 Hey Mark. Hey Doug. Can you hear me? Yep, I can hear you now. Hey Austin. Hey Doug. Hey Mark. How are you guys? The only reason I say hi to Doug is so that he'll put me on the attendance. He'll never talk to me. I'm used to it. Can you guys see that? Your screen? Yeah. Okay, cool. It's interesting. I can't make the window bigger once I'm sharing it. What's I'm doing wrong? If you guys can add your name to the list of 10 days, I'd appreciate that. Hey Doug, are we doing these calls every single Thursday or was it the first Thursday and third Thursday of each month? It's supposed to be every Thursday. I think it was wrong on some documents someplace. I think it was the TOC meeting minutes. I think I got that fixed. Yeah, I think it was in GitHub and it's still listed first Thursday and third Thursday. Okay, I'll take a look at that. Interesting. Since we have a minute, let me take a look. Oh, you're right. Okay, I'll get that fixed. Thank you. Yeah, I think I've been pointing people to that and it might create some confusion, but I'll make sure everyone knows that it's that we do. We meet every Thursday. Yeah. Since I have a minute, let me see if I can fix that very quickly here. Where do I get the link to the document from? You mean for the agenda? Yep. Okay, here, I want to sec. Paste into the chat. Here you go. Okay, PR has been submitted. Thank you, Austin. Let's see if I can keep track of attendance here. So, Dan, you on? Yep, I'm here. All right. And, Stevo, are you on? I'm in. All right. Edith, are you there? Yes, I am. Excellent. There are some new folks I don't recognize. Mr. Anacheck, are you on? I'll be on for about 15 minutes for running off. That's fine. Just trying to make it a little more official these days. Matt Rukowski, you on? All right, are you there? I'm on my chair. I'm here. Yep. Okay. All right. Yeehore, welcome to the fun. Hello folks. All right, let's see. One more time. The meeting agenda, pasting into the chat. If you guys can add your name to the list of attendees that appreciate that. And we'll get started in just a minute. I'm going to completely butcher people's names. I apologize in advance, but Burnt, are you there from VMware? Yeah, I'm here. Okay. And let's see. Klaus, Klaus from SAP? Yes, I'm here. Excellent. Stevo, I got Joanne from SAP. Are you on the call? Yes, I am. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Let's see. Rootback from serverless? Yeah, we're here. John Missel, SAP? Yes, I'm here. Cool. I think I got everybody else on the spreadsheet already. Hold on. No, I don't think you got me. And who's that? Suha. Are you on the attendee list? Please add your name to the list of attendees. It would be easier for me to keep track that way. Yeah, I'm trying to do the link. I can only add a comment. Yeah, that's fine. Just add your name as a comment. Let me quickly get the Google guys. Sarah? Sarah, you get to be there? Hi, I was muted. I'm here in a room. Aiman and Rachel. Okay, so Aiman, you're there? Yes, I'm here. And Rachel, just go and double check. Yeah, I'm here as well. Okay. And William? Yep, I'm here. All right, cool. Okay, let's circle back around later to catch up any late comers or just announce yourself later during the call. But let's go ahead and get started. I want to spend all the time doing roll call. So let me scroll the screen here. So there's the agenda. Well, Dan, that's a big one. Okay, so is this agenda located to people? Is there anything people would like to add or modify? All right, not hearing anything. Moving on. Because we have a lot of new people here, it might be nice just to kind of recap what the serverless working group has been up to and what we're focused on now. Sure, okay. So for those of you who are new, welcome. We are now, in the past, we were very much focused on producing a white paper for the CNCF, basically stating our view of what the current status of serverless is in the community, and in particular have a set of recommendations for what the CNCF should do next. And one of those recommendations was to produce a specification around event format to try to get some consistency and interoperability around processing events, or at least the format of events so it makes it easier for people to code to it. So that is what our current focus is on these days, is the event specification itself. We do have a document near the top of our agenda. Where is it? It's this future work item link. For additional things that we may want to look at in the future, so feel free to add additional things into that document if you wish, and we will talk about which things we want to work on as things are added to that document. In fact, I actually forgot to check it recently. Yeah, so as of right now, we actually only have the event format. We don't have anything else in there, but I know some people are eager to add things to the list, so feel free to add that to them. We'll add it to an upcoming weekly call to discuss whether we want to work on those. Is there anything on the call who think I missed something in that summary and wants to add something? I think that was pretty good, Doug. The only other thing I'd add is after the white paper was finished, it seems like there's a lot of general interest within this working group in coming up with some common specifications for serverless concepts. And we've discussed this a lot in the past, and I think that that seems like that's where the most interest is within this group right now. And we just started with a common way of describing events as the first thing to focus on on that broader normalization or topic. So from standardizing events, we've also discussed how to standardize a serverless function API or a FAS API. And I think we're probably going to investigate those topics soon, but it depends. Yep, great. The way they would ask is that if people wanted to adjust those, please add them to this list here. That's where we're sort of keeping the backlog of things we want, that people want to propose. Or obviously just add it to the agenda and we hope on a future call as well, too. Okay, moving forward then. AIs, Kathy, are you on the call? Or is someone from Huawei on the call? Okay, so I don't hear any of that. Kim or the gentleman who she said may actually report status on the trademark search. So if neither one of them are on that, it's going to make that a little harder to move forward. So I have to defer that. I could give you a quick update. Both open eventing and cloud events were fine. So you could use them both if you wanted to. So just pick one. Cool, excellent. Chris, did you look up in the trademark database and just make sure that they're... Yeah, we reached out to external counsel and asked. So both were fine. So just to be clear, Chris, it was open eventing and cloud events, right? Cloud events, yeah. Were the two that Kathy reached out to me on. If you pick one, we could go forward and kind of do a formal registration if required. But just please amongst yourself, just pick which one and roll with it. Got it. Excellent. Thank you very much. I did a little bit of looking around and for those who are new to this conversation, the this common way of describing events or a common event format was previously titled open events. In our last conversation, we were entertaining a new title to help make it more interesting. And that new title was potentially cloud events. And we agreed to go and do a bit of market research to make sure that that name isn't taken up by any prior IP or associated strongly with anything else. I also looked around briefly. And the only thing I noticed was that when you type in cloud events, you get there's a lot of search results related to basically events, conferences, meetups pertaining to the subject or the category of cloud. And we will be going up against that. But I don't think that's a big deal at all. All right. Any other questions, comments? Yeah, but I think Austin, maybe more than that it was. Yeah, I think it's in part to make it more or drive some more interest around around the project based on the name, but also in part because they get a repository for open events was already claimed. Yep, that was part of it as well. So I'm just curious how you like when I started getting involved in the event driven, server-side event-driven programming space, I did try to do a bunch of searches. And it was very interesting to read about all the conferences that are doing cloud stuff, but it was very hard to find the information about who was doing this work around server-side events. And so how do you think that this could be mitigated such that people would easily discover this if they're looking for it? If they hear the term cloud event. So can I ask that we actually defer that discussion till we get to this light on my agenda? Oh, I thought we were at that item. I'm sorry. Well, we kind of delved into it a little just because I was going through the AIs from previous call. I just want to see if Kathy was on to talk about it. I mean, granted, it is coming up very soon. Sorry. But let me just quickly jump over the white paper status and then we'll get back to this. So just finger up to speed on the white paper status. I did lock down the document with accession for the Linux Foundation editors who want to do one last final pass through it for, hopefully, just minor typographical changes. But otherwise, the document is done. Hopefully they'll finish that within the next day or so and then they'll ship it off to whatever group they have to make this into a formal publication and clean it up for PDF printing and that kind of stuff. All right. Okay. So now, sorry, Erin. Let's go back to the open event thing and discussion there. So go ahead and raise the question then again. Well, so the question is really about, like, if somebody here is like, oh, wow, this is exciting happening around pod events and they, you know, I apologize for the Google search. On behalf of my company. But like, is that, do people have, like, you know, how would we mitigate the confusion around conferences or in person events versus these application layer five data server side events? Yeah, that's a good question. I, you know, hopefully this turns into a thing that has strong traction and we can really show up in the initial search results and people can find us easily. You know, we've discussed, you know, making promotional material around this. We already have a website up for open events but we could change that to be cloud events and it should be like the single source of truth that will hopefully rank highly in those search results. The GitHub repo as well. You know, as long as we get traction around that, hopefully that ranks highly as well. Other than that, I don't know. It is a concern. I'm not sure if it's a super big concern but definitely something to be aware of. Yeah, to be honest, I was feeling any of the names that have been proposed would probably yield a pretty big search result set. So maybe in total, no matter what we do from that perspective. Yeah, and actually, you know, like scrolling down on the page, like the CNCF proposal, if you search for cloud events, it's on the first page, so. Yeah, I saw that too. It doesn't, that actually. I just need to look a little more. So yeah, so maybe it's just a matter of, you know, we all start using it and then it'll show up. Yeah, and the LF and CNCF will definitely market the hell out of it once you come to a decision. So don't worry about that. Yeah, I noticed that if you type cloud events without a space in between it, then the CNCF GitHub repo shows up in the results. But if you put a space in it, then that's not the case. And that's kind of cool. That's neat. Okay, so it sounds like either name is okay. And I don't want to open the door too wide for alternatives, but it does sound like we are sort of nearing down between open eventing and cloud events. Is that a fair assumption or is there any concern with basically voting between those two? Yeah, just some initial context for all the newcomers. We have cloudevents.io and I think cloudevents.org that we could use. And the GitHub repo is, what was it, Doug? Is it github.com slash cloud dash events? You're talking about the cloud, no, Fudge, I don't remember. If we were going to go, I think it was actually without a hyphen. Yeah, I think it was so. You could have .com slash cloud events, all one word. It's without a hyphen, I own it, so we're good. Yeah, thank God for Chris's squatting abilities. All right, so we own that and we own cloudevents.io, you said, right? Cloudevents.io and cloudevents.org. Right, okay. So on open events, we own openevents.io and actually we do have github.com slash open hyphen events. However, github.com slash open events, all one word is pertaining to some other effort. Right, so I think my only ask from last time was that we would ideally have the same name for the website, URL, as well as for the github repo, ideally. That's in part what's causing us to question this today, is that today it's openevents.io, open events for the github repo is already taken. Did we check on the github repo for open eventing? Well, we own open eventing, don't we? Yeah, we're using it right now. Right, that's our current one, right? Yeah, and so Lee, I actually share your concern. That's one of the reasons why I'm leaning more towards cloudevents, because we can be consistent over there. I think if we go with open eventing, there are some people who would like to have the spec still be called openevents, and I think that confusion is going to lead to some problems for us. There is also another project which is open messaging. I think you are probably familiar with that since you are on it. So I think with that perspective, cloudevents sounds like differentiation. Sorry, I didn't hear the beginning of that. There's another product of open messaging. Then open events could sound like in addition to that, instead of something different. Yeah, I think that's a good point. It probably could go either way. Either it could feel like it's of the same genre of effort, or it could be confused between the two, and I'll add that there is another effort around open metrics, which we briefly discussed on this call before, which is a distinct effort, but follows into that same genre of open something. The other point that was raised on the last call from Baram from Microsoft was that he was a bit concerned that cloud events would be perceived as kind of limiting the use cases when this topic is actually very broad and not exactly cloud specific. So just reiterating that point as we factor in as we vote on this. And real quick, Sarah asked a question on the Google doc who is we, because we wrote like we said, we have cloudevents.io, cloudevents.org. And since we have Chris on the call right now, I'd actually like to ask Chris this question. It looks like we're incubating this effort inside the CNCF or just doing it with close shipping from the CNCF. We have these assets. Where do these go? So my assumption is this would be done under the auspices of the working group with the intention of bringing it to the TOC to make a formal project proposal. Since it's under the operation of the working group, I'm fine having the CNCF hold the assets, including the GitHub domain and so on in the short term. So hopefully that answers your question. Okay. So we would just, we would do the domain transfer dance when you're ready and all that jazz, if you decide on cloud events. Sounds good. And Austin, you actually technically own the .io and .org for cloud events. That's what I thought. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we can answer Sarah directly. Okay. Okay. So just to clarify, Austin, you have that but would intend to transfer it to CNCF, right? Absolutely. So whatever, yeah. I just, we just used some clarification on who to transfer it to. Now it sounds like Chris transferred over to Chris and as soon as we settle on the name, I'll take care of that right away. Yeah. I'll follow up over email. That's fairly simple. I'll just hook you up with our IT folks to do it. And before I forget, because I will forget if I don't say it now, Sarah, thank you very much for taking notes. I appreciate that. Okay. So moving forward, since we don't have a formal governance process in place for voting and stuff like that, let me ask this question. Does anybody have any objection to going with cloud events? Because based upon what I'm hearing so far, I do think there is a slight preference for cloud events. So that's my preference. I do think that it would be a good idea to address this ultimate use case concern because I think that I'm definitely seeing that there's people have like on-prem use cases. From my perspective, that doesn't present a problem with calling them cloud events. Like, you know, JavaScript was not actually related to Java at all. You had to aim to be calling things because Java was a cool new language in the 90s. And you know, a bunch of us thought that was pretty weird, but you know, whatever, it didn't actually present a problem. So I think that cloud conveys like a future forward-looking. And A, if you use these cloud events, you might be on-prem, but then you could later connect to the cloud. And like personally, I think that is a plus to not a minus. Okay. So if you have any objection to going with cloud events, or yeah, let me just stop there. If you have any objection to going cloud events, speak up now. Otherwise, that is going to be the general, that's going to be the decision by, what's the word I'm looking for? unanimous consent. Consensus. There you go. I was trying to think of the Roberts rule of order kind of thing, right? Anyway. So, speak now or forever hold your peace. All right. I don't, I don't, I'll add this, that I don't object. I do think that open events is, open eventing is more inclusive. I haven't heard, well, I've heard some, some things taking away, detracting from cloud events. I haven't heard anything detracting from open eventing. Open events has, whatever momentum this effort has today is, is attributed to open events. And not, not something and not cloud events. How much momentum that is, is the question. But so are there any, what are the detractions from open eventing? So I'll time it again. Just, you know, this is just my personal opinion. Like I don't think it says anything. It's just, and open events could be used in a proprietary situation. It's just a, it's a specification for interoperability. And, and so like, there've been already confusion between all the different things that call messages events. And I think coming up with a different, a name that, you know, like, I don't know, it also is meaningless. For me, it's something, it feels like something that is different enough that we could attach meaning to it. Whereas open events feels like it's too easy for lots of different things that people call, like messaging things. They want to attach themselves to open events and generate features. But that's not a huge thing. I wouldn't like hate either one. I mean, you know, I just lean slightly towards the cloud of it. Anybody else want to comment on Lee's question? Yeah, I agree. I think it's too ambiguous. I think that too many things attach open at the front. Cloud is still kind of that realm, but at least it takes a stand that we're in the cloud realm. And Lee's us room beyond just namely after something functional to expand into. All right. Thank you, Matt. Any other comments? I'm leaning towards cloud events. I think it feels a little bit more specific, which will actually be helpful. I love the story of cloud events, you know, coming out of the CNCF. I think that's nice. Otherwise, I think it's just traction that's going to make all the difference. I mean, when you think of the word, the Beatles, you know, what comes to mind, it's not really an insect. It's mostly the band, which has nothing to do with that word. But anyway, so yeah, I think cloud events is fine, in my opinion. Okay. So Lee, were you just asking the question in general, or are you actually objecting? I think I was just doing diligence. Okay, that's fine. Okay. Yeah, actually, the last thing that Austin had said about the scenes, the first word in the CNCF being cloud, and there's been cloud that resonates. Yeah. Okay. So I think this will put a smile on Dan Kahn's face. And that's all that matters, yes. And Chris too, hopefully. All right. So one last chance. Any objections with going with cloud events? All right. We are done. Excellent. Thank you guys very much. Big decision made. All right. So next on the agenda is governance. Mark, would you like to talk to the changes that you recently made? I believe the changes are all in this voting section, the first couple of bullets. Maybe you could talk to the changes you made. Sure. The issue that we were curious about after reading this was that there's, we didn't want to have any one company having a lot of people show up just for the voting and then be able to rig the voting. And so we decided that we wanted to have one vote per company and then have a way to be able to track that in the spreadsheet in order to say, all right, who can actually vote on these things and how do we keep track of who's been actually attending and participating in the open eventing. So the thought here is that, again, one vote per company, we will allow the company to assign a primary voter and then a, because people need to take a break or have other meetings, we would allow them to have a secondary representative and if they couldn't make it for any of the voting that was occurring. So that was the question at hand from last time and we proposed some additional wording into the voting structure of the spec or of the governments in order to take that into account. So I'd love to open that up for people to comment on it. And so I think the basic idea here is that for companies, you can have a primary and then an alternate who has to be designated basically in advance and then either one of those two people are having their presence on on the three out of four calls gives that company voting rights with the primary person getting obviously the you know, the right to vote and if they're not there, then the alternate steps up to it. What do people think about that? I mean, I think that that generally is a good idea. I think we also want to, like I would like to see and we talked about a while ago when we were working on the paper like wanting to have or maybe it was in some kind of serverless working group conversation wanting to have people who were using the events, right, like the application developers represented or people who were like the ecosystem, right. So a lot of the, you know, the interest around creating specifications and creating interoffice to create an ecosystem of tools as well as fostering, you know, accelerating the adoption of these cloud native technologies. And so so I want to make sure that we include those folks. Yet we also don't invite a lot of looky loos who are not actually doing any work with these technologies yet want to talk a lot. So, so, so I don't know how to balance that, but it would be great to have some kind of like that attendance at meetings is not the only indicator that somebody's involved. I'd like to see like some weight to people who are actively working on code that implements this specification or actively contributing use cases or, you know, indicating that they will adopt this technology or something something. I don't believe that we were trying to prohibit people from from participating based off of this, but when we were wanting to make decisions in voting, that's that's what we were focused on with respect to only having one vote per company, but in terms of participating in the calls or anything else, we want that to be wide open. I was just raising the like, so this is the governance here. So I guess the question I have, maybe this is, I did miss a few meetings, like what does it mean to be a working group member? So keep in mind, this is strictly about if on the rare occasion, we have to actually take a vote because we just cannot come to a consensus. How are we going to do the voting? Right. So this is my question, naively, what is a working group member? Like is this, are we just saying that the working group is whoever shows up? Basically, but I miss a working group member. I would say a working group member is anyone that shows up and participates in the calls. And I guess I was saying that I would like to see people have more participation than showing up in the calls in some way. If you can, so I think what you're asking for is interesting. It's going to be a challenge though to actually put that into very formalized language though. If you want to take the action item to come up with some language to augment this proposal, I think that'd be great. But I think what you're asking for is a really difficult thing. I think I have a bunch of ideas. I'll propose something. I'll take that. Now, is your ask there something that you would like to block the adoption of this poll request or can we do the poll request or move the poll request forward and then augment this later once we discuss your additional text? I have no context for why voting is a priority now and how the governance models work. So like I said, I'm hoping we don't really take votes very often. However, if we do decide to go with a down the path of allowing people to vote and it is based upon the tenants and the meetings, then people need to understand that as soon as possible because the current thing that we're shooting for is three out of the last four meetings, which means people need to know whether they have to show up otherwise they're going to lose voting rights, right? So we got to kind of know or let you all know at least a couple of weeks in advance. So my question is, I think that one thing is having a document. I mean, if there is any move towards a governance model, it should be written down someplace. So when people come, they know what they're getting out of the meeting and what they need to do to have their vote count or whatever. So I know that you dug up taking a lot on yourself. Were you moving in that direction to create a document, a governance document? Well, that's what this is. It is a governance document, basically a document for you, said Matt, so that people understand the rules and hopefully would never have to, you know, get that formalized. But if, you know, things get contentious, you have to have the rules that everybody understands that going into it. All right. Yeah, I mean, I think having a document, so like, yeah, coming up on this meeting, I wasn't, I didn't know where to find the agenda. And like, you know, it's not very discoverable at the moment. So I think having stuff written down is great. And likewise, if we're going to like make up, you know, so yeah, I mean, does everybody feel like at this meeting, like we're well-represented of whatever we think this working group is enough that we would should accept a governance model? I think there's someone else trying to say something in there as well. Was that William? Yeah, yeah. So I was just going to make a comment that we have been discussing this, I think for the last two or three meetings, at least the overall idea of the governance and this particular pull request, I think it's been there for a while as well. I think that's pretty much what you're saying, that ascendance is, I think, required to evaluate this and that's why I think, from my perspective, this is good and if we need to change, it's fine. We just submit a PR and change it right later. From my perspective, I'm okay and this looks like a good model to start with. Yeah. I guess my confusion was this is being checked into Github as part of open eventing. So should this document reside someplace more at the CNCF level? Well, this is for what, it's for this group, right? It's for the governance of our work around the specification. But in terms of the work group, the work group scope will go beyond open eventing, so shouldn't the document live at a higher order place? No. So my understanding is that this governance is just governance our work on this particular specification. If people propose additional work items like additional specs or libraries or tools that aren't technically under the scope of this spec, then they're going to have their own governance model. That's in my assumption anyway. We're going to just decide on a governance model and save everybody else some time. I don't feel strongly. You cut out a little there, can you repeat that? So yeah, or we can decide that this is the governance model of the serverless working group and any project that we foster and save ourselves some time later. We could. I mean, we could definitely raise this up at some point, but to be honest, I'd like to try to tackle one hurdle at a time. Because I think that's a broader issue because I'm not sure everybody would be ready to say, say for everything we ever possibly produce on this work group, here's the working model we're going to or here's the governance model we're going to have. That may be what we end up with, but we haven't talked about that up until now. Up until now, the discussion has been for the work and the specification, does this governance model fit? And if we want to broaden the scope, then I'd rather address that as a separate issue with a separate discussion. Well, I think that's to be had sooner or later because I mean, you're already had on the agenda today talk about what it means to be a member of the work group and, you know, you have to be prepared for a larger scope. I think we already discussed larger scope. So. Well, I'm not sure that's true. We talked about possibly doing other things, but we haven't decided to do anything else yet. So it's like and rapid building can be inclusive of people who are not in the work group and things like that. So so I'm trying to struggle here on whether the the the issues that are being raised are are are significant enough to block trying to move forward with this PR or do people want to make concrete suggestions as PR before we consider adopting it? I guess what's what why is there a problem saying that that's the governance model for a work group? Why is it have to be associated with just the single spec and be done with it? I mean if everyone's in a grance want to make it the general and then work from the other side if if there are specific things about this spec or a certain scope then they have to limit the general governance model based upon that work effort. Why not? Why not? Why not by full it now? So when I want to say there is the one reason we haven't talked about it is because we just haven't talked about it. It's always been talked about in the scope of the spec, but I'll ask the question. What do people think about making this the governance for the entire work group itself? I think that the working group is we've discussed in the past about breaking out into smaller working teams focused on specific things. The first one to come up is events. There are other backlog sub tracks to potentially crop up in parallel. Like it's somewhat lower risk to do this to accept a governance model for I guess I would refer to this as a subtract right now single track that we have to try that out and there's nothing preventing us from seeing that this works augmenting it as need be over time and just reusing that model elsewhere. Like to to make the decision now is a bigger one for the entire work group to test it out on cloud events. It's a smaller risk. Can you? Okay. Is there anything else? I mean this governance model is not like any governance model like half a dozen other standards orgs. So I don't know why we content just just adopt it for the work group and just make it that would be a blanket. So anybody else want to comment on this? I don't have a super strong preference. I feel like we can update this as we move along and face new problems. I definitely empathize with some points that Sarah raised. You know, we have open events.io. There's a newsletter on there and there's you know well over 100 people who've signed up and they're coming from so many different walks of life for industries. This you know this events topic is broader than serverless and we're going to get a lot of different types of people in here. We want to make sure that we're inclusive of all those types of people because this has broad ability to appeal to a lot of use cases. But also we have you know we hone in on the people who are focused on this full time. So just you know anything that's inclusive that can bring a lot of people under this tent but help us operate efficiently sounds great to me. Other than that you know if this is the working group governance that's fine with me if this is just open events governance that's fine with me for now. And I'd be interested in seeing some other proposals later on how we could just improve upon this. Okay any other comments? I echo off in my opinion. Okay. Anybody else? Okay so I think there are two different things here. One is whether this PR can move forward or whether we want to make additional edits to it. And I'll talk to and the second point is its scope. So let's do it one at a time. Relative to this PR how do people feel about it? Do we want to move forward as is and look to possibly merge it with the understanding that people can submit PRs to augment it later? Because as I think it was William mentioned earlier we this has been discussed several weeks now and we kind of it'd be nice if we can get this behind us. Okay. Is there any objection to adopting the PR as it currently stands? Hopefully everybody read it all before. The annoying new stuff is this first I think like through the three or four bullets under voting. I have a slight issue with a three out of four meetings. Okay. You count each individual separately right? Say that one more time. You count each individual from the company separately so it's for each one of those it's three out of four. No it's if the primary or alternate attends three out of four. So let's assume the primary attended two and the secondary attended two does it count three out of four? Yes that's actually four out of four yes. Yeah okay so it's not very clear from this paragraph. Let's see. Either no no either. Having any of their assigned representatives attend three out of four? And it could be either the primary or the secondary. Correct. That's why that's why we specifically said assigned representatives. So if you think it's accurate enough I'm good with that. Okay. I mean obviously we could take additional PRs later to tweak the wording if it is unclear. I think at this point it's more about getting the general agreement in place or the high level concept in place. We could word Smith later if we need to. Okay so I'll ask again is there any objection to adopting this? I'm fine with it Doug with the understanding that we can modify this later to address issues as they arise. Yep that's true about just not everything. Yep. Is there a different voting pattern for a modifier or is the same voting pattern? Votes or votes? Yeah one of the things we may want to update later or to be more clear about is when it is that someone fault than a than someone who has voting privileges falls out of privilege. I think right now it's implied that that would be after missing three meetings in a row or something like that. Probably no two two meetings I don't know I can't do math right now. If they don't do three out of four at three LS four then they vote out then they fall out of voting rights that's right. Do we reference the calendar where by which meetings are tracked I mean because there means it canceled or meetings get for holiday purposes? We will we will keep track of it and basically right now the spreadsheet then or we know we have some other mechanism we'll switch over to that but Do we link to that spreadsheet and our calendar? Yeah in fact it's actually right here. Just need to take an account that our holidays the Jewish ones are on a different dates than the American ones. I understood we may need to to take an account. Yeah I've heard I think if I remember correctly in other standard bodies I've heard of people formally asking I can't read the right word is to go on the hiatus or something like that. That's a sabbatical. Leave of absence in writing to the chair. Yeah so maybe we can look at it. Then the group has to approve the leave of absence by vote. Right so I think I think there are mechanisms that we can add to to cover that if necessary and I think those kind of changes would be very welcome. Okay again I'd rather not rattle too much unless there's major objections. So again any objections to adopting this? All right cool we'll make that so. Thank you guys very much. Moving on to the PRs. Austin I believe PR number four is yours if you'd like to talk to it. I think you may have made some changes recently. Yes this you know we've been discussing laying out a roadmap for this effort and it's a very simple roadmap right now. I did an initial draft for the last meeting. I did some very small revisions before this meeting and those revisions were really just to kind of move a bit faster because I think we could given all the people who are involved in this effort do more things concurrently. But essentially if you want to go through it real quick in January we're you know establishing governance contributing guidelines and initial stakeholders. We're also drafting you know educational materials on how to become a stakeholder how to become involved and educational materials on use cases and hopefully using those use cases to help hone in our focus on on what the scope is the initial scope of this effort. We're iterating on the first version of the specification all this is happening in January. In February we're going to continue to iterate on the first version of the specification continue to draft educational materials on use cases and start to investigate collaborating investigate types of supporting tools necessary to help people use the specification more easily and integrate it with the ecosystem. And hopefully by the end of February given that we've we've already kind of established some or a lot of the this common event format we could finalize the initial version by the end of February that allows us to really kind of go full steam ahead in March on authoring libraries and supporting tools to actually enable people to get hands on with the specification and start using it in their applications and give us feedback. And all that. So in March hopefully we could be drafting documentation and user guides as well and start you know building out promotional materials for the effort websites you know logos anything. April continue to collaborate on libraries and supporting tools to use use the specification continue to build out promotional materials and in May this is kind of the the big event that is driving a lot of this and that is collaborative con Europe happens in the beginning of May and it would be great if you know we could announce this and talk about it at length that cloud native con Europe talk about our progress you know who knows maybe we can even get this thing accepted into the CNCF before that so but that's it and at a very high level we continue to work on this and refine this road map honestly I think we can move a bit faster than than what this lists but anyway this is just a start at the roadmap let us know if anyone has any thoughts or feedback any comments or questions related to this road map so I put on the agenda to sorry I've got a lightning talk on what we're doing here in the CNCF working group and at serverless comp in February so we can add a bullet here if we want to announce anything specific besides just invited people to participate I don't know Austin if there's anything you suggest maybe yes the the data that of serverless comp that's is that early February February 15 mid February okay yeah I think let's see it's like a month from now honestly I think we can make a lot of progress and you know you should have some interesting stuff to talk about I think we could you know we'll move the website over you know I think one of my biggest focuses personally or something I I think it's hugely important it's just building traction around this effort and if you're going to be able to talk about this then let's make sure that everything is very clear on kind of like what the story is behind this how you could become involved and where you go to look and actually be involved so you know I'd say that's kind of first priority I think other than that you know I think we'll you know we already have a version of the specification we'll continue to iterate on it and you could talk a bit about that as well as well as the use cases so rather than having people submit pull requests later on for every similar conference that comes up I'm wondering whether obviously putting the ones that are specific to the CNC effort kind of important so I thought those are okay being here but I'm wondering whether we should just create a wiki page that way we don't have to go through the PR process to list out all the possible events that we should be talking about this at just to speed things along yeah so there's a wiki right associated with each GitHub repo I mean that's one way to kind of use as a staging area for stuff that doesn't go through the formal approval process of PRs yeah just I just yeah I don't want to do a PR every single time a new conference pops up because there's a new conference every week it feels like so I'm a fan of that anything we could do to coordinate promotional efforts speaking about this is all supports one of the big priorities in my mind and that's kind of building building traction around this so yeah that sounds good to me okay overall Austin I like the the way you put in here my only request before you look at merging the PR is that you address the comments that are in there I get a lot antsy about PRs getting merged with that with comments that have yet to be even commented on even if it's I don't like your comment go away I don't know if I'll handle it that way but I will I will adjust the comments okay I appreciate that it just I just I just going easy about unanswered comments so this is a David Baldwin quick question one is the the date for you guys you're playing doing the merge just want to make sure I get my comments and before you guys close it off I mean this PR itself yeah right um if if all the comments were were were addressed already I would ask to to to merge it right now but because they're outstanding ones it won't happen until next week at the soonest got it got it cool thank you yeah and that that's that's the pattern I'm trying to go to is to try to put PRs on our agenda that seem to have general consensus all comments have been addressed and I feel like they're ready to merge because I don't want to do too much discussion in this call if we can avoid it and let you do offline discussions because I think that's more productive any other comments or questions on this one then? okay we have seven minutes left there is another PR this one which I think all the comments were addressed so maybe this one can go fairly quickly um apologize I don't recognize that if you don't think at all who's this yeah I'll try I'm going to go before you can hold on yep you'd like to talk to this one it's fairly straight to the board well yeah it's fairly straightforward just uh don't know probably don't seem like ambiguous to me so just re-rotate and we'll be take a look or nothing change really as in in terms of the meaning that it conveys yeah I think it's more of a syntactical change it's not a semantic change correct? yep yep and I will point out that there is one I think we have our very first rfc-2119 keyword in there may woohoo yep so obviously that's an important thing so make sure because that's normative so I'll give people a chance to look this over but it seems fairly straightforward so we might be able to close out this one today any questions or comments on this one? all right not hearing any is there any objection to unanimous consent on agreeing to this PR being merged? all right done thank you guys very much next on the agenda hey hey duck hey just like just add in a comment real quick kind of related to that that last agenda item you know a few stakeholders before joining the service working group put together the first version of the of the specification that's currently in the GitHub repo well when we had those meetings to talk about that we never got into names actually what we'd start naming things we kind of addressed it a little bit but we really just focused on kind of the use cases and and the things that needed to be in this common definition of events but like what property what names are used what what the names of the properties are we actually deferred that whole conversation so I'm just I'm making this explicit because if anyone's looking to get involved and they think that there could be improvements made on the names that we're using and the vocabulary that we're using within this to help make this effort easier to understand more accessible then that's a clear a clear place to to contribute that's a good point and I'd actually like to broaden a little wider and say that in my opinion technically the entire stack is open for PR so anything you you want to see changed go ahead and try to PR and then we can discuss it yep all right thank you Austin four minutes left Austin maybe you could just quickly introduce this one I don't think we're going to have time to approve it because it just was added a few hours ago you could quickly talk to it sure yes so part of this is this effort to kind of build traction make sure everyone everyone understands what we're doing and why is listing out some clear use cases as to what you can do with this I've started drafting up a series of use cases this isn't finished by any means but it's a it's a start so if anyone has any comments thoughts please add them into this PR initially I did try to give this as the serverless working group and also given the fact that events is broader than than serverless I did try and shape the initial use cases around kind of more serverless serverless use cases so there's that's something that I kept in mind when I started drafting these out so there's stuff in there about enabling or making serverless architectures easier to create making functions as a service more portable so that's just you know that's the reason why some of those use cases are are at the top we could discuss whether or not this is the best approach but you know given this is the serverless working group and given we're we all have likely a strong serverless bias I thought I'd start with those any comments they said I don't want to say emerges right now because it's just was added a few hours ago it might have any chance to read it but it seemed fairly straightforward to me I'm going to continue adding to this and you know we could we could keep discussing it I think this is kind of a more of a longer-term effort but an essential part of of why we're doing this and and what you can do with it okay with that I think we're basically at the end of the agenda but before people drop I want to make sure we go back to the roll call and John Mitchell are you on yep and Curtis from Red Hat I'm sorry Jim Curtis from Red Hat Jim what about that Jim and what about David Wilde from Intel okay is there anybody else on the call who does not have an asterisk next to their name in the attendee list this is David I'm on hey David thank you very much okay yep okay is there anybody on the call who does not have an asterisk next to their name would like to be recorded for attendance I David Baldwin Splunk okay anybody else you said with Splunk right yes anybody else all right Travis Reeder from Oracle put your last name Travis Reeder R-E-E-D-E-R thank you okay and we'll talk I'll probably reach out offline to people to find out who people want as their primary versus alternate if it's not obvious to me or actually I should probably send a note just to confirm anyway all right and Doug one quick comment on this I think that some of some other people who were involved initially with this effort got a bit confused by the meeting cadence of this call so I understand we're trying to you know track attendance right now but I think we haven't set up we haven't communicated fairly like how how these meetings operate or at least I haven't to some of the initial stakeholders so I just want to call that out as we as we start doing this so for example Sarah over at Google super excited to have her continued support and involvement in this effort at Google was one of the first companies to really instigate this whole effort it was under Sarah's leadership and her team and you know this is even though this is the first service working group meeting that she's attended you know her team was heavily involved in the early day same goes with Microsoft and and even Amazon I don't think Microsoft was aware that this was happening today and Amazon I just got to check in and see see if they want to continue to participate yeah now please do we just let folks let them know that we do meet every week and like I said hopefully we won't have to take votes very often so attendance tracking it won't be critical but you never know what might happen so it definitely wants you to attend yep I'm I'm all for this basic governance model right now I agree it's the right way to do things for now I just want to call out that there's a bit of confusion that is setting us up for a slightly rough start but that'll get that'll get mixed yep luckily we don't have too many PRs to review yet so okay all right cool and I put that I believe we're over time I apologize for going over one minute thank you guys very much and we'll talk next week have a good day everybody cool thanks everyone thank you thank you thanks a lot thanks Doug bye