 All right, good morning everyone. I know that we've got some regrets this morning, but we'll check in and see who's here. Give it a few more minutes for everyone to come on in. Hey, good morning. This will be our TOCIG chairs meeting, and we'll give everyone a few minutes to come on in. All right, seeing lots of folks online. I think we can probably go ahead and get started. We have Liz on regrets to do so. I will be kicking us off here, our normal antitrust policy notice. Meeting minutes. You've all made it here, so excellent. I've got attendance on the back channel, so over in the public working duck and all as well. This is our TOCIG chairs meeting, so our comment today is really being able to review the sandbox proposal review, have a conversation about what's going on around how to handle existing proposals, kind of reviewing existing branding, talking about public comment period, and if we should change that. And the last piece is annual reviews are currently out there. So I'll be watching Chad if there's any questions in here, so we'll kick this off. I know there's been a lot of discussion around this, and I know that Liz is leading a lot of this, but I'd like to be able to hear from other folks around the sandbox proposal. I know there's been a lot of discussion, so open floor for the moment. I would really love to be able to hear from CIG chairs on this one as well. Hi, Amy. Hey. So one thing, one concern that I have, and I don't know if it's a problem, but just a concern is that the period of time between whenever you submit and when it will be reviewed, does that become longer? I mean, could it be months before you get reviewed? So that's my, that's my question. Maybe that's, you can ask her questions, but that was one question. No, actually, that definitely is a question in here. There is a comment in here about like TOC is reviewing spreadsheets quarterly, and I believe there is a proposal to be able to change that as well, just drop down through the rest of the slides. So like minimum two weeks comment, but probably not like the maximum of like two months in here. I'm not sure if anyone else has any other pieces around that particular. I'll move back over towards the sandbox proposal. Yes, go ahead and unmute. So, so I guess I had a general question in terms of the TOC's ability to, to implement the proposal as is. So, you know, if, if we're moving to, while I completely get the scenario that we want to, we want to reduce some of the overhead and maybe even reduce some of the bar for joining sandbox and, you know, streamline and simplify the marketing side of things, which have always been a bit of a challenge. Moving away from the sponsorship, which, you know, has been a challenge to get talk and user to get talk members to sponsor a project is probably something that needs to be fixed. However, getting all of the TOC to vote on the project kind of assumes that the entire TOC is going to be aware and do a little bit of research into the project. And I'm, and I'm wondering if this proposal puts an undue burden on the TOC since all the projects will move out of the SIGs and the TOC won't have the benefit of, you know, maybe even reviewing any presentations that might have happened in a SIG. I think that the discussion that we had was that they would be, there would be presentations linked on the form and we would review those and they would be nice if those were a SIG presentation, but they didn't have to be. So, so I think that, because I think a lot of people obviously would still really value reviewing a SIG presentation about a project, but it was not kind of strictly a requirement. But I mean, I certainly would intend to review all the presentations that were on the form. I think the other thing to, oh, sorry. Go on. I was just saying, I think the other thing that we're really aiming for here is to really systematize the input so that it's much easier for each TOC member to scan effectively a spreadsheet and sort of ensure that the MVP criteria have been met. And if they want to dig deeper, that's fine. But I think that the part of the goal is to ensure that people can vote with really only the MVP criteria from the form. To give you the wrong, you know, the whole concept of systemizing that and streamlining that process is obviously, you know, a big, a big bonus and a big tick box. But given that the TOC is probably going to be voting on, you know, some of the, some of the more abstractive criteria that form part of the sandbox, like is it a good fit for the CNCF and, you know, how does it interact with other CNCF projects and other things like that? Then that's probably hard to do without digging a little bit deeper, because the MVP data in that form probably is just going to be a high level bit of information. I was just kind of making the point that, you know, absolutely systemizing and collecting that base level of information is fantastic. And that was kind of the basis of the templates that we had sort of created in the sandbox process that we had just agreed two months ago. So, you know, it's absolutely the right thing to do. I'm just wondering if we're kind of, you know, recreating the TOC bottleneck that we were looking to avoid when we were pushing some of those presentations to the stake in the first place. Yeah. I think you have a point, Alex. I, if you look at the comments on the proposal, I actually called out a couple of criteria there that I find are overly subjective and require sort of deep evaluation. Like one of them was, do we feel that this project is on a good trajectory? And I'm like, oh, that's at least 15, 20 minutes of argument right there per project. So hopefully we're not finished with that. The trajectory one is one that particular I have not seen answered. Because I do think that that brings up exactly the problem you're pointing out. And to add to this point, I think it's kind of just delaying the inevitable where you need to do some checks and give diligence anyway. And part of this can already be at that stage of letting people into sandbox. Of course, you can argue a lot about trajectory, but you can argue a lot less about, is this already in place at least on a baseline level? Like they just need to have a governance and that just needs to have certain provisions. And that's done. So you don't have to go as much about gut feeling on any trajectory. I have a question here, but governance is a higher level, not sandbox level requirement. So projects can come in without having a documented governance today. So to say they would need that as part of sandbox would be adding a criteria, right? Yes. Yeah, for good trajectory, I was thinking more stuff like contributions are increasing rather than nobody's actually written anything for this project for six months. I was assuming that was more of the concern. This is something that is very easy to validate the amount of contributions. I wouldn't be concerned about that point in particular. Well, isn't the CNCF staff going to do a light amount of due diligence as part of this process to look for those kinds of things? Yes. And that's part of what we can help kind of outline here, what level want to be able to actually go towards. And Josh's point of how do we define what a good trajectory is is kind of more where I think the conversation is. Yeah, although I think also we had a bit of a discussion of this in the TSE and we at some level decided we didn't necessarily, we weren't going to be super like the question was, do we only want to admit projects that we think are headed into incubation? And I think the statement that we said was we wanted to admit projects that were feasible, but not necessarily that we believed would get to incubation, right? So we wanted to sort of change the bar from being we believe that this project will get to incubation, meaning kind of we believe in it, we evaluated it versus like, well, it could get to incubation. There's nothing that blocks it from getting to incubation. It's a lower bar obviously, but it also sort of simplifies the criteria because it doesn't require as much analysis effectively and opinion. So there was a there was a strong effort to kind of try and divorce the opinion from the process to try and simplify this. And if you lower the bar and if you don't have any any any actual assessment as part of the process, isn't it even more hand wavy and basically subjective? Of course, you need some hard process. No, no, actually, I mean, I absolutely agree that there is hard. I mean, I just wrote I wrote the form or I wrote the draft form. And so there's things like, give us a link to your code of conduct, right? Like, that's that's a non negotiable. You don't have a link to a code of conduct, you don't get into sandbox, you know, things like that. So things like, you know, give us a link to your roadmap. Things like that are absolutely non negotiable. But I think that the goal was basically to get it to a place where it really could, you know, I mean, in a spreadsheet form, you could scan through it in the space of an hour and vote on, you know, as many projects are as are asking that month, for example. Because the current process is too time consuming, frustrating for people. And I mean, on all sides. And also, we can appear from the outside to be sort of subjective. And so I think that we wanted to resolve, try and resolve all of those things. And also at the same time, sort of created different brand for sandbox so that so that admission into sandbox wasn't seen as such a high stakes thing at some level, right? Because I think there's a lot of swirling concerns around like, you know, sandbox isn't supposed to get marketing, but people say we're now part of the CNCF and it's been tricky. And so we wanted to kind of resolve that potential challenge as well. So that's an interesting segue to my next question, which was you know, for years since its existence, the CNCF is kind of very focused on creating this brand of these are curated projects. And we're making sure that there's a lot of deep diligence. And you know, there's been a lot of branding around that. And even if we, even if we, you know, if we reduce the bar and put more sandbox projects in, that's, that's great. But I, I don't think it's necessarily within the CNCF's purview to necessarily control how the marketing happens. I mean, we can make sure that we don't do things like, you know, give slots to sandbox projects to keynote addresses at KubeCon or something, right? And that's something that the CNCF can control. But I, I don't think that anything we can do or suggest is actually going to necessarily control how projects portray this to the, to the wider public, right? I mean, you know, they're going to be entitled to, to issue a statement of fact, which is we've been accepted as a sandbox project. Correct. And, and, you know, and that's going to mean something to most people. So no, I get it. And part of the reason to change the branding and obviously we'll have to wait and see, right? I mean, because like the, you know, the debate effectively, the two sides of the debate come down on, you could do a ton of due diligence early and, and really not have sandbox effectively or have sandbox be very restrictive. And for the reasons you suggest, or you can have a wide open and try and change the branding, right? And so we're going to change the CNCF sandbox branding to be more sort of informal in appearance. And if people want to put it on their website or whatever, they need to put CNCF sandbox, not just CNCF, you know, not just CNCF logo in the word sandbox. At least that was the proposal. So I totally get it. And I mean, we, I've been through this a few times in other contexts. It's very, very hard to do, right? It sort of provide a forum for collaboration and for vendor neutral intellectual property, while also sort of having it be meaningful. This is our latest iteration, I guess, and, and we'll keep adapting. Because it wasn't, you know, sort of was having challenges before too, having all the same challenges before. And then also people were kind of, you know, people were feeling overwhelmed with a number of things and people are feeling like their projects are getting listened to and things like that. And maybe the solution here is to have another project here. Whether that would be, I think in part what we're considering is the entrance and exit criteria at each of the tiers. Maybe four tiers is too much to hold in people's mind or maybe that doesn't help with the different designation. I guess in part I wonder if, and in part I start to wonder maybe about the value of the SIGs, if, if for in part not to try to help eliminate some time burden of project review. And if the sandbox is, I think, you know, to Alex's point that there is some implicit marketing that, that sort of happens with the affiliation. It can be made more crisp or kind of as is being proposed made more separate. But without that, is there, when you contrast to some, something like a working group inside of the SIG as a vendor neutral place to seed a project, what's the value of the sandbox in the face of something like that, I guess. Yeah, I feel like I'm monopolizing conversation. So if anybody else wants to speak, please let me know where there's a hand. Oh, you're doing great. I think while, since you have to see this call and others care a lot about the nuances of all of this and also put quite a bit of thought into the details, we kind of need to acknowledge it by and large, no one else cares. So either it's seen CF or it's not seen CF, like there is a certain distinction between the levels and such, obviously, but either it's within CNCF or it's not. And if even if you have like 10 levels, it doesn't matter. It is a CNCF project and that's already carries some branding. It carries some weight in that in and as of itself will be a goal for some people or some projects. You can't legalize this away. It's just impossible short of funding something else, which is below CNCF. Yeah, and we discussed that actually, we discussed sort of having an alternate like open collaboration federation or foundation or whatever. And what we basically decided was that even if you did it, everybody would just come try and join the CNCF anyway. And so he's like, it wouldn't actually do any good. And so we were like, well, we may as well try this. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting having a second one. You can maybe play games like having a silly name, for example, Playground was suggested back when the sandbox process was established to have a less serious name. Of course, if you're a playground project as opposed to sandbox, it's even worth less. But beyond that, at some point, you just have to accept that being part of CNCF carries CNCF branding period. I also want to comment about what is the purpose of the SIG thing from a while back, because I really want to make sure that everybody knows that the SIGs actually really are quite valuable and play a role in the due diligence for incubating projects, as well as helping shape where we want to go and find projects. I think one of the things we're talking about here is there's a difference between projects coming to us and then also us going to projects. I think we want to make sure that we are curating the right projects into the CNCF, but at the same time, there's just this giant wave of projects that want to come try and join. So I don't want this to be seen at all as like a, hey, we don't appreciate or don't value what the SIGs are doing. So by design, especially in this group already means that you're basically having to have domain specific experts in that one area group, whatever. So that in and of itself is already a plus. So I do have a comment on the Sandbox project. I like the new style because Sandbox, you know, I've read the docs on it. It's for experiments and early stage projects. And a lot of that, you're not going to have things worked out and a lot of experiments do fail. And it's great to give people the space in a vendor neutral environment to do that. In fact, that's actually a good way to brand it as the CNCF. You can say, I'm CNCF on this project. We're vendor neutral. Come let's work together on solving this crazy experiment we're trying to work out. I like that. I mean, we talked about yeah, that's why we wanted to try and remove the thing about there wasn't necessarily a path to incubation to allow for failures that go off in different directions or do whatever afterwards. So that brings up another question on this, which is that it's always been policy that once a project is contributed to the CNCF, it never, there's no takebacks, you know, as in the project never gets spun off by the CNCF. Now, experimental has two senses. One is, you know, this project is an experiment. It might not be useful. It might not be possible, whatever. But there's also, it might actually be a good project isn't a good piece of technology, but not actually suitable for the CNCF for whatever reason. You know, doesn't work with other cloud native technologies, can't sort out governance issues, etc. I think if we're sort of widening the funnel for new sandbox projects coming in, we're going to get a lot more of the question of well fit for CNCF didn't work out for that project. What do we do now? I kind of feel like that needs to be addressed as a follow on to this proposal in that we have some method of spinning off projects that are viable as open source projects, but turn out not to be suitable for the CNCF from sandbox. I mean, the code is always there. The only thing you can't take back away from the next foundation is the brand name, which in that case may not be very valuable anyway. You know, changing the name of your project is a traumatic experience in a lot of cases. It can be a major obstacle in sort of development trajectory. We actually talked about this a little bit. Our understanding is that everything that matters in terms of naming and trademark is actually owned by the Linux Foundation as opposed to the CNCF. And so that actually does mean that if there's a better home in a different part of the Linux Foundation, or if we did find that we needed to create some other kind of foundation around it, that should be feasible legally with no renaming or anything like that. You know, also, I think we talked about, given that the contribution is the movement is one direction or it's actually a really good incentive to prevent abuse. I'm going to see if there's other comments that aren't coming from chat. Nope. Thanks. Mostly quiet in chat. Anyone else? Lee, I know that you've had some comments further in. Yeah, random thoughts. Yeah, I guess to Brendan's point, which is, I think, was probably self-evident, even unspoken, is that getting this, like, this is really hard, or like getting this right is really hard. Like, whether it was one level, whether it was just in or out, you know, that's another way of kind of addressing a part of this, or if it was five levels, that both of those, any which way you cut it, there can be pros and cons to the approach. Some of those pros and cons shift in their weight over time as the CNCF itself evolves and the project within them evolves. So I thought I would say that maybe alleviate a little bit of pressure on all of this. I guess from my part, I probably lean toward being a little fearful about whether or not we're achieving the desired outcome, whether or not we're like, hey, I consider that there are some of the entrance and exit criteria that do need to be refined and changed. I think for the most part, I was mentally on board with the criteria being going kind of the other way, being up-leveled, or the bar being slightly harder than it being removed. To the extent that it was slightly harder, that didn't necessarily detract from the work that the other projects that are in the sandbox today have done to get there. In some respects, the harder the bar, the more valued the title, the label, the association, if I can make a quick analogy to martial arts. It means something if you're wearing a black belt. But in some dojos, it doesn't mean that much because they kind of move you through the ranks pretty quick, maybe too quickly. On one hand, I'm saying there's value to be affiliated with the sandbox and inherently with the CNCF. Part of the goal that we're trying to achieve here is clarifying to the general public that there is a significant difference between the sandbox level and the two above that. Maybe we don't want any implicit value there. I think Richard's point is that there's going to be implicit value assigned to that affiliation, whether you like it or not, even if you could. Some wording does make it fairly clear if there was something called experiments. I guess I'm just concerned about overcorrecting or about there is value in making some of the bar higher because while it doesn't feel good to get rejected, it is what inherently provides meaning to the thing. There's some folks by way of another example, there are folks on the call that are cloud native ambassadors and there's only so many of those folks. I think because of that constriction, because there's only so many, the same thing for the TOC members, there's only so many of those folks or those people that are carrying that role. There's an implicit meaning to that. Last thought, I'd be curious, I don't know if other CNCF staffers are on the call that also pay attention to the number of projects going into the Apache Foundation or going into other foundations. I don't know if there's, I guess on both sides, there might be a concern about projects getting flustered and going to other foundations. Also, if we remove the value of being associated with the CNCF, then projects also not, maybe not seeing that value and going to other foundations as well. I don't know how much of that weighs in. So to add to that, I'm wondering, so I agree that this is actually a fairly hard problem to solve and to get right. I just wonder if it's, if the end result is shifting the problem into other place instead of fixing it, because with this proposal going through, I can suspect two things to happen later on. So sandbox being redefined into experimental will actually make some of projects not considering it because they will be higher than that. So they will apply to incubation instead. And so you will move the problem from sandbox applications into incubations applications and the end result struggle will remain the same. On the other hand, if you increase the velocity of handling sandbox applications and you have those higher number of sandbox and smaller projects, if it progress this way in a year or two, once the mass of sandbox projects builds up, some of them succeed, and they will naturally need to apply to incubation. And yet again, you hit struggles of sponsorship to diligence, which is essentially to greater extent bandwidth issue as well. I'm just going to weigh in with one last point. I think for me, one of my challenges that I'm seeing with this is that the CNCF has always been a brand associated with the quality of those projects. And we've said a few times on the call that any tinkering that we do around logos and whatever else is probably not going to change much of the value of the fact that projects and companies behind those projects are still going to use the CNCF brand to market themselves. So in my mind, if we reduce the bar and let lots of sandbox projects in, which by the way is probably the right thing to do if we want to foster the experimentation, we want to foster those communities, because setting the high bar is maybe good for a branding point of view and for maybe providing more curated or opinionated projects, but it's less great for innovation or having the community accelerate development in certain areas. So I can argue in favor of having more sandbox projects and more innovation, but ultimately one of two things is going to happen on the marketing side. And this is something we just need to figure out as we go along. If we have lots more projects and we managed to get the marketing message out right, then the CNCF brand is going to be diluted. If lots of projects are claiming to be CNCF projects, then the value of being a CNCF project is reduced. Or the flip side might happen where projects that maybe abuse the CNCF brand and we have to worry about that aspect of it. But ultimately, we need to be aware that we're consciously making a decision to potentially dilute or complicate the branding and the marketing side of things in favor of the community experimentation, which I think everybody is in favor of the community experimentation, but we need to be aware that this is the impact of this change. I guess I would say we're already there. I think that the sandboxes that exist right now still is not particularly diligence. And so we already have this challenge. And in addition, we have a whole bunch of frustration. So this isn't it and we'll see. I mean, I think the point about changing and reiterating repeatedly is accurate. But I mean, the incubation, like incubation used to be the first stage at the very beginning of this thing and sandbox was created to relieve all the community pressure that you're talking about. And so I don't, I think that while it's tempting to try and go back to a more strict approach, I think actually it would just lead to a lot more work and a lot more frustration as lots and lots and lots and lots of projects tried to go to incubating. And we did really significant due diligence on all of them in order to make sure that we held the bar there. So I don't know. That's my feeling is that our really our only choice is to try and make, is to both try and separate the branding and make sandbox much more, not necessarily easier, but at least systematized so that it's very, very easy to evaluate. And for what it's worth, you know, I kind of, I do completely empathize and sympathize that this is a high problem to solve. And I think you're right. You know, I think we just have to, we just have to figure out how we go when, as we go along, how this is going to affect so to the marketing and the branding side of things. I'm not sure what the alternative is because we have to foster the community. And I want to be clear also, I mean, when we, this discussion came up in the TOC a little bit too, and I think we do have to kick people out too. Right. I mean, I think we do have to be open to the notion that we may actually kick some people out if they truly end up being bad actors. And so I think that's another part of the toolkit. To maybe expand on this point, it was just something which I keep hearing on the edges or with boots on the ground or whatever you like to call it. This tendency of not saying no. Maybe it's just also a case of sometimes saying no earlier or more strongly. So I actually want to jump in here for a significant contributor strategy. And because it's related to this discussion, say something that we actually liked about the proposal, which is a lot of potential CNC of projects in terms of meeting requirements for like incubation run into sort of a chicken and egg problem where in order to be incubating projects, they need to have independent governance and they need to have a bunch of other things that can be hard to develop. Well, the project is sponsored by a single company. If you follow me, like I know, like we have the project Submariner that's sponsored by Rancher, but we've got a bunch of people contributing to it from other companies. But as long as Rancher is 100% responsible for that project, they're not necessarily going to sort of open up the governance until it belongs to the CNCF and it's not their responsibility anymore, which is a completely appropriate attitude, right? When they're responsible, they're responsible and they don't want things to go off the rails. So from a contributor growth perspective and a governance perspective, it's really nice to have a sandbox area that would be an actual sandbox that would have a low bar to entry so that projects can put together all of the requirements that they have in order to become an incubating or graduated project that can be hard to do when they're outside the CNCF or other foundation oversight. I also think having a lower bar for a sandbox doesn't actually reduce the value of the CNCF necessarily. So you have a place where projects can come in and innovate and do things and foster collaboration early on. And then if projects actually want to grow and become more of an industry standard, they can go for incubation and later on to graduation, right? And then that's the value I see for the CNCF. For example, like graduated projects, you can say it is being used by a number of end users, right? And then they're using it in production and in reliable systems. So I see the value there and then the sandbox will be the place where people can come in and collaborate and innovate. And to second, Josh's point, I think the contributor's role is going to be very, very high in the sandbox process. Yeah, people may come for marketing, but people also come to increase the contributions and grow their project. And having a lower bar would definitely help in that. And having the contributor see the world early on would be very helpful. Anyone on mute and have something to be able to say? If the sandbox is successful and under this revised, under this revision, would it be good to address how it is that we consider we'll re-approach the bottleneck that will happen at incubation? I wonder if we're just kind of moving the cheese, I guess. But the point is that not all the projects would join the sandbox and with a goal to move to incubation. Some will join the sandbox for the neutral AP space for collaboration. So yeah, there might be a bottleneck, but I don't think it's going to be as high as we might think at this point. And if CIGS are not going to be involved in reviewing the sandbox projects, they're going to be more, probably more time to review the projects for incubation, helping with due diligence and so on. I would also just say from experience with different projects, the incubation stage is just less pressurized because people are already in the CNC. If they're already, it's just not so angst inducing, I found in my experience, people are more willing to be patient. So I'm less worried about the bottleneck there as well because I think it's psychologically people are used to the process a little more by the time they get there. Yeah. And I also think the bar for incubation is a little bit higher. So then, yeah, so that doesn't necessarily mean that there's going to be a bottleneck there. But I think if there is a bottleneck, obviously, it's not happening now because this process is not there yet. But once it's there, then it will have to be reassessed and see how it can be streamlined. Does it imply sandbox is a required step? Or, you know, if the project comes considering, you know, it's already proven or beyond sandbox description, is path to incubation via sandbox still? You know, you can always go straight to incubation and you go straight to graduating if you really wanted to and graduated if you really wanted to. But yeah, no, I don't think there's anything in this that precludes going straight to one of the higher stages. Yeah, but this goes towards the, again, I like the proposal and I agree, such a level in such form would be good. But towards the point of just moving the problem, I guess that's to be seen, but it may imply a bottleneck at incubation stage again. Yeah, for sure. I mean, if we run into problems, if we see that everybody skip sandbox and go straight to incubation, I suspect we'll have to really visit this and change what we do. Because yeah, we would not be achieving our goals if that's the case. I guess that's not that. Things do need to change it. That's actually kind of to my point is like, what is the value of sandbox then? If you can achieve much of the same things through a working group in a SIG or something similar, would we expect that we would have immediate contention around incubation? Not all the projects are ready for that or meet those requirements. But yeah. In the interest of time, I will move on a little bit just to be able to show off what the existing sandbox branding is. This is something that we could continue to keep to be able to make sure that folks, there might not need to be a lot of design work around this. Thoughts? We may have moved on so I can drop on. I know there's questions around the existing sandbox proposals. This is one particular way of being able to say existing sandbox proposals could be decoupled from project presentation, the assessment process. TOC members, is there anything that we're missing as far as what the current proposal for what existing sandbox proposals could be? It looks fine to me, but I'm obviously the rest of the TOC needs to chime in and I don't know if everybody's here. Okay, now just wanted to make sure that, like, I know this is still in flight and we're still trying to be able to work our tails here, but I wanted to be at least able to have a conversation of, hey, that we know that this is going to be kind of messy, but being able to have this conversation is important. And if there's no further comment on this one. Okay. Oh, there was a note in here about public comment. I know that there is a current proposal out there to be able to move public comment periods right now from two weeks to one week. It seems like most people are saying we're good with two weeks, but wanted to invite once now about anything else around that. Plus one to two weeks. Plus one to two weeks. Okay. Then not that I would change this in flight, but our current projects that are in public comment votes will go out next week. So please go ahead and review. And last piece is our projects needing TOC input. We have lots of wonderful annual reviews out there and I'd like to be able to get some eyes on these. I know that Elena, you've done a fantastic job being able to come in, but I wanted to highlight this for everyone else as well. We need three TOC members to be able to approve. That is it for our full agenda today. Is there anything else that people wanted to be able to bring up here? So one point from sick observability. We are currently doing the review of Cortex and we found a lot of the questions in the due diligence document and such very open and not giving a lot of guidance as to the actual intention behind them. So we would like to basically tighten those up and resubmit a counter proposal as it were to the TOC and the wider sick chair group. Anyone who also wants in on that or any specific form we should be following or just hammer it together and send it. So the annual reviews are done by the TOC, right? I'm talking about the due diligence for moving from sandbox into incubating. Can you throw that up in a Google doc? I'd be interested to see your comments on it. This is Josh from SIG Contributor Strategy. Will do and I'll hand it to Amy and she'll probably do whatever needs to be done. Have it help. There is a question from chat. Thik, do you want to be able to use voice or do you just want me to repeat the question for you? Hi, this was the question. I just wanted to understand, sorry if it's already been clarified, but what is the process forward on the in-flight sandbox proposals that have been approved by the SIG and waiting on the TOC review? So I will step in here. I don't believe that anything has been clarified out that is still under discussion and as we get more details around that, it'll probably be over in the GitHub repo. Yeah, sorry. I think yeah, what Amy said is I was on mute. Sorry. No, it's great. I think we're still sorting it out. I think we do want people to sort of trial out the form that we're developing, but it's not done yet and we don't want to block people. So I think we can, you know, we're gonna, if people have specific questions about specific projects that can mail the TOC. All right. Any other questions going once, going twice? I see no further questions, so I will give everyone 10 minutes back out of their day. Good to see everyone. Be well. Thank you. Bye. Appreciate it. Cheers. Good to see you all.