 So, Allison, is it normal to have video calls as part of the foundation's meeting system? I just was wondering, because I know there is lots of requirement basically to record this, that's why I'm recording this, but from an easiness standpoint, you know, basically to be able to communicate easier as a rather habit of a video calls, but it's going to be much trouble basically to get that recording and such. We can just keep doing it over text in this case. Just because the business of the merger has lots of details we have to talk about. Hi, Nate. Good morning. Jessica is saying he's on the calls, so maybe something I think is confused. Hey, Jacek. Yeah, sorry, I didn't see you at first, and that's why I was double checking with you. Okay, sounds good. I think we're ready to go. So, we have Allison and Nate as well on the call, and I'm casting my screen for the Etherpad for the UC just to get everyone in the same view of the agenda basically after today. So, Nate and Allison, I know you guys have probably been following what was happening, but basically we had an election period for the UC ending I think mid-February, and there was no nominations for it. We have been talking for a while to basically merge the UC and the TC into a common committee. Basically it encompasses all the responsibilities of both committees. There are some ongoing initiatives happening within the UC that we want still to continue on, but the consensus right now, and Jacek correct me if I'm wrong on that, is that we want to have this merger happen before the upcoming elections. We don't want them to run into the same situation again where there is no candidates coming up. So, we would like to have the responsibilities either moved over or some sort of arrangement to happen before the upcoming elections in August. That's correct, okay. There was an email centre basically about the discussion that we had and whether the impact on the bylaws on the merger. If I understand correctly, in order to merge UC and TC, it has to be a bylaws change, which means every representative of every company has also to agree to that, which will take, as the guys in the TC said, years to happen. Obviously no one wants that. We'd like to have it as much smooth as possible. That's why I'm trying today to basically, in this meeting, find out what the UC wants to transition. So basically what are the core responsibilities that we want to ensure that they move over to TC? To have them very clear that those are the parts where we want over in the merger committee. And if there is any sort of timeline, I know it might not happen today that we talk about all of this, but more specifically about the goals, what are the things we want to... Sorry about that. Any of you guys in Canada? It has been an amber alert since yesterday, and that's why it's buzzing right now. So the goals of the UC, we've talked about the goals of the UC before. We went through a cycle of basically pinpointing what is a UC, what does it do, and what are the responsibilities of it when Amy and the rest of the guys were around. And I think today we can probably talk about those specifically just to, as I mentioned, nail them down. So I'm not sure if you guys can see my screen, right? So I think I'm maybe able to just open this in a little bit. You may sec. Let's pull this up from different... I'll listen from the part of the bylaws. Can you maybe give us an idea on what needs to happen for a full merger, like from a structure perspective? Okay, that's fair. So I'll just paste right now the goals that we have found in the last round. They'll be under today's agenda. So those are the goals. So we found two goals during the last round of checks on the goals of the UC. From a charter is basically to represent user community, the board community, and the board that committed an Opus Tech Foundation and the rest of the committees as well. Keep track of Opus Tech deployment and usage. This is something that we have been working, I think, heavily with you, Alison, and the rest of the guys on the survey, other stuff like that. Help share user stories and experience. We felt that last time we haven't been doing this as much as we wanted, and working with user groups worldwide. And this is something also we wanted to, with a revamp of the ambassador program is to more encompass that. Right now, ambassadors specifically focus on user groups, but there is no outreach for the community from their perspective. So we wanted to have this happening as well as part of the ambassador program. And from the bylaws is basically manage the working groups that are not under the TC or the board of directors. I think this is an area that we might, and maybe you guys can correct me on that, we might downside on that. Basically, there is lots of groups who have been reaching out with two, but I don't think separation is now as much needed. In other words, under the new committee or the TC slash UC merger, the same working groups can be there and can be talked with through the common committee. It doesn't have to be specifically UC for that. And selecting the UC chair, which is basically internal governance. So how I view it is representing the other committee is a big thing. We need, under whatever committee that has, that gets out of this merger, that this needs to still exist. We don't want just to be a technical representation. We want also to be from a user space perspective that end users who use like the common open stack ecosystem, plus the actual deploy or the operators of the open stack. So we want this in the new committee. And this was something that I wanted the merger to basically put a very focus on that. Because this is the biggest part that the user committee basically does is representing of the user community. Does anyone have, sorry, go ahead. I think if you also mentioned an idea of having dedicated users and dedicated members under the common committee, the thought response for the UC or user committee community representation, but not basically labeled as user community members, but not on a different committee. So I think this also works as a good idea if that's because it just ensures that the community is well represented. And that it's not entirely a technical aspect of it operation as well as well as end users are also seen in that picture. Okay, so the second goal and you guys can interrupt me anytime if I'm going too long on a specific item, keep track of the open stack deployments usage. And this is, I think right now, mostly the survey rate. So it's an easy to transition the thing over to the committee. Okay, it makes sense. And it's mostly collecting information from the end user community rate. That makes sense. So I think, yeah, this item is easy to transition. Again, we have there's no way of how to merge without impacting the bylaws, which we basically have to maybe I'll go back and read this email and we can all think about more about what exactly are the streamlined options, the easy options to integrate because we would rather have this in the upcoming round instead of having another election and basically waiting for no members from the community to join. So the other thing is helping sharing user stories and experiences. Also, you might know better than me in this. So I don't think we have done much in that perspective. We want it to be more involved. And this is basically the purpose of the ambassador program event. But not actually, there hasn't been much done in the past few cycles. Is that fair to say, whatever buddy, whether it's, you know, TC slash UC merger, to be a hand in that to be a help handed that makes that much easier actually transition. It's if we have limited goals, which I see right now, mostly the representing the other community, it's easy to move that over to a new body without having lots of basically tales to finish. So lastly, this is something actually I wanted to be more the ambassador program to be involved in. And I think that you see also saw it as well in the last proposal we submitted for the ambassador program event is being more involved on keeping the community vibrant, basically reaching out the community, I would reaching and getting the community involved in events that we organize, plus also the user group. Maybe maybe I would say I wouldn't say mentoring or more of hands on if someone needs any assistance, they need to have someone from the foundation or the committees to basically assist with that. So I think this is something that we have been doing. So the ambassador program has been there and as well as the user groups as ops meetup and other stuff like that. So I think this needs to still be existence in whatever new body under whether it's user committee labeled members or the new body has to dedicate time for that. What do you guys think? So I think we're in sort of agreement that from the charter perspective, there's two goals we want to have a specific existence under the new committee, which are representing the community and working with the user groups worldwide, which is basically ambassador program slash any kind of other representation. But when it comes to keep it track of open stack deployment and usage, this can easily to transition either to the TC or to the foundation because it's already has been done in the past few cycles as well as the helping share the user stories and experiences. So those can be moved over much easier. We don't want we don't want this specifically to be under the new committee. As long as they are being done, we're happy about that. Is it fair to say that? Okay, that makes sense. Okay, so let's check the by laws. So yeah, so the managing the open stack working groups under TC or board of directors. So right now there is a limited set of that. And last, this round, actually, we had issues about correspondence, we would try to reach out to some of them and there was no much updates happening. That's why I think this needs to be amalgamated with the TC or whatever working groups exist. And it doesn't have to be a special handling of that. Basically that the UC does not need to manage those groups. That's at least how I see it. And those work groups can either be transitioned if they are still active, or if they're not active, they can just be closed. And if someone is interested now, they can apply again to open them. What do you guys think? Yeah, I think I have some discussions from that. So just one sec, I'm trying to pull that up. Yeah, I have individual emails from August on that. But yeah, I'll probably have to maybe, maybe for the next meeting, I'll just compile a list together of the last correspondence. And maybe I'll just reach out in the in this coming week to get an update on that. If we have had any updates since August, I'll just do that first. So I'll just reach out to the working groups, see if there's any kind of update, or if there's any activities, and compile a list for that hopefully by next week or the week after. And basically I reach out to that. Okay, that makes sense. Yeah, and then basically selecting the UC chair. So this is internal governance. I'd like us to continue to have a chair in this period. Just from a, I wouldn't say leadership perspective, but just for keeping things happening from discussions with the TC and such. So I'm not whether Jsuk or myself, anyone, it's just two of us. So we'll probably sort it out in the upcoming meeting if you're fine with that, Jsuk. I think from your time perspective, you know, can we dedicate time for that? And we can reach whoever wants of us. Make sense? Okay, so actually, that's went much faster than I thought. So okay, so now we have that I think two goals and an action item that representing the other community is a goal that we want to be transitioned over. And as well as the working with the user groups. And now also, we want to see if the working groups want to be moved over or there's no need to move them because they are inactive. So the thing I haven't actually I read maybe glimpse through it is the bylaws implications. But yeah, I think I'll have to go back and read of those bylaws implications. Because I don't want the UC to exist as an empty body. Rather, I know that bylaws seems a very long thing to happen. But maybe we'll discuss back on the TC channel on that. Ask what are the possible ways of merging with bylaws changing? And how fast can this happen? Last I heard it was few years. I really hope this is not true. Because the idea sorry, go ahead. Or maybe could move over those like those options and go through them and leave the body empty for until the bylaws are changed. Would that make sense? Okay, that's fair. Okay, so I think maybe for now I'll just go back and read about this and the rest of us can do the same that existing ones and I'll see it from the discussion on the TC as well how things are happening on that. And by coming week, I will be able hopefully to compile the list on the working groups. And we could move from there. Makes sense. Okay. Sam is good. Okay, thanks everyone for today. And yeah, again, sorry about the video call thing. I know it is just a bit of trouble getting it organized. But I'll get the recording out. Alison, is it good to share it with you? And then you can post it somewhere that everyone can reach or? Okay, sounds good. Okay. Thanks guys. You have a good one. Thanks, Nate. See you guys.