 Okay, why don't we get started. So the last meeting we had, we had a presentation of Chewbough FS, which was presented by the team at JD.com. Now, as part of that presentation, I was concerned that we didn't really have much of a process for sort of collecting information out of a project and kind of making sure that we capture at least, you know, a minimum baseline of information for a project. And so I put a questionnaire together, which is shared in the agenda, which I would really love. I would really love to have some feedback on that. So far, Shing and Erin have given some feedback, which was very much appreciated. And I also shared it to the TOC threads where Brendan was sort of documenting the workflow for sort of TOC presentations. But this is kind of an issue which comes up fairly often. Either, you know, and the symptoms are that either, you know, something gets moved into sandbox, but then, you know, questions arise after it has moved into sandbox, or the project does a TOC presentation, and there are sort of questions that they're not prepared for that they haven't answered. So hopefully, by going through the SIG review, we'll nail a couple of those things up front. And by capturing the information in the questionnaire, we'll also, you know, use that as a baseline, but also kind of gives us the ability to sort of review changes over time, especially when we have to do sort of six-monthly reviews or graduation type reviews or incubation type reviews. So unless there's, unless we have any more sort of feedback, I would like to propose sending this to Chris Aleczek to raise at the next TOC meeting to kind of formalize this a little better, because it's the sort of thing which we should probably standardize across all of the SIGs and across the TOC as a way of sort of reviewing these sandbox projects. Any objection to that? I think this seems like a very reasonable thing for SIGs to do. Is there in the proposal any sort of binding kind of enforcement that you have to go through with SIG, or is it more of a suggestion or recommendation? So I actually, sorry, go on. Go ahead, Alex. So I had a brief conversation with Chris Aleczek around this. And as a case in point, Longhorn got slightly confused, and they weren't sure who to present to first. So we sort of had a brief chat and Chris's of the opinion that the projects really should present to the SIG first. If for nothing else, because it gives them that opportunity to prepare and to collate the required information and kind of have that first round of questions before they hit the TOC call. So that seems to be the recommendation. I don't know that we're sort of encoding that as a, like, thou shalt not kind of thing. But that seems to be the workflow that they would like to adopt. Yeah, I mean, it's up to the TOC at the end of the day. But the TOC agreed with the SIGs proposal. And the SIGs proposal says that that's hard work. So I can't imagine there being any objections. The one sort of procedural problem at the moment is we don't have all the SIGs set up yet. So if there is a project that doesn't fall within one of the two or three SIGs that are kind of formed, then what do they do then is the question. But that's a temporary situation, I believe. Yeah, it seems like a right step in the right direction. Yeah, I think so. I think the intention is to have all the SIGs set up by the end of the year. So at that point, the problem should go away. Yeah, I think that's a high level objective we want. We want to, I think, the idea is to have most of the SIGs set up before the next cube gone. There is a different problem, just to mention it briefly. It's not really that to do with storage specifically, but it's come to me at my attention that there are certain areas which we think are part of the CNCFs mandate, but none of the SIGs seem to think it's their mandate. So we have some holes, some gaps between what we think covers the CNCF and what the SIGs cover. The one that came to mind is application development, which seems fairly clearly to be within the ambit of the CNCF, but the SIG gaps people don't necessarily want it. In which case, where does it fall? Yeah, so there are some challenges. I kind of believe really firmly in sort of identifying our area of influence and our area of concern. And every time the area of concern goes way beyond the area of influence, that's probably a good indicator to step back and make it somebody else's problem. Because I think we kind of have enough to work on as it is if you see what I mean. I don't know if you disagree with that. No, no, I totally agree. I just brought it up as a general problem. And we have a sort of a similar thing with this group in that, you know, we're storage databases or a form of storage. We haven't really covered databases in the white paper yet. I think we have agreed that we will cover databases in general. So if a database comes to the CNCF, they should get back to storage. I just want to make sure we're comfortable and clear about that. Actually, that is a very good point. So it wasn't in the agenda originally, but do we want to, to alter a database section for the white paper? I think that was always the intention. We just ran out of time and it was too big to chew off on the first bite. Right. Maybe, you know, I'd love any, any, anybody who's on the call who fancies taking on this challenge, if you could put up your hand, that would be amazing. But otherwise, I am tempted to reach out to Sugu, who's one of our tech leads, but he's also the guy behind Vitesse. So they might, he might be able to put some resource into that or maybe rope in a couple of other colleagues to help. Yeah, I think it'd be a great starter project for one or two of the new tech leads or chairs. Erin, I don't know if you are able to get involved in that? Yeah, I am. And I was before we moved on topics I had wanted to add. I talked to Liz last week as well about creating a new draft on sandbox expectations. Because if you read the charter back to what Sad was asking, it's pretty vague about those expectations. I like the idea of the survey for us SIGs helping us frame that better, because right now we don't have well crafted criteria. You know, Quinton did an excellent job on the due diligence doc. But if you remember last year, we decided we weren't going to do due diligence on sandbox. So therefore, we don't really have a bar by which it's measured. And I think a lot of projects have expressed frustration about, you know, what they're being measured against, and especially nothing's time boxed, nothing's published. Well, so the sandbox is a is a special case, maybe I should just take the opportunity to clarify. So I think, I mean, without wanting to point fingers, I think some of the confusion is actually arises from Chris, because I think he has a different view of some of these things than the TSE has and had. But just to be clear, the reason why we don't do due diligence is on sandbox projects is because there are no expectations. That's kind of the definition of a sandbox project. There doesn't actually have to be any project, they don't have to be any, you know, significant number of contributors. I think there's some confusion around, you know, I see Chris and a check asking questions like, oh, do you have enough different companies contributing? That is explicitly a non goal of the sandbox. The sandbox is created so that there can be a place for people to form such groups, and build such projects within a, you know, a safe legal environment where the IP is, you know, housed in a foundation. And some of them are much more advanced than that. Some of them are, you know, happening projects with customers and users and lots of companies contributing and others are nothing more than an idea. And the people or person with the idea is looking for a safe place to explore that idea. So I mean, you and I have been on the CNCF for the same amount of time. So I lived through the exact same thing you have the current TOC has not. So when I say expectations, maybe we call them non expectations, because you're exactly right. We have a lot of frustrated sandbox projects that they are being measured against that bar that is inappropriate, perhaps. And so we need to again level set. What does it mean to be a sandbox project? This goes back to the survey that Alex was putting together. And, and defining those different areas more in like a easily set, where do you belong in the list? You know, are you just an idea? Do you have users, you know, is it sandbox or incubation? What are you trying to be measured against? Because it's, it's absolutely not clear to many of the people who are being proposed today is my concern. And that a project that went into sandbox 12 months ago compared to what's going on today is is very different. So it was just meant to have a very consistent uniform way that the TOC is looking at all these projects from TOC to TOC as that board changes. So that was my only concern. So people are seeing it as being fair. Sure. I mean, there is a sandbox page and I have read it. And I think it says pretty much exactly what I said. So, so, so I, I just, just to interject slightly. So the reason I put this, the project questionnaire together was basically because there are two criteria that have to be satisfied to become a sandbox project really at the end of the day. And that two criteria points are, you have to find two people from the TOC to sponsor you. And you have to meet the CNCF IP policy. So, so the idea behind a questionnaire and collecting some baseline information is basically an attempt to say what does a TOC member needs to know about a project or what would they like to know about a project to kind of put their hand up and say, Yeah, I actually think I want to sponsor that. And also to try and capture, you know, any, any potential, you know, IP policy type issues, which, or, or at least identify things that need to be looked at, because obviously there's a grace period on the IP policy. But, but sort of try and capture some of that information up front. So, you know, which repos are you using? What, what license model are you using? What dependencies do you have? How do you integrate with other CNCF projects, you know, any of that type of information that gives a TOC member the information they need to actually sponsor to make that decision to sponsor. And I think that's, that's probably what we need to do to level out the playing field, because the decision to sponsor varies greatly on the quality of the presentation and the information that's shared in, in, you know, maybe a 15 minute slot once a month. And, and therefore making sure that the right information is available to make to allow the TOC to make their, their decision is, is probably the single most useful thing we can do to help sandbox projects right now. Yes. And with the, the projects now coming to the SIG first, maybe there's more opportunity for exchange rather than that 15 minute presentation. And, and there's pre sponsorship agreement. But I just think we have to projects brand new to the CNCF not understanding the process, not understanding the people, not having the network, right, to be able to find the sponsors ahead of time. It just, I feel like there needs to be something that's absolutely clear what is expected of them, what's, what is a great presentation, what that should be included, how they find sponsors, things like that. I don't think that's readily available, in my opinion today. I love the idea of the, the survey for storage. I think that will really help, you know, new projects coming into sandbox. So thank you. I think I agree with Erin here. There's definitely room for improvement in this process. I agree with Quentin, a lot of it is documented, but there still remains a lot of confusion in the community about what it involves and what the differences are and how you get, how you go through the process, what is the process like, that kind of thing. So I think this is a step in the right direction, saying SIGs are going to be involved with this part of this kind of decision. Hopefully this process can evolve in the future and just bring kind of more transparency and openness and kind of make the whole overall process better. Yeah, I mean, you know, having, so the, you know, Quentin is right, the sandbox criteria are very clear and the stuff that's on the CNCF page is actually quite clear. But what, what we haven't defined is some of the logistical elements, right? So, you know, in order to be fair, we should be at least collecting the same level of information out of each project, not sort of, you know, some projects get a grilling and some projects get an easy ride just based on who happens to attend a call, for example. You know, so I think, I think it's a good idea to just collect a standard set of information and have, you know, some basic workflow as to what the, what the steps to go through the process are. And I think I tried, you know, I did the first part of trying to capture that in the questionnaire or the survey. But, you know, if anybody think, you know, if anybody has any ideas to make that better, now's the time to do it because what I'd really like to do is use this, this survey and kind of test the process with tribal FS who have already presented to us. And I've asked Wei to fill in the information on the survey. And we also have the Longhorn presentation, which is coming up in two weeks. And I'd like to use the survey again to collect this information and then use that as a prototype so we can share that with the talk and say, this is the information we collected with the project. This is the sponsorship they're looking for, you know, this is a copy of the deck and whatever else. And, you know, the talk can have that information before they even get to the points where the project presents to the talk. Yeah, it makes sense. I'm going to make a brief and probably slightly contentious statement. But I actually think reading between the lines of what Saad and Erin have said, it sounds like projects are basically being messed around. And by, you know, the CNCF and the TOC. And I think that we might have to educate the CNCF and the TOC rather than be clearer to the projects because I think the requirements of the projects are fairly clear. I think the problem is they're not being held to those requirements. And I've come across anecdotally quite a few examples where, you know, there's supposed to be a backlog of presentations and that backlog doesn't actually get stuck to. It's somewhat arbitrary who gets chosen to present on a given day and people get frustrated because they asked, you know, long, long ago and they still haven't been scheduled and somebody, I was one of them came along and, you know, I just got shoved in the front of the list for no apparent reason. And so if I was a project and that happened to me, I would get frustrated too. And then I saw a question yesterday about a project, whether it had sufficient diversity of company contributions for incubation. And that's not even a requirement for incubation. So the person who is staff of the CNCF who asked that question clearly does not know the basic criteria for the different levels. So and if you're a project and you now get asked, why don't you have multiple projects, sorry, companies contributing to your project from the staff of the CNCF, when in fact that is not a criteria, you can a criterion, you can quite imagine that there will be frustration and confusion. And I don't think it's because what's written down is incorrect or unclear. I think it's just not being understood by the people actually enforcing it. Yes, I would look, I would agree with all of that. I think there is there is some, you know, internal education to happen. But so let's start there and take what we have and make sure that the people who are enforcing what we have are actually aware of what that is, because I think they're not. And then we can, you know, continue from there further if we need to. But it seems like that's actually the crux of the problem. Yes, that that is the crux of the problem. The crux of the problem is the TOC today. Many of them, fantastic people, have not been involved in the CNCF prior to being there. So unaware of the transition of how things have changed, maybe some of the processes and overwhelmed with a backlog of projects. I think Amy's done a good job of actually getting them on the backlog now and scheduling things out. So, you know, her joining is definitely going to help. But I absolutely agree there has to be a reeducation and and I feel like that would help projects as well because then everyone would be reading from the same playbook. So that's all I want to get to. I just I don't want the TOC or the CNCF perceived as being unfair, you know, that's that's just the word I keep hearing like it's not fair. So maybe to wrap this up, I was involved in in the sandbox stuff and I was involved in the SIG stuff. Would you like me to volunteer to present to I'll speak to Liz and others on the TOC just to make sure they're comfortable with this, but I can present to them just to them and the broader audience what the current status of the different criteria are. Just basically read the pages that are on the CNCF website and field questions. I already talked with Liz about it. That's what I was getting at because I was involved in the sandbox, but I'm I'm asking if you want to open that up as something that we go forward to the C, you know, because I said we need to sit back. I feel like and she agreed with all that I had to say, but however you want to handle it, it sounded like your it sounded like your proposal was to educate the general public to change or and or improve the documentation around that. Or is it not? Is that not what it is? It's a little bit of both today. The sandbox stuff is OK documented, but it also doesn't have. There are a couple of things that I think can be improved, and we should always look for continuous improvement. For instance, I don't have anything timeboxed, right? Like we need to be have expectations to projects and also the TOC needs to be able to all asking the same questions and having their expectations correct for that. That's all. But Alex, I don't want to affiliate your take up. No, no, no. So look, here is I mean, just my two cents. I, you know, all the education stuff matters. But I think I really do believe that the basic thing that that's missing here is the logistics and the process. It's not, you know, what the criteria are or how it's run or what people, you know, people need to understand that a bit better. But the logistics are a problem, right? So. If if a, you know, where does it say anywhere that if your sandbox project and you want to be considered by the CNCF speak to your friendly SIG member, you know, where does it where does it say what the SIG does once they've seen a project presentation? You know, where do we how do we move on to the next step and share that information with the talk, right? And these are some of the dilemmas that I was kind of struggling with when I put together the the that questionnaire in the survey. So I was just thinking to myself, OK, so we've just had this charitable affairs presentation. Now what? How do we move this thing forward? And and I don't think that process is is sort of being discussed or written down anywhere. And it doesn't need to be anything complex. So, you know, I just put it down as next steps. And there are five bullet points to my questionnaire. So we can kind of refine that slightly. But this sort of like basic logistics and basic process needs to be sorted out. So I'm going to try and push it from our point of view as a SIG, because I think, you know, it should be made clear that if there are storage projects, they should be talking to the SIG. And once they've presented to the SIG, this is the set of information that needs to be collated. And then once that information is collated, this is how this is the information we're going to give to the TOC. And then they can, you know, opt to sponsor it after having a TOC presentation. But but I think Erin is right. We we, you know, the TOC should actually have some sort of process to say, this is how you get onto the list. You raise a PR here. And once you get on the list, you know, you'll be seeing within three months or whatever, you know, and some some basic process flow. Yeah, I agree. It's a procedural thing. And in going through SIG storage, one of the first SIGs and being able to help create and nurture that process. I think we'll be. We'll be real good. Cool. So, you know, as I said, let's try and capture any of this or, you know, put any more steps or any more process that you think we need into that survey document. I've already shared it with the with the with the TOC mailing list, but I'll sort of push it out again, kind of. With a bit of with a bit of a blurb and I'll ping the coaches just to make sure that we've captured the blurb as we want it to be. One last thought. Aaron, it just occurred to me, maybe that education of the TOC members and the. TNCF staff about and to be clear, I think this problem exists way beyond the formation of SIGs. I think this existed before SIGs even existed and and I think it's it is a genuine problem. Maybe we should have that in private, i.e. just the TOC and TNCF staff, not the general public, just to give them a slightly more enclosed environment within which to, you know, ask ask questions, argue about whether the stuff is correct or not, etc. Before we open it up to the broader world. Does that make sense? What I'm asking? Yeah, it makes sense because I want to feel like they can candidly state. I didn't understand that or that's, you know, I don't want to make anyone feel like they're responsible or something wrong. It's definitely been a transition, so I don't think that would I think that would be beneficial. OK, great. Right. And just to be clear, I was not planning to step. I thought you were actually proposing something different than what I was proposing, which is why I proposed it. But if you were proposing the same thing, then by all means, go ahead. We can do it together. OK. Cool. OK, that sounds good. Excellent. So then just moving on to the next thing, I'd like to sort of open the floor to what we would like the the CNCF webinar to be about. So so we got a slot on the on the 20th of August. Normally, a CNCF webinar gets maybe about five hundred registrations and probably about two hundred odd attendees. So, you know, it's it's it's a decent enough audience. So we should we should sort of try and make the the topic as as impactful as possible. Um, any ideas? I'll stop with your heads. We can we can obviously also discuss this over email, but. What are these things I haven't attended any of these webinars and I don't even really know what a webinar is. What what what is the general focus being in the past of these things? So they tend to have, you know, they tend to be a particular topic. There have been a couple of webinars in the past based on on. Clad native storage, for example, there has been having webinars around CSI in the past. It's it's basically up to CNCF members to sort of propose topics and then the the the CNCF sort of does the scheduling and the marketing of this webinar. So it goes out to the CNCF mailing lists and people can sign up for it and then it's kind of like a big video conference where the presenters present to the people that turn up. OK, and how long is it generally? This is a it's a 45 minutes session. No, sorry, it's a it's an hour and a bit. Yeah, so it's it's about an hour of presentation and about half an hour of of of of questions. So it's similar to to a KubeCon presentation in some sense. Yeah, exactly. OK. So obviously, we, you know, we can we can we can use the opportunity to talk about some of the work that we're doing, but it would kind of be great if we use the opportunity to to educate people about, you know, maybe some cloud native storage topics. One thing that crossed my mind earlier today was so we got this white paper, which is great, I think. And obviously, one approach would be just to essentially present the same stuff again, but we've done that quite a few times. Another one would be to set out to use that as a tool to answer a hypothetical question. So, you know, customer X has this storage use case. How do they go about figuring out what a good solution to that use case is? Would would be a different angle on essentially similar information. So have we got anything back from the survey? So. OK, so let's let's segue briefly into that. So we we had we issued the survey just before KubeCon. We only got five or six responses. So we have decided not to use it. And then yesterday, we we had gotten a slot on the end user forum and and Quinton and I were there and we made a quick presentation to kind of solicit information. But there were only eight or nine people on the call. And to be honest, it was it was not a fantastic experience, basically question after question and nobody would unmute themselves and actually talk or engage. So I don't know if it was that particular call. You know, maybe there was a poor turnout or whatever. But yeah, we we don't have a lot of info. We did we did speak to. Oh, I forget her name now. Lady sitting in for Cheryl yesterday and she was going to email out to the to the forum, which which I believe has about three hundred members on the list with the survey again. I haven't checked today if there have been any more submissions. But last time when it was sent out, it was this and not the same list. Yes. But it was not probably not going to result in what we're looking for. Pro possibly not. When we sent that last time, though, we had asked people to reply before cube console. Maybe if this is a more open time frame, we might get a few more. But I agree, we're probably not going to get that many. Yeah, I mean, I think I think we put a lot of effort into that question and I actually think it's a very good questionnaire. I think we should we should just execute and without necessarily the type timeline, we should actually just get it out to Kubernetes, you know, six storage and as many other of those mailing lists as we think might be necessary, give it so whatever the right amount of time is. That's that's a good point. So shall we shall we send that to to wider audiences then? Yeah, I think that will be helpful. Because people even when they got them, they can send it out to their customers to fill out, right? So we'll get more responses. Yes, that is a good point. All right. So how about this? I could craft an email for to send out to the to our working to our SIG, which which would capture at least a few vendors and encourage them. But some but I'll try to put the boiler plates email out so that maybe they could send it out to to some of their customers. And and maybe Jing or or Sats, could you send it to the Kubernetes six storage perhaps? Yeah. Sure. Yep, feel free. Cool. All right. Quite a few active Slack channels. C and CFS and they're not storage specific, but but they're pretty active seem to have thousands of people on there. So I probably wouldn't hurt to just put it out there as well. All right. I'll do that, too. Cool. But I'm sorry. Sorry, I'm late. Oh, hey, Louise. So in the meantime, so Louise, actually, we were just discussing the the webinar for those slots that you that you managed to secure. We were just about to start talking about options we could discuss in the webinar. Did you have any special that you have any specific ideas because we were drawing. Yeah. One of the questions that I get asked by customers a lot is what type of storage to use what type of application? A lot of, you know, customers they have a certain type of application, the database or or some type of file system or something in AI. We they just don't know exactly what's the best type of storage to use what replicas to use, things like that. I just feel like we could move towards that direction. It's just my suggestion. So so actually that's sort of similar to what to what Quinton suggested. And maybe that plays out well. So if we use if we use the stuff that we had put together in the white paper and we we could sort of role play a few scenarios to kind of say, OK, using you know, if if if somebody wants to run a database or somebody wants to do machine learning or somebody wants to do, I don't know, data analytics or whatever. How would you assess the attributes of the storage that you'd need and what sort of solution what sort of technologies could you could you look at using the criteria that that that we sort of had to find in the white paper. So so that that seems like that seems like a actually quite a good idea. Yeah, and you could think of it as if the white paper that we wrote is storage one on one. This will be storage one or two. Yeah. Yeah, just just one warning. I think it's quite a lot of work involved in preparing this thing properly. And secondly, I think it could be controversial if we're not extremely careful. So so yeah, I would just kind of. Worn against sort of rushing into it and winging it because I think that could be dangerous. That is absolutely great point. Hey, Luis, I remember you mentioned something in the spot in October. I'm just thinking if we have a later spot, maybe we can more time to prepare for this. August is coming quickly. Yeah, we have to have an August 5th. August 5th. Yeah. I think that's the date. No, it's it's August 20th. Yeah, August 20th is the date of the of the presentation. But I think August 15th is about the abstract spread. All right. Yes. Yeah, two or three weeks before we need to have the abstract. Did we decide on the format? Luis, are we going to have a bunch of questions ahead of time? We wanted to have it be more interactive or are we just going to the presentation? What was the final decision? We haven't actually had a final decision. We can discuss it right here. OK. The the idea is mostly I mean, I've done webinars before where they're pre-recorded the the presentation part. And then I go in and answer questions live after that. We could do something like that where half of the time is a presentation. We could present also the paper of what we have and talk about, you know, the type of storage that we have, you know, kind of enhance more on the paper and then we could get ready for questions in the end. I mean, that's another thing we can do. And then we can talk about maybe writing another paper for for the next six months, which will be the one or two. You see what I mean? Yeah, I like I like that idea. We can use the webinars as kind of a launch platform for the next one for the next white paper. Yeah, I think if we have an hour, if I understood you correctly, you have an hour for the presentation, half an hour for questions or roundabout. Is that right? That's what seems that way. We can get more logistics. So I remember when I was reading that the thing you sent to me, Luisa, it says it really is 45 minutes presentation, but I think it depends. We can I'm pretty sure we can change that. What I was going to say is I think if we if we do have an hourish, I think that's enough time to do essentially a kind of crash course in the white paper and then lead on to a I'll call it like a decision tree kind of a presentation where we say here's here's the thing that we're trying to solve. And here's a decision tree that we've sort of distilled out of our white paper to help you figure out what types of storage to look at to solve these problems. And then we can present that that might be quite a nice lead into a half hour Q&A session, which could cover both. That's just just a thought. That seems useful. And then that second half of the presentation would, as you say, be kind of like a primer for the white paper 102. Yeah, yeah, I think so. I maybe, you know, if we had the presentation and we do the talk on the one on one and then we give only one example, right here. And we can say, like, this is what we plan to do for the next iteration of another paper. And here's an example of what we would like to do. Yeah, and we kind of show. And then that kind of like hooks them in, you know, and then that we go into questions after that because and we can. What do you guys think about that? That style? You just do one. Yeah, yeah, that that that works. That works. That sounds really good. Lucy, do you want to take a stab at yeah, writing up an abstract and then maybe you got it. Excellent. Luis, the question for you. I actually attended the you have a webinar. Portworx has a webinar yesterday and attended that one. So it seems like a lot of people are asking questions in the middle of the presentation, but you're saying that we can actually. Pre-record that. Oh, it all depends on the webinar star. Oh, when I was at Red Hat, we pre-recorded it. Pre-recorded them. When I was a quarter west, we did them live. It all depends on the company and the equipment. I think these webinars are live. So yeah, we'll have questions in between. Yeah, a lot of questions. Yeah, a lot of questions yesterday. Yeah, yeah, which is good. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. It's better to have a presentation and just no questions. Yeah, of course. Yeah, people are interested. That's that's great. Yeah. OK. Brilliant. OK. Oh, also, where should I send the abstract so we can discuss it? Should I put it on the Slack channel? Or is there a share? Put it publicly or what should we do? Um. I'll put it on the Slack channel. Yeah. OK, I'll put a public Google doc on the Slack channel and I'll link it. And I'll put it already there. Brilliant. Fantastic. Thank you so much. So. We've only got sort of about 10 minutes left. So I just wanted to to to get some volunteers for the next couple of papers. We had previously identified two papers. The first one was we wanted to sort of write a one or two page paper to compare raw block stores of Emerald Discs, local discs and discs from from storage services or external services. I I believe that might have been that might have been something you had proposed. Sure, I can. Yeah, I can help with that one. Cool. So so do you want to sort of be like the primary author for that and maybe put a skeleton together and or first draft together and then sort of share it and we can help contribute? Yeah, sure. Fantastic. OK. And then we also had another paper that that we were looking at where we we sort of said we we were going to look at the different attributes in the white paper and and maybe document different sections of to to allow to allow end users to look at some of the some of the ways to test those those differences or to compare those differences. So we kind of said performance might be a good place to start. Maybe availability might be another might be another option. And we we we said that we would probably start with documenting some of the standard tools that people can use to to evaluate performance. I'm actually sort of quite keen to to get involved in some of these performance performance options because it's kind of one of my one of my pets. Projects anyway, but I'd love to work with somebody else on this to if if somebody fancies training. Yeah, I'd personally love to step back a little bit for this round and make some space for the new tech leads and chairs to kind of take the lead on this next phase. And the second I help you review I only know a little bit of the performance. I'm only worked on SPC-1 OLTP type performance analysis, but that's about it. All right, so. So so I tell you what we could do. I could just I could just ping you and maybe we could have a like a 15 minute call do a bit of a brain dump and I could start fleshing out a document and then we can maybe get other contributors as as required. Sure, that's fine. Awesome. OK. We discuss. Sorry, go on. What about the third paper would you kind of discuss or going to discuss at the end of this webinar, the one or two paper like what what or we suggest that what stores to use with what app or suggestions. Maybe we can use the next meeting to discuss that if that's OK, because that that feels like that feels like a more lengthy discussion. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, and then there's the database one we spoke about earlier as well. Yeah, so the database one I was going to reach out to to Sugu and see if if if he can help and drive that, you know, given that he runs a database company and project, so he's probably best best placed for that. Yeah, I think we should just be careful of making sure we get a sort of a balanced group of people there. Not not no, you know, questions around Sugu at all, but he as you say his head is very much buried in one particular kind of database. And maybe we need another person to to co lead with him whose head is buried in completely different kinds of databases. Yeah, that's that's that's that's a fair point. I'll I'll have a bit of a thinking. But if anybody has any other suggestions to who we could reach out to, please feel free to ping me. And then Amy added another small gender item around. Creating some branding and the logo and some swag for the six, especially for the next the next coupon. Do you want to quickly talk about that? Yeah, sure, it's very tiny. There's a GitHub issue. It's over in the slack. Let me go and put it over into the meeting agenda document. But basically, your ideas would be lovely. And we will get rolling on this. Does anybody have strong opinions about a logo or things that we shouldn't do? I want to be unicorn and OK. Very good and glitter. I understand it should all be on a cape as well. Oh, God, no capes. All right, yes, yes, yes. I think as long as it doesn't look like an Oracle, you know, drum. I knew this is where this was going to go. However, and to be clear, nothing gets Oracle. It was more about the drum. Oracle got big gold drums here in the Bayer that there was I have nothing against the company. Are there any conventions of this? Like, like, does this have to be like some animal or something or just anything is OK? So right now we're taking ideas. I will go back towards our designer at CNCF and come and present you guys with a list of options. We will bike shed it. It will be a great time. We will eventually move towards being able to have a poll with probably five or four finals. And then from there, we will finalize and you can use it wherever you need to. OK, that's awesome. Well, you know, I just played out the process and the bike shed is very important as well. Brilliant. OK. And then finally for next meeting, we have Sheng from Rancher doing who's going to be presenting the Longhorn project. And I think that wraps up today's agenda. Are there any other items anybody else wants to raise? That was a question by the timeline of the... Sorry, I was just asking the timeline of the papers. When do you want those papers to be done? So I'll ping Louise on the performance one and maybe try and get a skeleton doc available for the next meeting. Do you think you can do that for the next meeting or do you want to push it out a little more for the next meeting? So next meeting is about two weeks? Two weeks, yeah. I think I started. Yeah, I'll see. Because I will be traveling next week. So it's maybe a little time, but I will try. Yeah, I mean, you know, if we have to push that, we have to push that. It is what it is, sort of problem. OK, but I can definitely get started. Yeah, OK. I think it'd be super useful if we could have all of these done at the very latest by KubeCon San Diego. OK. I would have them all finished beforehand but we have run it, in fact, in some of the other obstacles before. So yeah, as a, you know, maybe we target like before that to have them finished. Yeah. I mean, what I'd like to do is, you know, even if we just have like a skeleton document with some headings in it, then we can, then we can sort of corral some additional help to sort of contribute. And I think it's eminently feasible to do this before KubeCon in San Diego, so. Yeah, that should be, yeah. We should have enough time for that. Yeah. Brilliant. All right. Thanks everyone. I have a question. Sorry, before we go. Fire. It's, where can we find information if it's available already or it's not? Are we going to create it on the criteria to go for a storage project, to go sandbox and then to go incubator and so on? Oh, man. You missed, you missed all the first. Oh, good, good, good, good. Pretty much. Yeah. I think this was all recorded. So maybe it's easiest if you just go back to recording. That's fine. That's fine with me. All right. As long as it was discussed. That's all I wanted. Yeah, yeah. Cool. All right. Thanks everyone. All right. Thank you.