 I think what I wanted to discuss quickly briefly with your folks is your thoughts on how to move things forward with, you know, whatever scope we're trying to achieve with the working group proposal, notably the white paper, something that I'm interested in, but beyond that, how to, you know, it gives sense to the chaos and during effort we're trying to convey. I guess it's, you know, it's quite crystal clear that it's been a bit quiet, but it's also a very new subject, except for those people who've been doing that, like maybe like you folks, well, Michael anyway. But at some time, I think it's exciting because it means we can actually engage in setting up the ground for, you know, for the rest of the industry when they catch up. But I was wondering, you know, well, we plus it would probably be back. Yeah, so I just was wondering your thoughts on that and, you know, where your man's at on that subject. So is it possible? So I think that white paper is obviously the way forward, getting eyes on it is important. Maybe maybe it's worthwhile. I guess the core contributor, like we send an email out to all the core contributors saying, Hey, look, we want to try and finalize this shortly. We put some effort in the next couple of weeks to get it into a more finished state. And then CNCF can tweet out and publicize a little bit more widely that we're trying to sort of finalize this. Please feel free to come to this meeting. And then we'll sort of put it into, I can't remember what they call it in the IETF, but like a like pre close closing call or something. Yeah, where you sort of make final comments and you've got like a deadline to make changes. I think that's fair. I think we need to that little push for the next two or three weeks, whatever it takes, but certainly a fairly short deadline for people to make their mind whether or not they are ready to contribute. If they have anything to contribute, I wouldn't want the white paper to reflect only just either my mind or a few other people. It would be wrong on that note. At the same time, I'm wondering, all the comments I've made, I'm really wondering if I'm actually on the right track anyway. So I'm going to, I'm quite looking forward to commands, feedback, not necessarily on my grandma style, but more on the, if we've got the right notes, because we don't want to be normative, it's fairly tricky to be fair because we don't want to look like this is the only way and that's the standard way of doing care centering. At the same time, we can't be too high level and just be basically useless as a white paper. So I have found, I'm not versed in writing white papers, so certainly I would welcome feedback from the community on that front. Definitely. So I like the battle plan of saying buckle up and if you could actually make some time to read it and make comments, that would be beautiful. Hey, this is Deepak here from Capital One. So I know, like I've been trying to contribute, I sent a message to Chris and then got the details. So I will make time this week and hopefully before this September long weekend here, I will add my contributions there and then probably we can do a review in the next meeting. Thank you very much, Deepak. I think it's very welcome that we have different voices because there are various offensive flavors, but certainly different texts on what care centering is all about. It couldn't be just Netflix way or my way or LinkedIn way. It needs to be to reflect the diversity of the landscape definitely. So the more people contributing, the stronger it will be. So it's welcome, definitely. So at Capital One, we do practice chaos engineering seriously like I'm from the identity. So in various departments, we do at different levels, but we try to do all internal presentations about resiliency and chaos engineering, but right now I'm working with my communications group to see what can be shared. So I'll also come forth with some presentations going forward. It's pretty good. I did submit a proposal for the QCon that's happening in December. I guess last time Chris was mentioning that. I did submit a proposal so waiting for the results. I think. Aside from that, I think I wonder if there is a value in trying to reach out either through examples, maybe we've done some examples online on this meeting and they've been recorded. So that's great. But I wonder how far we could go with I don't know what would be the shape, but more success stories like you folks have told, but maybe written because I think the White Paper could welcome alongside it some success stories examples like I wouldn't say blog posts, but similar to that just to enrich the thing, not just say, well, this is just theory. It needs to be shown that it's practice and used elsewhere. I've actually got a blog post coming out on InfoQ. Sometimes soon. They haven't told me exactly when. That actually details some of our success stories. Brilliant. I think we do need that kind of thing. The Grammy folks have done quite a good job of summarizing and telling the story and we need more things like that. We've tried as well with Koseki, but maybe we could suggest and I will suggest to the Slack channel whether or not we could create like a repository of a page somewhere saying just listing those articles that would be easy for people to look through. One last thing for me anyway, for me, I wonder is there a value in reaching out to other working groups and perhaps having a discussion with them like I'm thinking serverless because it's hot and it's fitting in my opinion, but could be anything else like storage obviously or otherwise. Saying, well, could we try to come up with a story of chaos entering in serverless or chaos entering in anywhere else just as an example of this can be applied and this is a good look with other working groups. I wouldn't want the chaos entering to live isolated or in silo basically, but maybe it's too soon just pushing the idea out there. I think it's at least worth while reaching out like there's nothing to lose. Colton did mention in the gremlin chaos engineering Slack that they are working on serverless features as well. Sweet. So there is at least some thinking there but I don't have any more information than that. I think it's just that it to me anyway, this is a personal opinion. Obviously, to me chaos engineering is more a federating kind of practice than practice on its own that lives in its own world. So I like the idea to say, well, chaos engineering is not just a silo that you practice aside from anything else. It's really more federating than that. But I'd like to demonstrate that. So if the group feel like it goes beyond the need of this working group, I'll probably take that on my own and just do a blog post of something like that. So that's where I stand. Hopefully, they will pick up but we all have jobs and holidays and stuff like that. So it's a slow process but having participated to IETF working groups in the past, I know it's still anyway. I've definitely heard that. I haven't gone to IETF yet. And back in the days, it was mostly on emails. So you needed patients to read long emails and just make sense of what it is. So I'm used to it. Right. I don't want to keep the meeting much longer. I don't know, maybe just quickly, have you folks been working on something interesting on chaos engineering inside your companies or elsewhere, whatever, just out of curiosity for myself? I know for us, we've been focusing most of our attention on a Chrome extension where from the Chrome extension, we can enable and disable specific backends and see what happens when the page loads. That's most of our focus at the moment. That's pretty cool. Hi, this is Aditya from Under Armour. Hello. Yeah, we have been using Gremlin and we are starting out on game days. So I did one this past week, which we'll probably post a blog post on. So this is in collaboration with Gremlin. So we're starting out with microservices and some of the Kubernetes stack and trying to game day those things. And we'll be blogging out about these things as well. That's what's going on at Under Armour. If you're on the Slack channel, do push your article on there so that we can read it. I'd be interested. Sure, absolutely. Thanks. What about you Deepak? Have you been busy, busy on chaos engineering? Yes, we have had a few game days done and we actually have recurring chaos tests running in our production. We started off with simple scenarios easy to stops. And then we've had a bunch of learnings with alert tunings and making sure our playbooks are exercised well and all that. So yeah, we've been on the way and we use our internal product. And my team has been contributing to some new scenarios as well, creating network disruptions and things like that. So that's my experience so far. But we are thinking of chaos engineering as a way of making sure the resiliency design we put in works. So it's hand in hand. So that's the practice we are getting at to improve the overall site resiliency here. Sweet, sweet. Well, on my on our site, we've been so I work on the chaos tool kit, if you've heard of it, chaos tool kit open source project. And we've been busy on two fronts. First of all, we have quite a few contributions now on some drivers like on AWS, most specifically in Kubernetes. So we've been busy, you know, just, you know, try, try ging and unlink all the PRs and stuff like that. So it's been quite awesome to see people, the AWS driver for instance is mostly community driven. It's just because I don't use AWS myself is this just I wouldn't I wouldn't presume what to test or what to fail or whatever. So it's so awesome to see the community come in with ideas about what's the right thing to actually go in and look for and try to break or, you know, or just push over. So it's been quite awesome on that front. And on the other front, I've spent quite a lot of my time for the past two or three months, working on the chaos serve, which is project we're going to put out in September. It's like the, the UI on top of chaos tool kit. So it's an open source project where it's a front, you know, web frontend for bundling your, you know, collaboration on top of chaos tool kit. So you can, you know, create organization and stuff like that. And, and just deal with all your efforts of chaos engineering through the chaos toolkit that way. So it's really a collaborative portal on top of the chaos tool kit. So we, we're quite excited about, you know, putting it out there. It's hopefully it will pick it up. And, and I'm sure I'll be happy if you have some feedback on it at some point. I will be great. And that's about it really. That's good. That's good to hear we've been busy. All right. I really don't want to, you know, I know it's probably early or whatever it's time it is. So I'd rather leave you and go ahead and enjoy your coffee than, you know, go you with more details. I don't know if you have anything else to say to the. Hey, I just had one question. So you're talking about the chaos toolkit, right? Yes. So what is the vision for that? Is that going to be like, you know, like part of the landscape where are we expecting everyone like who is just starting to start with the chaos toolkit and contribute or what is the vision of that? So if you ask me, I would be pleased with that being the main lead, you know, lead developer of the project. I have no idea what the CNCF idea is. We haven't put forward the chaos toolkit as a project. If, you know, hopefully after the white paper is done, the group will remain and continue and figure out if there is a project that can be set as a proper CNCF project for chaos and ring. I have no idea. We would love you know, to push it for push it, not in a negative way, but certainly we are proud enough and we think it deserves, you know, a discussion on that. So chaos toolkit is just an open source project. People can start there or start anywhere else definitely. I see. Okay. Makes sense. Right. Actually quickly, Michael, I don't know if I've asked or if we've asked that question before and sorry for that, but I can't recall exactly what status of the various tools you've created internally in terms of being used as well. They seem to be very specific to LinkedIn, you know, basically way of working. So I'm not sure they like it. We've got salt modules to do like the on host chaos engineering, which we may open source at some point in time. The application level stuff. I don't really see being open sourced in saying that some of the components in the transport transport framework, which is called wrestling, those changes that were made for the chaos engineering purposes, they are an open source. I know Tammy tweeted them out a few months ago. So some of that's there. But I'm not sure how much of the magic is there that you actually need. So I don't think the whole thing is going to be open sourced, but maybe the host level stuff. And it's not like we're doing anything super fancy. Like if I had some time, I could probably go and contribute my own modules on this on a on salt. But yeah, that makes sense. Okay. All right. Miko or my co I'm sorry if I don't want to make a mistake here. We were talking about, you know, what we've done on chaos engineering recently. And, you know, I'd be pleased to hear your voice here if you've done anything. Yeah, it kind of skipped my turn. So I assumed you just want to wrap up. We have been working on powerful seal, making it a little bit easier to use. We actually got a very gifted intern who ended up working on that. So there's a few features that are currently in review on the repo. And there are all many around actually making it easier for the learning curve to start to have something set up quickly on your Kubernetes cluster. So that you can start seeing what happens in a kind of semi automatic mode. So there's this semi automatic mode that reads some metrics like CPU RAM and tries to kind of guess what might be interesting to kill and then kills it for you. There is a web interface that makes it easier for you to actually see what's going on there if you don't want to stare at logs in the command line. And there's some other snow filters that also make it easier to kill the different pods. Oh, yeah. And an interactive mode that you can deploy that if you don't have like command line access to your cluster or you don't want to give to someone else. And there's also UI kind of interactive mode that shows what you can kill and you can kind of click and select and filter and see what happens there. So yeah, that's kind of what we've been doing. And we based it mostly of the experience that we had when we were kind of giving the tool to the other teams in the company. And they were struggling a little bit at the beginning to come up with good policies on what to destroy and why and how. And yeah, so this kind of learning curve is the biggest topic right now. That's interesting because it seems to me that a lot of companies are building their own, you know, tools to do that. And now there are various, you know, ways, you know, reasons probably because it started quite a while ago and there was nothing else or maybe because they have specific needs that no other tools can provide. But I wonder how we're going to settle that. Not necessarily, I'm not talking from a business perspective, you know, even from a standard way of doing things. I wonder if care centering can actually standardize. I would love if we could find something to standardize on, like even like reportings. Sometimes I wonder if we could, for example, even create events using like cloud events just to say, well, this is happening, this is happening, blah, blah, but I find that interesting that for now we're very much in a stage where, you know, we all trying on our own way. And it's quite interesting to see and I wonder where it's going to settle, whether or not, like for example, you're mentioning things that are basically sort of an intelligence, you know, looking at the state and making decisions. And with the chaos toolkit, we've been more, well, you, it's more like almost like a test driven in a sense where you write something state static and just hammer the stem that way. And that's it. So yeah, I don't know if you have any thoughts on that, on the way you see the. Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. I think that, you know, on one hand, it's very tempting to try to settle for one standard. But usually what happens is that you have 10 standards, then you try to settle for one and you have 11 standard. And also the CNCF approach, I think is quite nice in the fact that they don't try to choose one technology or one particular tool over others. They kind of serve the different ones that are potentially competing and serve slightly different use cases. So I think that, you know, realistically, we just have to kind of see how this all evolves and where it goes and probably merge some things later on. Yes. That's my thinking at the stage. Yeah, I will associate the fact that people are, you have people like you folks doing it already. And then there are many people who are not even at stage of resiliency in their mind or in their design. So it's such a stretch. All right. It's exciting times. All right. Well, if that's all from any, you know, any of you, I'm happy to just stop the call and get it sharp ready. All right. Cool. Thanks for that. All right. Thanks. Have a good one. Bye. Thank you very much. Bye bye. Bye bye. Thank you.