 All right, we are now recording. This is our April 26th sandbox meeting, Dimms handing off to you. Okay. So I wanted to look at the resubmissions first because people went for feedback and they came back to us. So Conway Air was one. Anybody remember Conway Air? Yeah, there it is. So I think some of the feedback that we had here was they were too many components and there was also the question about does Conway Air work with standard conformant Kubernetes? Do we get an answer from them? So I know that they went back and addressed the feedback and it does work with just vanilla Kubernetes. I'm not sure that that message got sent out because I personally communicated to them and they need to go through the same process as everyone else. We don't currently have a process for rapid resubmissions and I thought they would get bumped down to the bottom of the list. So should we have a policy if we give people feedback that they don't need to start from scratch? That'd be my first question. And secondly, I can find that response and send it out to everyone if we're wanting to vote today on it. Okay, so we are not ready. So we wait for it to happen, right? I think if you can send us the response now, we could do it. I mean, I think if the feedback has answered our questions we've quite often just fast track them through. Like this, it makes sense to me. I'll be happy to look at the response. And I mean, from your summary of the response, that sounds pretty positive to me. So I'm a plus one. Yep, let me find it real quick. We can come back to it after I do, I got it. Yeah, let's come back to it at the end, right? We'll stop five minutes before. And so Curve, I think this was another one that came back to us. Does anybody remember Curve? They are a cloud native database thing. Distributed storage system. It's used in NetEase. Okay, let's treat it as a new one then because we don't remember what we were doing at that time. So let's start with Catch. Catch, has anybody looked at Catch here? It's an application delivery with framework. They have CRDs, they have a controller and they operate on health charts. They're getting started. Installing Search Manager, Nginx, Catch controller, from source, CNAB. Catch uses CNABs to deploy an application from source. Matt, in your neck of the woods perhaps. Yes, this is one of the few I didn't actually look at. So I'm looking at it now. Okay. Hang on, Catch. Let's look at some data. How many people are there? What are they doing? So 584 stars. They seem to have ongoing stuff happening. But maybe fewer number of people doing since October. They don't have any public spending. The issues are down low. And who's this backed by? Shippa. Anybody familiar with Shippa.io folks? A little bit. Okay, so Kelsey is there. Matt is there as advisor. Vivek, I remember Vivek from somewhere else. And Bruno, this is here. Go ahead, Matt. I was going to say, I mean, it looks sort of like a pass for on top of Kubernetes. Yeah, there are integrations with Terraform, Crossplane and Pulumi. Okay, anything concerning folks so far? So it's a single vendor open source from a startup that they are trying to build a community around. So I'm okay with getting this in. There's nothing surprising here. I mean, it's that platform on top of Kubernetes is a platform trying to be a pass. It's an experiment. Will it work? How will it work out? Right. They're trying to see that. Let's wait for 30 seconds and call for a vote. Okay, Amy. Can you please? I mean, my only comment is just that there's, the number of issues is remarkably low. I've never seen a repo with any eight issues that has 237 close pull requests. It's just, does kind of suggest that, and those are all from themselves. Right. They want to build a community, I guess, and they're coming here for that purpose. Yeah, the only question is whether we fail, I should have a minimal amount of community before they come. We could take that back to them. That will be my kind of question, Mark. So their contributor guide is how to set it up locally and not necessarily mechanisms for contributing back to the project. Their roadmap only has a few items on it. It's not associated with any of their issues. So there's no clear way to understand how far they're progressing and the completion of those other than an in progress straight at some initiative or higher level. They don't have regular meetings for a community. They have office hours, but that's about it and a mailing list. I think they need to have a community. We haven't asked of the folks, Emily, there. But we haven't required that for Sandbox, right? Yeah, not required for Sandbox per se. I was gonna say the same. This wasn't a requirement before. Yeah. So I guess my question then is, if the intent is to get the project to be more experimental and get folks attention, if there isn't any mechanism for a potential contributor to learn how to contribute to the project or how to start in that community, how do we expect the project to be successful? Yeah, so I think we have a checklist we asked folks to work on when they get into the Sandbox. If it's not already there, we can add an item with a checkbox there. Okay. Is that okay, Emily? Sorry, Amy? No, it was Emily. Yeah, I think that's reasonable. I think we should be prescriptive about that for questioning ourselves whether or not that's a baseline requirement or just part of their journey to incubation. Because I do concur with Emily's point. If you wanna grow the community, but you can't be part of that community, it kind of negates the implication. So I don't know if we wanna send back, but again, we don't require communities today. So I think as far as our policy, we probably need to not hold it down because of that. Another data point, at least for the office hours, the calendar is empty. The meeting notes show two meetings in total. One in March, one in April. So we can still vote and tell them to come back and fix these things, right? So the vote doesn't mean that we are okay with them. The vote also means that, you know, we don't support it. But if we look at the list of contributors and stars, it seems to be more well-established than a lot of things we have put in the past in the send books. Correct. It doesn't mean that we should approve it. I'm just hanging in. More well-funded, it's a startup, but I don't think it has a project. I think the question of whether it's actually looking open for fundamental contribution outside the company is unclear to me. Okay, let's see what they say here, right? Strong believers would like to get more exposure. We believe it's the neutral ground project for the flourish and would like to have an increase of project load barrier to contribution and an option that the CNCF provides. So they want to do the work once they begin here. That's what they're saying. And the question is, are we willing to do that? Well, this is work that they don't need from the CNCF to try to ask for contributions and make it easy for people to come on board to, right? And if they really want that, then why don't they start doing it now? Why do they have to wait for it to come into the CNCF to ask for contributions? That's not one of our benefits, right? The benefit of joining the CNCF isn't, now you can get contributions from others, right? I think it's just getting visibility to a wider community that they may not have had before. I don't think it's pulling off on that. We can certainly ask for clarification. But if visibility is part of the intention, isn't that arguably even a little bit lower than sandbox, like a runway or something? So as far as I remember till the last call, we were allowing such projects come in and during the process of setting up their sandbox in an area and trying to pitch to existing CNCF folks, that's when they would do these kinds of things. If you're gonna change, then we'll have to go back and change all our documentation to say, hey, this is a hire bar that we are asking you to do before we can let you in sandbox. So according to present rules, I think we are okay there. And what I would say is Amy has a checklist that she works with each of the sandbox folks. So we could add more items in that checkbox, list of checkboxes. Okay, we are burning up time on this. So I'm gonna call for a vote and the fall where it may fall. Okay, votes are open. Go ahead, please. This one's not included based on just voting to come on through. So I think we can move on. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, so basically build a community a little bit more, start doing things before they apply next. Thank you. So Container Structure Test, this is a submission from Google folks. They have actually, there's nobody working on it anymore. So they want us to take this over. They want to throw it over the fence and say, here you go CNC ask and deal with it. Yeah, and I'm not comfortable with this. No, me neither. Yeah, it needs to be defined, need help with this. I'm not aware of any. So it's one person trying to, you know, shift it to us, widely used Google maintenance sole ownership clean way to, this is worse than the previous one. And do we all agree? So we're gonna, let's call for a vote and say no officially, okay? Oh, Amy didn't start the thing, but sure. Hold on, hold on. Sorry. You should see a message from Amy. I can pick it up from where we last left off, not included, moving on. Thank you. Okay. Take a part. Okay, open function. I keep reading this as open fast because you know, Alex Ellis is doing open fast. So open function, I think it's 10 cent or Q sphere, right? Q sphere. So anyone took a look at this one? Yes, I did. So this one is, I mean, it's a fast functions as a service, right? It just seemed like a prototypical functions as a service that somebody else was trying to build, a competitor to open fast. That's exactly what I thought. I'm like, open function, it's a competitor to open fast. And somebody's trying to make it work. I mean, I've got opinions on it, right? As far as their experiment is going, most of their documentation targets people like operators and those operating it, which doesn't really target the end users who are going to create the functions. So I'm not sure if they're really going after their target audience, but then again, this is just me judging the way they're trying to get there. You know, people are having a very hard time making functional phases on top of Kubernetes and getting them out there. And so I wonder about their approach, targeting so much with operators rather than trying to get all the end users who want to use it up and listening to that audience. But otherwise it's just a fast. Let's see some activity. So issues, pull requests, contributors, seem to be ongoing activity for sure. Yep. I mean, they've got contributions. It's being actively developed and worked. Okay. But I think open function, who'd be sphere or two totally different project, right? We should look at an open function project, right? Yeah, this one is open function. We didn't look at Q-Sphere. I see. Okay, Q-Sphere was another one that I was clicking on just to see who was there, so. Okay, got it, got it. Okay, pull request one, issues 22, insights, contributors, there's ongoing stuff. Yeah. It's basically two people though. Yeah. And it's only a year old, which is kind of new. There's other projects we might look at today that have even less time. There's one that's proposed that a month after development started, they submitted to the sandbox. Yeah, I mean, historically we've rejected almost all those ones. Okay. Actually, no, sorry. Yeah, basically we've rejected pretty much all of those unless there's been a very strong reason why people need it to be in CNCF to collaborate. Okay. Okay, so we feel they are not really compact later, right? Is it because it's so new? I think, I mean, it's new in a space where there's been a lot of other approaches have had difficulty getting traction and sustaining. Actually, I might ask Alex if he wants to submit OpenFest to talk to you, because OpenFest is actually getting user traction now. It's taken a long time. Okay, let's come back to this one. There's only one pull request and issues were there. 20 to open, 39 closed. Well, they had 200 closed pull requests. Yeah, 200 closed. I don't know. The other argument is if you look at like, they are one year old and they do have like 480 stars and a bunch of forks to contribute. So it's not, it doesn't have attention, right? I think their approach is interesting, especially focusing on operators particularly since the majority of our projects have heavily focused on developers. And I've seen a lot more use cases, particularly as of late for serverless capabilities as it relates to the operational deployment and production of services, maintenance, monitoring, all of that. So they're, in my mind, I see them kind of in alignment with that and they've started to realize and maybe the rest of the community has as well because they're so young with so much attention and activity. Okay, so let's start a vote unless any other comments are coming in. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So next one is Teller. There are actually two line items for Teller. There's a duplicate, it's from spectral ops and what ended up happening was spectral ops got bought out by somebody else, a checkpoint. And this happened in the first Q1 sometime a couple of months ago, a month or two ago. And the scene- Change because of that, what does it affect their submission? So they resubmitted, let me find the second one that might have more recent information. This is number five, this is number 26. So, secret management tool, Teller. And this was 321. So definitely newer than the previous one. They're having trouble with the roof. It's all collapsed into one line, I can't. Oh, hold on, let me fix that. Give me a hot second. That should not be how that is. These should all be wrapped. Refresh and try it again. There you go. Much better. Okay, benefits from Teller as infrastructure component. There is a commercial solution. So it's a startup that got bought out and then like the contribute back. So let me go back to the previous one to see if there was any differences. Universal secret manager, security. So I like this project. You like it? I do. And the reason why is because we don't really have a lot of projects in this space. So I personally feel that this is something as needed. When I looked at the project a few months ago, their roadmap was fairly robust and well built out. They're somewhat active. They are not the most active, but it looks like they've taken the time to actually think through all the potential, not necessarily competition in the space, but other CNCF projects that they can integrate with as well as commercial solutions that they could potentially integrate with. So I feel like they understand their space relatively well and that there is an appetite for this. Okay. Is there an overlap with what SOPS is doing in Mozilla? Looks kind of similar. There was some discussion about SOPS when we were talking about flux the other day as well. That is not necessarily well maintained. So this could be... Yeah, it seems similar Ricardo. Yeah. And there was this discussion that SOPS is having an issue of not having enough maintainers. And if Mozilla would actually donate the project to the CNCF eventually or something. So I think it's a nice addition in this space. What's that? So can I just understand what that commercial model is? Are they? Let me go look at that. Yeah, it was Doppler.com. D-O-P-P-L-E-R. D-O-P-P-L-E-R. Remove the O, R-D-I, remove the I, yeah. Sync environment variables at scale. Secret ops platform. Okay, so value added more. But is it... Just want to understand if it's... How the value add works. Is it open core? Is it on the side? Is it a service? Because I think that we don't want to be in a situation where it's a single company product that isn't, you know, for example, isn't shipping features into open source because they compete with the commercial thing. If it's a, if it's a, anyone can host it on the same basis, that's absolutely fine. But just trying to understand if it's like, if it's a hashical fault situation where it wouldn't be acceptable as a CNCF project. So I have a feeling that we would have had that question before they got bought out, not now because they already, you know, cashed out, so to say. Well, no, I don't think it makes any difference that they're being bought to... Right, right. For the same product than... Yeah. I just like it. Okay, let me go. Oops. And I, that's a good question, right? Is what's the difference between Doppler and Teller? Here is the thing, right? Do we ask that question before? Sorry, Erin, go ahead. I just made sure we're asking if one is upstream and one is downstream and if there's a community behind it. Are we just clarifying that? It's not unusual to have this kind of... Yeah. The thing I really want to know is, is this open core where you've got a core set that you've open sourced and then you've got a bunch of additional functionality and you're selling it through it, but you're not going to upstream features, right? Because you keep it in your proprietary version and then you don't allow that stuff into the upstream community. How do we, have we addressed that before? I mean, it's a hash form model. We've never accepted a project on that basis. I think we'd have a lot of reservations about it. Yeah. That's why we would need to be clear. And in most cases, it's all... The product we've had is very straightforward that people are selling the upstream directly and their commercial products are usually adjacent in a clearly defined way. And so there's no conflict. So we haven't had someone submit on that basis, but it's just a case where it's just a little bit unclear and it may well be that it's fine like that, but it's just not. So I posted a link from the co-founder at Spectral. It says that they built an open source alternative to Doppler called Teller for companies that are security and privacy conscious and are concerned about their secrets, data and vendor lock-in. Oh, did we misread that? It was not in the submission. Emily found this one. Yeah. Oh, the Doppler is the similar one. It is in the submission, on line 26. Right, but this... Yeah, this isn't theirs. Okay, yeah, so this is open source. I got it, they're not the same company. Okay, my confusion. Okay. So it lists the unique features down there. Yeah. Okay, so it's not an open core model that two different organizations. Okay, makes sense to me. Okay, so let's vote. Amy, five, we have 30 minutes, 28 minutes. Sealer, Sealer, is this Alibaba? Moving on. Yeah, thank you. Sealer, Alibaba, Harry, have you seen this project before, Sealer.co? Yeah, I've seen that before, but I'm not there for mid-average yet. Okay. So from what I understood, it's like bundling everything into something bigger than a Docker image. So it's easy to... All the dependencies are baked into the image itself, so you don't have to worry about pulling things from different places. So from Kubernetes, copy my SQL alas, just read its WordPress and apply everything in one shot. So this is what Q file looks like, and you can create an image out of it, and you can put it into some kind of a registry. It's probably OCI. Yeah, it looked like a way to package up a Kubernetes cluster with its workloads into a single unit, stick that unit into an OCI registry, then pull that down and start it up again many times. So 1.1 stars, contributors, things are happening. Three pull requests, how many closed? Oh, 766. So they are doing stuff. And this is from Alibaba. So, Harry, previously have we had any issues with Alibaba-driven projects or everything was okay? I don't recall previous issues. I don't know, Justin, do you remember any? No, I mean, I think they've been, yeah, they've submitted several projects. Right. I think, yeah, they've done quite a lot of things. I can't remember exactly which ones, but I'm fine, but I don't know nothing I remember being the problem. Yeah, okay. Okay, so any other things to look for, look at? Celerot, cool. Yeah, okay. Will deliver run user defined clusters in one command. Exactly what you said, Matt. Okay, let's call a word then. Yes, Volcano was from Huawei to it in. Oh, that's right. Okay, let's try. Yeah, word for beta plus one, yeah. This one is ClusterNet. Celeros included, moving on. Thank you. Okay, this one is ClusterNet, I can tell you it is ClusterNet. Okay, they have a long project description, multiple clusters as easily as visiting the internet, general purpose system. Multi-cluster manager tool. Yeah, and if I remember right, they have like an agent kind of thing. Let me find, get to the point of ClusterNet.io. Cluster, multi-cluster management. Learn more, Kubernetes native, remember seeing, yeah. Okay, so you can run your Kubernetes cluster anywhere and they will magically make it into a single Kubernetes cluster and they're doing it by adding agents that run in each of the child clusters and they'll have, in the parent cluster, they'll have the QBPS server, which is an aggregated one. Yeah, yes. So I like this project. For one, its ability to manage multiple clusters essentially is one. I have some potential concerns about how they're going about doing that and it's not entirely clear from their documentation. So like as they move forward, I think having a security review at a much later date when they're slightly more mature would be truly beneficial. One of the things in particular that I like about it is it's all about ownership through groups, which is from their documentation, a nice call out, but I'd like to see them potentially look more at roles and other forms of ownership management. So I think there's a lot of potential here. Yep, yeah. And I'm always for projects like this where we are trying to stitch things into a single cluster. So this is a decent effort at it. It's a one-person project essentially, which concerns me. Like this is a big task. So this person, Dish, I don't know how to say his name, sorry. So he helps out in the Kubernetes too and he does a bunch of things for us on the Kubernetes side. So he's been there for a long time. So I kind of trust this person, but I don't know anybody else. None of the other ones, no one else has really contributed any significant amount. I mean, 11 commits is negligible. Yeah. Sorry, it's a one-person project, which is a little bit concerning to me. Yeah. For something as big as multi-cluster. But also in the submission, there's no mention of the cluster API, I think, on the projects compared to. There's things like CoupFed, which are basically dead since long time and open cluster management, I think, as well. So looking at their contributing guide, it doesn't look like they have any community building in place, but they do have, feel free to get participated if you found a bug and requested a new feature. But that's it. Yeah, I think it's from Tencent, right? So, but I don't know why other Tencent folks are not doing as much here. Well, Tencent also has this virtual covalent implementation that deploys Kubernetes clusters behind. So it seems to be competing for this. Okay. If there's nothing else, we can vote. And, you know, the concerns are about number of people. So we can, say, come back later with more people, more community. Especially contributors from Tencent, I guess. Looking at their roadmap, it sounds like beginning of 2023, maybe, would be ideal for them. They've got some stuff on their roadmap. One, that hasn't been updated in over a year. And two, that would probably be fairly significant. That's a decent feedback to go with. So let's call for a vote and give them the feedback. Not included. What kind of feedback do you want to? Like, sum that one down to like a sentence for me. Come back later. Okay, all right. Come back later with more people who are active in the project, actively doing PRs and reviews and issues. Okay, active community requested. Moving on. Thank you. Aryan, if I remember right, this is Israeli startup, Aryan. So my notes on this one are, it has a Falko connector for active threat protection. It looks less active than some of the other projects, but it does have a roadmap. It looks like it's one person that's doing most of the having lifting within the project. So I'll say, I'd wonder, it requires Falko. So I was wondering, should it be a sub project of Falko, potentially not a standalone project? Yeah, let's give them that feedback. Go talk to Falko first and then come back to us. Yep, that makes sense. Okay. Do we need to vote on the same? Moving on. Okay, thank you. Cubescape. So this, oh, that's Cubesphere. I keep getting confused between these two. Okay, Emily, any idea on this? This is also testing securely. It's a security CICD integration with configuration checks for CISA and other best practices within the community, which is nice. This kind of helps support some of the auditability requirements that we've started to see being asked of adapters. The question is, is whether or not people actually want it? I know the ask is coming from auditors within the community, but... All right. I think they use some EBPF or something or one of the other projects that does EBPF. Does it use Falko too? No, not Falko. Oops, that's not WSE. No. How, what's the engine that they use? Or could they do their own engine? It's OPA. Okay, yeah. See, Rego, that's what I was gonna say. Rego-based, yes, Cubescape. Docs, maybe I should look at their website. So Rego-based policies is what I remember seeing when I was looking. Any other thoughts? Anyone? Again, it's very early. It's significantly under, it was great. It started last August. They do say that it's one of the fastest growing Kubernetes tools among developers, but I don't really see any evidence of that. I look at the number of releases, 119 releases, they do. Turn it out for sure. And they do have some... They haven't hit 200 commits yet. Almost like, okay, what feedback would we give them, Justin? I mean, I think that... They're trying. Yeah, they're trying. I would keep trying, come back in six months. Okay. I think that's fair. Sounds good to me. Sure, we can move on. I see 5.6 stars, 280 forks, not shabby. Okay. You don't want to know where you can buy used get-up stars from on the black market nowadays. Thanks, Justin. They're a security company. They can do whatever they want, right? No, but I mean, I does show some... You know, does show some signs of interest, but it's very early. So here's what I would say. I would tell them to go to the security and security, get some promotion that way, and collect some people and then come back next time. So I would recommend they definitely should talk to security tag, especially since they're going to be releasing the security controls catalog that has a lot of these mappings. So it would be beneficial for them to take advantage of that content. Okay. So let's tell them that, Amy, please. Security, security. We'll figure it out. Okay. Lagoon is a re-application. Oh, okay. Let's say Dr. Pompos. Okay, Justin, have you seen this one? No. Use lagoon computers. They've been there for a while. Okay, not too much activity. This sufficient number of... Wow, 1823 closed. 378 open. 840 closed. Developer focused application delivery platform for... It's another patch. Okay. Locally, Helm charts unkind. Lagoon core remote. We have had a kind of reluctance to host PASS projects historically. Amazing. Amazing. Amazing is the company, I think. Yeah, I mean, they don't say it's a PASS, but it's web application delivery. And a bunch of their examples are using Drupal, and I think with one is WordPress. So they're using... It's all about deploying your web app. See, they've got configuring their examples, Drupal. And how do you deploy in and get going with Drupal here? Okay, this is a PASS. The PASS. So they have an open issue on allowing SSH keys to be shared between users and getting that fixed. Okay, that doesn't sound good. It might be, yeah, an issue. Yeah, the whole reason why they have it as a ticket is because it's over-complicating the API and not necessarily for the security implications of doing that. In fact, it looks like it currently allows them to search for all SSH keys for all users before deleting one. Consonant. Prodigate. They've also had some slippage in the past 10 months about the work that they're getting done. They have a roadmap in place. And looking through it, they're getting a lot of things done. I'm just not 100% sure whether or not they're ready. They also have an open issue on researching the usage of security contacts and pod security policies for Kate's clusters. And they're expecting that to be released in 3.0, but they haven't even hit 2.0. Yeah, the last time I see a note from September 14, 2021, from Amy, reapplying in six months, showing more connection to Cloud Native was what we told them. Because I think at that time, it was just Docker Compose. And now they've added more. So they still have ongoing work for replacing OpenShift with Kubernetes objects. I would say push them off another six months at least, maybe a year without rate that they're going. Sounds good to me. Do we need to take a vote? No, that seems pretty clear. Okay, thank you. Moving on. Okay, Matos. I think the first thing that I noticed on this one was it's a Python-based project. Anybody have issues with Python-based projects? So, not much activity. One of the things that I noticed is that it's a company, Cloud Matos. So Cloud Matos has a project called Matos that they want to open source. And that just flagged the thing of, are there going to be trademark issues with the naming care and then passing the name off? Yeah, we work with them on legal side to rebrand for sure. So that should not be a problem as such. It's only got 19 commits, so it's a no from me. Yeah, they need to... Agreed, way too young. Okay, so Amy... Reapply in six months. Yeah, perfect. At least a year, I'd say, not even six months. Six months is the one that we currently tell people that is actually within timing and given how our backlog has been rolling, it... I'm going to say minus one to them in six months, regardless of whether they come back and see it. It needs to be at least a year. Okay, so... Significant community growth. Come back in one year. Let's put the date also. Okay. So this one... I want to call time because you said you wanted to go back to Conveyor. Yes, let's just finish this one. This is very easy. Basically, what we need to tell them is to go talk to Kubernetes Sieg release and then come back because it's... It's essentially taking the community supported from one year to longer timeframe. And so let them find out if there is any opportunity to work with the Kubernetes Sieg release folks. Thank you. Yeah, and this one, then one after that, CAPC. We should tell them to go talk to Sieg cluster lifecycle. They already have things in progress on the Kubernetes side. I don't know why they ended up... Maybe they did it here first and then they went to talk to Kubernetes folks. So basically, yeah, we can tell them to go continue the conversation there and come back to us if those things don't work. Okay? Sounds good. Correct me, did I miss Matos? We just told Matos one year. Thank you. Okay. Conveyor. Okay, do you have that email, Erin? I don't, I asked them for a final draft and I never got it, so... Okay. I think we need to again pick it up one more time later next time. Okay, thank you. Okay. I mean, from the verbal description, I think I'm okay with it. Do you want to vote without the actual email? What do folks think? Yeah, I'm not comfortable, so let's wait for the thing over here, please. Okay? Okay, thank you. Yeah. Any other projects anybody wants to poke at? We have five minutes. Clusterpedia, Turnbuckle, OpenCost, OpenFeature, Hidra, DevStream, XR, Teller, we talked about. Yeah, Qbray. Okay. We'll give you a few minutes back. Okay? All right, sounds good. Thanks a lot, everyone.