 Good morning, everyone. Greetings. Good morning. See, good opportunity for Mike check. Right. Morning, everyone. Good day. We're going to wait a few more minutes for folks to join. Amy, do we have enough folks to get started? Looks like we got 21 on the call. Pretty much what we would expect. So yeah, we can rock and roll. All right. Today is Tuesday, January 16th, and it is a public to see meeting. Your participation means that you can pile at the Linux foundations anti-trust policy notice. And since you've made it, the meeting logistics are here on the screen. We have several to see members present today on the call. Let's start with our agenda. So we're going to talk about the to see operations. Folder PR. We're also going to talk about the health of several projects and some dev stats information around several of the projects. Okay, so let's start with the to see operations. So if we navigate to the to see repository, there is an open PR 1234 tried to make it easy. That talks through introducing a lot of the documentation that corresponds with to see processes and structure for how we do things. A lot of this information has been kind of institutional knowledge passed down from to see the to see seating with support from CNCF steps for documenting a lot of this. And we're formally introducing it into the to see repo. I bring it up for everyone's attention here because while we did document a lot of our processes. There is some details in there that may not have been well known or well discussed with current and past to see members. So please take a look at this PR if you have time. I understand that it is a lot of information, but we did try to be as thorough as possible. There are some discussion items there. Several new ideas or topics will be discussed out of band of the PR. It's merely to document as much as possible the current practices that the to see is adhering to. Any questions on the PR. Reviewing it comments. Let's jump over to the project health. We have a few that are not familiar with this. The CNCF to see board does have a project health page that we use to track specific project health and archive. Issues and PRs. We have several that have been open for an extended period of time with several comments and several that are brand new waiting on additional public comment periods to end or due dates to pass. With the project support. We have a couple of questions about open EBS is Richie on the call. Yes. Awesome. Richie, can you talk us through this one? Yes. I did have background conversations during coupon. I also documented them in on GitHub. I also had a few further conversations on select. Outside of statements of intent. I'm happy to have this happening and I would be happy to simply move forward with the archival archival. How do other to see members feel based off of the information presented in the issue and thank you Richie for documenting a lot of that there in the comments. Just a quick one. Just to give a bit of more context here. The project team did agree that they were going to archive off. Parts of the project that were no longer being maintained and focus on the parts that were being maintained. Which sounded like a good outcome at the time back in coupon, but it doesn't look like they've made much. Much progress on that. Also further to that the company that sponsors a lot of the maintainers. Has recently changed the product line up and now they're calling the enterprise products open EBS pro. Which I believe apart from anything else might also create a trademark conflict issue. If we want to move the project to incubation or anything like that. Which is frustrating. So I'm hearing a couple of things. Richie, did you have anything to add. One minor point of information a week ago or so someone poc means like again that they're going to do things ASAP. I honestly lost trust in those statements on the open EBS pro. I agree. It's a Linux trademark issue. I'm pretty certain Amy is already taking action or I can poke Michael about it and see a Linux foundation leader can deal with it because it is clearly against trademark. Okay, so let's I would like to separate the trademark infringement from the archive because it regardless that something CNCF is going to be finding a resolution for as far as open EBS goes. I concur with Richie's assessment of the project. Hasn't been making strides towards any of the discussions with the milestones that we previously provided them with. So I'm comfortable moving this project to a TOC vote for archive based off of the information that's been presented in summarized. I see some head nods. All right. Amy, if you can move open EBS to a vote for archive. I'm kind of going like which one makes the most sense. I think the archival one that's like makes the most sense and I'll just basically like close the other one as part of like the admin action. So okay, that will happen after this meeting. Thank you. Excellent. And that vote stays open for two weeks. Is that right? Or is this an indefinite one? As long as we need it to. But it would be really great if it in fact closed before we had a new TOC coming in. So TOC members, you're going to hear from me. It's going to be great. Yeah. Let's try to get this one done before the end of the month. If possible. All right. Next is Cortex. Is Ricardo on the call? I am. Awesome. Can you walk us through this project? I did not have a lot of time to focus on this. Unfortunately. Well, I'll pick it up. Just to get out here. Let's find, let's look at it now. While we're all on the call. Dimms opened this in 2022. This has been outstanding for a long period of time. Looks like. Lots of discussion in 2022. Several concerns on the longevity of the project. Looks like. Amy, if you can scroll down to the comment. From. September 8, 2022. Around is Cortex, a healthy open source project. It's about. 78 to the way down the page. Yeah. That's the one. They had a release in July of 2022. So. Ricardo, do you think it would be beneficial. To have you re-engage with the project to really understand a little bit more around their roadmap and kind of expectations and the differences between new mirror. Yeah. And what's going on. So what I can do is maybe open up. I hope you should directly on the project link it here and ask those questions there. Okay. So I'm going to go through this one. Let's give them a due date to provide feedback and comments, as well as where they see the project heading. Within the next six months. I'd like to have that comment and feedback from the project. Ideally by January 31st as well before. The next he takes a seat, but. We'll see what kind of response that we can get between now and the next six months. So I'm going to go through the link to the issue and. Wait for feedback. So six months. And we will ask. Which questions would you like to be asked there. The ones from that comment. Where they're planning on seeing the project in six months, kind of the, a little bit more of their roadmap and their planning. As well as whether or not the project is healthy. So I'm going to go through that. And I'm going to go through it as well as just. Issues as well as. Potentially some contributor ladder. Challenges to bring on new maintainers, but it's unclear from the comments. So really just understanding where they're currently at, where the health of the project is, do they see themselves. Moving to the next level anytime soon. Very similar to a sandbox. And your view kind of questions. That makes sense. Okay. And let's try to get a response from them by January 31st. It's possible. That way we can close this. But we kicked. The six months. For the close this one and we, okay. Sorry, just to clarify it. So you would like to reply by the end of the month. Correct. And the six months was regarding the roadmap and planning. Correct. They should have at least six months of roadmap and planning that needs to be completed. If they can link to that and provide that to us, that would be fantastic. The concern is whether or not their future looking and forward planning activities are still going on with the project. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Once you have that note in there, drop it over to me and I'll start like raising it higher for the, it may just be the maintainers just haven't seen this in a while. So we can help. Okay. In any case, I'll link from, from the spine under the one in the project. Perfect. Thank you. That would be great. All right. Next is Curie fence. This was the new one. We do not have anybody assigned. This was filed in October of last year. I think it looks like we haven't gotten any comments or responses from the code owners. For the project. And this is Curie fence. I believe is a sandbox project. It is. This one looks like they might not be aware of it. So let me take this one and I'll go. We have some different ways now to be able to like let people know. That like maybe they're inactive. That's also where like dev stats pieces are coming as well. And they don't rise to dev stats, like inactivity. So this may just be, they just aren't aware of it. Okay. Thank you, Amy. And then. Sonia. This one. I believe we looked at previously and they had a name change. Is that correct? I think the repository is read only since July last year. So they actually archived it. But there is a different name that they have been using. It's ingrained. And I don't see that linked here. And that's what this kind of like links back to as well. All right. This one looks like we need to have a TOC member or CNTF staff reach out and understand what's going on with the project. And that's really because they have a new name that should have come back. At least for TOC awareness or at least to the tag that they're associated with. Because the new project ingrained. Looks. To be the same. If the archive has been archived, then doesn't that automatically mean we should archive it? I'm trying to ascertain. Amy, do you happen to know, because I'm reading through the ingrained. Or the read me on the Phonio, read me and it's got a DPL three license given that they archived Phonio and that's the conditions under which it was accepted into the CNCF as ingrained considered no longer a CNCF project. And Phonio is officially dead. I think so. And ingrained was the one that was supposed to be. The one that was in green dot org is the one that they're actually pointing towards as well. And zoom is very helpfully auto correcting me, but. Yeah, I think. I think I agree with the, like, this should like be archived. All right, so here's what we should do. Let's. Do you think that there is any issue with the existing Phonio. Pository redirecting to ingrained. Does anybody think that there is an issue there, Katie? I am actually looking at their website as well. The ingrained.org and they mentioned they, I mean, they have the big advertisement. They're a sandbox project. But when I'm clicking on any GitHub links, it redirects me to a four page in GitHub. So the project actually does not exist unless I'm missing something. But it seems like it leads to no code repository at the moment. You're right. Same thing. So I think perhaps we definitely need to reach out to understand where the code repositories and for the project to remove the sandbox. On their website, because it's an endorsement, which is not true. Conquer. Okay, so. So let's do this. Let's move Phonio to a vote to archive the project formally from CNCF. And then have Duffy. Yeah, I just found something that makes me wonder if they're just trying to dodge the name problem. If you go to ingrained.org, they, the repo that they point to is actually red sift Phonio D fork or red sift Phonio D. So I feel like maybe this is actually a legal thing because they basically pointed, they've used the same name on the same project and pointed it at a different repository. If you highlight the fork in this on the front page of Phonio, it points to a different repository. This is also called Phonio D. I'm not seeing this. Oh, let me show my screen. Yeah, of course. Let me step share and give back to you. So if you go to ingrained.org right down here on fork. It's pointing toward github.com red sift Phonio D. Oh, I see. So that's actually what's dead is the red stuff. That was the one that was running into trouble. But yeah, it seems like they just haven't cleaned it up all the way. So never mind. I thought it was a different thing. Okay. So let's let's move Phonio to a vote for archive CNCF staff. Please reach out to ingrained to have them remove the sandbox status from their page. And I've, it is my preference that the Phonio D read me be modified to reflect that it is Phonio D and not ingrained. So we're not inadvertently directing any of our adopters elsewhere. But I can, I'm open to others opinions on that. Okay. So we are archiving them. We are asking to be able to change things to make things more clear. Okay. Okay. So let's go with her happening. Walk me through this. Um, ingrained needs to have sandbox removed. Um, from their site minimally. And I think it's reasonable for us to request. That whoever has right access to the Phonio get repository to update the read me to reflect that Phonio, has been archived and to not point to ingrained since ingrained is not a CNCF project. That's more clear. Thank you. Yep. All right. Next up is Paris. Um, so Paris has until January 31st, provide us with a roadmap and response to the requested actions for resolution as a result of their sandbox annual review. Um, that is the third bullet that is linked to there. So we have no comments from the project. Thus far. So after January 31st, if we still don't receive any comments, um, I think we can propose this project for archive. And then do the two week public comment period and then corresponding vote at that time, which I believe throws us into cube con freeze. So it'll probably have to wait until after. I can reach out to the project team and give them a poke. Thank you, Alex. Next up crater. Um, this project looks like, uh, they're self proposing for archive. Is that right? Um, so they have a two week public comment period. Uh, and they've got about one week left. And then they can move to a vote. All right. Next up. Uh, open metrics. We already just need to send the email to, to kick off stuff, but, um, it's going to be merged into Prometheus consensus on both sides. Okay. Um, Richie, could you file an issue on the TOC repo so that we could just track that that's occurring. It's documented. Awesome. And then whatever the due date is, we'll check back in on the issue and close it once that's been completed. Yeah, sure. So we've already talked about Fania. VS code Kubernetes tools. Do we have a link to that one? No, it's just coming from a dev stats directly, but, uh, they've not been responsive. I was curious if anyone else had any other. Input here. Uh, they've got. seven open issues. This is the project I'm thinking it is. Yeah. I can try to follow up with them since it's a Microsoft thing, so I'll put it on my list. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Yeah, no worries. Let's also file an issue on the TOC repo so that one is also captured. I will do that. Thank you. All right. It looks like that's all of our agenda items. Might be a fast meeting today. Moving on to questions. All right. Any questions? I had a quick question about KubeFS from the project team. They're an incubation project and they're looking for a TOC sponsor to move to graduation. They've been proactive and engaged like their own security audits and a bunch of other things. They would like somebody from the TOC to take it on as a sponsor, but I'm not sure what the timelines would be given given the sort of the TOC is changing in the next month. Yep. So I can talk a little bit about this. So on the TOC board, we do have a board that says applications to move levels. That is the current backlog of TOC due diligence that needs to be completed. We have four projects that are currently in due diligence, two that are currently assigned, and flat car, which is still ongoing. The way that the TOC executes our queue for backlog items is we try to do first in for assignment pickups. So we try to pick them up in the order that the PRs are filed. However, we also do try to align the project's domain, technical domain, with TOC expertise, if that is at all possible. That being said, we are having a new TOC sitting and if there are projects that are looking to move levels, they will need to enter the queue and enter into the backlog in order for the TOC to pick them up, but projects do not need to be seeking out TOC sponsors. This was a comment that was made around the term TOC sponsors implying that projects may need to seek them out, but we are trying to make corrections to that to let folks know that it's very much like a get project and that we assign ourselves those projects as they come into the queue. That answered your question. Right. Okay. So, okay, that's fine. I'll give that feedback back to the team. We also have on the TOC repo, let's see if we can find it real quick underneath of our process, I believe. We have an expectations or an FAQs area that talks through what the expected timeline is for projects once a TOC member assigns themselves to the project for moving levels. It's at least about five months, and that's to account for the time to research the project to go through the due diligence evaluation and then scheduling the adopter interviews, which is usually a very long process, trying to get everybody's schedules to align, and then actually having those and summarizing them. So, it'll take a little bit. I know we just talked about where the timelines are. Let me drop this into chat. Is that expectations for folks? There. So if anybody has any questions, you can refer back to the timelines and expectations for moving levels on that URL that I provided in the chat. Any other questions? Well, just adding a bit of a timeline's expectations. We do not take any sponsorship six weeks before KipCon, and there is a KipCon freeze as well, which is two weeks before KipCon, where we don't open any public commenting periods or we don't do any voting. So that's an important kind of timeline to remember as well. Yep. Thank you, Katie, for bringing that up. That's also detailed just slightly further down underneath of the timeline section with the breakdown of when things occur prior to the event and after the event with some additional questions. Perfect. Thank you. Any other questions? We'll wrap up today. Give folks back 32 minutes, 31 minutes. All right. Ricardo, you came off mute. I think that's what I was going to say, but I'm going to enjoy the rest of the day. Awesome. Great. Thanks, everyone. Enjoy the rest of your day. And for our departing TOC members, thank you so much for your service and our last public meeting. And we look forward to our new seated TOC in February. Thank you. Great. Welcome back, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.