 Good morning. Good afternoon. Just waiting for a few more people to join. So we'll wait a few more minutes. We're expecting a couple more people to join. Okay, I think we've got a few people on, but Aaron just pinged me to say that she's going to be joining shortly. Quinton is on holiday, so he won't be joining today. So I posted the link to the agenda in the chat window, in the Zoom chat window. I guess there are just a few things we'd like to cover off today. So the storage landscape document, I sent out an email asking for comments. Has been brilliant. There's been 50 odd comments so far in the last day. Hopefully we'll get some more of the comments, make the document a better document in the end. So I'll be reviewing those comments as we go through, and hopefully get to finalize them shortly. Secondly, although it's not in the agenda yet, Xing and I had a short meeting to discuss the survey document. We are going to prepare a quick summary to share. I think it's fair to say though, and Jing, it would be lovely if you could weigh in here, but I think it's fair to say that the survey wasn't horribly conclusive in the sense that it didn't pinpoint specific pain points. What it did kind of tell us is that there is a broad level of different understanding about cloud native storage, and that people are using or end users are using a wide variety of solutions, whether it's on prem and in the cloud. What it kind of did highlight though, was that the need for information and the need for best practices is definitely kind of implied by some of the answers within the survey. Jing, do you want to just weigh in a little bit here, or did you have anything to add, maybe? I think you captured it very well. Yeah, it is definitely not conclusive. Yeah, I don't have anything else to add. All right. For what it's worth, the high-level results from SurveyMonkey are posted in the agenda item, and I'm posting the link in the chat window as well, if people want to have a quick look at that. Sorry, were there any questions on the survey at this stage? So moving on, the next item was the performance and benchmarking document. I've put a little bit of work to tidy it up and to include some of the feedback items that people had committed to the document. I think it's beginning to take shape, but the one item which is still pending are the benchmark examples. So it's some examples of how to run a volume and database benchmark. We kind of know some of the tools. We've identified those tools. We've got some of the text and play for what it's worth. I'll post the link to the performance document in the chat window as well. And I think we're probably in a state where we can release a useful document that provides some of the information around benchmarking and provides some of the cabinets and some of the common issues around benchmarking and the terminology. And maybe if we're struggling to find a proper way to write some of the examples, perhaps we should consider releasing the performance document in this state because I think it's still useful without all of the examples. I'd love to hear if anybody has an opinion on that, especially a strong opinion one way or the other. Nobody? See? All right. Going once, going twice. In that case, what I'll suggest is I'll finish off tidying up the draft and send out an email to the mailing list asking for further comments or for further help if that's possible. And then we can try and close this off because we've had this open for a while now. The next item which I'm hoping to have quite a bit more discussion on because we have to take a decision is the use case template. So as a background, we had an action item that Erin, Louise and myself were going to meet to discuss the use case template. And for background, use case templates that we were putting together stemmed as a follow up from the landscape document. So we kind of thought once the landscape document is out there, the next step would be to kind of take it one step further and document some use cases and best practice for different use cases that can be applied to cloud native storage. We prepared some items which might be suitable for a template and we had quite a useful debate back and forth as to what types of use cases and what types of examples and how we would build this. The idea originally being that we would have kind of like a library of use cases in a GitHub repo that different people could help contribute to and maintain that would provide useful guides to end users who are looking to deploy applications on different cloud native storage providers or cloud native storage options. And some of the best practice could include things like tuning or best apology options or settings for availability or scalability, for example, for those particular use cases. One of the biggest challenges that came up very quickly was the concept of the king maker. How do we decide which use cases should get included and which use cases should be excluded and how do we avoid the use cases being defined as implicit or explicit recommendations for a particular product because that's something that is quite clear in the CNCF charter that we shouldn't be really doing those type of recommendations. So in the past, a few months back, we kind of agreed, look, maybe we shouldn't focus on the specific use cases but create categories and we sort of said we'd create categories for things like databases or instrumentation and message queues, for example, and have some best practice that can be applied to a category of use cases rather than specific product use cases. And that's kind of where we were. So we finalized a use case template and we were going to try and fill one out and this takes us to the meeting that Erin Louise and myself had last week. As we were discussing it, Louise raised a valid point as to are these use cases still valid and are these use cases still, are these documents still useful? Is it worth the time that we're investing in this? And I think this brought up a fairly important issue in that in order for the use cases to be valuable to end users, they probably do need to be specific and they probably do need to be specific to certain projects. So for example, the type of tuning or the type of things that you would do to make a storage system optimal for one particular database provider might be quite different to what you'd use for another database provider. And it wouldn't always be easy to just provide generic best practice or generic guides and we kind of felt that as a group that if we did bring it down to sort of those super generic levels of those high level categories that the effect of these use cases might be that they become useful to very few people or they don't become useful at all. So on that note, we kind of came to the conclusion that perhaps we shouldn't proceed with creating these use case examples and these use case guidance documents. And I'd love to hear from the rest of the community to kind of get your feedback, you know, specifically the SIG leads but also anybody else that's on the call to. I don't know, Louis or Aaron, and if you want to kind of weigh in and capture anything else that I might have left out. Yeah, I was just going to say, I think you captured it perfectly. I couldn't have said it better myself and so thank you. And I agree. I think we really, our feedback at least from the community, we discussed this in our call was many people are looking for opinionated direction on how to do things. And, you know, we want to provide to them something that's meaningful. And if we can't do that effectively by being overly vague, then it may not be something that's worth our time, putting a lot of work into just creating generic docs. That's not what they need. They need to understand how each of these components work together. So, I agree with the stance. And from here, what we would do is we would encourage those projects to have, you know, use cases, but the projects would have themselves have to be very opinionated from their point of view, right? Right. I don't know, Sato or Suku, what do you think? I think that seems like a reasonable way forward. We do have to worry about, you know, no kingmaking. And anytime we start to talk about a specific product versus another product, that's kind of a sign that we should be careful about where we're going. I'll turn on the other hand. I think what you said sounds right. In order for this to be valuable, you kind of have to be specific. So, it makes sense that maybe this is not the right direction to take at the moment. Yeah, I would, I think we also have to make it interesting for people to come and find and look for, right? So, I mean, what I mean is it has to gain some level of popularity also. So, otherwise, even if it's all accurate, but then if it's, if people don't find it interesting, they won't use it. Yeah, that's a good point. So, you know, I mean, so based on that, so with the complexity of trying to make the information available in a way that it doesn't, it's not specific, whilst also making it useful to any users and valuable such that they actually look for it. I think we're basically stuck between a rock and a hard place. And my, you know, my recommendation at this stage would be for us to just pull back and dedicate our resources to a more useful project, perhaps, which where we can, you know, where we can actually do something a bit more useful for the end users and for the CNCF, you know, whether that's, you know, project reviews or or other information documents or whatever that we think are going to be more valuable. So, unless, you know, unless there's any strong objections to that, I'll note that down in the agenda as a decision we took and we can, we can shelve the use case template and move on to the next things. Yeah, I should, I think we should revisit this maybe when there's more players, right, maybe in three or six months. Yeah, absolutely. You know, I think, I think the work that we put in to define the type of information that would go into use case is, is still valid. I think, you know, at some point, if the situation changes on sort of opinionation or specificity for these projects, then, then, you know, we could, we could, we could pick it up again. But I think, you know, the challenge still remains if, as long as, as long as we can't be specific and we can't be king makers or, you know, can't be seen to favor any particular project by being specific, then it's, it's kind of means we're stuck. So I'll take, I'll take that as a, I'll take that as an agreement, that's we'll, we'll, we'll put that on hold. Finally, I wanted to just talk about the projects which are on deck. So for TI cave B, we've had the presentation. Saad has been involved in the due diligence doc. Erin and I need to put the sort of formalized the, the sake recommendation in that document and then the GitHub. And we'll also include a link to the, to the project presentation recording so that we can, we can take that off and, and put the TI cave B on the, on the two wheel on, on, sorry, on the two week comment period. Is everybody okay with that? Saad, are you fine with that? Yep, sounds good to me. Thank you for helping with that. And we really need to do a recommendation for Rook as well. Yes. Oh, we should get that done. I have a cross plane thing here in a little bit, but I can certainly work on that. You and I in the background created Google doc, Alex and put our feedback in there to give to Saad. I mean, there's no really good outline today for that, but I feel like that. And then we can drop it, we can collaborate on that and then drop it into the PR. I feel like that's the appropriate places to have it publicly posted on the PR. That was going to be my next comment was before we move on, if we can get a external note from Saad on TI cave B for public comment being open. Yep, I can do that. I think that did one for, it was either TI cave B or Rook. I forgot which one, but yeah, just making sure that like everything gets like, you know, publicly announced. Thank you. Got it. Yep, we'll do. Cool. And the, so Harbor is obviously that has been finalized and now that's that's going to public comment at the moment. And the last project that we had on deck was was Profica, which is was the streaming storage provider of Derek Moore has let us know at the last meeting that they wanted to proceed with a CNCF project. So I've pinged him to see if he needed any help to work out sort of which level of which project level he wanted to join the CNCF as and as soon as we get that information, I guess we'll help kickstart that process. Okay. Those were the main things I had on my agenda. Unless, is there any other items that anybody else wants to raise or one would like to talk about? Well, in that case, we actually get half an hour back. So thanks everyone and have a good rest of your day. Thanks. Thank you. Take care. You too. Bye. Bye. Bye.