 I can't hear you Amy. There we go, now we can. Oh, okay great, excellent. Hey Amy, could we switch the SIG security update with the SIG storage? I have to leave at half past the hour and their update looks much more intensive than ours. I just want to make sure I get. I'm checking in to be able to see who's joined for that one. I'm not sure who's doing that one. Yeah I don't. Sorry, go ahead. Hello. As we've had a request to be able to move things around a little bit, we've got SIG security up first but request to be able to move SIG storage just a little bit. I think that should be fine. I cannot hear you. I'll unmute myself. I really don't mind what order we do things in. Whatever order suits people best. All right, I will drag storage up to the top. You are now first. Great. I think I'm in quite a noisy wee work so I'm going to keep putting my phone mute. Shout if I forget to unmute myself. So that everyone remembers what happened here. There was also the question of cortex whether or not we want to wait for SIG observability or so maybe we can put that on at the end to the agenda. Buddy, I was fairly quiet so I'm going to poke it like some settings over in here. Amy, I'm going to guess people have not often accused you of being quiet. Yeah, we're three minutes past. Oh god, everyone's having some problems this morning. Excellent. Lovely. Happy New Year. I will put that any other items of business on the bottom. How's that? How are we doing for TSE members? I see Shang. I know Alexis is on a plane and Brendan was going to be joining us later on and I have a feeling Joe might have said he had a conflict. Is that right? Yes, Joe did say he had a conflict. We've got a lower crowd than normal but these are all recorded so no quorum, no votes but we can continue. All right, should we get started? Let's do it. Okay, so my windows are broken. Right, so happy new year, everyone. Normal policies apply around antitrust and meeting logistics and you're all very welcome and shall we move straight on into the SIG updates? So storage, Erin is it you going to go fast? Thank you for accommodating that. So we're continuing the work that we started last year trying to finish up this database. Storage landscape, white paper in addition, the performance and benchmarking is ongoing. Probably one of the biggest projects that we're undergoing that's going to take time and asking for certainly the wider CNCF storage community to help with is this use case library. We have kind of gone back and forth about how that should be formatted to not pick winners. Very cognizant that we don't want to include anything in there that says we are endorsing this technology over that technology so we're making sure that we're trying to be sufficiently vague with it actually still being useful. So the use case library will be if you want to set up a database that's distributed in Kubernetes, here's how you would go about it, here are some examples, here's what is in the CNCF already, here are things you need to think about. So there were a lot of requests at KubeCon from various customers for something specifically like this. How do I get started and get that working and are there examples? So that first example, Luis Palon has put together and we'll just continue to iterate on each one of those examples as we go. The sandbox proposal template, we came up with the questionnaire and then I also came up with kind of a template, you know really interested in collaborating with the other SIGs and the TOC on you know locking that down especially as we have voted, I believe it's been approved to move to three to support sandbox that it will definitely give us an opportunity to make sure we're all on the same page, we're looking at the same criteria and I think it will help projects understand what is expected of them you know coming into the project itself. And then the last thing is Dragonfly, sadly it kind of fell off our radar for a while and then the holidays happened so we're jumping back and making sure that we're giving that the proper due diligence. So that is the SIG front, that is the update from SIGStorage, any questions? One question and this might really be a question for Quinton but I and it might also be my failing memory, I have a feeling that he's got Dragonfly as in scope for SIG runtime, does that make any sense? And it might be, this is an interesting thing because there's a lot of projects that can kind of span more than one SIG. So you know do I don't think we have a formal process or agreement about how we do that, do we do we first evaluate it and say it doesn't belong here, it belongs in you know SIG runtime or is it something the two SIGs need to both have firm agreement on? I think there's a lot of overlap on some of these things that we can't like definitively say it only belongs in this SIG and we don't need any other input so I'd love to get some feedback from everyone about how they think we should handle that. I think it is an open point of discussion in most of the SIG charters, they're what they'd considered projects that are sort of in scope or home base would be that SIG was called out in those, was signaled in those charters. I hesitate to use language other than signaled because because of this discussion here and clearly they do, I mean clearly the projects have multiple capabilities and which capability has the heaviest gravity and makes the most sense to be in one SIG versus the next is I think I would think that we might all be able to readily agree that the wrong answer here is that they are confined, they stay within one and are confined to discussions within that one because that just outside of the discussion about it. I agree and maybe it's just as part of the template depending on if they're sandbox or not there's a place that other SIGs you know reviews and a summary of that review and for sure. I mean I think as we move forward there's going to be a lot of cross SIG collaboration on these projects especially in the Kubernetes landscape. Nothing just belongs in one place anymore so yeah I totally agree with that Lee. Aaron I have to say this publicly because if it hasn't been obvious for my interest in the effort that you guys are giving to refining the sandbox entrance criteria I just kudos for picking up that work and trying to help clarify that process and I'm looking forward to reviewing across SIGs that we can try to be somewhat consistent because because it's yeah because I think that consistency will help. I did think yeah big plus one on that and am I right in thinking that we do now have a scheduled regular SIG kind of chair meeting I can't remember what the name for that is but is that now actually scheduled Amy? Not yet but that is coming so shortly. Great and yeah big plus one on the appreciation for the efforts that are going into improving these processes fantastic. I'm reading Matt's chat real quick um I would suggest projects don't need more meetings but dealing with multiple SIGs. I do agree with that Matt I don't feel like every project should bounce through every SIG and have to go through all the things together so I think that's really up to us to get our crap together and not make projects go through several of the same processes so let's work on how we can reduce the amount of paperwork for the projects for sure so thank you. Maybe we can try to sort of find one home like a sort of home SIG for each project but that SIG might say actually it makes sense in this particular occasion clearly there's a ton of overlap with this other SIG so we'd like their input. Right well they might be even planning ahead and inviting that other SIG ahead of time you know and so they do one presentation and everyone that needs to be there from the various SIGs is there and you know they don't have to bounce from one to the next I'm open to suggestions so. Great all right well with that in mind Dragonfly perhaps should be a kind of collaboration between storage and the new runtime. Yeah so it'll be the guinea pig sadly so hopefully we don't screw it up too bad. Great all right so here's next which SIG is next. Security I believe. Dan hi over to you. Good morning. Is sir Alan was scheduled to present I am stepping in because we're going early and I'll go ahead and run through our update. So high level got a few more members it was 53 last time we checked in so just a small bump there as we head into 2020 we're going to be returning to a alternating week presentation and working meeting schedule we have quite a few you know subgroups and projects that we're we're working through so we dedicate some of the sort of allocated SIG time to get some of that stuff done. We've been doing some some really interesting work around supply chain security and you know have quite an extensive catalog of supply chain attacks that we've you know been curating along with that you know this effort and PR 304 lands some of the definitions so if you're interested in the space of the supply chain security we've begun to put down the definitions and categorize some of the areas and align with you know the work that's been done before MITRE and stuff like that and finally in this will will carry us through the next couple update slides you know we have some updates to the security process we've aligned with Liz and Joe and if we can go into the intake process so you know here you know we have defined and ratified the security assessment intake process if you know you're looking at the schedule you know the prioritization number three is actually where you know things start today you know in the bootstrap process we kind of jump to the CNCF projects and then you know one two are you know really you know what we expect as we get to steady state where you know we have you know an existing corpus of things we need to go security is never done and we have to go back and make sure that we're you know getting everybody up to date and we have that ongoing context so that's our aligned intake process and then if you go to our third slide you know you can go and look at our project board that we maintain and you know we have a spire coming up in February so really excited to you know take in spire and you know we'll have a share out in coming months on on that assessment that's obviously I have one question on that intake process where it says please number two maybe it's a word in things since you have security audited projects within a year of audit is that uh is that the right word does that is that a complete sentence um it is uh um so the my understanding is that in in a year the projects are are invited to come back and you know re-up that's the uh spirit of that uh okay sort of right right the next year right for the next year that's the only thing that in the bootstrap you kind of you know gloss over those first two uh and then as we get to steady state um you know those are our priorities are going to be uh you know making sure that we have uh you know in the existing projects you know a great sense of the security okay any other questions for security my only question was to your wording you just mentioned there Liz is is it a year within the last audit because the audit may not happen when they go in why is it why isn't it like you're into acceptance of the project or something like that is it just like audit guidelines because they overlap just curious so uh you know here there's a uh a difference between the project audits and the security assessments and um you know this is sick securities um intake process and and how we uh go through that and not necessarily um you know the broader auditing of um and you know the the um security validation that you know the cncf ultimately does when it intakes uh projects that answers the question i'm not sure that i did um so you know on the year anniversary and this this is uh uh i'm you know standing in bristera this is her um you know she's the the co-chair lead on this so um you know my understanding is that you know on an annual basis we're uh you know revisiting uh all of the the products that we've we've intake to make sure that they're uh up to date and that we have a clear sense of of where they stand okay yeah that answer is my question great okay thank you tam i think we turn to sig up delivery next who do we have yeah i'm hi okay from the sig up delivery um you can find the details and some links in the slides later on we also started to have now our template available for projects to review so we took existing due diligence reports and um used this as a basis the only thing we really added is future plans for the projects that was missing in some of the due diligence documents we saw so what do projects want you to work on going forward active reviews right now are on argo and the operator framework argo is already in a good shape uh to the document and we'll have a follow-up detailed discussion with the argo team so i think we can uh by the next meeting provide some good progress there and also assume that we make good progress on the operator framework project review the whole idea is that most of it itself um explainatory sort of the projects can fill it out because obviously we can uh as the chairs can do all the weave work uh the next topic was the operator framework um the operator definition uh this is work in progress that we started i think the bigger question here is uh this was a request from the tc what we exactly want to do there because technically there is a definition of an operator in the gubernitas documentation is it we should review it um what it is so is it more regarding a based practice document how to best build them i think that's just just an open question but what do we really want to go there so i just want to avoid to use uh people's time to just go in circles on this i think we discussed about i think it was more than a month ago we started to work on that doc and the more we were like getting documents together we're like oh i think the thing already exists to some extent at least the definition work uh what is a bit of discussion right now is uh what the core as folks initially had uh the whole maturity model capability model these kind of things i think should be structured which might go more in the direction of um maybe a best practice how you should implement your operator i think the document that's now also in the references is one that was written by google uh for q builder how to best structure it so this molest goes back to the tc what the exact expectations around this will you don't obviously need to answer right now but um that would be a good follow-up here so i guess can i just kind of make sure i 100 understand are you saying that that kubernetes operator description sigapp delivery believe that is as good a definition as we need and that's what we should say an operator is uh i think it was more okay why do we want to have it changed i think it's a good definition but it technically does okay and when i looked at all the documents i think it's clear what it does from a very uh let's put it away low level kubernetes approach like we have a cod here we have a controller here we have a reconciliation loop that's okay that's what it does but i think we're like looking at the documents that are out there and thinking okay i'm not somebody who wants to build something for an application it knows me how to do things or it tells me what to do things but not really from a conceptual level i think that's what we might be missing like how do i best like implement and all uninstall or how do i separate different uh things that i put into an operator what should i put in there what shouldn't i put in there i think these are the things we that are not necessarily well defined but the core concept of how it should be implemented i think is is well defined in there well in the docu also pointed out that some things that are kind of operators like flux are kind of interesting because they're not using a cod so the whole github's space is using a git backed repo that is then more or less applied on kubernetes well he could argue about everything that's in there is not really an application specific definition so do we want to call the things actually operators just as they were implemented by controllers i think what we might need is a clearer distinction what makes something an operator and what just is a is just a controller here well and is it a request for best practices for an operator when you're talking about those it seems like i mean like you said operator causes an event to happen it doesn't necessarily mean it has you know that it can't do upgrades or handle all these other things i mean are we looking for like a best practices for operators example instead of just a simple definition of an operator should be so can i jump in here real quick there are a lot of people who are building operators in a lot of different ways some people hand rolling them with client libraries and languages i don't even think about on a daily basis right and then there are toolkits and frameworks and things like that i think the original ask came from the toc for a definition of an operator and i know people have talked around a lot of different things but the original ask if i remember right was back in a meeting in maybe november or october i think might have been november from the toc for a definition of an operator and since we can all go in lots of different directions on what should be documented maybe the toc could tell us what they want and i think it was toc members who may not be present who asked which of course totally complicates this just what i was going to say i think that the people who have the most knowledge of this area are not here but yeah totally we can take that back to the toc we can talk about that on email and i my guess is whether or not that um definition in the kubernetes documentation is broad enough to then say well are all these other things operators or not i i suspect that's what we're looking for it's like a kind of you know litmus test for is a thing an operator or is it something else um but let's take that off to email when we can get people who actually know what they're talking about oh brian's telling us the general term kubernetes uses its controller so i think that still leaves us the question of yeah in the kubernetes i'm sorry list in the kubernetes doc there's actually something that refers to is the operator pattern with motivation examples things like that i just dropped the link in just want to mark as a follow up here uh on the application delivery landscape um so we started to look at the original obviously cnc f landscape here um and i think of how we best structure this uh the key question is do we really need a separate landscape and do we want each individual sick uh create their own landscape of tooling according to the models which might actually complicate things for end users because then we might end up with 10 different landscapes or do we want to reuse the existing ones one question was maybe using some specific tags um on it or maybe even adjust the current categories um that are in there in the selection so hello i put just a quick comment on that that i think the sub landscapes are perhaps the most helpful when when they by and large contain projects that are not already contained in the general landscape because they're a they're a niche focus in a sub specific um area the the serverless landscape is in my mind is an example of that of containing a lot of projects that you that aren't represented today and so and so there and there's some inherent value in understanding that niche space i was going to say i would ask what's the goal from this because what we really don't want is people who are trying to figure out cloud native and understand the projects to see something that reflects our organizational structure right we would probably like something that reflects what are they trying to do and help them solve it so if we're going to do sub landscapes it should probably be who needs help and what kind of help and what are they looking for and then how do we help them surface that information more quickly rather than reflect whatever organizational structure we come up with and change over time that's a great point i'm trying to remember the name of that the the law that says you always end up reflecting your own organizational structure come along yeah um that is a really great point i think the key reason for why we want to have i'm going to say thinking about the landscape is to identify the gaps in it so um maybe i i think we could probably talk all day and all night about whether the boxes on that landscape are the right boxes um but i think that the ask here is for um the six to help us figure out what's missing in the sub areas that they're aware of and in particular to try and you know if we know that there are things that people need rather it's it all comes back to that question of trying to avoid looking at projects in the order in which they arrive and instead saying if we have a problem to solve because there is a gap in this landscape what are the best projects that we should be looking at to fill that problem or to fill that gap i don't know if that answered the question uh yeah i just put in the example here like for app delivery and development which is our area right now there are things that we like database and streaming and messaging as subcategories which are not like reflected by what we're looking into right now from supporting from app delivery per se so that's why i just think that these categories might need some adjustment and we can come up with the proposal i'd be want to structure it for app delivery so that's my point so i don't want to throw the whole landscape overboard but if we talk about application definition have database as a first class citizen in there it's fine and also for example for application definition having telepresence in there feels a bit weird to me as well and we also found that for example flux is currently missing in the landscape also it is a cncf project so i think that some are like related to what uh different sakes do and they should look at what the categories whether they make sense for them or whether they don't like i was a possibility we don't differentiate between runtime and build time security or whatever might make sense there um uh so we will look into how we can classify the existing projects that's ongoing work uh that we're looking into i'm just bringing it up maybe for the other six chairs here as well to look into the categories whether maybe some tweaking and tuning of the text makes sense there so i think it makes sense to have a database category don't get me wrong but it's not really application delivery uh related to yeah last but at least air gap environments this was something from kubecon we had a great presentation by uh jeremy and others a lot of people think well we do similar things and we want to work more on this they'll now ask by the mailing list of who actually wants to work and contribute to this because we don't want to make is a jf ribbon but rather a community driven engagement um support for deploying communities applications to air gap environments for all of those of you who haven't seen that presentation and that are recording from jeremy it's i think i'm actually a very good introduction to that topic and yeah that's it that's great i wonder whether that's also worth raising with um sherel and the end user group who i'm particularly thinking that you know there's all those finance end users and i'm sure there are other groups as well who are quite likely to be operating in end user in air gap environments so they might also yeah we uh during kubecon we had require uh requests from the telco space because they are deploying kubernetes to obviously hardware environments that are that is an engineering gap but yeah this review thing admit i think is a good idea so is this a uh is this a new working group or is this a a document i guess what are we what are we setting up i think it's a best practice document that's where i would start it so for us the point is just you're in kubecon we got a lot of interest and there are people working on it we just don't want to inherit it as a chair so we want to reach out to people who's willing to actively contribute to this document because otherwise we the chairs will be uh doing all the work there that's why i was saying to the mailing is hey are you interested in providing actual best practices what you're doing in there what you're missing in there and so forth and also thriving this this this forward but it might turn out maybe into a a working group as it moves forward but first we really want to test the borders on interest we have done some initial work which i found actually quite interesting especially on how because i'm one of the questions we got it's everything we have right now is great for packaging but how do we get the container into an offline environment and there are actually ways how to get a container into an offline environment but as a lot of people were asking it might not be documented that well enough so that they easily find something to do with this great okay so is that it sounds like there's some work already ongoing is that something you want to maybe set around the toc and and maybe some other groups like Cheryl's groups and and call for participation call for participation that's a good one so i don't know whether we have a formal process there but yeah i don't think we do have a formal process i think we just yeah i think the networking definitely the telco working group would be one that had interests maybe financial services and he who wants to work that we has done something and also she had the initial work that is already available there great yeah okay there's yeah i'm max making the point of reaching out to the CNAP folks oh is that one of the use cases well yeah Jeremy was working on CNAP before he joined the empire so that's how he came along okay thank you is that everything that i see there's a couple more slide there is that it's also just a landscape example so that's i see okay and the categories one so this is just for if you think we had slides this would have just have those great views of the case we want to make here that's fine all right uh the next one is run time where the vote is ongoing i've seen a lot of votes going past on that today so i'm guessing that's pretty close to passing do we have anybody from sig runtime here ricardo hello you're on mute i'm on mute yeah okay hey so yeah so um the vote is out so i haven't synced up with quentin yet so i'm gonna sync up with them we haven't had a meeting yet officially uh so we're gonna have one next week and gonna talk about what we're gonna do next so yeah the document is out vote uh uh we have a tech lead uh uh claus ma already so we're gonna uh so we're gonna go and try to find some more people uh and there was a question uh about sig node and how this is gonna interact with sig node and so i think sig node is gonna stay the same way it is and uh we're just gonna or as a runtime uh sig we're gonna interact with them as far as uh how these runtimes will uh interface with kubernetes and um how they implement their container runtime interface to you know so uh that the kubelet can talk to them uh and yeah that that's it for the updates i mean we're just getting started so i guess that's also a call for participation as well exactly yeah yeah any question actually i think we probably should send round a list to at least the toc and maybe a broader group i don't know maybe something on kubernetes discussion or i don't know what what else maybe some slack channels to let people know that these sigs are now in place and and have people participate correct yeah yeah all right amy maybe you can make sure we do that yep okay uh is that all the sigs no sig network lee you are here all right i don't mean to add a ditto to signaling uh soliciting interest and topics but that's well that's that's one of the things that we're actively doing right now and um uh so there's a there's a tweet out there about uh asking people for topics they'd like for us to address um i don't think that that's because there's a lack of things to address but rather we're looking to start on the you prioritize the list based on people that are showing up based on the interests that they're signaling about which topics to to take on first so as of so in terms of this sig itself we have been voted in as i understand probably back in november and we're sort of official and and often running today so we've did have a just as a reminder last time that we gave an update we had a an intro and a deep dive at cube con we just had our what would i would say probably our first uh healthy discussion um last online you know um last december 19th last thursday so we've got an upcoming meeting um this this thursday we're asking for people to fill in their topics of interest um during our last meeting we had um two upcoming agenda items uh one is uh a schedule for a review of mashery as a candidate for sandbox and then the other one is a presentation discussion of the service mesh interface smi um and i'm not sure that that's uh as as a potential proposed sandbox project just yet i think that there's a number of people that um including myself around the project that um ultimately are are pressing you know adding pressure to go that way um and so we'll so we'll see um so but that's the those are two upcoming agenda items and another one was the of the folks that shown up for last call we had a um representation of a couple of home uh a couple of the projects that that are in in this sig's homeroom or our home projects for the sig i guess if we can use that um but one so one of those was network service mesh and of the folks there that i think they also participate in the telecom user group and we're mentioning some uh white papers that that they have going on around cloud native network functions and some definitions that they're doing and so we had already called out the tug the telecom user group as um as a group to intend have intentional relations with uh and and it organically came up in our first call and so um we'd long uh there'd long been a desire to put out a white paper around to help with clarity on some definitions of terms and to hopefully put out some best practices around cloud native networking and so the the telecom user group i think has already um started down this road so we're hopefully we'll have some discussions next Thursday about those papers uh i think that's that's the update great any questions for lee on the sig network all right just before we move on i know last time we had a meeting i think matt young who i can see you were throwing your hand to the ring regarding uh sig observability i don't know if you've you and amy have any chance to uh sync up about that yeah i was off the grid hard over the holidays until yesterday so for our next meeting i'll have uh likely a pr i kind of wanted to see uh the ebb and flow this is my second meeting so i wanted to listen first but yes i'm so quite interested and um i'm not sure what the right form is to to see who else might be interested in launching it uh or collaborating on the initial proposal great i think uh matt kline if i recall is the kind of proposed uh to see liason so we need to make sure that um that you two are kind of hooked up together so amy can you can you make sure that matt and matt and matt get interested cool not with us today but uh i'd be able to get interested indeed all right so is it is it not um i think jeff went into it who i was going to follow up with this week oh maybe it was jeff yeah all right fine yeah we'll watch for that thank you probably you know it'll all change in in the next couple of months when we have a election anyway so okay um so the last uh actually no i think there are a couple of things still on the agenda one was sort of just to do a little update on the processes um one was the sandbox annual review process which i think i don't know if that's actually been merged or or not but it looked pretty close to being merged uh yeah it's not merged but i think we've addressed all the comments in that so um i think unless we get any more comments we should probably i don't know if we need to vote on this um documentation of the process but i really want to start getting these sandbox projects getting the annual reviews um it's been i don't think any project has ever had an annual review yet so i really want to get this going so uh yeah we'll get that merged and then Amy if you can start lining up the sandbox projects and telling them that there the reviews are expected and the sorry quick question how should uh there's a couple of those that i'm most interested in even being a fly on the wall as were for example cortex i think was slated for january i saw in notes somewhere last month uh we're actually rolling that out over the next quarter uh so i'm interested in just being a fly on the wall i don't know our notes posted or is our calendar how do we find out when we should uh dial in and listen in well funny you should ask about cortex because that was my um any other business item that i had uh noted so um because cortex are on the they want to go from sandbox to incubation and i think they've already raised a PR raised an issue around that um um yes to figure out who's going to do the due diligence for that and the question is should we have the new putative sig observability do that lead that due diligence uh which uh i think if i mean it sounds like you know your kind of enthusiastic to get started so um i think it would probably make sense to put that into i had some folks that's what the kafana folks said um at re-invent and uh i've been talking yeah yes we're quite interested great great i mean i think it makes sense to uh try to get the observability sig formed um but it would make a lot of sense to get your help as a sig on on doing that due diligence and uh brilliant okay so that solves that problem um the other bit of process that we've been working on and i don't think michelle you're not here are you uh no so michelle's not here and i'm sure this is uh you know one of the things that is uh you know we're going to jump back into with both feet now that we're back from holidays but it's that whole uh flowchart proposal that um that sarah originally started on and i know michelle's been doing some work on uh but i just wanted to flag that up or something that we are still working on and want to make progress on all right so uh with that has anybody got anything else we should be discussing today we seem to be early i'm happy to talk about the proposal that i have in mind if you want oh paris yes duke as i saw you there i thought i won't i didn't want to put you on the spot so i'm very happy if you don't know it's all good um and this is something that i talked to liz and michelle and a couple other folks briefly about uh i've recently sent it to Amy and some other cncf folks to look at but i'd like to propose a a sig for contributor experience uh and community relations with the stakeholders being end users and how they can best uh interact with upstream communities in cncf's portfolio as well as help the portfolio projects uh grow contributors find better automation tools and things like that uh coming off the learnings of kubernetes and also our failure stories for those that don't know me i'm the co-chair of kubernetes contributor experience i've been doing this for about two years um so i just kind of wanted to see if if others thought that this would be a worthwhile valuable sig for cncf i can happily share the charter um like a proposed charter that i have that sounds good i see matt's hand sounds awesome i have set up something similar in the no just foundation so uh yeah it's been really useful yeah yeah i think this is good you know as projects want to go from sandbox to incubating to graduated they need to have contributors maintainers from different companies and quite frankly a lot of maintainers aren't good at engaging with contributors or helping them come on board because once you're in the club you totally know everything that's going on how do you explain that to somebody new and as your project gets more complicated it's even more to on board which is why it was great for kubernetes to dive so hard into this because it's one of the most complicated things uh and and i think a lot of our projects could probably use that and not getting more people involved is a pain point especially for some of this handbox projects so helping them get better at this i think will help the quality of our projects um if anybody's interested in seeing the proposal just go ahead and either ping me or amy and we can ship that out and around i think if you're happy to do so maybe just send it around to the tsc planning list okay i mean it's it's very draft like very you know has javascript commenting in it yeah just heads up there very work in progress sure it's a universal need across all the projects to matt's point it's not what most people who initiate a project are creating a project to do and so as such it's a secondary or tertiary focus but it's super critical to every project yeah for sure i mean there's a lot of i feel like learnings and things that i'm trying to implement now in kubernetes where it's like wow i should have done this a long time ago or i had i known this before we could have done this from the ground up a lot of the processes that you try to do retroactively are very difficult when you have 35 000 contributors already uh a lot of things that we can share and i would love to almost make this group uh sort of a not not necessarily a council in itself but uh you know having a rep from every project that wants to do intentional contributor experience uh and things like that would really i think help the community at large uh get some standards and things like even the definition of a contributor uh is you know subject to many opinions so on that particular point that's actually a point of interest for me and for projects that i'm involved in is um well is the definition of something of a contributor ladder yeah if ladders that is literally i think that's the one uh the one piece of kubernetes artifacts that uh is amazing that we'll live on for a long time is the is the ladder and i would love to get that more to get that adopted more into other projects uh intentionally saying what the next step is and someone's you know uh open source contributor journey is uh is essential especially with diversity and making sure people understand what's next for them so and gaining trust and building trust with your maintainers and things like that so that's the that whole like how do i build trust element to contributing and hopefully a healthy recognition of the weight associated with non-code contributions um so just for my own edification there is a contributor ladder defined within the kubernetes project today okay you know given your employer and some of your relationships you know is that same contribution ladder being looked at by the k-native and these steel projects i believe so yes yep i believe they are building a contributor ladder i can't speak for those communities but just from questions that i've had and questions that i've been um that folks have been asking me lately definitely um i not even just k-native and istio a ton of other google projects and then also not even just google i i know dan just said uh something about com-coms but like i work with new j s and and a lot of other projects outside of our ecosystem too on things like contributor ladder stuff so that's definitely something that like i said all can all open source projects should have not just cloud native i think this is absolutely wonderful and um you know we we often talk about you know what can the cncf do to help projects and i think this is going to be a really big boost you know to be able to learn from some of the things that kubernetes have done i think this is fantastic so much much much appreciated brilliant all right uh anyone else want to volunteer to change the world for the better it's okay we're all changing the world for the better brilliant okay you get seven minutes back in your day thank you very much everyone good to see everyone bye all thank you thank you everyone bye bye