 Is everyone on here? I assumed Alex was going to start the meeting, but I don't see him, so let me grab the agenda. There is the link to the agenda. Go ahead and add your name to the attendees list. So let's start at the top. So we kind of have these current work in progress is going on. The first one was the database additions to the landscape white paper. Is there an update for that? Quinton, I saw you highlighted that. Did you have something you want to add to that? It sounds as a no. No, no, I was just reading it. Are there other people that are able to possibly contribute to this if we're kind of blocked on it? All right, let's move on to the next thing. Performance and benchmarking. I thought there was an update to this. It looks like the last status was provided on November 13. Does anyone have an update on this either? Alex was working on this. Alex is, but I thought someone else was helping contribute to it. Beyond Alex. I think Tyler. Yeah, it looks like there haven't been any formal updates. Does anyone have anything to add to this or has reviewed it? You don't see a lot of comments in the doc. Okay. Should maybe create a date we want that reviewed by? Yeah, I think let's go two weeks time to get all this stuff. I can barely hear you Quinton. I don't know if it's just me or everyone's having the same problem. Probably me. What I was saying is let's try and get that all done in two weeks time. Two weeks, okay. Same with the database, do you think? Okay, let's bring it out. Okay, perfect. She'll add those action items. Thank you. Next on the list. Boy, we're flying through here. For the database, I remember last time there were some comments in last meeting for the update that the Suno gave. He's going to update. I don't know if he has updated it yet. Here's the update from Sugu. In the document. I do see some comments from the 10th to have been before the last meeting. I mean, I think we need to put all of these on a trajectory of having a, you know, time that we try to close it out by. Like there's some notes here at the end with some questions. Things that still need to be added. Consistency and eventual consistency. Do we need to discuss that versus partition tolerance? So there's a bunch of unanswered questions in here that I think we need to address. Maybe we can put a timeline on addressing those in the next two weeks. I don't think rushing to finish this when it looks like there's still a lot of open questions is appropriate. I'm going to just put a checkpoint that we review at least the considering these bullet points at the very end of the document, whether or not those should be included as part of the landscape. Are there any objections to that? I would suggest we just try and draw line in the sand as to the scope and get version one finished and published and then we can, you know, add an extended afterwards. So we want to publish version one I maybe a month from now. And then there was some comment asking so good to move some of the content related to Kubernetes to the use case document that Louise is working on. That was last meeting. Just don't know what's the status of that. I see the local PV's and in terms of the test is that Jean what you're referring to. Yeah, that's probably it. Yeah, yes. Okay, is Louis on since he's leading the use case effort wants to comment on that. That does not look like Luisa son. Okay, I will specifically call that out. Thank you for. Maybe version one by cube con Europe. Things in the cadence that we're currently on. Not sure we'll get it done before then address horrible morning. Okay, there we go. All right. All right. Is there anyone who else was working on the use case document to can comment on that Luis is not on. I think this is pretty stagnant. I think let's let's also add an item to the agenda to the tech leads need to attend this meeting or or at least excuse themselves if they can't. I don't think Louise has been on here for many, many months. Louise actually was on last time. I think last time. Yeah, I remember Louise and Alex said they are going to have a meeting to sync up on the use case document to sort it out so that his PR can be merged because Louise's PR has been there for quite a while. There are a lot of comments. I thought they are going to have a meeting between the two of them to sort out things, but they're both both not here. So I'm not sure. Yeah, it was like identify like the base cases, we were going to try to remove vendor specifics from the actual use cases and put those in examples document and then identify all the use cases we wanted to kind of put in there. Alex is there. Hello everyone. Hi Alex. I'm terribly sorry I'm late. I was a funny story. I got locked outside my house and had to wait for my wife to come home from work to let me in again. So, there you go. That's okay. I went ahead and got started so awesome. So, we, I'll just bring you up to speed we're in the meeting minutes document. We have a pretty small attendance today Alex so we don't really have an update from the database additions there are a bunch of bullets at the very end for possible suggestions. Quinton suggested maybe we talk about, you know limiting scope I think that's reasonable so we can get a version one published and I put that maybe we could publish that by KubeCon EU. So, that's end of March. Yeah, so just a quick update on that. Suku had prepared the doc and I've just reviewed it and I've just created a quick comparison table that I just want to add in. So, what I'd like to suggest is that we move the content that Suku created into the white paper doc into the storage landscape doc and and republish the storage landscape as a version two of that doc and this time get the CNCF to sort of run their marketing engine over that. So, I spoke to a pinged Chris Sanacek and he said to raise a service desk request and then they can kind of do a press release or pay for some marketing to kind of beautify the document on the website. Now, for that, I was just going to quickly ask maybe Jing if you have some time to just give a quick review of the current storage landscape doc specifically around the management interfaces because I was just re-scanning through it just to make sure everything was still up to scratch. And I think the management interfaces where we talk about, you know, flex volumes and Docker volumes and things like that is probably a little super senior with all the new developments with CSI and maybe we want to kind of deprecate some of those older bits. Okay, yeah, sure. I would love it if, I mean we don't, I don't think we have, I mean we have the comments in here of course in the doc, but Alex I think we need like a minimum number of tech leads and co-chairs to also review it and to notate that within the document. So we have consensus because it doesn't look like it's gotten, unless the comments have all been resolved, I think it would be worthwhile to kindly ask that we all review it in depth and provide an approval chain. What do you think about that? Yeah, that would be worthwhile too. I don't know maybe Quinton or, because I know Quinton has some feedback on the doc already. Quinton, sorry Alex, I missed your question. I was just wondering, we were talking about getting feedback on the database doc and I thought you had some feedback that you had already fed back to Subaru as well. Is that kind of resolved at this stage? I don't know, I did give him some many, many months back and I'm happy to reread the document now and add any comments on that. Alright, cool. Alright, so let's do that then and I'll put in my comments as well so we'll have at least those set of comments. Okay, alright, okay. Is it reasonable to go through those in the next couple of weeks with the idea of publishing it by CubeCon or are you wanting to get that done like much sooner? What's your thought there? No, I think we should be able to do it in the next couple of weeks honestly. The comments that Suga has sort of reworked the doc based on the comments already and I've already gone through it and it does look fairly ready. I think we just need to add one table which I'm just going to suggest between him and Suga now and I think we're okay then. So assuming there aren't any other sort of major comment items, I think we can merge it into the V2 doc, into the V2 landscape doc and then if we update the management interface section just to sort of bring it up to make it current then I think we're kind of done on that. So it would be a nice thing to have for CubeCon. Yeah, I think it's a very good idea. Perhaps start getting the marketing machinery moving in the meantime, we can have them a final draft in two weeks time it sounds like and then hopefully we can have some of the marketing stuff released well before CubeCon. So by the time people get to CubeCon they've read it ideally. Yeah, I agree. Sounds good. I have as an action item Alex for you to create the services ticket and then Jing to re-review the management interfaces and us all tech leads, participants, contributors to review the document and add any final requests within the week. Yes, that's right. I did also have another just another quick update. So I took on sort of a semi-tech intro to review the Dragonflight project and provide some feedback because Jing on the talk sort of asked if we could produce some feedback. I went through and re-reviewed the presentation that they had given us and went through the YouTube video. I also spent some time sort of installing it and doing some basic testing, not, you know, a huge level of open depth testing but sort of general functionality and general failover tests. And I think in general it looks, it looks fairly fine. There were, there was just one set of comments around enforcing block checksums and the choice of the checksum and encryption algorithms, which I'm going to add into the GitHub PR for the incubation. Requests for Dragonflight and I think we can close that off in terms of in terms of action points. So I will raise those points on the PR. It would be nice if just somebody double check points that I raise and just make sure I wasn't saying anything too obviously ridiculous but I think we can close that off. And I also then noticed that Michael Michael is on the call. So we have had a request to help with the, to help with the graduation of of Harbor. Now Harbor is a fairly complex project with a lot of moving parts and there was consensus to maybe split out different components of the project to be reviewed by different SIGs. The first SIG that did the review was the SIG runtime I believe a few days ago. That is correct Alex. So Michael, since you're on the call, we just said that maybe you just give us a brief outline of what we think is needed. And then maybe in the next meeting we might, we might shed your presentation once the SIG runtime has provided their first set of feedback. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you Alex. So essentially from a, from a Harbor perspective, we presented to the technical oversight committee of what Harbor is today and our request to be a graduate of project within the CNCF ecosystem. That review went well. And the next step now that we have the special interest group was to do some due diligence from the, from the SIGs as well. So Zhang was the initial person that did the, the reviewed or due diligence talk from, from the TOC. And, you know, I don't know if we got a thumbs up or not, but you know, he agreed to the content that was there and called the DD solid. So now the next step was to look at SIG runtime, SIG storage, as well as potential SIG security to also go ahead and read our documentation that we have provided and give some answers in due diligence document that Quinton created. So what we're looking for from, from the, from, from your interest group is potentially a point person that will be, that will dedicate some of their time to go through both the due diligence document, which is about 30 pages. Some diagrams in there, but definitely a lot of content and, and start looking into if there is anything that storage has questions, concerns, or, or anything that they want to discuss further and potentially deep dive into that. So, so I guess that that's the first step. We're more than happy to show up at your next meeting and do a short presentation of hardware already done a couple of times. So other, you guys might be able to get it from the TOC meeting as well, but we don't have a problem to show up. It's up to you guys in terms of how you want to proceed. My apologies again for having dropped the ball on this review. I know I started looking at it in November and many things have happened to me between then and now. All I can do is apologize for the delay. That's okay. Quinton, you know, it was, yeah, it was bad timing because we had Cubicon, then there was Thanksgiving, then Christmas holiday season. So we're just picking it up right now, making sure that, you know, we basically do our finished due diligence so can go back to the TOC, either with thumbs up or thumbs down or whatever ends up happening. Okay. So we don't have, we don't have all of the leads here, but what I can, I think, Aaron, what we should do is we can maybe ping out an email to see if we, if one or two of the techniques are available to do this. And by the way, if you give me, I did permissions to your DOG agenda for today, I didn't have even the chance to do a suggestion. I can add all the links here so that if someone is doing this offline, they know what the documents I'm talking about. Ah, that's cool. Or if you could, if you could maybe put it in the chat window, I can go to the places. Yeah, I'll drop them in the chat window. Cool. Okay. So, so we'll, we need to find one or two techniques that can, that can have a look at the document from a, from a storage perspective. And then perhaps if there are, if there are questions, I mean, honestly, even if there aren't questions, it might be a good idea, Michael, if we could, for the next six storage meeting, if we could, if we could show them. I don't know, maybe like a 20 minutes or half an hour presentation to just go through it. Yeah, absolutely. You can talk us through some of the stuff, because I think the wider community might, might benefit from that too. Absolutely. We'll can do that. Awesome. Okay, I'll put that on next week, next two weeks agenda. I've added it to the notes here, but I'll make sure it gets pushed up. Right. And if you guys can shoot me a note in terms of who's doing the review, that'd be great if you guys do identify a point person. I see Saad's on the call. Saad, are you able to do that review? I can certainly take a look. Let's start with a presentation next time. I'm not sure if I'm fully qualified for it, but that'll give me a good sense of that. Okay. Yeah, I guess I'll see you guys on the 5th of February. Awesome. Thanks, Michael. Thanks. Amy, are you on the call? Yes, how can I help? I just, since we're going through the projects, I just have one question. I heard, I can't remember where I heard from, honestly, that Rook is considering a graduation request. Yes, that's correct. How has this been scheduled? Because I haven't seen anything from a six-storage point of view, so I was just wondering, do we need to line up somebody to do some work here? So, one of the things that I'm asking for Rook is to be able to have them put in a request for review from you guys. So, at this point, it's basically kind of up to the projects to be able to come to you and be able to say, hey, we'd like you to review us. If you want to be able to change that, if you want to make it slightly more scheduled, we can. But at the moment, I'm kind of leaving it towards whenever the project thinks that they're ready for review. Okay. All right. Okay, cool. So, what you do see is there is a note for like a February graduation request over in the public TOC working document. And that's because they asked, and I just put a note in there to be able to say, all right, we should do that. Well, I know they've been in there for a while, so, and they're probably shooting towards KubeCon. So, if we could help, I mean, I'd be happy to reach out to the project and ask them, you know, to make sure they're on our schedule and giving us enough time to review so it doesn't stall around. Yeah, if you'd like that would definitely be helpful. My last conversation with them was like, hey, look, track for like the end of January, early February and you're probably in good shape. And here we are. So, okay. So, are you taking us on as an action then? Yeah, I'll do that. I'll reach out to them. I know that they were going through a governance review and I think it would be, you know, important for us to weigh in on that changes. Made from their original proposal. I would like that. Thank you for updating that. So, so then I just wanted to give a quick update on the benchmarking and performance. So that did sort of stall over Christmas. We've started to put some work into it and I'm hoping the team, certainly Nicole has just replied. But we're hoping to have a call this week to sort of jumpstart the documents again. So hopefully we'll have an update for the fifth of that meeting. Again, it would be absolutely awesome to have something that we can share. Okay, I added that to the notes. Cool. All right. What else? I will not be here on the February 5th call. I have a meeting off-site. So just FYI. By the way, I misspoke earlier when I said February 5th. It actually looks like you guys meet the second and fourth Wednesday, right? So that will be the 12th. Yes. Yes, you're right. I'll go put it in my calendar now to make sure I attend the next one. All right. Great. I updated the notes as well to the correct date. So we were, when you joined Alex, we were on the storage use case updates. And I have, Luis is not on. I have not. I know that there was going to be a meeting to talk about what use cases we have and pull out the vendors and put those in as examples. Did that meeting ever happen? No. No. And I did chase Larissa yesterday, but didn't hear back. So I'm a little lost, honestly, on that. I'll send him another reminder on Slack and see if he's around. Maybe he's offline for whatever reason. I don't understand why. Okay. Because ironically, one of the other things that Sugu did as part of the database document is actually write up quite a chronic grid section of what I would say should go into the database use case example. So I'm thinking we can actually have like a database use case example as a, as a, as a template to using, using all of that content. So we should, we should try and move that forward. Does we have any other items? I think the last one is the sandbox proposals. There is a meeting tomorrow with the SIG leads to kind of maybe spearheads some of that and the interactions between SIGs and the TOC. So I think if anyone has comments, they want to contribute to that before that meeting, it would be useful. Yes. So, so Amy, I don't know if you want to maybe just give a quick background to the call of what this new meeting that we're putting the diary is. Are you talking about the TOC and SIG chairs meeting? Yeah. Yes. So I'm actually pulling together like some pieces for that today. And part of that is being able to have a week, sorry, a monthly not a weekly call around like space for both the TOC members and the SIG chairs to have conversations about, hey, what is our process anyways? Like being able to review, we've got a couple different kind of project flow charts right now of like, how do we get towards like being able to have each thing have the same answer. So that's part of the agenda tomorrow as well. And frankly, any other items of business that all of you want to be able to cover. I just wanted to make sure that we had like a scheduled time to be able to meet for that. And that'll be repeating every month on the fourth Thursday. An overview. Anything else? Thank you. Yep. So, so, so I guess we're hoping that through this meeting we'll actually start to formalize some of the processes for how the TOC and SIG will be interacting and some of the processes for project reviews, et cetera. And part of it is also just being able to surface questions that have come up as we've gone through the process of being able to form SIGs. Like, for example, one question is, do we have processes for forming working groups and like within the SIGs? And the answer right now is no, no, we really don't. Other than like, oh, people want to do that. That's cool. So in some way we'll be leaning on like the more established SIGs like storage, like security to be able to kind of help guide the way. But each SIG kind of has different goals and different desires. Yep. Makes lots of sense. Yeah, I don't know. Okay. So actually I just did have one last update then or one last question for the group. So we have a number of the sponsors and end users are reorganizing the Cognitive Storage Day for the Amsterdam CubeCon. And I'm working on putting some of the content together and some of the content planned for the group. And one of the things I'd really like to do is perhaps for the SIG or some community members to have either some lightning talks or a full sort of half hour session to go through perhaps an update in CMS Day. So I was wondering if anybody had any specific ideas which we could discuss now. Otherwise maybe raise those ideas in the mailiness on the Slack channel and it would be really good to have some representation. I know that there are some sort of logistic issues because there's obviously a number of sort of Kubernetes SIG cases and things like that which are happening at the same time. But I think if we can get the CNCFC to be represented and maybe talk about the updated landscape document or talk about maybe the benchmark documents or the use case documents for example that are in play or even just to give maybe an overview of the projects that we have worked on or reviewed recently. I think that would be a really good option to get in front of a number of end users and stimulate some discussion. And it might be worthwhile if we would go back and maybe look at some of the questions that were asked in San Diego to make sure we've addressed those from the last time. I don't know. I think we should do if we have a use case doc and I think it's ready. I think that would be immensely helpful because I was asked that question many, many times. How do I even get started? What do I know to use? And not just for storage. You know, I heard that in a lot of talks. And if we can give an update on the landscape, well, I think those are all great ideas. But yeah, we could collaborate in the Slack channel and everyone can weigh in. I've added those two suggestions to the agenda. But people who have edit rights, please feel free to drop things in there. You think we should cover. Yes, good stuff. That was the last thing I have on my list. Do anybody else have any other items to raise? Silence. So maybe we get 15 minutes back. Thanks all. Thanks everyone. Thank you all. Bye.