect that. Whether it's a separate charter template or whether it's, we add a, you know, mission section to every governance template. Yeah. And. Now that you brought it up, that sounds like a really good idea. The. So, I mean, I guess one of the questions is, if, I mean, there's an obvious reason, because actually if you think about it, the charter for the CNCF. Is. One section on mission one sec. One section on mission. And one, you know, we've got mission practices, values. And then the rest of it is all governance. So even in the example of the CNCF. It's really more of a, this section should be at the beginning of your governance documents. Okay. So I think. Follow me. Yep. Totally. I think, I think what I'll do in this case is maybe, maybe start with a resources doc that outlines why it's important to define kind of the mission, the values, the. And then you can find the charter for your, for your project. And then once I have that resource doc, we can look at how we might want to incorporate something into the templates. Yeah. Okay. I mean, that sounds great, you know, and let me know when you've got some kind of draft up, because I can add some of the pragmatic stuff like. Deciding what your scope is at the point. Yeah. Waiting to decide what your scope is until you receive a PR is a very expensive way to do things. Yep. The. Okay. Do we want to do it as to, do you have any preference? Google doc hack MD. I think if I'm collaborating on the text, probably wait to PR it until later, unless you want to, I can. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. As we've already witnessed with say. Where, where it's like, you have to check all the tabs and get hub to find all the feedback. None of it. It's not all collected in one place. No, it's the pain in the ass. Yeah. So. The. So annoying, you know, years. It's a couple of years ago. And I, back when we, the Kubernetes project was actively talking to, to get hub about things we would love to see in GitHub. They made noises that they were going to add. Some sort of. I, you know, doc markup comment thing. But what we got was GitHub discussions, which just are not adequate. Yeah. Agreed. Probably it was technically too hard. Although I don't know if HackMD can do it. I mean, the HackMD code base is not large. Really? Yeah. It's, it's based. It's open source code. And it's a pretty small project. So. Well, do you want to, do you want me to create it as HackMD or Google doc? I'm going to either one. Like I said, either one. The advantage of HackMD is, you know, it's a bit more accessible and you don't have the kind of permissions issues, et cetera. The advantage of Google docs is you actually get notified when somebody comments and your stuff. So. Yeah. So either way works. Okay. Get a side later. Yep. Okay. Yeah, it sounds good. And then we'll do that. And I will look into getting. I mean, I'll get the sub projects thing through the way it is right now. And then I will look at getting a. You know, and one of the things we have to decide is right because, because we actually, the CNCF is a good template for the sort of complete version. Right. Because you have mission. Practices and values. But that does feel like a little much for most open source projects. Yeah, yeah. The. Like I feel like for most open source projects, mission would probably be. Well, mission and scope is actually honestly. More, more where I see projects falling down. I don't know about you. Like what's this project for. Like, oh my God, I mean, that also the other benefit of mission is for advocacy. Yeah, because I cannot tell you the number of times. You know, in my role at red hat where I go to one of the projects we sponsor and I look at the webpage and I say, okay, first of all, tell me what is this project for? Yeah. What does it do? Why does it do it? Yep. And. And then scope, the source of endless, you know, pull. Scope scope is actually where I see most of the, most of the problem. Yeah. The, and that way you can have your arguments about scope. And have them actually be about scope rather than under the guys of arguing about somebody's code quality. Yeah, exactly. The, the tough part is going to be finding some good examples. Because people are going to need them since this is not. Currently a regular practice. Yeah. And the problem is it's hard to template. Because it's going to vary so much according to. What the project is. Well, I'll look around BM's. Collection of useful. Stuff like this useful governance docs for projects and see if I can find some examples. Yep. I'm also ping Vicky. And see if. She can recommend anything in particular in her resource. Library that. Well, Vicky and the foundations list. Because people might have. Good examples there. Okay. I can also ask on the to do, to do group list. Yep. Would be the other place. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I've been buried in events land. So if we go over. My issues in PR as you will see, they have made no progress. Because I have been buried. Why was showing nothing open? Oh, because it's not, it's not there. It's in the templates. This is just a contributor strategy. Tag. They're tagged as governance. You can see the. For with the label working group governance. If you look at the URL. You see what I mean? Nothing in our PRs is tagged. Oh, it used to be. No, I should actually go through and tag all these. Whoa. And what on earth is this? Anyway. Okay. Yeah. And otherwise I'll rip through this actually. Here. Cause I realized actually I've not been getting littered on PRs, but that's because none of them are tagged. So. Yeah. I don't see any new issues. No, it's just the, our general slog of adding lots of new content. Yep. The, I have a bunch of notes for stuff like. You know, Hey, you have to accept the IP policy of the CNCF. What actual concrete steps do you have to take? Given that I've done that particular dance five or six times now. The. Including discovering why I owed. Domains are problematic. So it turns out the IO TLD. Has very few rules. Also a bad history. Yep. So. Yeah, I was talking to somebody. Most of the big like. Financial companies actually block the dot IO domain. So anything on a dot IO site, they can't get to unless they talk to their IT department and get specific sites white listed. This came up in a group call the other day and one, one person who works. Either a financial institution or relatively conservative company. And another person chimed up and they were like, Oh yeah, us too. I was like, I've never heard of this. But apparently because they have no rules, they're super problematic and there's all kinds of inappropriate stuff on the dot IO. So I'm not going to register any more projects at dot IO, but in the meantime, I have projects that. You know, I have to go through the steps of actually moving to something else. The. So. We'll see. So, so no, no new issues. No real progress on issues. It's funny how we had this whole. Maintainer question. For the first, you know, six months of the sick existing and now nobody cares anymore. That's right. Well, the problem is one of the problems that we have here is that and impartial observer can actually look at how an individual project is run. And make an evaluation as to whether or not. They are actually open to. Contributions and control beyond the original sponsoring. Entity. Yeah. But defining a set of rules for that as hard. It is. Yeah. Absolutely. Because. How projects are run varies a lot. And, you know, people have incentives to make things look better than they are. But I mean, frankly, it's, it's also something that can be just hard to execute on because in cases, there's just not really anybody else interested. And how do you find other people who are interested to get them to contribute and then how do you grow that into more contributors? And it's just, yeah, it's a, it's a hard problem. So I, I totally feel for the projects that are struggling with it, but I, I do think it's. I do think it's important. Yeah. Well, in the, the, I guess the core question, obviously the core sort of. Argument that they had around that is. You know, what about projects that are successful from a user perspective, but not successful from a contributor perspective. Now the current CNCF stances those projects should not advance to graduate. Yeah. But there are definitely people who disagree. The. That's part of the promise of putting it under the, the CNCF, right? Is that it's no longer companies project. Yeah. And you can't continue to treat it like your company's project and get all the benefits that you get from being under the CNCF. It doesn't, it doesn't work that way. And it's, it's hard work to get other companies. In some cases interested in your project. And you need to put in that work if you want the, if you want the CNCF graduated benefits. So. Anyway. But there was a proposal about three months ago to change the multi-organization to something else. But that proposal was never sustained by a vote of the TOC. So I'm going to assume that it is no longer a thing. And particularly given that we have a new TOC now. Yeah. And, and, and, and the. Creating a clarifying document with examples of, you know, how you can be multi-organization. I is still in our to-do list. The. So. Okay. Cool. Yeah. Okay. That's about it. Yeah. I think we're, I think we're probably done. I will object. It's six 30 here. I can go have dinner and a martini. Enjoy. I, right. Five of my teeny, that's the end of my evening, but. Oh, it's six 30. Yeah, but it could be the end of your evening. So. Right. All right. Thank you. Good night. Bye.