 Howdy Hi everyone, yo Josh are you leading this thing today? Sure, can someone else take notes in that case? Yeah, I can help Okay, are you wearing a robe? Me? No, I'm wearing a hoodie. Okay Isn't that a hoodie? Just a really short robe. Depends on whether or not it zips in the front. Yeah, no, it zips in the front. But some robes do too, so I mean This is like the is it a sandwich or a hot dog? Okay, yeah, I was just I was seeing that color and stuff and I'm like Paris is wearing a Jedi robe She is She is a Jedi Okay, let's see. We were already recording. So welcome everybody to the May 21st meeting of CNCF contributed strategy as always this meeting is subject to the CNCF code of conduct Therefore be nice and We have somewhat of an agenda today Let's start with Survey stuff So this is for the maintainer survey Paris you Want to bring us up to date on this Yes, I'm attempt. I'm trying to do notes and and this So this is gonna be awesome Yeah, so survey. I got the governance side of the house questions. I added some stuff for kind of contributor growth and we've some some things into Where y'all had suggested made some edits Got that back to you in chat. I don't have it on the agenda though I'm looking at that right now So let me get the link to the question so you can see that or someone else is in slack right now and can grab That don't be awesome. What are we linking? I'm sorry. Is it the governance question survey? Yep Yep, because I have that right now. Okay, I will do that. Yes, that would be awesome. Thank you Um and right now, I think we stand at 12 ish questions Which is kind of a lot I think there is one question on there that we could probably like combo So I wanted everybody to give it at least one more look over And then there will be instructions as well about hey if you have survey fatigue that's cool me too We can either a come talk to you or be you can come talk to us and ask and you know answer these same questions Just verbally and we'll have a dialogue about it That's cool too. So that'll be the instructions but it definitely needs Another I definitely needs another edit round But I think once we have an edit round on the survey and then also an editor round on the email to make sure that We're getting all the points because I think there's at least three points in the email that we're trying to hit home You know then I think we'll be good to go with kind of like our first communication out of the gate That's proactive and personally inviting to the contributors and in most cases maintainers Because we came up with a bunch of questions from governance But that shouldn't be everything because they weren't specifically governance questions right now and I added I added some contributor growth and maintain a recircle not necessarily direct maintain a recircle, but Stuff that's related I weaved it into it. So y'all had eight questions when you when you linked it in chat So I added four That's why I said it might be too long at this state Maybe like one or two not, you know, just one or two try to get it down to like You know and no more than ten minutes or a because for now there are like I think two or three long questions But we can like put those at the bottom and reorder them in a way where it's not scary and it looks like the easy questions are first But I'd like to target to get this out as soon as possible. So whatever y'alls review bandwidth looks like Let me know and be honest, I've been dragging my feet on this as well, so Okay, I guess one of the questions I always have with some of these surveys when they start to get longer is Can we offer any kind of incentive That would You know that would make people more likely to complete the survey I Was thinking that too, honestly, I don't know. What's the state of Druitt pinnacle? Can we ship shirts? What shirts would you ship though like These are all CNCF projects so theoretically they should all Have logo wear available from the CNCF store at least in thin box won't though Oh, you're right, and we do want to hear about the box projects the And I am not willing to volunteer To do swag design for every project that fills out the surveys. No for sure. That's why I was like If we like it's like we can get a code. That's great plus the so someone in chat wants to join the call the one that's working on the And user stuff by the way, sorry to deep rail Okay, we're not we're not to that yet, but he's welcome. I know I know that's why they're sad done Okay, I'll say that the biggest incentive actually is just knowing what we're gonna do with the survey Short and sweet saying how it's gonna help people or not Matters more to me when I fill it out than anything else. I don't really want another t-shirt or stickers or anything Yeah, I don't want to like give someone my address. So I think if we're just Brief and clear on how it's gonna help people and they trust that will follow through that means a lot more than anything else we do Yeah That gives us the tack we're taking and I have not looked over this document since parents added a bunch of questions is we should really have Several questions that allow maintainers to complain about the CNC out Because that will get them to fill it out I mean it sounds terrible, but I'm willing to bet that it's true. So Amy knows what you're talking about So the other thing that I was thinking about too though is the method of delivery because Um, you know, we know that there's like the survey monkey issue with meaning like it's it might take forever to get that completed from LF side. I was thinking of what if we put these questions into like an issue template on our repo and Then people can come in and just fill out an issue and then it doesn't necessarily You know or rather if they you know if they want to be anonymous then we can send them some other kind of form of sorts And they can be anonymous that way Let me stop you there, which is when we decide that we're done with the questions. I can produce a survey monkey survey in a couple of days Depending on my personal schedule I thought the problem is we had to use the Linux foundation Yes, we do but I but The I actually have access to that for producing a bunch of the Kubernetes surveys, so The the one the only delay sometimes is that there's a limited number of accounts So a bunch of a swap off accounts, but but there would not be a huge delay in producing that I thought the point was that we had to have that disclaimer though that we don't have on the Kubernetes surveys Since we're technically CNCF like there's like a Linux foundation survey disclaimer that they have to use for CNCF. I Don't know is any on the line for a legal perspective Not from a legal perspective Ready to take that on yet. Yes. He hasn't even graduated yet. I mean because I have access I Mean I have access to the Kubernetes survey monkey, too. So I mean if that's fine, then let's just do that. Oh Right, so this is a separate one from the Kubernetes one the yeah, well, no the Kubernetes one is the CNCF one It's the same way. That's why I'm like, what's the Like maybe there's an extra disclaimer we have to put in the header, but presumably there's boilerplate for that All right. Well, who's taking the action to put the questions inside of the tool? Yeah, I mean there might be other reasons why we want to have the survey available in a different format But let's not do it because we're assuming there's some gonna be some huge delay for Survey Monkey because it's don't believe there is That's fine, too. I don't think people I don't know that GitHub is really a good option For filling out a survey just because of the anonymity aspect and all that I mean, I know We'd have an option for people, but that just then becomes more work for Overhead and more potential for stuff to get yeah, this place and all that jazz. I Mean to be fair, I don't see a way for somebody to actually fill the survey out and effectively be anonymous It would be very easy to figure out from the answers who they were Paris are you the one that made comments in the stock with your little slashes instead of using like the comment feature? Yeah, I can't comment for some reason. I need to do like a new install What am I gonna do with you? What am I gonna do with you? Sorry, I JavaScript commented on you Sorry, I was like, are these real? Is this comments? I don't know what to say So Josh you're putting it in Survey Monkey When do you when do you want to do that? I'm taking notes After we decide that we are finished composing all of the questions and the intro. Yeah, I've made some Suggestions on Reworking some of the questions like some of the stuff that you had Paris Being kind of the long answer like you can actually make it a yes. No and then have it be a yes You know if yes, please tell us more and that also could remove some of the potential for fatigue because To be frank. I think for a lot of those questions. You're not gonna have a lot of people say yes So in actuality it makes it a shorter survey. Oh Well, I'm ready to send after and after y'all edit. I want to look at Look at my edits. Yeah, so the other Yeah, the other question is going to be How do we get the attention of maintainers across the CNCF suite of projects? I Thought we were Yeah, but when you talk about survey, I'm gonna be completely frank when you talk about survey fatigue I am survey fatigue from CNCF surveys. I Get maintainer ambassador. I Don't know what else Twice a year At least but it seems like much more often. I don't know. It's just like there's always a survey And they also can be very long which makes it harder Yeah, and especially like in the h1 h2 type surveys like I don't necessarily have anything that changes so Whoa, that was a weird noise my head buds just made. Um, I Think that it's good to have like, you know, a clear kind of I think it's good that these questions are very different than what The CNCF surveys ask and I saw that was commented somewhere And I think maybe we make that a little more clear in the email as well that like We know you're getting surveys already This is a different one and this has a different type of questions because isn't the CNCF survey going on now Yeah, I think that's a broader one That's not specific to maintainers, but I remember that taking me a really long time to finish because it was like 17 pages or something Okay, oof. I hadn't opened that one yet. No, I'm not going to Yeah, that's a lot of kind of in-depth questions about different CNCF projects basically it's like how to use kubernetes how to use etc and do use this in production And it's very long Okay Okay Yeah, I think we're also gonna have to do we'll have to do a bunch of social media stuff and for those of us who happen to know Project maintainers personally probably ping them. I Thought we were sending out a dev list too. Yeah Yeah, so I'll Let's write that if we can take notes. Hold on. I'm taking notes at the end of the email So we're gonna the strategy is one send a dev list The second one is post to the CNCF blog Yeah Probably next time we have a TOC sigleads meeting. When is that next Amy? That is our next meeting on June 2nd So you got that yeah, that might also be a good time to announce this and so that gives us a deadline Because there are a bunch of people who are both sigleads and our project leaders for some of the projects so All right, so this is what we've got so far we've got Sorry, I was taking notes too send a dev list post to CNCF blog TOC meetings black channels that are applicable the ambassadors and Twitter I think we've covered like a hundred thousand people right there Okay Okay, so can I go on to working group stuff We done with next episode. Okay, cool. So let's start out with the contributor growth working group So Do we is the setup PR still openers that merged? No, I finally merged And we picked a meeting time as well. So we picked Tuesdays at 1 p.m. Central We just need to figure out if we want to do the same week as this Meeting or we want to do the off-week. I think governance you're doing the off-week, right? Yeah Yeah But that's honestly just because of when we started it wasn't a strategy I don't know if anyone has opinions or Suggestions on that My dog has opinions, but I don't think they'd be valuable for this. So yeah I Everything else being equal. So here's my suggestion for why you should do off week. Yeah, we do off week That means your first meeting can be next week perfect done I'll leave the off week anyway too because otherwise I feel like that one week is a little bit. Yeah Yeah, I'm yeah, whatever whatever you'd like. I'll remember next week is a holiday Next week's a holiday so keep that in mind for lead-up time all that Cool. Yep. Okay So anything else from contributor growth? No, no, I think we just we just need it we need to like re-kick off Okay, so I have a question for you Which which actually has to do with the repo etc, which is both contributor growth and governance are going to be working on Updating expanding clarifying the CNCF requirements at the various project levels How do we want to set that up? You know like I initially set it up where we have a requirements sub-directory under The governance directory With the idea that sort of we'd be working on governance requirements separately from contributor growth and have no conflicts and that sort of thing I'm starting to rethink that because now that we're actually getting in mucking about with some of the actual requirements Number one the line between governance and contributor growth is not entirely clear Because for example the diversity the maintainer diversity requirement There's a governance part of that which says how do we define you must have you know external maintainers, right? But there's also a contributor growth because you know, it's like we can't just require this We also need to explain how do you get external maintainers? the So I'm actually kind of wondering if If we want to have sort of a shared set of requirements documents even though that'll be slightly less coordinated It's more what we need in terms of output I feel like we have a problem though with any of these things related to governments where We're always going to have a requirement and then a recommendation on how to meet that requirement Mm-hmm, and that requirement directory is going to get To become like a junk drawer if we show everything in there Let me know if people feel the ways I think it may be helpful if we reference people or like link people off to where we have best practices and and Advice and templates on how to accomplish those things. Yes, and that's where we collaborate Yeah, a lot of the stuff that contributor growth does I think will be in a templates and best practices section In contributing right and then yeah, there will definitely be times where I think we all collaborate together And vice versa honestly Yeah, but I mean there are also requirements that are definitely in the wheelhouse of contributor growth like for example Require like there are existing requirements around contributor activity levels The you know and and from our perspective we have different working groups for these things But it's the perfect of the TOC. They want one set of requirements So but I mean we would present them as one set of requirements Okay, but I'm saying I guess for us to do our work and to organize that's okay Okay, okay, and that said should I move on to governance work group or is there anything else for contributor growth? Okay governance worth group I I got pulled into some I Urgent discussions around the diversity requirement Mainly because of one project Nats that meets other requirements for graduation but the TOC does not feel meets the diversity requirement or They're on the border about whether or not they meet the diversity requirement The That ended up being really complicated. I will say that that is actually The special urgency for the diversity requirement has actually gone away because It turns out that Nats this situation is much more complicated than that And and even if we straightened out diversity requirement issues tomorrow, it would not necessarily allow them to proceed so So I can you clarify that a little bit. Do you mean that they have other Governance or requirements that they don't meet so diversities and the only thing holding them up The there's I mean that they have Nats was inducted as a project before the current set of requirements was passed by the TOC Oh, okay, and as such they actually have disagreements with the current set of requirements Oh Based on when they joined So it might be pretty much all projects though. I mean Yeah, but a lot of new requirements get put in I Don't know like like six eight months ago. I don't remember exactly what it was I mean there are a bunch of projects but a bunch of projects are fine with the current requirements That's the first one to run across That that is unhappy with it. I Not really thrilled with it, but we just haven't raised the sink. Yeah, because it's not worth it to be quite frank. I Wonder if I wonder if like when you enter the sandbox like if your if like the requirements should lock at that date so that You know if there is changing TOC's and requirements change then you're still held against What was determined at that point of entrance? It sounds like a logistical nightmare I don't know. Yeah, I guess kind of like that that term grandfather even though I don't like Yeah, well, I mean I get the spirit, but I also feel like The whole nature of the way CNCF is set up is like there's always going to be TOC changes And there's always going to be a different set of perspectives and then the world changes and everything else and like, you know There's always going to be stuff that goes on and changes Grandfathering grandfathering creates technical debt Yeah, but you then carry for the rest of time so the The But that does mean I don't think it's crazy to expect a project to evolve in the same way that CNCF involves because On cloud-dative landscape is evolving and all of that. So, yeah Yeah, I guess it's just a matter of like lead time and expectations to with that Yeah, we just we have a couple of projects that join. I mean one of the things that came up that they pointed out was In the early days of this of the CNCF There were no specific requirements around Around sort of multi-company contributions except that you had to be open and open was not defined Well, even now Contributions was not defined, right? Yeah, that was that was one of the things I'm working on But it does mean that from perspective of of our work on updating the requirements There is no longer from my perspective a reason why we have to get an update of the diversity requirement done first before everything else And since I would rather Present a slate of recommendations to the TOC to say, hey, you know, let's update the entire requirements framework. I You know My thoughts are, you know, and then we should go over this so I don't want to go into detail on that because that's what the working group meeting is for And and discussions online Which brings up another issue, which is It's a US holiday during our normal working group meeting next week since April is online with me Do you want to have a meeting next week on a different day? I mean Monday's fine. I'm out all week anyway. So You know, it's fine with me if we do it Monday or a later day I'm flexible. It's not like we're going anywhere. So yeah, I'd rather I mean, I would rather do it a later day just because I Hate having a day where I have nothing else and then have one meeting. I Hear you. I hear what tends to happen is they tend to show up to those meetings really late Yeah, I'm fine. I like I said, it's Fairly flexible Week, I just have I can't do Wednesday at 10 or Thursday at nine But other than that. Well, so what about Tuesday afternoon? Just shift it Okay So one of the other things is Terrence is here And wanted to briefly touch on the end user requirement Actually, here's a good question Terrence, would you be able to come back at Tuesday? Next week to do a more in-depth discussion of the end user requirement. We'll touch on it briefly here When you say 10 what times on your time? Oh, sorry one. Sorry 1 p.m. Next week Pacific time. I Don't know what time zone you're in. So if you're in like central, so I think that's like 11 a.m. Right central No central it's 3 p.m. Oh 3 p.m. Yes, I can do that. Okay, so So in brief let's touch on the other thing that we will be discussing next week, which is the end user requirement I Do you want to summarize the issue the blocker that you're having with the end user requirement for governance Yeah, so I guess like kind of just broad context the climate bill packs projects under the app delivery SIG We were a sandbox project like a year and a half ago. We're going through incubation and we filled out a due diligence doc and There's questions of basically what end users mean for our project. So The project is mostly a specification I guess under like cloud events where you find like a standard or a set of things of like how you can use bill Packs and the spec and there's some tooling provided around that but we ourselves aren't hosting any bill packs, but Like a platform like most of the Kind of companies that would are interested in our project tend to be like cloud vendors. So like Google just announced support for Cloud native bill packs and built a bunch of cognitive bill packs on top of that And you can use it with the Google cloud platform and for us That's like a big win like for usage and and stuff, but I think like according to The actual definition around end users least this is what like Harry from who's the chair from the app SIG was saying to us like the two C may not recognize that as an end user And so if you look at like our due diligence list Like a lot of our users are either open source projects that are using it like scaffold or vendors like Your VMware Horoku sells for school Deft etc that like are poignant in as a way you can like Use their like this project and it's like documented officially like on their websites and everything and Like just trying to get clarity of like what actually is an end user for the incubation requirement Like there's like kind of two founding companies that are part of the project that we're using it internally to build their own platforms But then there's a question like if someone say uses heroku who happens to implement bill packs or Google weapons to implement bill packs And they use cloud and bill packs are they an end user of the project or do you have to actually like? host your own like coob cluster or something that happens to have Kind of a bill packs as part of your build pipeline and therefore you're now an end user That makes sense. Yeah, okay. Yeah, so that opens a question and the Okay, so I Understand the question there and so we'll follow up on next Tuesday discussing this And see if we can hammer out a recommendation to the TOC on how the requirement could either be modified or clarified And by the way, one of the other things since this person isn't here. I'll do the online. Is it the other? There was another project that this was brought up in the same context for cloud events Who also felt they were in the same situation? I think they aren't they ready in incubation Yeah, but the end user requirements get amped up for graduation Okay the Yeah, they are also another similar because they are also like a specification with to learn it. So I guess Our project is somewhat similar in that kind of scoping Okay so We will cover that in that context and see if there's something that we can recommend Is that are they looking for something like an adopters MD? What's like the literal? Artifact that they're looking for for that requirement By for that pronoun, do you mean the TOC or the project? Yes. Yes. Yes Yeah, like in the TOC when they're when they're saying that there's an end user requirement Like are they expecting that there's some kind of artifact in a repo kind of like I guess I guess that's In the due diligence that like I had to draft for incubation one of the things in the template is like there is an end user requirement of three end users and most projects who kind of I guess like I've read a lot of drafts of Due diligence docs at this point They tend to list out like three users in depth and talk about them to some degree and then they link out to an adopters MD Yeah, but Yeah, I mean there's no like requirements around kind of the adopters thing But yeah, the end users in production is kind of a big requirement. I think for the due diligence Yeah, and the the goal of as I understand it So one of the things by the way that I'm that we're gonna be that I'm going To propose that we hammer on the TOC about is that every one of these gateway requirements needs to come with a reasoning background as to why this requirement exists Because like I believe the reason for the end user requirement is to show that this project is actually being used and Isn't just a spec created by a vendor or a group of vendors that has no actual users We're trying to avoid the C++ problem in other words and But that's my belief the TOC has not actually endorsed that reason So And we need to get the TOC to say this is the rationale for this requirement because if we understand the rationale Then then the actual requirement about say who is an end user will become a lot clearer Yeah, I think a lot of the stuff would be solved will not necessarily solve but like a good starting point Like you said is like if the TOC can tell us what it is They're trying to actually get like what their dream project looks like for each category Then we can you know better build out the requirement list and then I think we also need to be clear on what a Project gets by being in each category like what's the incentive to graduate? the So, okay So more about that next week April did we have anything else wanted to say about current work? And we set up the directories. I still need to set up a bunch of work-in-progress documents Yeah, I think the you know the diversity thing was like you said the The fire and it sounds like so the conversation that's happening around that Where is that happening? It's not happening. Yeah, it's not happening actually honestly with Chris and the TOC Basically, I had a conversation with Nats. I said contrib strat can't solve this because The project is not asking for governance help the project is asking TOC to Examine their policies and that is strictly a TOC matter So I basically have handed it back to the TOC and to the CNCF staff Okay, and if this circles around and the project in the TOC agree that The project is going to do something or whatever and they want help doing it then it'll come back to us the in the meantime Yeah, and I guess and I'll link the diversity requirement Drafting that we came up with into the WIP documents, which I will get checked into the repo this afternoon So Okay, so next up maintainer circle This is Paris Carolyn who's maintainer circle me And Steven who is not on the line right now But that's actually one of the first points is that I'm gonna solicit help for planning the maintainer circle inside of our intro email with a survey So that's why I'm also Trying to get this get this out To folks quickly so we can get some help here I need to get the link for the PR that I just checked in but this is the Read me for the maintainer circle so I wanted to talk about how we can get this out of a proposed state and into something more legit and Steven is not on the call he approved the PR though So I wanted to get your thoughts on it as well Let me get the link while I get the link One of the next steps too was to get a slack channel going And thoughts were the obvious of maintainer circle So we had a clear direction on what it is exactly And if everybody's cool with that You are told me that I needed to use some of the service desk ticket So I can do that as well and I can take that action But I wanted to get everybody's take on What they think about giving the maintainer circle out of a proposed state I don't know it sounds like you need a co-lead for that who's not Already on 17 other committees Um, I know and that's why I feel like part of the email is that uh call for help Because I've had A number of people come to me say how excited they were about this Not many of them said that they were willing to help Do you need the service desk ticket for? To create a slack channel In the CNCF? Correct Maybe I shouldn't say this but you don't actually need that you can just make one I did Sorry It's a track war about like what kind of requests you're coming in where that's why Oh, okay And I thought that I did and I think someone may have deleted it actually well if it's not So I understand if it's not an official channel if it's not created by the slack admin Then when everyone exits the channel it ceases to exist I didn't exit the channel though Well, okay. Well, I don't know then Um, I don't know you were just told me If next time I wanted a channel that I needed to file a service desk ticket So That's why I wanted to see if everybody was cool with that so that I could follow the ticket And get that and that's really it for me Okay okay, so when we have We have 15 minutes for open issue and pr review Let me see If anything is urgent and let me see if I can let go. Sorry. I was trying to arrange things so that I could actually share my screens Um Okay, are people seeing that? Yeah, I can see it. Okay Uh, so only open pr is cleanup communications on read me Looks like carolin just opened that So that presumably just needs an lgtm Oh, it's got an lgtm so I'm going to go ahead and merge that because Cleanup issues should not need more than one lgtm. We should probably create those kinds of rules though um Like, you know, how many lgtms do we need for something? um Are you still doing milk full request md? I had you down did. Yeah, you do that one. That is still on my to-do list. So yes Um, okay, so other issues and user promotion criteria. We just went over diversity requirement graduated projects. We just went over um Crowd source your expertise here. That's a perpetually open issue presumably um The draft maintainer circle welcome email is the stuff we went over in the maintainer circle um That paris needs more help on so Yeah, it really does seem like we should combine this with the maintainer survey In order to minimize the amount of noise we're creating We are scrolled at like the link in the agenda today. Yeah, that's comboed everything's comboed. Okay um Yeah, created a discovery survey which we just discussed um Recruiting contributors playbook is Contributor growth documents so Part of your work Yeah, I think this is like a pride Two or one or something for our working group Yeah, our working uh governance working group is gonna end up starting with requirements just because The toc is asking for us to do requirements stuff um The um, and I think probably Resources are just going to start out with linking external resources unless someone else is a lot of time to write a original stuff um because no But Contributor growth may be able to take the opposite tack um So create a resources page Is there a blocker on that? No, I'll take that today. I'm good. I'll do it Yeah, because it seems like you could create a blank resources page. Yes. Yep. Yeah. Yeah, I'll take it up No, I and the reason why I have it. I think yours said that he was going to Okay, so I'll I'll do it today though. Oh, uh, let me close launch governance sub project because clearly that is Launched um the um Okay And Okay, contributes to get github management. Are there trailing issues for this? We created Users we've created. Oh, right because this is what sort of open is whether or not we're going to have So this is in steven augustus's course In terms of wanting to do a few more things So you should do it today It was the only thing that needs to be done is a project board at the cncf repo level. That's it. Is that who who can physically create that? I don't think I can I don't think I have the permissions to do so I can do it Okay, let me down when it's ready When what's ready? We're just talking about a blank project board. I have like the uh project board Okay, that works too Fine that works Yep Yeah, we're just asking for a blank project board and then we will populate it with things All right, I will hop over there and do it. Cool. Populate it with work Yep We have those teams that were mentioned at the root of this issue to those exists now So that we she could assign those yep teams version. Okay. Yep. Oh wait teams teams teams teams Um, they may not exist So that when she makes the board she can give those teams permission. Yeah, that's a good point. It's a good point Uh, so so wait, Amy first. I need to look and see Whether or not I can create teams and settings yaml or whether I have to create them through the github UI I suspect that I have to create them through the github UI because I think settings.yaml is still limited Because I think the team would need to be at the org level, right? In order to assign it from org level board I think so Somebody a more serious github admin than I am Yeah, I mean this is how I do it for porter and I think I had to do it at the Okay, so so in that case Amy needs a list of teams and who should be on them And then And then she can create the thing so Let me update that Okay, and The board and the team are created I just need to be able to know who all to be able to add the team to because here is your lovely team and note the board is over in chat as well Okay Shouldn't we have shouldn't we have a team per working group? As well. I'm happy to be able to create like a a sub project of the contributor strategy. That's Okay, okay, so I will get you that list Okay, um got a couple minutes left. Let's see. What else do we have here? um cncf community repo is an idea for discussion Um, however, there has not been a lot of discussion on that um Inventory and things Is that meant to be a perpetual issue for us to just put stuff under? Paris. Oh, it should it should close. Can you open it to see what's left? Yeah, let me see Uh resources pages mostly and and those are still open. So Yeah, yeah Okay, cool. Okay and so The sort of conclusion was that the cncf actually already has a quote-unquote community repo which is called cncf slash contribute um That repo needs work I think if you go to the very last comment on that issue, it's more representative of what needs to happen next Okay, it does feel like we should close this issue And open an issue of get the contribute repo into shape but the um Okay, I don't understand Paris's last comment there. So Paris defend yourself Hey, you don't need to defend yourself. I just don't understand what she's saying needs to be done It was added description of the repos that we have a k we have the contribute repo We have this the c contributor strategy repo What each one is which we already did I put that we've completed that with the contributing markdown file But we have not done that in the read me But we've in you windowed in the read me that we have some repos So i'm just saying that we should clear some confusion there And then the discussion point Was do any of these working groups operate in any one of these repos primarily I didn't know if like if we should map that to Like github the issue that we just talked about Um, that's just like more advanced stuff that is not a blocker for the issue That's why I put discussion. What do you think? Um, but the one thing that I do think is we just need to update the read me Um with some of that just minor information Okay, so link out that sort of thing. I mean honestly what I would say looking at the contribute repo is that it would make sense to actually have to split more in that Stuff that's work in progress Goes in our repo in c contributor strategy And when something is going to be published We copy it we copy the published version to the contribute repo And that's how we have I know that's complicated, but As long as we can make sure that the people who have contributed that work still keep their attribution. I think that's a good idea Yeah, someone who lost her contributions seeing stuff get copied around in the kubernetes repo You know, yeah, and obviously it would be easier to have branches in the contribute repo. Um You know feature branches because then you can just merge stuff Yeah the So if we did that then the sig contributor strategy repo would become Largely a skeleton, you know, as in these are the work what we're working on But the actual work would be done elsewhere pdm branches Kind of like a dev branch or just, you know, yeah propose Hold on We have this written out somewhere. Hold on one second. I'm looking at our documentation Here it is um, we have the contributing guide says quote cdcf slash contribute will house contributing information and guidance that we provide to cncf project for contributor strategy topics The intention is to grow this as a resource for all contributors aspiring current and maintainers um And then the cncf sig contributor strategy says contains our meta docs that cover our governance how we operate and resources that we collect along the way So templates and things should go into the contribute Whereas anything that we're working on and I guess work in progress as well as operations would be sig contributor strategy okay um Yeah, so it doesn't That doesn't rope us into doing anything in particular in the way of how we get content published there um so Kind of feels I mean I would find using the contribute repo for branch-based development easier it's more of a get workflow um The um, yeah, and just using our own repo for Stuff that has to do with our own sig And for very work in progress stuff that we haven't figured out where it would go in the contribute repo yet um Would that work for people Yeah, I like that That'll require us to get access to the contribute repo, but I think we're gonna need that eventually anyway, so yeah, yeah Okay, well, I will follow up on the infrared issue on permissions on the contribute repo Um I and follow up with the cncf to make sure that they don't have any objections to that workflow And then we'll see Let me create. I will create an issue for myself. Let's put that in the notes as an action item Okay, any anything else we're at time for end of meeting Okay, well, thanks everybody Happy quarantining Bye all