 Kevin you're here. Hey, hey Allison. How are you? Hey Josh. How are you? I didn't expect to see you in this meeting Yeah, um, I was like well So one of my works like I was like I'm gonna go check out this Contributive strategy stuff, and I'm like this contributed strategy stuff, and I'm like this is that success that I keep hearing about and I need to See what y'all up to Hey Allison, I was just talking about you. We were talking about how we're both in London, but locked down and can't get together No, right I can a lockdown. Yep Yeah But hey, if you never if you ever need anything or advice or anything I'm right here in London. So don't hesitate to to reach out if you ever need anything And then when we're not locked down, we will totally get together for coffee tea cocktails, whatever whatever you're into Love that Awesome. Yeah, I've been here for a couple months now, and I'm like Whoa, this is so much different from New Zealand. Yeah Hello Scott Hi Scott Connecting to audio Behind you is Allison It's a case of fractal design The It says it's a little computer box. Okay, it's got like your background. That feels very like 80s senior pictures Whoops, we can't hear you Scott. Hey Charles How about now? Yeah, you hear me now, okay I think I think I had one of these for my my high school year Yeah, I I looked for Some way to actually do a max headroom background For for my conferences, but then I decided it was gonna be too much work You can still do that. I actually hadn't realized until I looked it up That there were hardly any computer graphics involved in max headroom at all It was it was all film tricks including a very uncomfortable costume Really yep Yeah, so like the the weird, you know square suit that he's wearing and that thing that was an actor Actual suit, that's funny. I was just assumed that most of that was computer-generated Now computer graphics of the time weren't capable of doing that. Yeah Not not without like renting all of SGI Okay, well we should get started And this being the first meeting of A new year as well as the first meeting that we've had in a month I thought we would Start out with talking about to-dos and things that People plan to get done would like to get done You know, maybe the first half of this year, so The I will say I'll break the ice by going first and I'll say for my part Finish project paperwork guide For general project paperwork as in the things that you need to have And then use that as sort of jumping off point for additional templates that we need I actually want to add some stuff to the leadership guide Specifically around CNCF requirements about things that have come up a for example That you know, will your project can have a single project leader That needs to be in elected position and not one that's appointed for life the So Get get sort of more specific on that and then add Add relevant templates for all of those One thing I'm a little has one thing I'm a little has been bringing actually I should bring this up as a separate agenda item I'm gonna bring this up as a separate agenda item, which is the idea of governance review So don any goals Yeah, I am still I'm still gonna work on that charter document Which got derailed with all the stuff I had to do before I took three weeks of holiday and then my My next three weeks are a little bit busy because we've got this big internal event But I should my time should free up last week of January early February So I hope to get a good start on it then and I think that will once I start working on the charter documentation I think that will spawn some additional additional templates and probably some additional documentation that we need So I'm hoping that will kind of whoops kick off into some other stuff. I Just need to carve out time to do it, but it's on my it's on my to-do list So anybody else have governance plans goals for the upcoming year Charles Scott Allison just joined us the first time so Yeah, I think this is my first time joint actually I thought I saw you in another one of these but maybe just saw you on slack. I think it was just slack But but still yeah, um, yeah, so my my main I Don't know quite where I would fit in yet and helping but I am very interested in this topic. I worked a bit on on Helms governance went well initially But it was in a sort of unique position because it was originally part of the Kubernetes project and so followed a lot of those Guidelines or not really guidelines, but precedence and I think a lot of those have changed since there have been other graduated projects Or even incubator many incubator projects. And so My goal right now also helping to co-maintain flux is you know I've focused primarily on governance and community related things so far and I just want to I just want to like Help to be best in class in that way not, you know, like in any competitive way Just just as a just for our sake to help that project become the best it can and also just You know just taking the feedback and solicit feedback and iteratively update this as we can That's my main goal and and and if I can if we can help Feedback that like the feedback loop kind of give that back any of the things that worked back to others That would be great. Yeah, that would be really helpful. Um, I Mean heck even a document on What helm learn through the governance process, you know starting with hey, let's copy kubernetes to the things that had to change The because a lot of looking at kubernetes as an example But then we have projects where they have a total of four contributors and they're like we're gonna base our governance in kubernetes And I'm like, I think this might be a little complicated for you right where you are right now Yeah Yep, yep There are definitely lessons learned and and and some of those are already documented in the pull request for the original flux governance doc But but I'm I'd be very happy to follow up with putting that somewhere or yeah Somewhere else Yeah If you start writing that up let us know over slack Or just drop it into a PR on Sieg contributor The Sieg contributor Strategy repo under governance Advisories because the advisories are all sort of documents about advice rather than sort of specifications for things and We can put anything in there that we feel is reasonably CNCF approved advice. So It'd be a place to start Yep Yeah, from my side, I didn't know that a lot of those conversations are starting as the new year starts so We there are some Higher level discussions happening that I'm not privy to at the moment and once that gets Pushed down to me, then I'll have a better idea of what I can of what we are going to share with the group and the approach that we're gonna take So, okay. Yeah Okay Ehor yes Did you have any plans to do anything around CNCF governance in the upcoming year? I'm not sure yet Haven't checked anything yet, but Contributor strategy wise like to focus mostly I'd like to like to help this group where it's been strapping the website finally emerging all this stuff that has been in the In the contributory point definitely include governance guidelines there So just probably the best area where I can help Yep in the nearest future Yeah that's true in general we're going to be in a position of merging stuff to the Contribute CNCF that IO website the stuff that's been through some kind of an approval process Which we haven't quite determined yet our hypothesis is The SIG in general approves it in a SIG meeting. We get the sign off from one of our TOC liaison People and then it then it goes up But we we actually will need to have the TOC approve that process I think they will The okay The Anybody have anything else in terms of of plans for 2021 before we Briefly go on to some other stuff Okay Paris put a note in our agenda that she intends to pursue the badging proposal The I don't have more information that she could make the meeting so the presumably for Scott and Allison the badging proposal. This was originally proposed by dims Which was to have a simple system of badges for projects that would help potential users and contributors To identify some things about them You know not just What level they were at in the CNCF maturity hierarchy, but some other basic things about the project like I You know is the project a Specificate, you know some some basic sort of classes of project like is the project of specification or a tool or a library The I what's the general form of governance of the project? Whether or not it's met certain I Qualifications that we've defined as that seems to have as defined as graduation requirements like open governance and And other things And that got sort of hung up on not having a volunteer To go through the graduation and due diligence documentation To identify and call out several things that badges could be attached to because they're reasonably They're empirically definable And That was kind of where we stopped So I think Paris is taking that up again. If anybody has an interest in that It would be Talk to Paris about it talk about it on slack Do we have an issue around the badging proposal? Yes, I do I do have an interest in that personally. I'm just in okay in taxonomies in general like the That weird threshold between enough enough diversity and too much complexity. It's like The devil's kind of in the details there You know, I was thinking even just as one example Things like usership number of users and for due diligence Sometimes there's a lot of gray area when you have a project that that that is really a distributed software project That has multiple depots, you know, so it's like what about stars? What does that mean when you've sort of switched from kind of like a major version one to two like Winkerdee did and so on? And like flux recently just did so of course that's on my mind, but there are many other things like that That might be kind of hard to say. How do you define these things? That's Yeah the Okay, so there is an open issue for this Okay, so Go ahead and she's kind of focused on the whole taxonomy issue Which I'm not a hundred percent convinced is the best way to handle badges, but the Just just because These things are a little bit squishy But I'm not working on it so The people are working on it get to define it the so the and The Okay, so Jump on that if you're interested in that in terms of the end user thing. It's actually that's actually come up before Specifically the end user requirement Because based on the nature of some projects that can be really hard to define who is an end user particularly Specification projects have the problem that you look at and you say hey We need you know X number of non-vendor end users But by their nature specifications are pretty much or often exclusively adopted by vendors the so The TOC basically said there's some flexibility there, but I didn't actually want to redefine the rules The and and more the problem is for the end user requirement, it wasn't necessarily clearly our Responsibility it just came up during the governance discussion. So The so But yeah, but I mean that would be an example of a badge, right? You know which has has published lists of end users for example Having having an end user badge and other things One of the other things I wanted to briefly introduce to get people thinking about it is Looking at due diligence stuff for Some other projects that were either being Introduced to the CNCF or up for graduation I've noticed that often the technical SIGs Are not paying a lot of attention to potential government governance issues or requirements Yeah, and I'm wondering whether or not we should introduce the idea of SIG contributor strategy Doing a governance review as part of due diligence for projects That is just looking and commenting The there was just one notable instance where the due diligence involved zero discussion of project governance at all The yeah, because they were very focused on where the project fit within the technical infrastructure of CNCF stuff the The drawback to doing that is of course, we would then need to commit to staffing that with volunteer time Because if we say this review has to happen and we don't do it we become a bottleneck So Think about that think about whether or not you personally would be interested in helping out with that The I and Before I introduced the idea of the TOC because I don't want to introduce the idea and let's work Committed to making resources available comments, I think it's definitely a good idea. I mean, I think that has to be part of the Part of the due diligence process and I think we need to make sure that somehow make sure that happens I mean, I'd be happy to help out with that as well. Okay Me too Yeah, because you don't have anything else Because you don't have anything else to do the oh and we just did right We just discussed that you that because we're discussing upcoming work for the year. You're interested in pursuing the badging thing Scott who joined us here for the first time was also interested in in the badging project and I come I commented in the dock About the question about interest so I guess maybe anyone else is interested there That can sort of stack up async Yeah Okay Does Anybody have any other Items comments, I'm gonna look at issues here, but I don't think we have anything we haven't already I do really quick Yeah I'm about to I'll I'll send the I'll send it to the slack channel first, but I just drafted an email to our mailing list Which is talking about the final call for comments for certain items what I have for governance is Everything that's in the current CNCF project template repo like governance dash sub project governance dash maintainer governance dash elections governance dash MD And then of course I've got some contributor growth items, and I'm not gonna talk about here Is there anything else that you need a final call on for? For reviews because this is going back to back to what we talked about in our meta meeting Where we're gonna try out a graduation process for guidance where we do a final call with the with our mini community And then sodden and Matt would weigh in from TOC and then TOC would graduate it quote quote So this is this is pretty much us implementing that anything else that needs to go the we should actually is there Is there an issue or some other tracking for this? No, I mean I just did this on my draft so I'm about to pop it in a slack Okay I'll comment on individual items because because one or two of those things are not ready for publication So although you were talking about you're talking about template stuff. Yeah Yeah, pretty much everything that's already inside of the template repo as well as The contributor ladder and some other things So it is I'm copying the My draft right now Sending it in slack Scott I Have one other one other possible agenda item, but I don't know that we're gonna cover all these today Just thought since you know, I would at least bring it up and maybe it could be a future Topic or maybe it's easy to answer. I don't know but there's an issue There's an issue in the TOC Let me grab it real quick the Defining rationale for multi for maintainer multi org requirement from the TOC the reason that I'm Bringing that up is because it specifically focuses on the Excuse me the governance working group and and defining criteria But it happens to be in the TOC repo and I'm wondering here it is I'm wondering if we should consider moving it or consider getting To the working group more and more involved right now. I think it's it's mainly Actually, yeah, you have the first comment Josh yes, so yeah, yeah, well this this came up with certain projects and Yeah, unfortunately that particular thing is kind of in TOC land We got the TOC to agree on some on on what the primary goals of the multi organizational requirement were the And then people brought up a bunch of sort of alternative things and wording changes that they wanted and other stuff But none of them actually got TOC endorsement Yeah, so Like I'm trying to even remember there was a proposal in like November To revise that requirement And I said, okay, we're we can work on a revision to it But first I want to know that the TOC supports it being revised and there was no vote to revise it. So Okay Yeah, so that still belongs in the TOC. Okay. Yeah, so so the loose the loose plans honestly are to Do what we know we can do which is so there's this directory within So contributor strategy governance that is Requirements and so the idea there is to put fill in and detail material for things that are required By the CNCF in terms of what they actually mean and which advisory documents will help you implement them so things like a CNCF requirement is open governance and you know multiple organizations and a Few other things adopt the COC And none of these things really have backing documentation like as in okay, we have to adopt the COC What does that actually mean materially for my project? and that's all Open work to try to Fill in the ones that relate to governance and supply extra guidance to the projects Multi-order just basically jump to the head of that list because it's been a topic of debate Do primarily to some projects that Want to graduate but do not have substantial participation from more than one organization Yeah Gotcha the so The You know so Again, anybody is welcome to kick some of those off We haven't sort of document I expect that when we get to publishing those things our TOC liaisons are maybe going to want to actually bring them up in a full TOC meeting Since once we publish something as a requirements document It's you know, this is what the TOC is going to have to vote on for projects but the Let's I think we have those checked off in the content list So if you look under The issues we have country. Oh, that's contributed growth Governance contract Content tracking so and if you look under requirements, we have this sort of list of requirements that we spelled out that are That are spelled out in the CNCF graduation thing and As you see almost none of those are claimed in terms of writing them up a lot of these will cross over to contributor growth because like say full governance documentation essentially Necessarily includes a contributor ladder because you have to explain how people advance to project leadership but a contributor ladder is also a contributor growth document Thanks, Josh, but that was a definitely more detailed than I than I even expected but that that gives me an idea of where I might be able to lend a hand conversationally or pull request style or whatever Okay, and so Paris just published the template doc review for publication. So we should so people in this working group should look there and make sure things are Ready before we propose them What are to do that in this meeting? No, but let's try to get this out the door today because I know Karen and others have been waiting for reviews Okay, wait, so are we just checking off which things we're doing items looking for initial review, but I don't see any of those So there's some items looking for initial review there Okay, so if people have availability if you can actually get to those today We actually have a couple of advisories also within Governance and so I will add those to the document that are ready for final review. Okay anything else Okay, I Will talk your ears off about taxonomies to whoever wants to listen straight up like if you're if you're here to like Just walk out with me. If you want to spend the next 20 minutes I would love to talk to you, but if there's no other agenda items only Either way Paris, I'm happy to offline it too Okay, or join whenever that happens wherever. Yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think I I've been exploding in github issues. So I If you're like, wow, what's going on? That's just all that's going on. So You're welcome to use the rest of this time for that if you want to all right The trying to remember where the comment thing is Hack and D I did put it on me. I did put it on the agenda too Yeah for the hack MD one. All right, hold on. I'm gonna get out the Taxonomy thing. Oh Josh, do you mean just how to do the comments in hack and D? Yeah, it's behaving weirdly. So oh Okay Cuz like I'm trying to do a comment and instead it's dropping in brackets. Oh So if you guys want to discuss taxonomies and badges and stuff go ahead. I'm okay. I'm not leading that All right. Well, no, I I mean, I didn't want to be like the Kool-Aid man like I usually okay So so the main the main right the main meeting is that let's me say this the main meeting is over Get in two weeks. We're all on one slack all the time Paris and Scott are going to use this time to discuss Taxonomies and badging which you are welcome to stay on for Or if that's not in area of interest for you Then sign off and I'll see you in slack Yeah, I'll probably bail not because I don't love you guys but it's getting late here and I'm hungry. Yeah Don's like I've don't like I've heard this from her like 400 times All right, see ya. Yeah, yeah, I'm gonna go get food. So how do you know, all right, Allison. Oh, yeah, I Chow All right So I know that I know that Charles has also heard this 40 times I think I just want to make sure that there's context. Um, because this is a heavy topic. I'm not gonna lie It's been something that's been Weighing on me for at least a year Here, I just chatted the chatted the Vega the mega issue So just like and I mean in April pointed it out in her comment as well, which is There really only is three classifications of a CNCF project right now. You've got graduated incubated in Sandbox and According to each one of those levels you have to do certain things, right? And That's all great. We're all bought into that notion However, there's more than one way to eat a Reese's and there's more than one rate Well, more than one way to run your governance of your project as we can see I mean Josh and others have already Produced like three different kinds of governance documentations and things like that and Structures that are inclusive and that meet the values of CNCF and things like that but That still goes back to the what I said before which is there's a thousand ways to eat a Reese's so what we've been doing though is in I see others doing this is a lot of the times are like just copy kubernetes or Just copy so-and-sos But there's actually like some thought that needs to go into this number one And that's what the governance group like this governance group is trying to figure out But number two a lot of this stuff can also further get refined into more sort of Like taxonomies if you will because when people say copy kubernetes They don't necessarily some of them may just say copy kubernetes But some of them are also giving this innuendo of oh that means you should be a contributor community Because according to Nadia in her learning with in her learning in public book She calls kubernetes. She doesn't really call kubernetes But you can read the description of what a federation is and federation is pretty much where kubernetes is today Which is a contributor community and it's extremely rare So what we're trying to do here or as I think our next steps are is really break down Do we have different types of communities here that are based on maybe like the Nadia definition and then second thing is Is do we need our own? Classifications meaning like if Nadia's aren't good for us like should we rework Classifications that are good for us And then the third thing is are there classifications that aren't good for us And maybe that's the stuff that we've been fighting about not fighting. That's that's a wrong word But we've been going back and forth a lot about Which is oh does this project need a steering committee? Well, if they fall under maybe like a club bucket, you know, like that kind of thing There's like I think there's a better way to map Needs with like the project value and stuff like that, right? So I think those are kind of like the three things that I'm thinking in my head right now As far as our next steps are concerned And so I like I wanted to like Like this is just so Abstract right now. So I really just kind of wanted to Do I guess start, you know start really getting some more concrete things down Which is our next step Because this also flows into the badging concept because the idea behind the badging Was just pretty much to elevate what kind of governance structure you have on a read me So that it's not buried in a million governance files. So things like governance Steering like you would have like security checked passed On a read me So this all kind of goes in together and could kind of flow in really nicely together Because what I'm saying is that you don't need to operate like kubernetes to have a cncf project and to be in open governance But you do necessarily but you do probably have to have certain qualification and characteristics Of open governance and like for instance in nadia's book Something like a toy Might be okay for sandbox But that's not going to be okay for incubation And we could like draw all that kind of stuff out. So now i'm going to stop talking because that was a lot and Like where do y'all think as far as like if we were to kick this can down the road Like what do you think our next step would be as far as like Breaking ground here I have a question I have a question first of all just in terms of Framework Just a basic one. It's kind of like a user story. Yeah Who are the Who are the badges for I skimmed over the the issue? I didn't really see I saw some implications that maybe it's for basically is it for Is it for end users to understand where a project is to help them understand What trust level they should be able to put in a project because that's what badges are often for, you know Like labels that is the number one. Okay. Yes. Okay. Yep. That is the number one That is exactly right, but then there's also 99 other reasons but keep going. Sorry. Well. Yeah. Yeah, I get To me badges are basically just Indicators that otherwise could be labels or or or anything else um But they just have the extra weight of being official officially decreed by X organization by cncf in this case. So it's like to me. That's what it seems like the badgest thing is for But it sounds almost like the idea is to secondarily use them for 99 other things which might partly be Maybe why it there's some debate. I haven't been part of any of the debates, but but you know, um You know They can be used for organizing for an organization, you know, but but primarily just for organizing where The things at are in their badging status, you know, it almost seems like labels that relate to the badges would be better or things like having cncf organize things or You know identify needs or things like that, you know, um, so exactly Okay, just wanted to level set or understand. Yep Yeah, I think that's our main like if we were going if we're like, you know Going for some kind of mvp and only one use case out the door I think we would go for that like user because that's really where that's where the whole conversation actually started Which was the badges initially like and then it grew then I read her book and then that's when I like the idea grew to like taxonomies But like the idea was really like stemming from, you know, the service mesh side of the house where it's like, well like, you know the like Identification of governance and and ease of participation, which is a big one, right companies want to know how easy it is to participate And not only participate, but what's the light? What's the likelihood of ownership? so Like that kind of stuff is always just buried in docs and most end users either a don't read them anyway or b Like don't care or whatever it is. However, when you're also going in through a Like a graduation process with cncf which comes to the number two persona Is like the cncf community member slash steering committee member slash gb member Then they can kind of start comparing apples to apples instead of trying to compare project x to project y And like wondering why this one doesn't do this one When it's because oh, they're targeted values and principles or contributor community versus a stadium or a club And like it's okay to have stadiums and clubs and open source, right as long as it's documented as a stadium or a club Um, it's it's like it's the it's the crap that you see where it's like somebody's advertising that they're a contributor community And they're not a contributor community That's where you really start to see like The gloves come off and people go that's not open source and you're like, what are you talking about that's open source All right, all cncf projects required to be contributor communities though. That's and that's that so there you go That's the that's the debate number one Are all cncf projects required to be contributor communities. Boom. There you go. That's that's it in my opinion I think that's something that we should find out that we should debate That's exactly right. That's what I mean. So like it's almost like it's almost like I Go ahead Doug go ahead Josh. It it's what the existing documentation says is that they are required to be contributor Well, so like let's define contributor communities, right? Like that like that's like, you know, Scott's like Scott knows where I'm going with this, right? Yeah, what does that mean exactly because that that's precisely what some of the like the main The main points You know came down to when so I looked at all of the governance docs for all of the cncf projects sandbox incubator I mean, I'm sure we'll have to but But specifically trying to point by point understand If there was something in it, I didn't understand or I didn't think I understood already why it was in it Or why it was missing from it I tried to reach out to somebody from that community to talk with them about it and try to understand like what What what's going on because I just wanted I just wanted this next up in this particular case the flux governance to be Just to kind of cover the basis and I probably covered too many bases Future cases that we might not even have but but I just happened to know like for instance with helm We ran into things later that could have been cut off earlier on, you know, we're anticipated earlier on so I mean Sorry the point is that this is one of those questions What is what exactly is a contributor community for so so it's it's and that's what that one issue that I brought up earlier I think right before paris you got on or maybe right when you got on There I had asked initially and josh gave a very good explanation of why that issue needs to be into the tfc repo But that's asking about multi work Requirement and and and that's that's one of them. It's like it does that mean that if you don't have an exact definition of that or Even what would it would it be then you aren't a community You know, you're just a company with maybe one or two other people Yeah, yeah, so like yeah, that might have been long winded. No, that was great. That is that that's that's exactly right like Okay, so and then my other thing too is maybe there's different types of contributor communities like and and nadia She went on a podcast, which you know after She wrote the book and she said explicitly this she says I really hope that people Take this taxonomy piece and break it down for them to make it make sense to them and their orcs Because that's so true. It's just because like we're always debating these kind of like abstract things of like Well, what does this mean and like does this mean that I need this thing too? And I think it's just giving um giving some like Some logic behind the The art. I don't know, you know um So yeah, so he's got it would be cool to talk to you because especially if you've read all the governance docs he'll be cool to talk to you about like Because I'm just kind of wondering too like I might even throw a question out in the maintainer circle channel I'm wondering like how would how would y'all define your projects if here? Here's the four buckets federation club toy stadium and we give them the exact definition that nadia's has for each I would be curious Where folks put themselves where folks put their projects on these like made up taxonomy scales, right? Because that's the kind of stuff where it's like you can grow into these because like for instance Most projects probably start out as toys Meaning like they're just like code thrown over the wall with nothing like Nothing there yet as far as governance And like that's kind of thing too where it's like, okay. Well, you've hit the incubated stage You need not to be a toy now right like that's I feel like that's kind of the Where I'm like Where I'm flowing with this too. So it'd be cool to talk to you about like How we can collect all that data and like it's not a survey because people hate it and I'm not doing another survey um, but like How we can get like people's perceptions of what their projects are Uh and like get people to talk about that so Yeah, I I personally need to catch up uh because I have not read her Hi, come on. No, I'm just kidding. Um Well, I haven't listened to the podcast. I haven't read the book where that little bit In your issue, but I will serious you're gonna be enlightened Friend it's your and I I I owe char I owe charles a book Like I pretty much fell off the planet the last two weeks. I was like, see y'all planet dump like You earned it. I uh, I ended up getting a a kindle copy. So Yeah, pay it forward to someone else for sure. Okay, cool. Did you read it yet? Now I'm gonna grill you I also have been on vacation. So no Yes, that's what I like to hear exactly That's what I wanted to hear all day I mean like for example, are we talking about like like like this kind of a commitment level? Are we talking about no much less much less? Okay. Yeah, yeah much. It's it's 200 pages short a short book. Um And and it's like her like the chapters that she does are actually so well Like site mapped and information are conducted out that you could just jump in to certain chapters So, yeah, totally like she even she even kind of brilliantly the odd thing was she almost broke the book down Kind of like how we operate here in contributor strategy. So that's always just like It's just like all this validation But yeah, so I think it would be really cool if we could like start to Think about that. Like is that the criteria? Right? Not only open governance, but contributor community And if that's the case, are there different types of contributor communities? Uh, yes, we already know that because like I said Josh and folks already broke down that there's like at least three different types of governance and those those types of environments So all right Scott we got work to do Okay. Well, I just bought the kindle version Oh Yeah, I was just like It just sucks watching people go back and forth on twitter about is this open source? Is this not open source? and that really it's really about like the like the ease of participation and how people like to work in open source and The values that they've come to Get used to in whatever community that they're in And like yeah, that that's all open source and great, but it's all different and still great so It is and whether it's false or open source, etc. I mean I I kind of got into Without like wasting anyone's time here, but just a slight context. I I got into free and open source software Mainly as a hobby years ago before my daughter was born before ever ever considered Actually doing this as a job mainly because I was involved in the various open source culture Movement movements and free culture movements And different things, but they are very different things and it's free and open source software It's just kind of like a very Or just not free but open source software. It's very it's a very interesting territory because There are very strict definitions and it's all It's all Legal it's all licensing At this point. So I think governance is a little bit less defined because There are there are There's no official world government. So people that have tried to try You know law has already been figured out, you know You've got licenses and you've got laws and then you can debate it in court You know if you need to and then so there's precedent and then there's it's always evolving, right as needed But governance it's one of those things where you've just got precedent and you've got Aspiration and that's it and and so there's a lot of different schools of thought. So like there are major categories of governance you know Ideas about what open governance is but but uh, there's no real Official body that could ever give a decree of what that means. So you kind of have to just Keep going and hope that you kind of snowball more and more support, you know, and then it's seen as as As value, you know, like for example, if you look at open, I know chris a Contributed a lot. Maybe some of you did too. I don't know in that open governance GitHub Oh, yeah, mostly chris mostly chris. Yeah Yeah, and there's another one that sounds almost exactly the same if you google search for it That's that that that github promotes That's on on their checklist for open source projects. That's not the same thing and they don't cover all the same stuff Um, so I just I'm not exactly sure how to square that circle But I do think that when we're talking about open source and debates about like How cncf defines projects, I think we really Unless I'm really missing something which I very well could be but I think we really need to keep The ideas separate between between licensing and governance because they they really don't There's a very very little overlap Yep. Yeah, but that's and I think that's like, you know, one of the like Because people just kind of lump everything in with opens the term open source Right. That's why I'm just like, how can we break this down a little bit more, right? Like You know, it's kind of like, you know, some Some point in time. They were like, wow, there's a lot of birds. I'm sure they don't eat all the same thing, you know Like it's just like open source. Like we don't all do business the same ways. Yeah Yeah, that you are And I'll try to find the one if I can before this meeting ends I mean, I don't know if it really matters. You can find it through github. It's they they have it on their checklist I think it might But yeah, so so I again, I don't know Paris. I guess with where If if this is just like a completely private project Or if this is something that no, this is not private. Nothing I do is private. Please you can do whatever whatever Grandstanding or soapbox or like announcement channel that you have for other people to help us feel free I actually I actually meant the opens. Oh, but I actually meant the open governance Oh dev and the open governance thing. I don't know if there's a If there's if it just if it just happens to have overlap because chris is working on it Or if or if there is some sort of cncf interest in that or if it's just totally totally independent That's what I meant. Not not the not the badging thing. Oh, oh, sorry Or do you have no response to that? Say again, please. So which which project are speaking about I was talking about the open governance github work and and that open governance github project that's trying to define You know to kick a stab at defining open governance in an independent way I was wondering if cncf is if there's an interest in having an affiliation there Or if that's just kind of seen as totally independent at this point I said it's it's it's independent and can be can be related Not under the cncf scope but more under the linux foundation like that the whole linux foundation is their organization here So yeah, I mean like chris is involved into multiple eras in the open source world So i'm not i'm not surprised to see to his to see his name in the New various spaces that i'm not related to cncf directly Got it. I was I guess I only brought it up because I was thinking of you know in the spirit of not You know not to muddy the waters on what open source means but in the spirit of just generally speaking not reinventing the wheel unnecessarily It seems like we've got some certainly some overlapping contributors there and In the governance working group And I was just thinking kind of where do we put the effort and how to you know, especially Paris since you're talking about uh Really just categorization an organization of what things mean generally for end users Yep, I'm always saying to alexis. No, I'm not trying to make those kubernetes like Like no I love all open source dang it Okay, well, I'll follow up with you I guess I mean that can be just yeah, I don't know that there's anything actionable except for that yet Yeah, let's yeah, let's think of some actionable things that we can follow issues on I guess that's our next step which is all right, let's let's get some goals and Figure out what our next discovery step is all right That's it. That's it for my rants I'll I'll get started reading this book. Yes, Charles. You're late. I'm getting I'm kidding It's so good y'all. I'm sorry. I'm so good. I'm so it's so good Like I guess I just it's so good for me. So do this all the time you know, it's like if you're a surgeon and you read like some like Some thing validating your new heart surgery you're like Yeah, that's how I felt when I read this book. I was just like I hope everybody's doing all right though On a more personal level You are I really haven't seen you in a long time, bud I mean not necessarily zoom seen you but like I'm like really real seeing you. It's been a long time It's been a long time for all of us Yeah, hopefully we'll be able to see charles related this year I'm ready for For los angeles. Yeah, I'm ready to start booking stuff for los angeles. Like I'm really I think I'm ready I'm almost like I'm gonna probably wait until the end of january and see we're like, you know, all the all the The the panty stuff is but uh Yeah, I think I'm ready to book some book us some parties for For cube con la Yeah, you know Scott they're like all the all the kids have taught me there's like supposedly 40 ways to say pandemic now And yeah, yeah, I've heard What is it? Uh What are the other ones? Um, because panty was the one that stuck with me It's beautiful. It's beautiful Well, it doesn't it doesn't um, it's one of those things that can't be Trivialized, but it just gives it a little bit of levity and I kind of like that. Exactly. Exactly. Yes Charles we will meet one day. Yeah, I think we all need that, you know, yeah Uh, yeah I I hope that that does resolve by the end of this year. That would be that would be amazing Yes, I want us to have like a humongous like maintainer party That's what I want And then it then I'll then my 2021 will be will end in a nice way So that's fine. If anybody wants a long term. What's what's another long term goals? There you go Yeah, hey, um, maybe um end of your party working group Yes, exactly Yes See honestly, I need to I need to think about that more. Yeah, the Eeyore knows Eeyore knows I've been trying to I've been trying to To pull those to pull start to pull those bells a little bit Yeah To do so I've already started last year Yeah, last year I already started the I feel like you know, I already started the cncf means a contributor summit You know, I'm laying laying the eggs getting Getting the idea out there All right, oh it's been real I'm gonna go to my next stand up Where luckily I'm not due for technically my status update for another 10 minutes. So that's why I'm dragging my feet See y'all It's so nice to see you scott. So glad you came. Yeah, likewise me too. Thanks