 I guess we're the early ones, hopefully some more people will remember what the passcode is after the holidays. It's still a holiday season in some areas, so probably we will not reach 100 people as usual, but hopefully we'll have a few, a few dozen here. Hey, people are finding their way in now, yay. Hello, hello, happy new year everyone. Yeah, lots of happy new years in the chat, happy new year. Give people a couple more minutes to find their way here. I can't be the only one who remembered, I know the passcode is sevens, but I can't remember how many sevens. I have sevens. You just keep banging it until it works. Yeah, Jim, that was my approach. I started with five, so I was lucky, but I was thinking it's either five, maybe seven, something like that. Seven, seven, five, seven, six, sevens. Right, I don't see the participant number creeping up at the moment. How are we doing for quorum? We're not there yet, but we also don't have anything it requires at this morning. And that's a good point. Yeah, it's all good. All right, so why don't we gently get started? Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. Usual rules apply. You all made it into the meeting. And I'm sure I'm your update with the people who are present. And I think today it's all about updates from the six and hopefully kicking off another amazing and productive year for the CNCF. So do we have someone here from Contributor Strategy? Paris is definitely here. I think we might have put Paris in the spot, though. We can always circle back if it's, you know, something to do a quick look through the chat as well. I didn't see anyone updating from after delivery. I think there's still on vacation, but if you're here and you wanted to be able to do an update, that's perfectly fine, too. I'm here. Hold on one second. I'm having an issue for no worries. Do you want us to come back to you? We can move on to whoever's next. Yeah, that'll be awesome. Let's do that. Signetwork, I can see Lee's on the call. Are you good to go? Hello, good morning. I think so, as good as it's going to get. Wow, my goodness. Let me collect my thoughts. It's a new year. You think I'd be refreshed? Oh, there are. I'm heavier, if that's for sure. So just so everyone knows that, watch out for the Christmas cookies. I'll get you. Two, two items, three items. One is that we are in need of. I think we need to find a meeting time that's a little bit earlier in the day for a few of the participants. There's been we had some good participation in the last couple of meetings that we've had. A broad variety of topics. There's networking is a big old vast space. One of the working or the only sort of subworking group that we have at the moment is the service match working group. An update from. So there's a few threads of efforts that are going on inside that working group. And those are the bullet points on the left hand side of the slide. The since last we spoke. The hyperlink for a project called get Nighthawk wasn't there before. It's that project is trying to help bring some additional support to Envoy's load generator. It's Nighthawk is a sub project of Envoy. It's a low generator written in C++ helps characterize the performance of data for the service matches of data planes that run on Envoy. And so but it doesn't have it has a single distribution in one Docker container. And so the because of the interrelated work streams that happen inside of the service mesh working group, hopefully bringing some additional distribution to Nighthawk helping uplift that sub project and making it more accessible will enable a few of the service meshes that are looking at it today. Historically Istio has used a low generator called Forteo. It still does but has been looking more toward Nighthawk and its use. So has the app mesh team and so have maybe some others that are using Envoy in their data plane. So anyway, that's what that project in bold is about. And specifically some of the individuals that Red Hat and at Google who work on Nighthawk aren't in the time zone that works well for the 1 PM central meeting that we have. So the second update or the third update, so to speak, is on Ambassador. And it being it's been under review for some time. It's gotten thumbs up from Matt Klein from SID Network for opening to so its due diligence is sort of closed due diligence is completed and has passing colors. So I think it's we're already for open public comment on its proposal for incubation. I think that's us. I think that's SID Network. Awesome. Is that Ambassador due diligence document? Has that been circulated around the TOC? It might have been and I have just not noticed it. Let me let I'll slap a link into the. No, I think maybe there's two questions. One way of answering your question is no publicly. I don't know that it has not. I think it's like we're ready for a call for public review, but but sort of privately within the TOC. Right, I'm. Is Mr. Klein on? OK, I guess if he's not, we can call on him to let us know if Ambassador is ready for public dissemination. Yeah, sorry. Sorry here. Yeah, no, I don't think the DOC has been sent out to the private list, but I looked at it a couple of months ago and I think it's fine to go so we can send it around privately or just open the public comment period. Let's open it to public comment. Why not? OK, great. Thank you, Matt. Awesome. Thank you. And thank you, Lee. Any questions for SID Network? OK, Doug, should we go back to Paris and contribute to strategy? That looks like I'm ready. I'm ready. I'm I'm 20, 21 ready. I was like, Lee, I wasn't really ready. But anyway, so we actually have a lot. We we came into this update going, oh, it'll just be a quick one. And then we actually started updating and we were like, oh, a different story. So just in some meta news for us, we are going to have some incoming charter updates. The one charter update is going to be sort of a proposal of our graduation process for our docs and guidance. Now that we have this beautiful thing set up, it's cncf slash project dash template repo. We want to make sure that the TOC and the community is OK with the guidance that we're providing these individuals as well as projects. So the proposed graduation is the following. It's going to go into a draft state in one of our repositories. It will have, of course, community collaboration, a call for final community collaboration met inside as TOC reps would give a final say, and then ultimately take it to you as TOC members. We already have some docs for review to go through that kind of a process. And we'll have an email list or excuse me, mailing list. We'll have a mailing list item out by the end of today, with some of those docs. For example, the contributor ladder guidance is included in that. I know Lee and a couple other folks have been eagerly anticipating that. So that's one of the many in there. And then other charter changes that we have coming down the road are really just based off of the roadmap that we had initially set forward. And I think we have hit and achieved all of those things that we said we would. So now we're going to include 2021 and beyond. So as far as sub-project activity, this is where the two slides was necessary because we were like, wow, we really did do a lot. For maintainer circle, guess what? We had our first one. That's awesome. It took like nine months to get that off the ground. And it really ends up just being one meeting. But it was awesome. Nonetheless, we had 41 maintainers come from seven different unique projects. The structure is the following. Hello, everyone, how are you? Here's the house rules. The second is Dorothy, in this case, Dorothy Howard, who teaches at University of San Diego and does research on FOSS. She came and did a little bit of a review of the research and the people that she talks to about her research and her burnout interviews and things like that. And then we had Erin Krickenberger maintainer on Kubernetes, Tom and give a very personal story about his burnout and some of the challenges that he had as well as some of the things that he's done to help himself. So we also had break rooms after each one. So there was a lot of introductions, a lot of camaraderie, a ton of personal stories. So that's why it was not recorded and they will most likely not be recorded in the future because there was a ton of personal shared, which is amazing. Everybody felt very comfortable sharing some of that information and it was very lovely. So future sessions expect us. We will be talking to you all on the maintainer C and CF list as well as maintainer circle on Slack. This will be at least once a month other future sessions coming to you are gonna be things like inclusive language, value and principal building for yourself as well as your project, maintaining conflict, managing during grief and loss and other really awesome things like that. So that's maintainer circle. Next slide please. Hey Paris, a quick question on the burnout aspect of things like that. Have any of the stories slash findings been shared with the chaos project folks so that they can maybe see if there's something to be learned there, community health. But yeah, I'm happy to link up with whoever. I have a to do item to get a kind of like what we learned out of the session to the maintainers list. So I can happily like take that info to them or whatever Dorothy included some of her research in things like that. So I can forward that to you or whoever. Thanks. Yeah. So governance and contributor growth are two other sub projects. We started to discuss the idea of taxonomies and then also building out all of the project templates and guidance, like I said that we've been building for governance taxonomies. I don't want to hit on this too much but I definitely think that TOC and folks will take interest in this. If anybody's read the Nadia working in public book this is what a part of the book, just one part that you know, it tends to do which is open source is so big now and there's more ways to eat or receive pieces. So therefore we should probably love this into things like contributor communities and not contributor communities and what have you because not everybody needs to have a contributor community to open source. So this is a discussion that we've been having and it's gonna hopefully turn into something. If you'd like to join us for this discussion and hopefully turn it into something potentially badging and other really cool things let us know. And then contributor growth. We've got a maintainer site that's about to pop up would definitely appreciate any and all contributors there to help us with that. This will be all information that is very relevant to not only new contributors and surfacing the GitHub repository that EOR and so many others have been steadfast and amazingly working on. So it gives some discoverability to that but it'll also bubble up maintainer information that isn't necessarily accessible at all. So that's the idea behind the site. We've also got a draft state of the recruiting playbook which will go into our larger contributor growth framework but if you'd like to take a peek at where we are with how to recruit contributors feel free to weigh in there. And then we still have the thing on deck where we were gonna talk about community management and a contributor strategy graduation requirement. But that's just again, that's more of a discussion right now still and on deck but that's pretty much it. Sorry I ate up all your time, we had a lot. So hope everybody has a good year. Wonderful, I'm just having a quick scan of the political concepts of the contributor maintainer site. There's clearly lots of good work going on in this SIG. It's amazing. All right, thanks everybody. Shout out to my people. Any questions for Paris? Which SIG is next? Observability. Yes, I might cut out again because my home line is having major issues the last few weeks. Also I'm not quite certain if we covered parts of this already because I kind of brain flushed over the new year. So stop me if you heard the title of this before. First is just a look back of the past six months of who attended. And we have a center called maybe 12 people. I'm not going to read out the list of companies but those are the companies who attended over this half year of SIG observability existing. Our current in progress efforts can be obviously seen in our GitHub. We are working on that white paper which we want to get out and still would like some feedback on our current design docs. We did finish the due diligence document for open metrics incubation, which is linked here. Last year we had a call with Alina and Dave who were both interested in sponsoring. Josh and Paris had some concerns that's sorry governance WG, not SIG governance but same difference, you know what I mean. There were some concerns but those have been resolved over new years. And as you probably heard, open metrics has also been submitted to the ITF as an internet draft which will then hopefully become an RFC. And I will be speaking at the next ITF conference to try and get that forward. Upcoming agenda items. We want to be taking a deeper look at stream latency in particular when you have like your whole pipeline of determining which part of what is adding that latency which is obviously super relevant for anyone with a cloud offering. We have scheduled a few meeting project things where basically projects can come and self-introduce themselves to SIG observability. And also we want to create a architecture catalog which basically tells potential users how actual end users are using observability tools in their own. I'm going to guess that network issue did come back to bite Richard. I was a little worried that was just me. Yeah. I think we all had the same reaction. Oh God. It was looking at other people's faces and thinking, yeah, they're also not hearing anything. It did warn us that there was in fact some issues, so. You did indeed. Yeah. I'm curious about the last item on that page about scheduling and explainer session. I guess, should we move on to the next one and when Richie comes back, we can hopefully Absolutely. Hear about the last three bullets. All right. I'll drop to runtime next. Hello, runtime. I think I saw Ricardo. Hey, happy new year everyone. Hello. Yeah, so runtime. We didn't have a lot of activity in December. I think some of the folks that were actually out, but yeah, we're continuing with the projects and reaching out to some of them. And we did actually have one meeting, another one of our meetings got postponed. So on the different spaces, so we have containers and runtimes. We have this project called SysBox. And this is like a project that allows you to run containers, but in a VM like setting, like you can run them with system D and it looks like a VM. So they're gonna be presenting on February 4th, so next month. Trout is another project that we've been talking to for a couple of months already and they're still gathering some information and they will be presenting sometime in the future. This is a container image registry is written in Rust. So that's Trout. Then we have a few WebAssembly projects that we reached out to. So WebAssembly is a very new area and I guess exciting, so a lot of people are interested. So we want to get more engagement there. So Swam is WebAssembly runtime written in Scala. So hopefully we'll get them to present. Then Wasmur is another WebAssembly runtime which touted them and then finally Gasm, which is a WebAssembly in Go. So lots of stuff with WebAssembly. So on the AIOps and IoT space in our only meeting that we had in December, Open Yert presented. And this is a project that allows you to extend Kubernetes to the Edge and it's a very similar project to Cube Edge. So they're actually a CNCF sandbox project now. So they're happy to be in the CNCF and they mentioned that they've gotten a lot of traction from being in the CNCF. So they're pretty excited and hopefully they're looking at going maybe into the next stage and their project lifecycle. Qflow, so we've been talking to them for already a couple of months and they had our meetings or presentation schedule in December, but they ended up postponing and they're actually presenting on the 17th on this month. And K3S is another project at the Edge or targeting Kubernetes at the Edge and we have been talking to them and they'll be presenting soon. They're already a CNCF sandbox project. So exciting projects. And in the other area, we have the operating systems for containers or operating systems in general. Another project is Vortail and they'll be presenting on Thursday. So yeah, so this is a lightweight operating system that allows you to run containers. It's similar to some of the projects that presented in the past like Talos and Flatcar. And then we have REST CTL project from the folks at Facebook and this allows you to control resources in an operating system using metrics like latency and errors and, you know, SRE type of metrics. So they'll be presenting soon. So, and yeah, and that's the activity that we have for the projects. And as far as the SIG, we're planning to meet all the chairs and maybe set up a plan for next year and to see where we can get more engagement. I mean, we've been getting a lot of these projects coming to present, but maybe we can think about some of the things that this SIG can actually increase the engagement. Yeah, and then we're looking for some guidance from the TOC to as far as, you know, where to go this next year is there's some new things that, you know, their TOC is thinking about in them where the SIGs actually can help out. Yeah, and that's it for the updates. So any questions? Awesome, I think it's super interesting that are all these different WebAssembly runtimes. I'd love to know what the differences are between them all, but I mean, that's a whole separate discussion, but it's amazing. All right, any questions for Ricardo before we can try going back to Richie if his internet connection is holding up? I can try, but not promise. It's been horrible the last two weeks or so, which is great with the lockdown, not having internet. Anyway, I've been informed that the last thing which was open was TOC requests. Basically, Liz, you wanted to have a bit of an explainer about open metrics, open telemetry, open tracing, open sensors, all the other opens. And I just wanted to ask the group when you would like to have that scheduled, basically. I think that would be great. Amy, can we put that onto an agenda for one of the non-SIG update meetings? Our next one is actually available if you'd like to be able to do it on the 19th. Too soon? I mean, you have to fix your internet in the meantime, Richie, sorry. I think we lost him again. I think we have. Okay. I thought that must be so painful. I'll take it offline with him. Move on to whoever is after SIG security. Okay. Hello, everyone. Quick update from us. We have 73 members now from 60 different affiliations. And we wrapped up our nomination process to determine who we would like to nominate as additional technical leads to the two that we currently have. So on this slide, we've got Ash and Aradna and Andres with a breakdown just like we did last time about why we feel like they would be excellent technical leads for SIG security. So I believe we're just waiting on approval from the talk with the nominations that we have. I think, yeah, we have, I think strictly speaking, the processes we're supposed to have a vote. I can't remember if I actually called for that vote. I think it's open because I think I voted. Yeah. Because I remember we were sort of unanimously happy with those leads. It was just before Christmas though. So probably everyone else didn't notice it. Yes. So we can dig out that vote and just recirculate it to make sure everyone is happy. Awesome. Thank you. And that's all that we have currently. We're ramping back up for a great 2021. Any questions for SIG security? Awesome. Thank you, Emily. Storage. Hello, everyone. Alex, hi. Happy new year such that it is. I've hit a special personal milestone in 300 days of not seeing anyone in person. So that's fun. So anyhow, SIG storage. So Project Lawn of Marn, we need to start the DD process with SADS to move the project from sandbox to incubation. It looks very strong. So it should be fairly straightforward. Open EBS, we're still in some ongoing discussions with the project team on some changes that are needed. In terms of some new topics, one of our members proposed a disaster recovery as a discussion and we've started ordering a document which we're going to share with the group at the next call, which is going to cover a bunch of topics, some of them theoretical, some of them sort of pragmatic how-to's in terms of implementing disaster recovery in cloud native ways between clusters, and talking about different replication mechanisms and failover mechanisms that are available, which is proven to be a really interesting topic for everyone. We also had in our last call a discussion to set up a set of I guess community presentations to build out some community content. So this will probably take the form of some presentations and recorded sessions, which we will be sharing as part of a way of disseminating information, but also getting a bigger community in sick storage. We're still working on the performance and benchmarking my paper, although that kind of stalled a little bit over the holidays and we've been looking to recruit some additional tech leads with the SIG and we have two or three candidates now who are very interested and we're talking them through the process. So we'll probably be looking to nominate those leads in the next call. And that's it for me. Great. Maybe a conversation we'll want to take offline, but I know there's sort of some similarities and some differences with open EBS and Longhorn. And I think this is a good question where we should be or a good example of where we need to be, I guess, cognizant of what we're recommending. Does it make sense to have both of those? Are they sufficiently different? Do they offer sufficiently diverse properties to their users that it makes sense to have two different options? I'm not saying we have to necessarily put them head-to-head, but I don't want to be in a situation where, since, yeah, it has 58 storage solutions and they're all basically the same. And the same would apply to any other situations. Any other? I mean, that's a fair comment. I think there are some similarities. It's, right now, Longhorn seems to be sort of on a trajectory of kind of sailing through the process as far as we can tell. Open EBS has some additional challenges which we're working through, which is probably gonna slow things down. So we'll, I'm quite happy to have that discussion if we think that that's important. Obviously, there are other CNCF projects where there are some overlaps and I think we're gonna see similar sort of things in storage too. But I think architecturally, the projects do have some interesting differences. Which I think if we can articulate why different projects are suitable for different reasons in different environments, it totally makes sense to have multiple. But I think it's something we've worried about before the proliferation of the landscape. Agreed. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions and thoughts for six storage? Is that all the six? Is indeed. Great. We flew through that. Anyone got any other questions or points they would like to bring up today? I'm shocked by Alex's 300 days. That's really sad. I don't mean to say it as a sad thing, just as a notable milestone. One last note. Chris has put some notes into chat about the upcoming TOC elections. Feel free to reach out if you've got questions, but these come from both the GB and the end users this time around. That is a great point. So there's what, just under a week to get nominations in? Yep. It's like Monday next week. All right. And if anyone has questions about the role of being on the TOC, feel free to reach out to me or I'm gonna assume anybody else on the TOC would also be happy to add color there as well. Okay. I think we can go and get on with our 2021s. Thanks, everyone. Bye-bye. See you, everyone. Bye-bye. Bye-bye, all. Bye, everyone. I'm back right now.