 Hey, Josh. Hey there. Little quiet today. Honk. Yep. Okay. Well, I will go ahead and get started regardless. So, oh, looks like we're already recording. So, welcome everybody to, I don't know, whatever this is, the fourth meeting of CNCF, SIG contributor strategy. As always, we are under the CNCF code of conduct, so please be excellent to each other. We don't have anybody new on this call, so I will skip the introductions and move straight into mailing list items per the agenda. So. Actually, let me see if I can share the screen. Sharing on Linux, on Zoom. Yeah, Zoom's been good about that. That's why despite other security issues. It's been pretty bad for me the last few, the last few meetings with the new Zoom update are with whatever version I'm on currently. Yeah, the new one's the one that has like the hella security, excuse my French recording. Oh, so, so you're saying I shouldn't update my Zoom this week. I'm going to, I'm going to roll back my Zoom. Okay, anyway, can you see the mailing list stuff there? Yes. Okay, cool. So, okay. So, let's see what do we have here? New meeting. Yeah, new meeting, which is further down on the agenda, so I'm not going to discuss it right now. We have since last meeting, pretty much just the starter pack. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so we have a whole bunch. Paris, actually, do you want to talk about this? This is mostly your work? No, it's fine. This is just TLDR and update. This is pretty much where we get a TOC update as well. We had a TOC update on Tuesday. Many folks here that are on the line right now were there, but this is just kind of like what we should be using when folks ask us what we're up to. So obviously, many of us are in like 45 other communities. So I'm going to get into a good habit of regularly at least once a month doing updates kind of like this, especially for TOC. I felt like it was super helpful just for me to include this link to TOC kind of thing. So expect more of that. And that's really all I wanted to say on this. Okay. Can somebody else take notes on the agenda? Because if I'm screen sharing, I can't really do it. I will. I will. Cool. Okay, that's actually all for mailing list items. So very briefly, whoops, that was not what I wanted to do. Very briefly for governance working group next steps. April's not on this call right now, but we're going to have our first meeting of the governance working group on Monday, May 11 in the afternoon Pacific time. Because right now there are only two members of the working group and that works for both of us. The main thing of this is going to be to kind of organize the working group and also start work on our actual stuff, which falls into two main areas. Preparing our recommendations on governance requirements to go to the TOC who have indicated that they want to increase governance requirements at the various graduation levels. I end as well, you know, outline all of the things that we need in our guide for helping projects develop governance. So there's an invitation to that on the mailing list. If anybody is interested in participating in that working group. If you know somebody who's not currently in contributor strategy who you know has an interest in governance, please pass them along. And that's it for governance. I have a question. I think and I just put contributor growth. That's what that was me typing violently contributor growth on the agenda. From the contributor growth working group. We're definitely going to have some probably project. Remember that like that's what the section is called in the graduate project. Probably going to have some project recommendations that necessarily aren't like governance related so I feel like is that okay if we're just like. Pushing a TOC multiple recommendations or should we like package them up into a bow and send them together. I don't carry their way I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are. So you're talking about recommendations to the TOC for requirements or something else. Right so for instance example. All projects have to have a contributing markdown file. Right. Right. So like I feel like that's something that would come out of like the contributor growth and like some other stuff. So I'm curious as to like, or like I'm just I guess trying to set expectations to TOC to like should they expect other, you know, other requirements changes to come from us or is this like it. I think we should maybe in that case bubble up the requirements through this meeting. So that when more than one working group has separate requirements recommendations at the same time we can send them to the TOC together. I agree. Okay. And particularly with contributor growth and governance in particular. A lot of those recommendations are going to be directly related to each other. Cool. Because like governance is going to have say the requirement that you have to have. You know that you have to have contributors from more than one company. Yeah. Okay. But I am contributor growth to say how do you get contributors from more than one company. Right. Cool. We're just iterating here live. Yep. Yep. That's awesome. I just wanted to make sure this wasn't like the, the packaged bow thing, you know, that we're like telling to see this is it kind of thing. So, all right, cool. Next. I mean, one of the things I haven't worked out and that we'll be discussing on Monday and that sort of thing is how we do this thing is because, you know, the TOC will have some moving set of standards for projects. Yep. And we're basically making change recommendations to those. But their documents are also changing in the process. Haven't quite figured that out yet. The Because of course their stuff is going to be in a different repository. The. And I really do not want to use GitHub sub repository things. Please. Please. Really, I've had some nightmarish personal experiences with that. So no, thanks. The. Okay. So then on to maintainer circle read me. So let me actually bring that up. I'm in the middle of getting the link as well, by the way. Okay, that's presumably an open PR. Yep. Yep. Um, this definitely needs. Stevens review as co-partner. And, uh, I wanted to get other takes as well. Uh, this is literally the skeleton, right? So I feel like a lot of this stuff, especially planning, I would like to come from other major that join us to tell, you know, to tell us how they would like to do this. So I feel like. From a skeleton perspective. Um, this is what I was thinking. So obviously there's a ton of to-dos. So, um, So, um, I'm not trying to put you on the spot by the way. I don't, I don't know if you've had time to review. So. Uh, yeah, I haven't had time to review. We've, uh, Basically just putting the SIG release. Uh, 119 schedule. I don't know if you've had time to review. So. Yeah. I haven't had time to review. We've, uh, Basically just putting the SIG release. 119 schedule things to bed. Um, so I'm freeing up now. Um, but yeah, I'll get to review this. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No worries. Yeah. So anyway, that's the, that's just the TLDR of what's in here, which is our goals. What we're trying to define as a maintainer. And again, that's a, uh, A wider net of contributor than what the CNCF technically describes as maintainer for purposes of TOC election. Um, and we can argue about that at another time. Side, you know, side, side argue. Um, But for the purpose of this, um, Casting a wider net for people who make like official reviews. Uh, and who are building that trust. Uh, within their projects. And really talking about project structure and organization and things like that. So. Uh, That's it. So it sounds like the next step is. To contact a bunch of maintainers. So see you projects. Yep. And that's on, and I've got that on the agenda. That's honestly, I feel like I, I, we, us should be like. Have some kind of nice. Uh, they get sent to all the project maintainers and introduces us says, Hey, look at this. We're planning this thing. I included the link in the, um, in the agenda to the hack MD as well. I think I did. It's just, um, And it's just a skeleton of what I'm thinking about. Um, So it's just us coming out of the gate saying, Hey, we're doing this thing. We'd love to have you. Um, Also adding in like a survey and a focus group option, which, um, I started a GitHub issue about as well. So we can really start to get some information back from other projects as to like, even what's working for them because we want to collect that information too. Um, so that's kind of where I feel like we should go as far as next steps for maintainer circle. Excuse me. Maintain your circle as well as some other things. Okay. Anything else on that? No, no, just reviews. And I wanted to bring it to everybody's attention that, um, I feel like we're in a good spot there. Cool. Um, speaking of good spots, um, apparently. Contributor growth working group is started launching something. Um, I guess we will. Wait for Carolyn to say something on slack of the mailing list. Yeah, I put that in there. I think there was just, um, There was just like some small things, but I say it's worth it. Because it's pretty much ready to go. So, um, we'll also include that. The mailing list too. Actually, here's an important thing. The PR is not merged. Yeah. No, I know. It's almost ready to go. It's kind of, it's got a couple of small things. Um, but I still wanted to put it on there. Okay. Does it still have a couple of small things? I, as far as I can tell, the only thing we're waiting on is Carolyn wanted Karen chewed away in. Yeah. And she has not. Yep. Um, the, um, because otherwise, I mean, there aren't, there aren't any actual, like, you know, line item comments or anything that are unaddressed. So, um, I think for, like, Karen, is from response back to, and that's what I'm talking about. It was kind of like a small. To be addressed. Okay. But yeah, no, we're pretty much ready to go after that. So that's why I'm like, we're at this, like, good state where we, we can have like a nice email to project engineers. Once they get some of these things merged. Okay. Okay. Next up open into questions. This is like one of yours, Paris. Um, the other projects have a contributor experience community group, something similar. Um, I can tell you off the top of my head that Prometheus does not. I don't know of any. I was just curious. Yeah. Your PC doesn't. I bet Helm does. I don't know. I'll have to look. Um, I feel like, you know, they have a dedicated community manager. Um, Are you looking for just C and CF projects or? Yeah. Yeah. In this case, just C and CF projects. Okay. Yeah. All right. Yeah. No, no, no, no. Okay. There we go. There we go. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Um, oh, okay. There we go. There's your draft email. So this is to contact the maintainers. Presumably. Yep. Before that loads, it looks like skeleton for. Yeah. And so also next, the next time we meet is technically our fourth Thursday, which we've designated that would be cool for them to come. Instead of them coming to like a meta planning meeting. Um, kind of like this one. So, um, also introducing that concept to them as well. Okay. I have to admit, I'm confused about fourth Thursday because. It'll actually be the third week of the month. Time has no meaning anymore. Yeah, I know. I was literally, you took the word out of my mouth. So it's really the 16th Thursday of March. That's what you're saying. Exactly. Exactly. We're supposed to meet on the second and the fourth. I did the emoji thing. I was like, so maybe we just make it the first and the third. Yeah. Yeah. Well, for meeting the problem is that if we're meeting every two weeks, twice a month, it's always going to move. Yeah. Yeah. The, um, so. So what are we saying? We're saying then come to the last meet. We're saying come. Well, we'd have to do one of two things. Like change the calendar invites, right? To say there should be like two separate ones where one is the planning meeting. One is like the same planning meeting that you're welcome to come to. Um, but the, the, the second one for the month, which is the third or the fourth Thursday is the AMA. Maintainer circle. Shindig. I mean, would it really be a problem if they came to all the meetings? Meaning, and we had a designated. Thing it's in the agenda every time that said AMA, and then obviously meta planning or something like that. Um, Yeah, not at all. I think that, um, I think I was just concerned about just like opening up a gate and it's just like everybody. I think if we keep it structured and well time bounded, then it should be fine. Um, but I agree that, that like, Like having people to send on the meeting without having, um, like clear time balance for things would be, would be problematic. Yeah. I mean, I'm open to that and just keeping it simple and saying, come to a meeting period. I mean, it would mean that we would need to get all of our other business out of the way between 1030 and 11, which I don't think is necessarily impossible. Um, the, um, and would only be able to spill over if there weren't any, um, Visitors joining us. But again, I think that's acceptable. You're on Pacific time. Hmm. I said, assuming that you're on us Pacific time. I'm in Eastern and yours. Oh yeah, that's true. The, um, Well, in the first half hour of the meeting. Yeah, we'd have to get all of our stuff done. The, um, which also brings up something for maintainer participation that, um, we can start out this way, but eventually you're going to need to move that around the clock. Because for maintainers who are in China or, um, Finland, um, that 11 a.m. Pacific is a very bad time. I really hate time zones. Yes. 11 a.m. Pacific is not a bad time for Finland. If you're curious. Really? Okay. It's the same time as Ukraine. And it's not terribly bad here in Ukraine. What, so what time is it? It's 9 p.m. Okay. I mean, like it's not so good, but not so terrible as 2 a.m. for example. Yeah. Yeah. All right. I think we do actually. Yeah. I think we do have a little bit of an issue there with. Well, maybe it would make sense to get a sense for. Who all maintainer wise is interested. In taking part and then scheduling around that because. Yeah, let's add that. I'll add that too. As the, uh, you know, representative for a project that has some seriously grumpy maintainers. Um, not every maintainer is going to want to get involved. So. No, and I get that too. And that's totally fine. I think that like, I mean, because we are technically asking them for other things for the maintainer circle. So that's, I think a good ask too. Yeah. I mean, I kind of, it's almost like creating a little working group of like, um, Sorry, I made the mistake of looking at the news. Um, It's almost like, you know, a little working group. So you kind of want to figure out who's going to be in the group before you, you know, find out who's going to be in the group. And then you kind of want to determine when it's best for them to meet. Yeah. So it sounds like for interested people that we want to actually direct them to a form or something. Where we can ask them. You know, name project time zone. Oh, and then here I also want to get your advice on. Hold on. I'm getting the life. Sorry for the pause. Um, Also third on the agenda. Oh, and the heck this is the issue I opened for the survey slash focus group. And what I mean by that is obviously include a form. It'll say it's under 10 minutes, hopefully. Um, and then if you have survey fatigue. And would rather have us come to you, I will, like, I will, I mean, I'll personally say that that's fine. Like I know, and I know that like 45 groups aren't going to say that. Like I just know. So, um, if they would rather talk about it, sure, I'll come for 15 minutes and we can talk about it. Uh, if they have survey fatigue. So, um, but I want to know from the other working groups, um, Um, specifically governance, what are things that you want to know from some of these other projects? And again, it doesn't necessarily mean bad things that can mean good things. So you can. Like compile best practices or whatever. Um, but this is also especially relevant for contributor growth, uh, and maintainer circle and things like that. So trying to keep the survey as late as possible. So think of like some umbrella questions that. I already put like some general, um, On there. So again, I'm trying to keep this as light as possible. Also built some trust. Um, people can see kind of like what we're trying to do, uh, through the questions that we're asking. So. Okay. Let me add that to our agenda for Monday. Okay. I will say the grubby maintainers are just going to tell you to read the documentation. And that's the two. The, um, which means that maybe we should just ask questions about where the documentation is. Just have questions where people can put links. The, um, what I really love about the whole RTFM thing is that. I will tell you. 80% of the projects where a maintainer has told me RTFM. The manual did not in fact exist. Oh yeah, totally. Yeah. Well, and that's why, and that's another, that's why I'm saying some of the questions are like, so what, you know, what works for you? Like, you know, sure. Yeah. I've got, you know, we've got plenty of docs on things that don't work. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and it also gives you a chance to kind of figure out like. If someone fills out the form saying, well, this is how we make decisions. And it's like, Oh, that's interesting. Cause that's not what your documentation says. Um, you know, that's a good opportunity to identify those things. I mean, it gives you an idea of like general, general maintainer personas as well. When you're dealing with the projects. So. And if that's useful information to have in the pocket. Yeah, I guess. I have to, I have to do some hard thinking about how we make questions that are general enough. That all projects could potentially answer them. But still get useful information out of. Um, it's a little bit challenging because projects can have some pretty, you know, some of them are going to have documentation for governance and some will not. Um, you know, I, some of them are going to be like, Oh, we only do the code type projects and others are going to be more. Um, holistic. Agreed. Yes. But that, honestly, that to me is also going to paint the story, right? Like picture of. Wow. Like everybody does do something different. Yeah, it's just, if I start with just sort of a free form blank, like, how do you make decisions? Then for example, some projects, you know, whoever fills it out may answer it on the basis of, Oh, this is how we review code. Does everyone use owner's not talk about any other kind of decisions. Does everyone in CNCF use owner's files or do they, some use code owners or. It depends, but they're all listed on the public CNCF maintainer stack. Yep. I'm just curious. Yeah. Some people have like a maintainers that empty or something like that instead. They're not necessarily using it for code ownership, but for project ownership. Yeah. Yeah, I saw that with a couple of the other day as well. Okay. All right. I'm going to wait for the governance meeting then before shipping any kind of email. But I would like to for as far as like where we are, I mean, we should definitely at least give a week's notice to invite them to the next meeting. So I'm thinking we should definitely try to mail something off by mid next week. So is that, is that like a cool deadline with everybody as far as getting this out. Sure. Whatever you want Paris. The, although. Well, no, I guess we don't need an actual. We're doing the, is the email going to have a link to the survey? It should. So that's what I'm saying. Right. So there's going to be the question of how long it's going to take to physically set up the survey. Because presumably we need to use CNCF survey monkey. Yeah. And there's always some hurdles for that just because of the restrictive access to the account. Could you just use a Google form or does it have to be. Not if we want to potentially include Chinese containers. Yeah. Right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The. A constant annoyance. Yeah. No. And it's my bias to GRPC doesn't have any. So that's why I, it escapes me. Sorry. Yeah. It's just, I mean, for some of them like at CD, for example, absolutely. Both of the maintainers are Chinese. So. Yeah, absolutely. The. Yeah. And last I checked this may have changed, but. The CNCF survey monkey, there's only two people can log into it, which always creates a bit of a delay to get things created. Is it. Amy, is it possible to, she's gone. I'm still here. You can ask me. Oh, right. Yes. But I'm more than in one minute. So be fast. Okay. So the same way we have the, the curve already is kind of like shared account is a possible to carve one out for contributor strategy. Like I feel like this is not the only. We need to be doing a survey. Probably we have to create a different account just for the community purposes. Because we use the, the CNCF account for all the things if related service. Right. So like if we, if we're kind of segmented, then we, then there are less issues with giving us access to. I think it's possible, but it's better to ask Amy who have left and I'm living now as well, so Survey monkey's free and Like why don't we just create our own say it one more time? I think it's the legal terms that like Linux foundation puts in there Well, I mean you can just create an account and then like they could pay us back But whatever I'm being too simplistic, I guess. Oh, hey April. Do they have free accounts? They do you don't get all the functionality But we don't unless you're doing a lot of like conditional questions but Yeah, that's just my thought would be like spin up your own and okay Yeah, I didn't know that they had free accounts in which case yes that we could totally do that if the CNCF will let us do that so Which would be easier right because also I mean I will tell you as somebody who has designed some of the CNCF Surveys like actually done the physical design of it Well, this is on recording the They the only having two accounts that can log into Survey monkey is a pain for everyone I mean and it totally makes sense given the fact that they use it for other stuff that shouldn't be seen by the broader community so I think it totally makes sense to just have one for like The assorted working groups or just create one for the specific working group or say sorry If it's a free account, I don't see why we wouldn't have our own So let's I'll find out for me me whether or not there's any any blockers to us just using a free account for that Thank you I would I would check in to see if they already have a team So maybe they have an account But it's a team account and they can chart off like sub accounts or something like that Like I'm not sure exactly what the Survey monkey structure is but They there aren't I will least the last time I touched the CNCF Survey monkey, which was about three Actually longer than that like November There were not teams in that sort of thing Survey monkeys for their paid accounts. They have a pretty steep tier structure And and CNCF is not at the upper tiers. Okay. Yeah, it's So that's a business plan and then there's a personal plan they bill per user So they don't have it kind of like zoom where you can create Sub stuff. Yeah, because I know for the the Kubernetes when we just have a single user. Yeah, yeah One one good thing is that it's monthly. So like you could always Spend it up Exactly. Yeah scale to zero survey monkey the Okay, oh That was all I had today. What did y'all want to talk about? I'd like to actually just take a quick look at issues Yeah, to make sure that we don't have anything pending that we need the full Meeting and anything anything that's stuck that we need this meeting to move along I did want to actually talk about something that came up in the TOC Okay So it seems like the other some of the other SIGs do this approach where they Look at projects when they come in and things like that and I that's why I was painting Jared offline because I know Sandbox projects and stuff like that and I was like I wonder if like every meeting here We should talk about some of the specific projects that are coming in And see like kind of a consultative approach that we can give to them Sort of like what the other SIGs are doing at the TOC level The Yeah, I'm Go go for it. I'm gonna say I'm reluctant to embrace that because I can tell you that Certain SIGs and CNCF members would be happy to offload a lot of work on to us And right now we don't actually have a lot of volunteers in the SIG The I mean so far I've kept all of our language in terms of recommendations and stuff in that We are actually providing recommendations to the COC the TOC Like what we have in our initial read me and stuff is that we're providing recommendations to the other SIGs in the TOC And only directly getting involved in reviewing stuff on request the And also the sandbox procedure is going to be changing pretty soon Yeah, so I would I would say the reverse I guess No, sorry, no Exactly what Jeff said I would be reluctant to open up that possibility. I think that's Yeah, exactly what you said people are going to be willing to offload that work I think what we should do is maybe you read out of what has been like what's new with the TOC kind of situation right where we understand what's been floating around the mailing list and Provide recommendations based on that stuff. Okay, that's feasible. Yeah Yeah, we just need I feel I need a TOC Like Connection now because now we're past this like meta stage so like the last update I gave this week and TOC was like, all right We're off and so now I'm just like, all right now we need to I guess make those connections with TOC In some way, so I guess we'll also have the governance requirements and things like that. So All right Yeah, I mean they also want when so the other thing that's actually been Informally requested and I'm not sure who this would fall under is a review of the non-governance project maturity requirements Right. Well, that's the contributor growth stuff. Yeah, I was gonna say that may be a contributor growth Yeah, yeah, that's right. And that's why that's why I was going with the when I asked earlier about though Like should we all you know package this up as our Like our one shot of You know recommendations or are we are we're just gonna constantly iterate we're just constantly pushing recommendations to them kind of thing I Would expect us to do that for at least the next year because There isn't a lot of precedent even outside the CNCF for the sort of thing And as a result what will happen is we'll make some recommendations You know, they will adopt some or all of those recommendations Projects will get reviewed that sort of thing Either there will be you know An open question for them for about a project where it's really not clear Or alternatively The you know CNCF and TOC will decide that they want to change things, right? Like maybe they'll decide hey sandbox incubating and graduated isn't enough. We want to have another tier At which point we need to prepare a whole nother set of recommendations I have to yes, I agree I'm going to drop for the Sega architecture meeting Y'all could have like a little mini governance meeting now No, sorry, you're right except we haven't scheduled for Monday. Yeah, Paris. I want to yeah, and Think about your survey questions Oh It's not those are those are you are so demanding Gosh Look at my gray y'all. Yeah It's getting there. Okay. You need some coloring conditioner. Josh. I like I don't want to care about Yeah The um and and yeah, and I am so far ahead He is the graying department Yeah, but you do it well You know, it's it's turning white which I'm thankful for because if it had turned medium gray I think I would have needed to cut my hair short I just think long hair looks terrible if it's medium gray Okay Hello to whoever watches these meetings Hair Tributor strategy for hair color and talk about the right shade of Kubernetes blue Sorry, right we talked about spitting off a hair color W working group and Kubernetes from Fashion No, we should we need to see fashion for real. Yeah Your piece for GRPC We briefly had like a working group for nail polish colors because we were looking for like the perfect GRPC teal shade. Oh, yeah, these are important things that go on. Yes We should we should list us under swag best practices Not that we'll ever be in a place to give anyone swag ever again But yeah, I was gonna say right if if we you know if coupon Boston happens I really do want to get some fake beards for sick beard Because we don't want we don't want We don't want membership to be restricted just to people with natural beards. That's not fair Well, that could be the mask like you could get you know, oh my god What if somebody does not have a hip, oh, I'm sure yeah respirator by now that's got to happen