 all right we are now recording Liz go ahead okay so let's start at the top so check off and I have thoughts and I think this might be one of the ones that Justin also sent some thoughts on so I will just copy for the record Justin oh sorry I've sent that to Amy privately and I didn't need to which is fine but you know and I'm gonna say I had similar thoughts that it currently looks very bridge crew branded which isn't a blocker but I just wondered how much they had really thought about that and whether Amy have they had any kind of discussions with CNCF staff that you know of my knowledge but we're happy to be able to like you know help them move this out this is not uncommon to be able to have a project come in that has like super strong ties and then we work on being able to kind of like untangle it right I think it has some potential similarity to cloud custodian and I'm not sure if they acknowledge that they've just mentioned the open policy engine and terraform as a similar tools yeah to be fair the timing on this cloud custodian had just barely come in I believe right which okay yeah that's fair yeah this is one of the ones so before we kind of really got started with the call Elena brought up the point about what counts as a project roadmap and in this example they have just linked to the issues list which I don't know if we have a formal opinion on this but personally I'm not convinced that an issues list really constitutes a roadmap I'm sorry I was like super muted and you know I don't like I feel like at the sandbox level yeah I'd like a summary of like the roadmap but I don't know if we in the form do we describe like how what we want the roadmap in the form of no what well I think there's some phrase about having a published roadmap okay yeah I don't I think it's pretty vague but I'm I don't think I'm I think I just feel like maybe it for this one we it maybe needs a conversation to make sure they really understand what they're giving away in terms of branding and maybe getting a little bit more shape around this roadmap I'm not I'm not super comfortable about how we understand the distinction between what's in the open source project and what's in their commercial project yeah be nice to get an idea of that does anybody feel that we should have a vote on this or should we take it to a conversation as a next step I think the questions you asked are reasonable and we should just go back and ask them before voting so I'm just gonna know in the notes no it looks like an interesting project so just it has a very clear scope and it's yeah it's it looks like it's something that could be could be useful but yeah getting back to the to the owners make sense at this point so the next one on the list is backstage anyone want to raise any thoughts about backstage I think it's a really cool project so too don't know one thing that I think it's very cool I just didn't understand why linker D was brought up as a similar project but that's just such a minor comment yeah I was like is there some is there some feature I don't know about or is some some item on the road map that kind of like aligns it with linker D but overall I think it's a great project and the other comments or reservations or questions otherwise we could move to a vote for backstage seven that passes thank you awesome I think Justin was sort of in absentee plus one as well I don't can we do his like feelings well I mean he sent an email with plus one on the others which is all but to I don't know whether we can to remote votes like that no I'm not gonna try to do that it passes let us move on you're right doesn't make any difference all right now the next one prototype he is another one that Justin did send a comment on definitely some concerns I have some reservation about this project I was looking I was looking at the road map actually there is no road map what is the link is not working for me I was trying to look for that I didn't find anything and then I was looking at the contribution it seems that there are only two people actually working on it and there is no like noticeable adoption by other companies so I'm not sure if at this stage it's a good project for us to accept at least from my point of view like I was looking for out like as an entire project and ecosystem the way like the dynamics is there I couldn't see too much going on yeah I also wondered whether it really justifies being an entire project or whether it should be part of GRPC I don't know if that's a reasonable thing to suggest that maybe their next step should be to because I guess if there is alignment between what they're doing in GRPC then that would be great and if that isn't you know and maybe it could become a sub-project of GRPC and if there isn't alignment then I suspect it's a problem I think as well if very I mean I'm not sure if the project maintainers talk between themselves but I think if there is a very close similarities or at least it makes us to be under the same umbrella maybe they could collaborate but yeah this stage I don't know like for me at this stage it seems just like a very stand-alone project so shall we do we want to hold a vote or should we suggest that as a next steps they talk to GRPC and perhaps where I feel like that would be it I would like to understand what GRPC think of this project of their I agree was that a good idea I will if we want to let me write protop rather than proton do we want to note that there's no roadmap in here or the roadmap was not available okay did I get that right like he clicked on it and nothing worked right yeah precisely I was I was even trying because we've mentioned that we looked at the issues in GitHub I couldn't find too many of those either for interrupting me chef yeah I wonder you know this is not specifically for this project but I wonder if there's any kind of I'm very sensitive to this just a general maturity and traction you know is there in any of your mind is there like a ball like that to be crossed before it could be considered even as a CNCF sandbox project because if someone could just come in and just check all the other boxes you know I I start a project today I mean this is an extreme case and then and then you know have a roadmap and have a little bit of code and that is that I mean that probably wouldn't wouldn't pass the gut check right it's it's it's gotta be I mean this this project is is probably amongst the the least mature that I've seen so I wonder if that plays into you know folks thinking anyway yeah I think it does I I couldn't see this without thinking of it in the context of GRPC as well but but yes if even if it was an entirely new area without that overlap with an existing project I think I think you're right I'd be questioning whether it's quite it depends right I think if we if we had a project that had virtually nothing to it yet but it had you know three different vendors who said we want to have a CNCF home to collaborate on this flimsy idea but we want a neutral space and that's why we want to do it I think I'll be more open to that some explanation some explanation for why project wants to join the CNCF in that in that matrix would help as well like what are the goals of the project that's a great point you know because I thought that to myself for check off like I would like to understand what they're thinking is wanting to join the CNCF and maybe that's a useful question we should add to the form but it's equally it's the sort of question that people can answer in a very hand-wavy way but at least it can point us to some direction when we have questions like that to mature and what are they looking for from CNCF yeah there's always going to be a data there's always a GitHub repository to look at but if the project is is very fresh yeah shall we actually ask Amy to add a question to the form that says why do you want to donate the project to the CNCF oh hello Justin sorry I'm late well actually I feel like we can work with I'm looking at column J J one and it sounds like that would just need to be reworded slightly I think there's two different points here the alignment I people answer this in quite a useful way around like how it how their project relates to other about native projects but Justin we're just talking about how for a few of these we we feel like we want to understand why they want to join the CNCF and perhaps we should considering ask should we ask a question why do you want to donate this project to the CNCF yes yes I mean we kind of yeah we that's true we don't we we yeah I think that would definitely be helpful I don't know which ones in particular you were we should bring you up to speed we are we just been talking about prosop so we decided that for check off and well for check off we we weren't confident about the roadmap and shared your concerns about the the amount of branding so I think we recommended having a conversation with them first right like what they want out of it and why they're doing the donation and do they really understand that they will have to give up all the branding and they also don't have a great roadmap they just have a list of issues backstage past proto great great also shared concerns and recommended that they should speak to GRPC but that led Shane to asking about I think it was originally a question about like what level of maturity kind of passes the gut check for different members and then we got on to this whole question of like it really revolves around why the project wants to join yeah I mean if they want to join because they need more input then I'm kind of yeah then but then also like as you say like talking to some of the other projects and getting input there are other ways of doing that other than joining as well yeah yeah alright so the next one on the list is tremor who has thoughts any thoughts or concerns do they tick all the boxes I actually really liked they kind of document their origin story which I thought was really really useful you know that this is you know we had a problem at Wayfair and we wrote this project to solve it that was pretty nice yeah and this it seemed it seemed quite mature and I had not heard of it before but it seemed I definitely seemed interesting they have a very good issues management with that with all the useful labels like good first issue very very good code of conduct also it's easy to navigate yes I agree it looks really well kind of constructed and documented and organized we're gonna add to the compliments man like these docs are actually nice to read I wonder if we should be like highlighting somebody like when we get a really good application or really good like hey look at this this is this is how you should do your contribution guidelines or whatever alright shall we move to a vote on tremor any objections before I I'm hitting tremor votes so metal cubes if I'm not mistaken we did talk about metal cube last time but they were missing something that right yeah kind of conduct was missing I mean I think that there are there's a lot of experimentation in the edge cube space and I think encouraging that is a good thing I think that no one really at this point knows what architectures are going to be successful and so I think but there's definitely interest so I think I'm quite positive that we should be encouraging experimentation in this space because it's a real space I agree with that yeah I'm actually quite surprised and please pleasantly surprised that they are actively collaborating with cluster API and they providing their own integration with it and it will enable the creation of clusters and their metal or at least having that interface around so I think that's actually because we had a lot of questions about how can I create my cluster but not be in a cloud vendor but still be bare metal so I think that's going to be a very good addition to the ecosystem so I'm feeling quite positive about it and we need to vote on metal heat yep so the next one on the list is Porter and I have a question which is like and I think Michelle you'll know the answer to this I didn't realize deus labs is still a thing oh yeah so I named it actually yeah so we wanted to do a throwback to like just like kind of the vibe that we had deus and then include the new folks at Microsoft and include like you know community people who we wanted to work with on open source stuff so this is like this is the org that we put projects in that are not Azure specific that are cloud native and that we want to just like R&D with and work with community on and eventually donate to a foundation or put it into a foundation cool thank you I mean yeah we've done a bunch of work with Porter and I think it's been a very good place where the community been working on the CNAP staff it's become very much where where we've been moving to contribute as a project because it's got momentum so I'm very supportive of this shall we move to a vote the CNAP spec is in the other org isn't it the other learners foundation yeah JDF yeah JDF so is that because it's a spec rather than a yeah yeah I mean this is effectively the primary implementation at present of the spec and where the all the kind of work around implementation is going at the moment mostly right but it I mean it might not remain like that forever but yeah I think that's why because if my right and thinking that JDF is kind of primarily about specs and have some recollection of historically projects that wanted to define a spec of being pointed in the direction of JDF yeah it's yeah yeah and they have like really good resources for how you should like organize yourself as a as a spec body and function and stuff so great so yeah that's all right data sets life cycle framework and this is the IBM one right yeah so I had a couple of it's got like 35 stars when I looked at it and I just wondered whether I mean one of the related projects that they mentioned is a Kubernetes enhancement proposal so it made me wonder whether this is you know a big enough thing to be a full project or whether it is more of a Kubernetes enhancement it's not very well explained I have to say as a when you come to the project it's it's kind of confusing as to why would I need it what's it for and the contribution guidelines are quite sparse it's just three liners as a developer I wouldn't know like what I start as a contributor if I recall correctly this project presented to SIG storage and we invited them to collaborate with the container object storage interface initiative that's already going on and they started participating in that I'm not sure whether it's worthwhile to continue to accept this as a separate project or not yeah I'm not against the general principle of it I just wasn't convinced it's yeah a whole I think I might be saying the same thing for a couple of projects here that you know not yet on the list later as well that maybe some of these projects should be not projects in their own right but they should be sub projects or enhancements to existing projects yeah I must say I also struggled with the exact meaning exact you know definition of this project it's always a little hard it's it just I think there's a it's it's it's probably you know deserves some amount of experimentation I know it's kind of early stage and things will evolve but you know that I think the better you make it crisp the more likelihood that you know get more users and more developers and you know more stars part of the problem is it's not clear what it is a framework for handling data sets because that's very vague yeah I mean if this is a serious story for Kubernetes then could it be I mean I don't know if Kubernetes are maybe they don't want to have a sort of ever-increasing set of resources but this feels like it's so tied into Kubernetes you know it's just some I might be mischaracterizing it but I read it as some custom resource definitions for for Kubernetes and I'm not convinced that's a full project maybe it's aiming to be something more so do we want to have a vote or shall we recommend I think maybe we should talk to six storage about this I would like to have feedback from them if they've spoken to them already so what's your I mean I think that wouldn't hurt it would definitely worth talking to to the leads there I think my personal opinion is I would pass so do you do you think it is sufficiently standalone in its own right to kind of be I think there is a lot of overlap with the project with what's already being developed in the cap that's being pointed out in Kubernetes and so what I'd like to see is the project kind of differentiate itself from that and say okay you know is it complimentary to that and adding additional functionality on top which it potentially could do if it wanted to or is it going to kind of tackle the same space in a different way which I would caution against I mean even if it tackles the same thing a different way if it points out the reason for it like I I'm just kind of I guess I I just find it difficult it looks like it's adding a lot of metadata to you know to the data that seems like what its purpose is but but but I I'm not sure I fully comprehend the significance of it is that like automatically generated is that like you know it's it's hard just I'm kind of lacking understanding a little bit I think my understanding is that they take various data sources like a bucket an object bucket and make it easy to surface it up into a container they'll mount it into that container and just kind of give you various ways to be able to keep track of different data sets very similar to the cozy proposal right now also is that the proposal that is a cap yes it's similar so the the proposal that is a cap is called a container object storage interface and effectively they're looking to standardize how object storage is surfaced into containers and Kubernetes such that we could kind of have a portable interface much like we have for file block today with CSI yeah so I think it's interesting because that's not listed as you know project similar in CNC elsewhere I think they listed it as a link to the cap because that project is still in design phase right so it feels to me it doesn't feel to me kind of and please tell me if you disagree but to me it feels like we shouldn't be accepting a project when Kubernetes may be accepting another conflicting way of doing of achieving something similar I think we should at least understand you know I think they're saying or what different cases they cover or you know yeah I would agree all right so do we need to go for a vote or shall we just pass this on to let's understand how this relates to that cozy proposal we wouldn't accept at this time with that cozy proposal in flight should understand yeah busted open yet not sure I think I'm actually quite you know the project looks pretty cool and pretty advanced I think this does start to flag how I mean in this case this is about edge computing I think we may have other areas where this is also going to be true I can't believe that all of the edge projects that we're currently supporting are all going to be successful I think the sandbox is the place for yeah absolutely I mean they mentioned keep keep edge and the architectural differences with keep edge but it's trying to do some as related things but I think yeah completely like the sandbox is the place to experiment with these things I agree and I guess as a separate thing for us to think about is you know how when I I'm just sort of flagging up that at some point we're going to have to think about which of these different competing projects projects when they apply for incubation do we want to consider them as as competitors that that kind of thing I think it's not a not a decision we need to take now at all and absolutely they should they should find it out in that kind of Darwinian way I'm just trying to supplant the seed that at some point we can't have like we're gonna have to make some tough decisions well but projects I mean we've seen projects merge and things in sandbox and actually I think there's there's lots of I mean I think there's lots of opportunities to for one of them no other of them to decide that architecturally there are better designs or something that is true do they have everything they need I think they do you do okay shall we do a vote on open yet so do you send that to me privately your plus one oops fix okay so open service mesh I'm guessing that this has all the requirements in place I'm sure it has all the requirements in place I can fill out the form but yeah I'll look how do I stay as out of that and so does anybody want to make any comments or I think this project does win the prize for the shortest time between being announced and submitting for sandbox I think it was two days it's gonna be hard hard to beat that okay let's go on open service mesh so the next one is open cruise I was a bit confused by the scope for this because it seems to be a collection of things my notes say this looks like a lot of Kubernetes enhancements should we discuss with the Kubernetes steering committee well this is actually a little bit different than the Kubernetes self right so it's actually a set of controllers that enhance Kubernetes but the controllers are all about application workload management for example the second management there is thing called a clone set is similar to a hybrid version of stateful site and relica sites so basically Kubernetes upstream only support a key set of workload controllers and it this product compliments that and yes actually has a lot of users in China and I think leave to those of you think open cruise so it's not really competing with Kubernetes kind of like enhance Kubernetes when I see things like I don't know advanced stateful set it makes me wonder whether yeah for the yeah that's a kind of you know should that not be if it's a useful definition should that be a resource definition that's part of the core Kubernetes project yeah for the advanced stateful site we are working with the upstream to actually move most of it to upstream if I can accept this for the other things if upstream wants to do similar things we just move it there but right now it's a place for us to experiment in new ideas and new workloads besides cold Kubernetes and I think for Kubernetes actually we are trying to limit the scope of all these key workloads and for some other like companies who wants more like workloads they can collaborate on this product and I think this is the goal we create this product and we won't donate it to CMCF yeah my kind of concern was it wasn't clearly explained what the scope of this as a project was in terms of because it's like it's a collection of things to experiment with not a which not a sort of it's not a product per se it's just a I don't know is it a would it would this if you're familiar with Kubernetes there's a thing called control manager it's actually similar to the control manager the control manager actually manage a set of things right yeah yeah this is a like like a control manager out of cold Kubernetes and it does more things and yeah I understand that it's just what's what's in scope for this project in the sense of like what would you accept into this project any experiment will control what's the kind of the boundary of what's in and what's out of this project so if it's related to workload management it's in the boundary so for example if you want to manage your own like application and your application has like different departments that up upstream controller provides and you can experiments your controllers here and if it's like something related to like operators and other like non-controller related stuff is not the scope in this project so it does make me wonder why those experiments are and and the answer there may be good answers for this but I it makes me wonder why those experiments aren't happening as part of the Kubernetes project well I think we can talk to the upstream but my understanding is actually trying to limit the scope of the core controllers and we develop CRD in that Kubernetes so that users can actually extend Kubernetes outside the Kubernetes core like part itself and I think that's the goal of CRDs and that's why we are experimenting things outside Kubernetes and for things like at once stable side right we add some little things here and there we will try to like move those to Kubernetes eventually the upstream think this is very very useful for other like users or community at large. I think Kubernetes SIGs is designed for exactly this this type of thing where there are effectively Kubernetes sub-projects that are sponsored by Kubernetes SIGs so I think the advanced stateful set would be a good example of a project that could find a home there. Is the intention eventually to do that for all of these controllers or is the intention to support them independent of Kubernetes? So I think it depends for at once stable side we actually want want them to eventually goes into Kubernetes for the other like workload types we have to like do the experiments and see what is the adoption rate and whether it's common to other users and then we can decide whether we should push this into Kubernetes after rooms or we can just host it in another like product because I think like Kubernetes is kind of the base of this product and if it's a controller the control types are common enough we should try to push it into Kubernetes other than that which will really with a lot of time to actually push it to after rooms if the use case is not that like common. I'm looking on the face of it I think there's some really great experiments going on here that are you know I'm not in any way questioning the work I think the work is good. I am wondering whether this is something we should talk to the Kubernetes steering committee about because I'm wondering why you know would the Kubernetes project prefer this kind of experiment to be happening within their project or outside of their project and you know this is this is good work I don't think we should have ten different project I'm pulling ten out of the air having kind of different Kubernetes resource experiments kind of competing with each other it doesn't feel quite the as I say although I think it's good work I don't I don't think this is sandbox so and I see a few couple of people agreeing. I would be happy to have it in sandbox but I'm happy to ask Kubernetes if they want it first. Yes, ask Kubernetes if they want it first and also understand why you know and I don't think the sandbox should be a shortcut that sort of circumvents the way Kubernetes are running projects and equally if a shortcut is needed because somehow it's difficult to get enhancements working through Kubernetes we need to unlock that I feel like this is something we should be you know talking to Kubernetes project about why this experiments happening outside of their project. Yeah I think looping in SIG apps would be really good to just to get an idea of whether it makes sense for this to be a sub project under under them and some projects really start from within the SIG and this is already pretty mature so getting that also viewed from scaring on how to handle the situation and what their perspective is would be great as well. Yeah so I think unless anyone particularly wants to call for a vote shall we say our next step is discuss with with KSC and yeah as what Amy said. And then I'd love to like just to also add on love to see this get somewhere a better neutral and you know be part of the community because I really do appreciate this work and think it's very useful. Yeah 100% yeah Shang are you happy with that? Yeah I think that's great we can discuss with the student committee in Kubernetes. Great okay then predator. This name makes me feel a type of way. I have a feeling they have a logo as well. A logo is a dog. I don't know it makes me like feel weird. It's not like the code of conduct to see if like this was okay you know. Yeah it's certainly got a style. Yeah so it comes out of a vendor called pay you or an end user company rather called pay you which is you know so it's another interesting example of something that's come from a from a non-vendor from what I can make out although I don't know what the zoos organization is that it's listed under. It's a relatively small number of contributors and I mean 240 stars. Well the 36 Fox is very low for something that's post 1.0. Yeah so I'm just remembering looking at that 244 stars that wouldn't be sufficient to get it on the CNCF landscape right now which is not a bar you know that's not something we've previously said I just noted that but it's interesting that you know as I say that it's being spun out of an end user project from what I can see. I feel like this is another case where I would love the answer to that why do you want to contribute it to the CNCF question. I would love that too especially again that there was no that the project owners haven't completed the alignment with other CNCF projects section I believe I'm using it. Yeah so they've yeah they've filled in the one about explaining how your projects are aligned by saying it uses client resources like Kubernetes or DCRS to run distributed load tests. Also there's not really a clear roadmap I think they also link to the issues. I'd like to see a roadmap. Yes so yeah I think the road the absence of the roadmap is enough to really be I guess we do we want to hold a vote. I'd like more information I really like that these projects are coming in from end users but I'm seeing that maybe we need we need to go back and ask them for more so I just want to encourage encourage these kinds of projects but just with a lot of more information. Yeah and I think also if they you know come back to us in a couple of months and they've shown us some progress and trajectory that will be a bit more compelling. Amy's comment in the chat no clear roadmap resubmit with clear a roadmap question mark so I think we're saying yes even though it's not a question on the form can we ask them like you know what they're looking for from the CNCF just so we get a better idea of that too. Yeah I think we can put that in. We're going to have a little debate on how you pronounce that. I'm not really sure. It doesn't have much of a roadmap either. It's a and not much adoption I mean it's got I'm again 15 forks 155 stars it's a I mean I like the I think the idea is interesting but it's the sort of thing that I would like to see usage to know that it's that they're approaching it right and that say that people find it are finding it helpful because I don't think I think supporting database migrations is something that people have a problem with and this and cloud environments but there are also difficulties with it like rollbacks and A-B tests you know great green blue deployment all sorts of kind of issues with that but I don't know if they've really if they've solved enough of the users problems in the space to make it plausible. Does it come from like is it a collaboration or is it a kind of I'm just wondering about that neutral space for experimentation or is it really a set of people who can carry on mutually contributing without our major computer contributors are from a replicator.com. The idea is really cool I'd like to see this work. Yeah that was my view that it's a good idea and maybe we should just talk to them and see I mean again it's mostly one person. Right so if we don't accept them it's not an impediments to the experiment continuing if we don't accept them today. Yeah well we don't not as far as we know I mean maybe there are reasons. I found myself thinking well it's interesting but is this really I wondered how much it really fits into being cloud native or whether this is really more about database management which you know oh thanks Elena she says too late. Yeah I wanted to say before I leave that I like the project database management have never been easy and yeah I would like to learn more about it. Okay. Bye. Hi. Do we have enough people to remain quarreled for the last two or should we punt them to next week? We do we've got six or one more. I need to jump off as well unfortunately. Yeah in fact I think we've dealt with schema hero because we're saying we want to learn more maybe. Yeah I mean just schema hero in terms of scope I think it fits. Okay. But yeah you're right we should get more info. Yeah clear road map sounds good. Just understanding why they want to join again would be would be good. Yeah and then should we push key line to next close meeting. So the tricky part about that is that we have a two-month cycle right now and right now we still have quorum. Okay. I think we have to drop right. All right. Side's dropped Elena's dropped but I still have six. Okay. It's close. I can stay. I can stay. I can stay. I'm sorry I have to drop as well. I'm sorry. Okay. But we can okay maybe we do it before you know I thought we could do it immediately afterwards. We do that if anything we don't get to in the two-month cycle we just do in the next closed meeting. It's not going to take very long. It doesn't take two months. Okay. Okay. All right. I will put them on the schedule for our next September meeting. All right. So perfect. Thanks everyone. Thank you very much. Bye everyone.