Cloud Native Computing Foundation TAG App Delivery / Cooperative Delivery WG, 2 Aug 2023

Previous Meeting

Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: WG Platforms - Maturity Model Deep Dive

Description

TAG web site: https://tag-app-delivery.cncf.io/
TAG Slack channel: https://cloud-native.slack.com/archives/CL3SL0CP5
TAG git repo: https://github.com/cncf/tag-app-delivery
TAG meeting notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OykvqvhSG4AxEdmDMXilrupsX2n1qCSJUWwTc3I7AOs/edit

A

B

Hello, hello, let's see I'm in the dark.

C

It's funny the cameras are so good now at like fixing the light in a room that often you feel the people in the room feel more Darkness than the.

D

uh And the people who are on the phone call with them yeah.

B

But like I literally have nothing well, I have the other screen, but if I click this button, oh there you go, I have influencer lights.

B

B

Let's see, I opened the thing and then I took.

D

There, hello, hello, welcome everybody, just let people have a few minutes of coming online, while I also get my screen sort of shareable.

D

All right, let's do all.

D

Cool welcome everyone how's everyone doing: okay, pretty well cool.

E

Marsh I didn't think you're gonna make it.

F

uh One of my four conflicting meetings, canceled.

D

F

That time for me, yeah.

D

Boy, thank you for coming.

F

And I I have to drop in an hour so but I'm here for the start, Fair.

C

It's a lot it's a long time right, but it's just sort of trying to give the space for people to come and go as they need to and and.

F

Yeah and I actually hope to make some progress on content, but made none in the last week. So sorry about that, no.

C

It's okay, it's as I say it's um so for context. I think people will be familiar with this, but just in case but like this is the second of the deep Dives. um So you haven't so welcome to new faces and you haven't missed any.

C

If you were at the first one to to familiar faces, um the first one helped us to I think the phrasing I kept using was the direction of travel, so I think it helped us understand the kind of intention behind some of the words that were on the model um and I I would say my takeaway from that hour and other are those those two hours and other people might have different ones.

C

Was that I felt we were all vaguely on the same page about direction of travel, the intention, the hope, the goals of of creating a model and the things that we thought might be valuable. Now when it came to what are the things we most want to highlight? What are the words we think best describe those things that we want to highlight. Those still had some discussion to be had, but I thought I felt very good. That I felt like we weren't at odds with each other, on what we were trying to achieve.

C

So um the my thinking coming out of that was that's great, but it's really hard to word Smith, something um and especially when I think we still had as much sort of opportunity for discussion as we still had in the air. So what I want to do is give space for people who think maybe a little bit differently to have the chance to think broadly and globally and and fresh blank sleep orientedly uh to say: okay, take all the inputs, we have the existing model. That's a little bit marked up.

C

That's in the document right now, as well as the discussion we had for those couple hours and take that and say what is it that you've heard? What is it that, if you had to design a shared model that you think people would agree on? What would it look like so that we can start to maybe address the where we are still Divergent, um better and and maybe identify more of where we are already aligned, clearly um better as well?

C

uh So the idea for this meeting is that the second link, I sent I, think maybe joined after I sent. It is to a Google Drive.

C

This Google Drive was open for if anyone wanted to share anything but to your Point Marsh, like you didn't have to like you coming into this meeting, you don't have to have created your own from scratch model. It's just a an opportunity, as I say, different people think different ways and I'm trying to like, encourage and enable people to participate depending on how they think um so in this right now, what you'll see is we have?

C

um The uh I will actually rename this right now. So we have a document that is labeled zero, dot. Initial draft. We have a document that is labeled one dot um just to try and namespace this a little bit um which is uh which was so zero dot is the thing that we started with back in like April one dot is the thing that we ended with at the end of our last call together and then anything else, that's in there from looks like there's. Four other things are ideas that people dropped in today.

C

So what I'd like to propose is that the first thing that we do is we do maybe I, don't know five at least five minutes, and it may stretch to 10 minutes of independent reading of the things that are in there and the things I'd like to come out of that independent reading time is: where do you think that there are huge alignment and like clear things that we want to see be true in the final state of the model?

C

And where do you still see that there is uh concern that, like people are sort of in different camps and and uncertain like where we might land um so basically I'm looking for Trends is basically what I'm trying to say is that more so than I like and and yes, you can also start to pick out if you're, like oh I, really liked that word or I really liked that phrasing or whatever, but that's, not gonna, be the first level of conversation.

C

The first level of conversation is going to be trending, then what we're I'm gonna, hopefully we're gonna find out if we feel like there's one model that we can start to converge on and and then Deep dive on wording of um or if we need to start from a fresh model or whatever so we'll find that out.

C

How do people feel it's a little bit made up? I am it is pre-planned, but also uh a bit. You know made up uh this facilitation technique, so if you think there's a better way of doing things or you think it won't work, please do shout now um before we waste anyone's time. I don't want to do that.

E

uh That's a great Direction.

F

Agreed I I but I. What I'm wondering is if we pick one of these documents and I'll, read it and or or if the person who wrote it is able to speak about what makes it what the direction was that they took I. Think that might help us organize in the short term.

C

Cool, so the proposal, then, if I hear you correctly Marsh, is that instead of doing independent, essentially, if you go.

F

Through them all and.

C

Then, and we kind of that cool, so I can do a screen share, so what I am gonna suggest that I do? Let's see.

D

F

Why I suggested, by the way that I think it's hard to understand the differences to hold in your head with the starting point was and what the contributor tried to play with I think if we can, if we can just like help, people Orient around what the germ of the dock might be, that would be helpful to me at least.

C

Cool um cool what I'm gonna do here I'll share my screen. Now, there's no point in holding off it's a big screen: I apologize, if that is I, will try and do a better Zoom uh for it.

C

um What I'm thinking is that so I've created a new document, that's inside that same folder, so everyone should have access to it and and write access and all that.

C

So please shout if there's any issues, um but what I'm thinking is is I will basically keep notes and just like I was saying what I'd like to get to is like um I'd like to get to a point where we are starting to identify like characteristics we want and things that we still need to kind of have time to debate and then sure, if there's like something that everyone's like I love, that word, we can throw it into General notes.

C

So we can worry about that later, but I'm trying to like not not quite get into that that detail uh right from the echo um any other suggestions. I, think that's a really good one! Marsh I think that'll help a lot. Anyone else have any other suggestions for how to make this as useful for people as possible.

E

um I think I'm sure you're about to clarify, but like um making sure that we have time because I know that I've only got an hour as well. If I think just like it's tough to like well I want people to be able to say what they want to say, but also not do too much so I think. Sometimes the timeline will probably be wise.

C

Awesome um what I'm gonna do then. Is there a timer on Max? There are not, of course, there's not um cool. What I'm gonna do is uh just throw that down there so that I I can be bad about cutting anybody off, including myself, um and so what.

G

I'll do is I'll.

C

Set a timer for each of these, um and so we've got what.

C

uh uh Robert is this one that you have.

D

Put in as well uh just I just want to try and count no.

B

No I think I just I'm the last one with openers or.

C

Open it became a became.

F

If I may make a suggestion, if Ram is here, I think Ram is on the call, there's a maturity model deck. That I think is the most dramatic New Direction of a quick scan. I did of the documents that we have to work from, and so maybe it's a it's a good way to sort of break out of the thinking. We've had been going on and kick off the mornings that work for people.

C

That works problems here, so I'm going to set an eight minute timer to start what we care about is bonding out conversations, but it'll give us a good gut check of, like you know, where we're at to be able to try and get to all the the different models, as well as uh some open conversation at the end. So um so the one I think we're opening here. Is this stock deck here so yeah ROM dude talk us through some of this and I can go wherever wherever it is, you think is best.

H

So what I have in there is not dramatically different from where I think the team ended at the end of uh the last Deep dive.

H

What I started off with was just ways in which to label the different pieces that were in the table that were already there and just kind of rewrite and refocus some of the bits that I felt were overlapping a little too much so I just thought. I'd separate things out into specifically um wanting to focus on the core I think characteristic that we had I felt that the characterization sort of started to overlap into some adjacent areas which I didn't find all that necessary.

H

But it's essentially a retelling of this exact same story that the team ended with and I just thought. You know if we were going to publish this and get this in front of more people. Obviously the visualization and have just telling the story individually about each of the pieces might be useful, and so that's the real direction in which I thought I'd go, and so there ended up being like seven um different characteristics. So I just thought: I'd rainbow the out of this presentation.

H

Yeah, so so the the the the seven um so-called characteristics were I think you know broad enough to cover all of the different areas, but also make sure that nothing was missing. So I didn't feel the need to necessarily add another category, um or things like that.

H

um I I did rename uh one or two of those, but you know it's um it's essentially all there so um be in my mind. There's no single place to start this discussion or start with the maturity model. So it's very cyclic.

H

It's very um different in terms of what path each team could take or what starting point each team could what what are those uh Stepping Stones, because for some teams it might come from like an engineering need to create platforms and things like that, whereas for other teams it could be uh something that comes from leadership or management. However, you want to call them the suits, basically, and so, depending on how that comes and where it goes, and what sort of blockers it takes.

H

The platform Journey could happen in you know one of uh many ways: that's that's really the story that I tried to frame um around this slide and then it goes on into like different pieces from slides four through ten just each of those seven areas broken down into individual sort of headings or characteristics, the topmost one being the most mature and then reducing in maturity as we go down the pyramid sort of I like the idea of the pyramid, because and especially for explaining this maturity model and its different stages, because there's obviously a lot that's going on and a lot of busy work for teams that are less mature versus platform.

H

Wise, there's a lot less in terms of confusion in terms of overhead in terms of tile and in terms of uh stuff that people are doing as they go up the chain in terms of maturity, I've intentionally left the Zenith or the peak out, because you know I, don't think, we've hit that yet, and so it's just aspirational to um to just leave it there.

H

So we can go through these individually very quickly, maybe so um slide. Four.

C

um So this is where I was wondering if.

A

C

So my so I can tell you my bias and other people may go Abby just go side by side, but my bias would be to grab the like top level ideas from these and throw.

D

C

Into this table you started on 12, so we can get.

A

C

Like overlay um and then, of course, like the details, is where the the interesting bits are. You know like that. We've always said that our intention is to get to sort of a longer form explanation of each of these one.

A

C

But the one words can give us that visible, so I don't know, I can grab like strategy and pull it down and if anyone else wants to grab grab one and.

H

Yeah I was going to do this in the five minutes of reading time.

H

That's okay, but uh essentially uh you know people can go over. uh What is there and um let me also yeah a couple.

F

So uh what one thing is reminding me of is that um the thing I've gone back and forth on is like what what are some of the traits we see at these different stages and categories, the different cells in the in the table and the other is what are the kinds of problems you're dealing with at those levels and feels like we I, don't know which one to prefer there both are interesting, and maybe it's it's good to think about them in those terms like what?

F

What is the nature of the problems or the challenge that you face in there and what are the kinds of examples you would see? In other words, how do I know where I am on this chart? Well, do you have do you have a sort of place where people can go to find out what developer tool chains exist? That kind of thing.

I

F

um I also added a added a slide you're free to delete it please, but on slide four, it struck me, as you were, showing the uh the cyclic diagram that there's like a radar chart might be a good way to understand, like you're, going to make progress in each of these areas in different ways, and it seems like a good way to sort of visualize your progress.

H

I think so too, um the radar chart is probably um what the outcome would be if anybody is looking for, like a self-evaluation exercise of sorts as they're going through this um yep.

C

I think that the I'm, a big fan of the spider chart radar chart Style.

A

um I think that where.

C

They come in really helpful is when there is like groupings of things, so you can sort of say like you're this shape. So one thing is like as a engineer, there's like sort of leadership, skills, technical skills, interpersonal skills and you can sort of group them a little bit and you can start to say that and there's like front-end skills and back-end skills. You can sort of say, like a human who is a senior kind of usually fits this sort of a shape and a versus a human who's.

C

A like principal might be more this kind of shape, um so we've just hit the eight minutes, so I just want to call that out, um but we've got this table so let's maybe take a minute and um oops have a think about how people yeah, if there's any so I'd love to hear so. Thank you for the intro ROM. If there's it'd be good to continue here, so I just I started making notes under characteristics. We want the final model and realize that that's probably a bit presumptuous so.

F

C

General notes, uh but this is where I'd love, to hear people who who responding to what they're seeing from Ramen and what they were themselves thinking and proposing. You know what is it that we'd like to see in the final model? What is it that you're still uncertain about and and then things needs more discussion, um yeah we'd love to hear people's reactions.

F

uh I'll start, then, uh the one thing I'm trying to balance in my head as I interpret what you've done from is uh enablement and adoption. They feel connected somehow uh I'm, not sure about value chain and financial, but also, similarly, like you know to me the. What are you investing and what are you getting at on the other end and then uh there's the I'm not quite sure the difference between interaction and integration. I haven't groked that yet, but the it's like are these the right categories here? Can we lump any of them?

F

That's that's where I I'm struggling to interpret some of this and and wrap my head around it.

C

Marsh is that me hearing you that the the thing I started typing right at the beginning, this whole.

D

C

Of avoiding overlapping yeah.

D

F

C

Like we have a goal of of avoiding overlapping between characteristics and what that means, we don't know yet like we might still have that happening, but ROM I heard that from one of the principals you were working from for this document in Marsh I'm hearing that from you in.

F

C

That sounds like a thing we would like to achieve at the end, when we're doing a final review that we feel good, that they're fairly independent yep aspects: okay, cool.

F

Does that make sense to you Rob or others.

H

Yeah yeah um as I was writing this. There definitely felt that there was some overlap. um We could probably do a better job of renaming some of these provided their um there's. um There's some really unique characteristics.

H

We could, you know also do a merge of some of these, but um just to quickly uh clarify the integration stuff I think was in my head more in terms of um here's uh technical sort of two technical products that I need in order for my app to work, let's say um and then um we're now in the marketing era of app aware platforms and platform, aware apps and things like that.

H

But uh to me it's it's uh it's more of uh here's a platform and this platform is capable of integrating with X and Y and Z natively, as opposed to you know the devs or the um SRE folks having to do something additionally versus um you know lower down the chain it is.

H

um There are these capabilities that the app needs go figure it out yourself. So um that's uh what I thought integration is versus for interaction, it's more about um how consumers of the platform interact with the platform itself in general. So how do I get on board? Where do I start?

H

How do I push to a remote instance? What have you so um I I? Imagine them to be slightly different things. The enablement versus uh value chain I think that's a little more tricky to really understand, but yeah.

F

In my head trying to make sense of the categories, that's okay,.

F

The idea here, I think, is to be Divergent and like how are we not seeing things and- and you know what's another way- to approach the problem, because you know we in order to converge. Sometimes you got to diverge and I think that's the stage we're in exactly.

C

What we're trying yeah that's, what we're trying to identify where we're still diver, we definitely diverged in the last call I think, and what we're trying to figure out is: where are we still at that and what and where can we? When? Can we reasonably converge right um so.

F

I thought this was fun, I think in the interest of time and socializing ideas, we should try to stay somewhat high level on on each of the different bodies of work, so yeah I.

C

F

Should move to the next one yeah.

C

Yeah Victor you've got your hand raised.

G

um Yeah, it's uh I mean the the one existing one uh model. We already gone into a lot of details, so we understand that pretty well. The new one is hard to really digest it in such a short time um should we still use the previous existing stable as a base and see whether we can merge this. The this new just compare cell by sale, whether they can can map to the existing table.

C

So I think that the I I think to Marsha's point if we can get through then like where people are thinking like the, what are the big takeaways like I, think the biggest thing I see from ROM's description of his was a we want to avoid the overlapping characteristics, even if that's not been 100 successful in his attempt like that was something he was trying to like challenge us like challenge the existing model on I.

C

Think the other really big thing I'd like to call out from brahm's piece of work that I think is really valuable. Is the like Challenge on what the vision, what the right visualizations look like and again whether or not we end up with exactly what's in the slide deck or something else. It's like I think that's to me the things that I've noticed we're both talking about and and displaying in the the fresh ideas you brought. Is there anything anyone you or anyone else feels like I that we haven't captured and I do see?

C

If it's all sorry, I don't want to talk over you.

J

Yeah, no, it's noticed uh I just do small uh inputs. uh I agree that some of the ideas are overlapping, but I was also thinking from a very consumers point of view. uh If you follow the Mentos pyramid principle more than three to four things are very hard to remember: uh probably six or seven. You know too much to remember so at some point. We should think of that as elements. Obviously it doesn't have to be the only constraint and one minor thing I think strategy.

J

B has to be at the top right in this table, because strategy is what follows. Financials follows value chain uh like strategy at the bottom seem a little like.

C

Cool, um that's a great point on the number I think uh I put that down as general notes. I think, maybe that's maybe I should put that down in in open questions. I think maybe is a better place, because I think yeah I think we've been sort of dancing between up to seven down to maybe four or five and what is it in between there? uh So but but what is the right numbers I. Think a good good question open question all right, so maybe what I'll suggest.

F

C

D

F

So I'm just gonna, add to your two points: I thought or I was giving thumbs up to both the points you made happy, but I would also add that I think it was a fun to approach it from it from the slides perspective, because we do have a challenge of breaking this down to be consumable by people who are trying to understand the space, and so it was it's nice to see it uh presented in that way too cool how we organized and present this is going to be a fun challenge.

D

Absolutely awesome.

C

um Cool I think I will uh I've already tried to so because I'm, the one that was thinking about the format of this meeting, which is unfair.

C

Sorry, you all uh I, definitely like I did like addressed mine in a way that I've tried to like focus on that as an outcome and so giving other people a little bit of time to to think about what they're thinking about um and be able to to display that maybe I'll go next and I'll set the timer and and try and uh try and go um I think so. This is the the table we think based on me, uh based on what I was thinking. um I've tried to note down here.

C

What are some of the things that I was trying to address in my own head of like that, compares a little bit with where we've been and where we're going and so forth, um so I think making sure like we've got Simon here and Colin here. Who've been both working with the cloud native majority model and like making sure that we acknowledge, like we are talking about platforms, is I. Think really important and I.

C

Think we in the last call we started elevating the conversation to really interesting topics, but we have to we have to decide I'm, not I'm, not declaring, but I was I in retrospect, I was thinking I wonder if we are veering away from the like the the area we are. We are the platforms working group. We are talking about platforms. Platforms might not be ready, the right thing for every company or every problem, but that is the problem space we're working in.

C

Are we veering too far away from that was a question I had in my head? um We talked a lot about naming columns and I felt really uncomfortable with that for a long time. So that's why I challenged myself to do it uh and where I landed through a conversation with a colleague was like as long as they all sound like things you wouldn't be upset about being in and ad hoc is the only one I'm less sure of right now, but all of these are sort of like they are valid.

C

They are not offensive and I. Think that was sort of something I was thinking about. They may not be perfect names, but that was something I was thinking about um and I also focused a lot on if we're going to give them names.

C

I think that enables us and almost requires us to um think a little bit more about um what that movement between columns might look like, and so I tried to put movement in like what are the things that you need to do to achieve the next column, uh I couldn't get away from asking a question per row: I thought that was I.

C

Actually at one point only had questions I didn't have the one word like summaries and I felt like the questions is really if we want people to be able to self-evaluate and like introspect I, think the questions is really helpful, so I maintained that and I think that was high value, uh majorly major changes that I've introduced. So this has the two four. This has six items so to your point, fish all about number of things, but I've tried to divide it from a perspective.

C

um So I started to realize that, like Builders and providers think differently than consumers, providers need to worry about what consumers think, but that, but there is like a difference there, and maybe that would help with memory or with like Focus I, don't know um and then I the last one was that I think some of our items in the maturity model were unintentionally, but they were kind of implementations, like even things like platform as a product like as as uncontroversial as that might be within this group, like there's an argument that that's like in a thing right like that you're implementing and so I tried to stay away from that I think the one place where I really fell over on that was responsibility, Matrix um but I'm sure there's other examples of where I didn't do a great job of that principle.

C

But that was so. These are the things the principles I was trying to keep in mind um and I will shut up. So you all can read and respond.

K

B

I actually copied go ahead, sir.

D

A

K

Okay, so um I actually copied this um as kind of like a starting point for me to draft out some stuff and a couple of things that I just want to say. I really like is the um the different um paradigms of perception that you have like got it as a platform, customer uh or consumer, and then the provider and then I also like the the movement aspect of it like okay, well I'm at level, one or ad hoc or whatever.

K

um How do I like what do I need to do like what do I need to focus on to get to the next level with any given thing.

F

Yeah plus one I like that great call out.

C

Cool I might pull those across the dock, but I'll just star them there. For now, as we're talking, that's two votes. They'll probably come over to the dock um Ron. What were you thinking.

H

Oh yeah I was going to say that the fact that you had a question that anchors every category um his great um I think uh it it really.

H

Enters the it, it works very well to Anchor the idea and really reinforce uh each.

A

Of the different.

H

Categories and what we are actually um aiming for for each of the individual um sort of area I.

G

Really, love that.

H

And uh the fact that one, the category on the right builds up on the category. On the left hand, uh it shows a very clear Market progression. I think is also super. um It's it's. uh The progression is much more visible and transparent compared to the older versions. What I wanted to say.

C

So if we could incorporate.

H

C

You saying that from ad hocs who's like introducing the ad hoc established operationalized like that has added Clarity, is that I just want to make sure I know what you mean by the right and the left um correct.

D

B

uh I I just want to say that um um I agree with that um I also you were talking about removing, like the titles, I I, think the questions make um kind of the the category. You know it explains it, but uh I don't think we would gain anything from removing or not having a title for it, because we need to reference it somehow and we can't reference a long question or it's not long, but you know it's a sentence.

B

um I think not necessarily having like number of levels make sense. um I think um I'm, not 100 sure about the words used, uh but I I you. It makes sense um uh but, for instance, um I think at least like established and operationalized make sense uh and the the last two or the first and the last. uh It's it's slightly like I'm, not totally sure like I, can put my finger on it, but there's something about uh those words that I think uh you know it doesn't sit right with me.

B

Somehow I'm not sure why.

C

Sorry, just out of curiosity, which words.

B

Yeah so so ad hoc and thriving.

C

B

Like as a starting point being ad hoc and thriving being the last like you, could you.

C

Could try struggled with the last one you.

B

Could you could you know if it's operationalized, you could still Thrive? If that's where you want to be like, if that makes sense to you, you feel like everything's cool right. It's it's. It's kind.

C

Of you're right.

B

It's a hard word: uh yeah yeah.

C

That whole like trying to have them all, be in a positive place. I think it's a good point that like it makes it feel like that is the only place to be like, and that's not at all like that goes against my principle wall like and that's why I want to share the principles as much as the words because, like I'm, not pretending, like the words, are all all perfect, so cool? No, that's a really good point.

C

I think I had already called out ad hoc, but I, think thriving is an equally challenging one on that yeah.

D

Marshall go.

C

F

Yeah riffing on on that uh operationalize is the word I struggled most with in that list. um I still feel as if there's a that, what levels one and three are unstable and and either you fall back from there or you make the leap to the levels two or four. That may just be me, but just feel like there's a there's something fundamentally different in nature. It it's like you're, going from push to pull, and uh so I don't describe it better than that. But I left a comment on that cell.

D

F

Again, I thought about um so I like the way you've organized it here, uh the the qualities I think in each of the cells um and and I started thinking about the again. What are the traits? What's the evidence you might see of this? How might you see this in your organization, things that will help you Orient like uh like you? uh These are probably the wrong ones. The first things I thought over. Like do you have coding standards? Do you use architectural decision records um like what are some of the things that are?

F

You know, indicators that you've uh that you are in fact accomplishing what that cell describes so separate, separate, uh actually.

C

Yeah interesting, so what.

F

C

Yeah so there's two things so so I've added stars to these, where it sounded like it. So a I wrote These as something that I valued and B I heard at least two other people in the group value them.

C

So that feels like we're starting to grow so I'd like to propose that these four principles uh come across and they are that we try and name the columns and that, if we like in naming them, we keep them in a positive in a positive place like we're not trying to tell you if you're, not level, four then keep going because you're useless, like that's, not where we want to be um that we want to talk about the movement between columns and that that is a part of the model is like.

C

How do you get, and this is where you're talking about push and pull Marsh, and things like that uh that we like having the question for each row uh to to give that Clarity and give people the way of playing to it and that we like the idea of keeping personas of provider and consumer like visible. Somehow it may not be this like it may not be that there's three categories for producer and three for Consumer, but like how do we like encourage keeping that.

F

I, like all of them, none of them I, disagree with I, think they're all worth adding.

C

Anyone else have any concerns with any of those or want to propose something else that they've seen um yeah I.

L

Was typing a quick one? um I put I put a note in there that I still I still prefer the cloud native maturity model terms uh as far as neutrality and just kind of how that works. I, there's a comment in there too I'd like about the numbers I do like having the numbers as a way to refer back and just infer that they progress in an order. But um so just a reminder.

L

The terms there are build operate, scale improve and optimize as we go from left to right and the thought that one of the thoughts that I was having was uh the discussion that, in the cloud native maturity model, the other day was kind of around it being the cloud native model being a central Hub that can then guide people to the other models like the platform.

L

Maturity model and I was just thinking that our ad hoc here really lines up with operating at their level um and I could almost argue that if I'm using the cloud native maturity model that I'm not quite ready for a platform strategy unless I've progressed to that kind of operate stage is a little bit of wiggle room there.

L

um But I could. If I was thinking about how to align the terms. I could I would probably basically start with like our ad hoc is equivalent of their operating, and that might be a good way to align with the same terminology. But that was my thought there, Simon I, don't know if you have a comment, an addition to that.

I

Yeah uh well, first off um um I, really like um what what we've been discussing here. um I do see a similarity like as Collins mentioned, with um uh with operate being at the ad hoc level. I really um agree with. With that point, um we um within the cloud native maturity model. The first level um is the one is pre-production and and for me it seems the starts at at production. So I think that's a really good point.

I

If I may very quickly add a word that came to my mind actually for a heading for operationalized. Funnily enough was Modern I, don't know it's just one on observation. um I also really liked. Sorry, if I may hijack as well the um progression row number one I really like that. The movement I think the questions are fantastic and I, really like the two personas that are reflected here as well.

C

That's enough votes, I. Think I'm gonna pull these over to things that we that we are talking about, um wanting our characteristics to hold and like, as they say, these are all none of this is ever written in stone. It's just sort of stuff. We want to kind of challenge ourselves to think about as we're coming into a more more approachable model.

C

um Sorry I saw your hand go up and down. I was going to go to your model next, because I know there was timing. I don't want.

E

C

Is that fair? Is there something else you want.

E

To say here that was perfect: okay and now I can kind of hit on what I was going to say in mine as well awesome.

C

Then that's what so, if you're, following along at home and open up the asari one uh and then I'm gonna scroll down to here, is that right, yeah.

E

um So yeah I didn't get to go too far into it. So, obviously, that's why it's blank in the middle uh I was just trying to get just a better like just kind of General frame, while I had time.

E

um I think it kind of expands on some of the thoughts that both you sign in and Colin were kind of having I agree, I think having continuity between the two models. There's a lot of value in that um I think it's nice to have a way where you can also be able to label the The Columns of like stage one. Two. Three like you know, like kind of having like a number assigned to it. I like that in conjunction with also I, did like a word description.

E

So I think that was just done well within the cloud native model um and kind of the way that I was trying to parse out. The rows um was trying to find a way of, like kind of also in tandem was like. We've got the cones kind of going with like different parts of this life cycle um that are constantly going to be improving, optimizing, improving optimizing where you're optimizing more.

E

You build and kind of goes like it's uh it'll kind of end up being sort of like a circular process, I thought kind of similarly about the rows like first before you strategize anything, you need to have some type of investment, and then you need to figure out what's my plan and then from the plan, how do I actually enact the plan after I've enacted the plan? How do I have other my the stakeholders adopt this plan now that we've got the stakeholders involved?

E

How do we get feedback so kind of having some type of like Loop and I was having a really good conversation with Marsh yesterday um concerning even like just the social aspect of this, because behind all of this stuff and the things that we're trying to accomplish, um there's like a there's, some type of like why that's kind of underpinning, like uh there's, there's a goal: we're not just trying to do things and throw things at a board.

E

uh You know and hope something sticks there's like there's something that we're trying to achieve within social interactions, whether we're trying to reduce cognitive load or um whatever it is so I think uh all that being said, having some type of like frame of like kind of from start to finish. How do we accomplish this? Why and like? How do we continually build on it? I think is something that there's just a lot of value in so the comment I was going to make on yours Abby.

E

That kind of aligns with what I'm saying here is um Oh shoot. What was it? Dang I had an idea. It's gone, it's okay! Oh there you go um yeah I, remember now! Thank you. um So the idea was I really like, like that.

E

You separated out the provider and the consumer I think there's a lot of value in that, um because they really are just kind of two separate perspectives but and I also kind of struggle with it because they are they're, they're, naturally intertwined with one another like like, and it's at its core and that's why it's nice that they're sort of like right next to each other, like that, um so yeah I'm, not sure exactly how I I like this I, don't know how to fit into what I've got.

E

But yeah I just wanted to comment and say: I thought it was just really good. Yeah.

C

I think it's a bit like when you're at a retro and people change the format on you all of a sudden. You.

E

Can yeah right the.

C

Same you still write the same ideas. It's just with what angle you're! Writing them right. So, like all of these five things matter from both perspectives, but which one is more invested in the outcome was sort of where I was why, where I made the split- and it was a bit arbitrary.

D

C

But yeah um Robert: what's up what are you thinking.

B

uh uh First of all, I would say that I I really like um how you took some of the kind of like um from the last meeting, the uh the the category names that were kind of like strongest, I, I, think I think it makes sense um to have it like this uh feedback is the only one that I'm a little bit like iffy on uh just simply because you know you know what does that actually mean, and it's it's it's kind of like it doesn't necessarily like scream out.

B

This is what it this is exactly what we're talking about in itself, but um the the idea of going from investment and downwards, and the way that you describe it I think also makes a lot of sense and I I I think we should have it like that, um because we need to start somewhere, and it's usually with you know, there's no point of starting to the strategy part if we can't afford the time or people, um and then you need a set of strategy before you implements like it makes sense when you think about it at least, um and then besides that I think I'm I'm again a little iffy on the words when it comes to the levels.

B

uh Just because again, it's like it's hard to find I'm, not sure what the right answer is: I'll, just let's just keep on crapping on everyone else's attempts, but.

E

B

It's like it's really hard to figure out what means starting and and progressing, and what is the end goal right. You could optimize your templated solution while it might not be people going into a portal or using a CLI tool, which I think is better than you know. You could still optimize that, because these these words are hard to land in a way that makes sense. That is a progression that you're going from.

B

You know the least amount of in time and money and and people investment until you have something that is mature, um so I don't have an answer to that. I just I just have complaints, I guess.

C

I think naming is an open question. It's gonna stay an open question, but this is like I. Don't think you should feel bad about having complaints or questions just to say for everybody like that is we are going to be wordsmithing and the My Hope to come out of this meeting is that we have enough alignment where, if I were to wipe out the model, that's on the main page right now and replace it with something. The thing we're worrying about is wordsmithing and not like. Fundamentally, what are we trying to get across.

B

C

Then and then go to go ham on the wordsmithing like absolutely like. Just to be clear, whatever comes out of this meeting is not a final thing. It's about trying to reduce the service area of where our discussion is right is like get to the point where we're like we're all on the sort of the same page, and it's really just like. We know what the word want. What we want that word to mean. We don't yet know what the right word is for it to mean that and that's where I would like to.

C

Hopefully guess too.

B

And also just before, I prefer you take over seven uh just for some reason. Still in my brain, it makes sense to have levels one two five, just because you could say it's okay to not necessarily get up to level five. You know it. It's it's easier in my brain to see that, like you, um it's from not having anything, that's related to a platform to having a full solid, like uh shiny golden path, uh they're, not golden path. That's that means a different thing here, but you know a golden platform.

B

This is like this Nirvana or whatever you want to call it. That's like the end goal, uh and if what that means to you, you know and and your organization differs, it might be that for strategy, you don't need to get across a certain level, because that's that's where you're at, but at the same time it's like yeah try to find a word, but like again, like the words just then give the meaning to each level.

B

That is hard to balance in that aspect like you, don't necessarily have to be level five, but that might be the word that you're going for you know if you know what I mean like it's just hard to put words on the levels.

F

Can I take a crack at that? I think what I heard from you just now is that there's a there's the sort of concept of the perfect or the golden platform uh that is forever Out Of Reach, and the question is: where are you going to draw a line in your pursuit of that? Is that yeah.

B

Yeah, more or less okay right um and the reason why I'm thinking that is because I've um I was on a podcast recording. Today we were talking about idps and stuff like that, and uh we were talking about how you know what is an internal developer platform. What is a platform? Well, it depends on who you're asking and what they're trying to do with the platform and what kind of capabilities do they need and and so on and so forth.

B

So it's kind of like there's the the us having something that describes the perfect platform in the end might not necessarily like. If you get to level five on all of these, then you have. You know the perfect platform. uh Setup doesn't make sense to me like.

F

Can I refund that also because to me it seems, like you know, there's a point at which there are diminishing returns on investment like you just can't justify that kind. So, even though you could imagine a better world there, organizationally it's, it doesn't make sense to fund that versus other things. You're doing right.

B

If you reach a limited yeah, if you're, if you only have technical people who know how to deal with kubernetes manifests, why do you need to implement an API for people to interact with your platform? If you can just put in together and use githubs like it doesn't make sense, because it's kind of like um yeah.

F

I have another one: I have another one like in the beginning, if you, if you have a when you're particular when you're small and you've got a good shared uh sense of what your API design style, is you don't need to have a bad design standard established right as long you can? You can accomplish.

A

F

Culturally, by by indoctrinating people as they join the team or if you're, a large organization that didn't grow up in that way, you may need to you know to shape that over time.

B

Yeah, so it's like it all differs from like if you have five developers and that's the entire team and you you're all aware of how stuff works or if you have 200 developers and you're the platform engineering team, like there's a difference in those two scenarios that you know like um reflects back to the fact that, like leveling, all the way up on each category doesn't necessarily make sense. uh I.

C

Have tried to capture that so I'm going to cut in only because we're nearing the time of some people having to come off the call and I want to.

G

C

We open up the last of the ones here from John um I have captured, though, like can the paper that the model gets delivered with somehow help people identify where within the model is right for them, which will help also reinforce that the top of the model doesn't equate to success like if we can try and do that so we're trying to narrow in on what is the model and then we're going to have to also narrow in on what is the paper associated with the model and I think this is like an open question on if that paper can include that, so um just to try and capture but yeah John I, don't know if you want to try and share some of your thinking behind this.

K

Yeah sure, um okay, so first off I, really like the uh the format and the structure that um you came up with Abby, so I kind of just copy pasted that um and I I think you know maybe not for presentation so much, but as at least for organizing and structuring this I think that makes it makes a lot of sense to have it like this.

K

As I said, I also like the uh platform and uh uh or the platform consumer versus provider uh well side of things, but um but yeah, basically, I just went tabula rasa on it and uh tried to try to like think you know from like a.

K

um Make things as concise as possible, um but also using the reference of you, know what we already had um and you can see that I already caught myself once with um maintainability uh as I was going through. That and thinking about it. It started to seem like it might be a little bit synonymous with um uh the Improvement uh buy-in, so yeah, the only I mean it's basically just kind of another.

K

Take or different uh I guess, different rows and in some ways like I I took and kind of uh smashed together the um what was it the um uh user experience and the integration so I merge those into one essentially um as just usability, um I, also uh kind of so there's maintenance. The new one, I guess would be like uh universality, um which you can see. I made a quick note about that down there like.

K

What do we mean exactly by platform and like what does that Encompass and you'll see that I was still thinking about that, because they're blank, and also uh take this with a grain of salt, because I kind of just started working on this this morning?

K

um I really kind of meant it as a draft to just kind of like throw my ideas out there without um just have a place to organize them without uh stepping on anyone else's toes um uh yeah uh I do like the the idea of uh having progression as far as the rows are concerned. So I put a quick note down there when uh we were discussing that.

K

How, in this case, I think I would swap uh usability and advocacy, um also uh I kind of went, uh you could think of it as like from like internal and like on a her need basis to just internal across the entire company to external and then like coupled it. uh So these kind of like starting words for the categories uh in row, one uh kind of spanned down to all of the uh columns um and also uh in looking at it.

K

um It really kind of goes well with the um the cloud native model um terms for build operate scale and then, in this case, I'd say: improve them improve and optimize would kind of be lumped into category four or row or column four and uh so yeah. That's basically all I have.

C

Cool one thing that I definitely am seeing and I, don't think I called it out correctly elsewhere is like we um official asked the question. You know what is the right number of rows to make this consumable by people and we've had that discussed as a part of the CNM, the cloud native maturity model like there's a lot of like ways in which you can Traverse it uh there's. You know, there's a lot of aspects to it.

C

um We have had proposals that have both four and five columns, four or five levels, and so just something I've I've realized that, like that was not something we've talked about on like do we do. We want three levels. We want five levels. You want four levels like is: maybe something that that has come up as like a option, but that's all uh what else? What else did people notice that they want to call out as characteristics that they would want to see flow through to the final model or open questions?

C

This has come up in their heads by looking at it.

L

I just want to Echo I, really like how we're calling out the two Persona types, I think that's I'm. Absolutely everyone else is saying that too and I I wanted to say that, but we talk about leveraging the platform as a way to build like continuity in your teams in a stream align and give folks something to work on together and I. Think that's that's missing from the cloud native maturity, Model A little bit, but it shouldn't be in the cloud native maturity model. This is more of a okay.

L

You need a strategy now, if you're at this level in the cloud native maturity model, you've started there. This could be something you could follow to achieve some specific goals, and then this is kind of creating a road map for that by calling out people specifically and so I really really really really really really like that. We're doing that.

C

Just want to call out and like so to build on that because there's a lot of noddings a lot of Thumbs Up, which is great so this is this- is this- was something that only came out because I think we tried it to clean Fleet.

C

So this is why what I was hoping to get out of this we've gotten Now new ideas around visualization we've gotten new ideas around ordering of our aspects like I feel like there are a few things that we didn't talk about last time, despite how much we deep dived into the model that have come out, because people have been able to think fresh, which I think is awesome.

C

um So just extending on the Persona thing are these the two personas we want? Are there more personas we want to talk about? Should we be treating them equally, as in should be aiming to have a similar number of things per Persona or like yeah? Was there anything that we want to say? So? Yes, we want to keep with personas. Is there anything else? People want to say when it comes to personas I, just wanna space too I.

B

I, don't I, don't think one needs more than two personas, because first of all it starts getting. You know there would be a lot of stuff in this table at that point, um I think platform for provider and platform. Consumer works just because no matter where you're at in, like the organization for you.

A

B

Or if you're in charge of the people who are creating platforms or if you're in charge of the people consuming, it doesn't make sense like there's no reason to split out anything like that.

B

um If we're gonna do two um personas um I would say that if we get more than four uh categories on the platform provider side at more than three categories on the platform, consumer side is gonna, be a big table.

B

If, if we, if we have uh I, think we could get down to four categories on the platform provider side again because of overlapping within certain aspects of this and for platform, consumer side like if it's one or two categories, I think we can't do more than that. It will be just a big drunk off stuff cool.

F

If I may, I have a and I gotta jump in a second at the the API management world, we think of API producers, API consumers and then there's another rule, which is you know the platform team. Who is enabling those golden paths for producers- um and you know what tooling do producers need also to manage their API.

F

The relationships are very bad consumers and so I'm a little wary of the word consumer here, because for me, consumer has a specific instance, but that's colored by my experience and the thing I think about all the time, which is it guys um provider makes more sense to me. It feels like there's a service. The platform team is providing to teams in a company or an organization, um so I, don't think of them, as consumers. They're.

F

Definitely users of the platform they're the people who are uh who are leveraging the service so I, don't know how to reconcile it. It's just that's that that, for me, was the you know: the awareness there's a collision when I have to talk about how these things intersect.

B

um Platform providers and platform use, or does that, make more sense to you because it kind of makes more.

F

B

F

Good I can I can that that solves my problem, but I don't like I'm a weird Edge case in this. Probably so.

B

F

Are better yeah.

B

Because platform user might doesn't necessarily say that you're consuming a service, you might be, you know you could it could? You could be uh having insight into it or you could have et cetera, et cetera, you're, just using the platform.

F

And it leaves the space to represent the consumption relationships, because you know the relationships between teams. Some teams are going to depend on other team services and we want to leave space for that to be able to represent that relationship yeah. So yeah I, like that.

C

There's like three votes for users and a bunch of nodding, heads and I, think user and consumer are like conceptually the same so I'm quite comfortable, saying: we've agreed that as a group, we think that personas are helpful and we've agreed as a group that, for the names will be provider and user and again we're at smithing, Will and Sue, but, like I, think that's a reasonable start for for now. I think that seems Seems great. Thank you for raising the the question there.

C

L

Yeah we can always Define. We definitely will need a section for defining what is a consumer or an end user and that's a good place to call out, because I think you guys are getting that too. Sometimes the end users will also be collaborators um and I'm, not throwing extra words in there too, but yeah for many folks. The platform team will be made up of both um end users and the platform team and the producers.

L

So I think the definitions will nail that down or we could have a high level user, two user type producer and end user or provider, an end user and then Define subtypes I mean again reports.

J

G

Right just my engineering mind.

J

uh Builder work better I'm, sorry Builder, instead of Provider like Builder and user, because technically some of the app teams will end up being part of the building process in a way, but also be a user and provider has a very different connotation, usually like a service provider or a managed service provider in that sense, again just doing what I, what I think.

B

And I think that's why provider makes sense in this case because we are providing a service uh you might be invited in to help build some aspect of that service. But someone is responsible for you know for the provider part of this.

C

D

C

It's it's also important to know that, like provider doesn't have to be a 100 allocated platform team, like you, may be a provider of a service that is operating at like level one whatever.

C

We call it uh in a lot of ways, because you're sort of just ad Hockley and again, that might not be the name of the thing, but like you're sort of voluntarily providing something of service versus it being like you're, a provider at a more mature level, because you actually have like a stable of things that you're providing as a service and that's like your entire job right and this is where I think there was a model that um I want to say.

C

Oh, who was that somebody just wrote a blog post about this, where, like uh the ideas of like platforming, teams, basically emerge through um like a team, creating something for themselves and then other teams asking them for it and then eventually that thing needs to become platformized.

C

uh And this is and that's where, like it's think, that's where I think one of the really good parts about the current intro to the paper.

C

While that's not what we're currently discussing I know that in there it talks about the fact that this table this model can be applied, not just per organization, not just protein, but it can even be like discussed per like kind of offering or like you know, capability, because you may have certain capabilities that are offered by a team that is operating at one level of maturity in certain capabilities offered by a different team at different levels of maturity and that's. Okay, again,.

L

Off an off-the-wall thought that might tie some things together. We talked about needing a responsibility Matrix or having the responsibility Matrix. As part of that, this sounds a lot like something that we could tackle in, like a sample responsibility, Matrix yeah,.

A

And that's the one that couldn't get out of my head different.

L

Parts of this yeah yeah.

C

That that was like a thing that I think like, but that is an implementation. So I don't like that. It's in the table in my description, but I think that it could end up being to I think it was Mark someone's Point who now somebody said. Oh it'll be good. If we can give people like um ways to evaluate themselves against these topics like you may have you may be using these tools or you may be using these techniques.

C

If you're in this box, um I think we want to keep those as much as we can out of the title of the box so that, as like, those tools and techniques evolve and grow and improve, like the boxes, have more durability than the tools that people use um and that's where I feel uncomfortable. With with the fact I put responsibility Matrix on the table, but like I.

L

Think yeah, that's just a thing: yeah.

C

Exactly um cool so all right, so here's the notes that I have right. This is where we're at on nodes. I, think it'd, be good to you know, make sure I've captured what people care about around characteristics we want in the final model. If anyone feels like there's one missing or one is snuck on there, that you wouldn't expect that'd be a good thing to uh to call out um same thing with. You know, open questions if you feel like there's things that you feel like need to be debated.

C

Still um that aren't captured here, that'd be good things to add, or things that you thought we were clear on that are I've put under open questions like call it out. Maybe we're clearer than I realize that'd, be cool um and then yeah, so I'm gonna actually leave that so I'd like to I'd like to get consensus with the group.

C

That's still here on, like the characteristics we have captured or what people would have expected from the conversation so far, and that the things that we still think need a fair amount of ironing out are captured under still open questions, and if they aren't, please do Shout.

H

Abby um in the document, at one point, uh we did discuss something about a success criteria, um so if you are in a particular cell, so at the intersection of a row and a column, um what does success um for that particular characteristic at that level? Look like um so is that something we want to include, or is that asking a bit much for the maturity model?

H

I wanted to get the.

G

H

Personally, like like the idea of having that called out, uh but it might not be possible for practical, uh but if the group here has some strong opinions either for or against you just help me alleviate that open question. Max.

C

Yes, anyone else wants to take us share their opinions on that. So so I think what you're saying? Let me, let me see if I understand the question and then hopefully people will understand with me what you're suggesting is like the the sort of added content that you have on on your slides and that we have that is very out of date now but sort of below the model right now on the original model.

C

It's the idea of like a bit more detail to like kind of clarify the box, but it sounds like you're also proposing even more specifically, not just detail, but a success criteria check like I'm achieving this with, because I can I can like validate this like.

A

C

Green kind of thing: okay, yeah: what do people think.

B

um In its self I, don't um have any strong opinions for or against it. The only thing that I'm like it. It needs to be addressed outside of the table itself, uh or you know. We need to be able to present this uh in as as easy way as possible and have all that type of information uh in one go, and then we could deep dive and then start talking about those type of things. uh It's again, something that's that it's kind of hard to to define a successful anything in this case.

B

If we're trying to not say that there's one right answer exactly how do we? um uh How do you define that something is done in this case? Some of them might make sense. Some of them might be hard to figure out some I'm just I'm a little bit hesitant because we might end up saying that we want to do something like that, and then we start getting categories where we can't really find that exit and fight. This is like Define that, if that makes sense.

C

I think that's one of my biggest concerns as well, so I think both your points, I agree with a lot. I think we absolutely need. The detailed section like I would agree with that statement of, like that, that's separate from the table, but like useful and then the question is like: how do we do that detailed section like? Does it create a kickboxy type exercise or not um I?

C

Think I have to admit, as a former consultant, a recovering consultant uh I do get worried about uh about tick boxes about us as the model creators assigning tick boxes to things, because I think that it creates. It will drive the culture of this as a way to like, evaluate and judge people versus a way for people to like self like identify and grow right, which I think has been the like tone that we've had um but I don't know. That's yeah.

L

Yeah intentionally leave room for interpretation in gray area and then that's a great way like letting other people say how they did this or how they achieved. This is a great way for vendors to participate in other books too, and I have the same feeling about getting over defining on the um the the personas as well, because different teams are going to have different role, types and different people and different capabilities and like I, don't want somebody to think I need to hire this type of person, because I need X or whatever right.

M

I

If I I just wanted to say, really agree with Collins points, there was um around because first off on the defining the personas too strictly um and then um one of the um things that we set out with the cloud native maturity model, there's a couple of things where we wanted to use it as a tool for people to question themselves and to provoke questions rather than to provide strict tech box criteria.

I

So it was to make people think about things and, um and then I I, just also wanted to to comment briefly around something that might help um when we did the cloud native maturity model we found just on the topic of naming.

I

We went back and did it I bring this up, because the middle category scale was one that that came about actually a bit later on through the process, because what we found as we were working through the model was that we got this see middle stage where people are often building a lot of tech.

I

We also came at it from the probably from and perhaps quite a bias from larger organizations, and so what I wanted to bring that out was um we almost had to um the that nomenclature came much later and then the second thing was was that the last two columns were very difficult um to nail down and um and almost the particularly the last one was a bit of a North star to raise your eyes towards whatever is there, but has it ever actually specifically attainable? So um now we're you know whether that's the right approach.

I

You know like we're, not you know we'll see, but I wanted to bring those up and and to some degree, they're still really open questions within the the cloud native majority model too yeah that.

C

Was yeah I've got that one down as an open question of like? Is it clear the top level is an essay for everyone, and also is there like an? Is it an end goal like? Is it a North star or is it you know, do we leave that open, like yeah I, think.

A

C

That's still I would agree. That's that's the only question, I think for all these models of all time. You know and like hard one to get to an answer on yeah.

D

C

We're at just over an hour in we've got about 40 minutes. 40 45 minutes to go I again, am very like energized and encouraged by the like alignment. We're getting on our intentions and I feel like if I look at our still open questions like I. Think one of the things that maybe we can tackle in this 40 minute period is narrowing in on what are the aspects that we want to to address in the model?

C

The reason I say that is because I look at the still open questions and I look at naming being hard.

C

I, look at uh the number of principles that somebody can remember being a question mark so like do we want four eight six I, don't know, I, look at um the fact that one of the characteristics we've introduced is this idea of wanting to be able to um have progression across our aspects and not just across our levels and like that's like a new thing that kind of emerged today, so I look at some of those things and I realize that actually, maybe that's an area that we that has had a fair amount of turmoil but alignment now, and can we like kind of narrow in on some words there?

C

So that would be. My proposal is that we spend this time.

C

um I can copy across basically the different aspects that are in the different tables and into a Docker try and make them visible to people in some way um and that and we try and get to a point where we've ironed out like here are our X number of things divided across our two personas that we think we would like to include in the model and then obviously we'll still need to validate the the number of levels and the name of the levels across as well as the each cell. But that's my proposal.

C

Anyone see something else. They think we could do. That would be high value for the next 40 minutes. They'd like to post.

B

Sounds like a good player.

C

You're all on the bus, let's go all right um cool. So, as I said, everyone should feel like they're, empowered to like open up docs and look at what they want to look at I. Think I'm, gonna, try and grab some of these um and like place them in a dock here to try and so that I don't have to have all the documents open at all times for people to see um oops.

D

uh uh All right so, like that's one and then.

D

D

C

I had to make it all pretty with.

C

Consumer and I think we've talked about that being user, so I can just make that change here.

D

D

I think I've missed one. There you go.

C

All right, they've all found one page, so um yeah I think what we'll do is I think we've talked about. We want to maintain the as a provider and as a user, so I'm going to start with those ideas there and consider this a uh consolidation round. How like what would you pick out of these or other? Actually, we could take the the things that are currently in the maturity model as well.

C

um All sorts of words are in there right now. um That may or may not be useful um yeah who would like to advocate for something they'd like to see on the table um and we can go from there.

K

I think the investment and the Improvement buy-in, which I kind of worded that weird I, think those are kind of synonymous like the more I think about it. Kind of just the same thing.

C

So investment we've got I've got twice on, maybe I'll start a little bit of consolidation, even here um investment, so you're saying investment and Improvement buy-in, you think, are sort of synonymous and.

K

Which yeah I just kind of worded it differently, but I think it's. You know same same.

C

K

C

I think that the other ones that are out there that are sort of in the same category, maybe would include Financial a little bit. um Yeah Colin, I, think I. Think I saw you on mute. What were you thinking.

L

M

Was I was thinking, um it depends sorry yeah like we got a.

I

Spicy chicken today.

M

um That's killing me.

L

I, don't want to get overthinking um I'm getting overthinky, but investment to me. It can mean two different things from depending on, like the perspective that you're coming from I I do think it's important to call out like investment or whatever we're calling it as like authorization or buy-in or like the ability from a business.

M

Level to implement these strategies and whether that's like hiring people to do it or allocating funds or time to do it or things like that, um I think it's so important to call that out.

C

What I'm hearing from you, I think is yeah is what we've used is an advocation for how we set the question associated with investment, more so than in a proposal against the word investment if I'm.

L

I, don't know that I personally would consider investment to be the same thing as adoption, um but I think that, like yeah John is totally right that people will think of it as a best, but I also don't want a word. Smith I.

C

Think John was I, think John and and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I think you you had said Improvement buy-in was where you saw the alignment between Investments Improvement buy-in um more so than uh investment and adoption which, as you say, Colin there can be definitely a difference in so.

K

That's yeah, that's correct and for for me, I think I changed the wording just because uh once again this is getting into wordsmithing. But to me like just investment, I think money, uh an improvement, buy-in I think you know you have the buy-in as far as people like you know like how. How do you get this done as far as time and uh resources, but really the end goal is Improvement um of the platform as a whole, rather than like I mean the same thing as investment but I just I, I think money.

K

You want to I think investment. So that's why I changed it. Yeah.

L

And what you're saying John I I'd consider is the same thing as adoption as well.

M

Like that's an indicator of adoption, when you have that buy-in uh and I was I, was.

L

Thinking about and you've got it, coincidentally like right in the middle there. um Adoption to me almost sits in both uh the provider level and the consumer level.

C

Cool talk to me more about that. What do you think so, um where we've had adoption we've had, what can I expect to drive user growth and retention? We have. How are the streamlined teams discovering and integrating with the platform we have uh not in that one um yeah.

L

If you go back.

M

L

The first one that was open, awesome.

D

L

We've got like towards um operationalizing thriving, like three and four we've got provider driven and we've got consumer driven um and we're calling out. You know consumer right there and that's still on the provider side. So it's uh measuring like the from a consumer side. It's are my teams using the platform is there? Is there adoption? Is there agreement that you know I'm a developer and I'm leveraging the platform that was put in place for me versus going rogue um or building new things?

L

That's a real thing that happens, um and so we could almost articulate or it could be. It could be a layer, that's right there in the middle, but adoption will mean different things to a provider versus to a consumer and it's a provider May measure how many users they have and the consumer May. From the consumer side. They measure May measure their willingness to consume to a degree. That's.

C

Really interesting I want to dig into that a little bit more, but I also want to First just say. First of all, I am hearing that everyone's good with investment.

C

As long as we make sure that it, it is clear that it has to do with time and money, not just money um as a word, so I'm gonna give it the good five seconds of any any concerns. What I'm also hearing is an advocation that uh adoption gets added to the list now, where between platform provider and platform user, we can keep.

C

Having that conversation, I think that's really interesting, but I just want to call out like adoption, does seem to be quite um consistent across the list, but I'm also seeing things like advocacy I'm, also seeing things um like user growth, like the original conversation from like to last week, so I just want to call out like does adoption sound right to people? Does anyone want to throw some other words out there that they'd, rather in lieu of adoption, um and then we can talk about?

C

If it's you know, in a middle ground and provider and user, like separately.

L

I was just saying adoption because that's what you have open in the page on the right hand,.

C

Side, sorry I'm not trying.

L

M

No, that was good yeah.

C

L

Those ultimately are the same in concept yeah.

K

Yeah and looking at mine, uh where I have advocacy, um really I prefer the word adoption actually because and if you look at that, a lot of it is more about adoption like. If you look at category or column, four you know established as a common standard, um so yeah.

C

Cool then I'm going to start talking as if adoption has been adopted, uh if people think of a better word uh but call it I want to dig in a little bit more on the which side it falls on if we're gonna, if we're or does it fall into a middle ground, the reason being that I, when I think about adoption I think that it is like uh air to a to a user versus it is uh some like, as in like the user, doesn't think about adoption they're just either doing it or not do like it's like either.

C

Maybe it's not like yeah, that's a bad thing, but basically from a user's perspective, I, don't think about my adoption. I think so, like I, think about like I'm using some stuff I, don't think about like who else is using this stuff or why am I using this stuff I'm like I'm using some stuff? That's either useful for me or not useful. For me, it's not useful I'm, probably not using it unless I'm being forced to use it and then that's part of my adoption story but like versus I.

C

Think of like that, like the adoption is what drives the investment when it comes from a provider point of view like. If you don't get adoption, you don't get investment in in a lot of ways like it. That's a part of your like feedback cycle to a certain extent. Is that like is that, like are people using it? Are you meeting needs, or are you just shoving it at people and making them do it?

C

So so that's why I that's why I originally proposed it within the provider side of things I'm, not sure, that's right, but that was my thinking. Thinking.

L

Through thinking through a scenario um with the with a group we're working with right now, they uh they have what they call uh like core I.T, there's a team that they don't call it platforms and a lot of the things that core it is doing, touches on platforms, um and but they don't have a consistent strategy across the board like what they're doing is it's something that the other teams are necessarily actively consuming or aware of when it absolutely could be, and so they need somebody from the outside to come and say yes, you should come use the tools that core it is using and like that should be a platform strategy and, and that kind of thing um and thinking about it, like those other teams, should be end users and they're they're.

L

Not at this point, even though the tools are available, and so the measurement that I would do is, are they consuming these tools? Do they agree with and want to use these tools? Are they involved and and providing that feedback and contributing to the and to me, that's their adoption because, like ultimately, they could choose to not use the tool at all.

L

It is the the job for the producer to make the tools more adoptable and to drive usage, but it's another thing to have the adopters the end users actually using uh also having skill sets that align with using and consuming and some of those other things.

D

um One of the things I'm hearing.

C

There is like so the framing of adoption, if it was framed under the platform provider, would be about like encouraging people to um want more of a pull from their consumers, rather than just always pushing at people if it was framed under platform user. It might be that we want that. That ability to have choice is what matters right like so like a lower level. Maturity is like I'm I'm, stuck with whatever they give me and a higher level. Maturity is like. I have chosen my provider of choice and I.

C

Guess, maybe that's why I see it under provider more. Is that like, if the high, if we're doing a platform, maturity model to try and support internal teams becoming better providers of platforms?

C

If we put this under user uh platform user, if you put adoption under platform user and we make the highest level like full autonomy to pick the best provider at hand like it, doesn't engage, encourage it doesn't push the internal team to be better or it pushes the internality to be better, but only like tangentially as in like they have to be able to read that box and go. Oh, they can pick any provider, not just us.

C

Oh, that means we have to be the best provider and therefore versus if we like, put it under provider. I think we can like be a bit more explicit with people of like you need to be the best provider, because you need to be user pulled rather than like you pushed um yeah.

L

It kind of boils down to a little bit like is there traction? Is there communication? um Is there consumption and yeah? The provider can definitely measure that and that it would be helpful to have a tool that I can go back to somebody and say yes, the platform is perfect and you're, providing all the tools, but you've done these over here on these other teams are not using it when you should be, um and that's almost like a challenge in the tree, but maybe that's Cloud native maturity versus platform. Maturity too.

C

And that's where we're here, to try and draw those lines.

L

I'm arguing against myself, which is nice, it's.

D

C

If we, if we aren't arguing ourselves when it comes to this model, we will have done it wrong, because I think none of this is going to be clear-cut, obvious. uh No, no other options available to us. It's all going to be you know reasonable final State I think is the best. We can hope for.

L

I think I I got I got my I. Think I got my point across there as like people can still choose to not use it um and I think if I've got a company-wide platform strategy and I need my teams using the platform and the thing that I've invested in in order to show that I'm more mature yeah. Ultimately, if we could, we could liken this back to vendors and startups and stuff too. They could build the best IDP ever and nobody uses it or buys it and I don't know it's like.

L

Do we measure like your adoption? Technically, you know you're advocating you're doing all the things right, but do we need a measure of like how many people are using? It is that I guess that would be okay, so that's the platform team. They should be measuring that as less the ability to consume it's more like how much is the consumption happening is.

B

It about pushing adoption or is it about gaining adoption.

C

And that is I think the conversation we want to have in the maturity conversation right. So it's like like pushing adoption is, is potentially a stage you might be in that may be acceptable because it takes time to pull adoption right like it's not pulling. Adoption is not just standing there and going like all right come to me I'm the best. It's like it's actually really hard work and.

B

Like so, it's sort of like a corner with your platform like. Why would the users come.

C

It's eliminated exactly I, think um Colin when you brought up interaction when I go and I look at interaction, I I. My read of this is that that's actually a a synonym or a a challenge with like things like um interface or things like usability or things like um experience, user experience and like those being some of the words we've used in that space, friction reduction and streamlining and things what how what's a word? What out of that pile of words and I?

C

Think that, where where that's coming in is from the user's perspective, my user's perspective of like I have this level of blank I. This level of usability at this level of this type of interaction. I, have this type of interface. I have I, think it's coming from the users like what are the users feeling and seeing. So what is the word that if we were to I'm proposing, we think up a word that would fit under platform user?

C

But if you'd like to propose one under platform provider, please do as well, but what word would capture those things.

D

C

Think, as I say, we've got. Let me duplicate this, uh so we can see the full list over on the side here.

C

There, yes, that's the list of like all the words that are across all of our different uh things and we're trying to think of what's the one that we and and feel free to grab one. That's not on that list. If you think there's something that fits a bit better.

C

Robert you got to come up with a word. You can't just tell everyone else's. Words are bad. What's the word you think fits best for this.

B

C

B

So tired I only have Norwegian words, so.

D

You don't want that. It's there.

H

Okay, I'm going to propose interface for this. Let's.

D

A

D

Awesome uh I know it's on here: somewhere, I know I've seen it all.

C

Right interesting interface, interface, yep we've got that a few places um so interface and the things that we've been seeing under interface are sort of around like what are the like mechanisms in which you receive a service like is it about an API? Is it about a set of documents? Is it a template kind of thing we're also seeing? No, it doesn't have that uh we're also seeing like yeah, like templates apis uh for interface here I think it was under interaction, so this one's like is it manual? Is it automated?

C

Is it curated sort of that sort of a thing?

C

So how do people feel about interface for those types of topics.

L

Is this? Are these things that are available to the end user, or are these things that the end user does.

B

Yeah I'm I'm thinking the same thing is this: is this uh options that the users have, or is this what they should be doing.

D

I think is this options or what they should be doing.

D

A

Don't go back to the table, yep.

D

This isn't it or this one yeah oop a bit aggressive on zooming. Sorry, there you go.

C

So I think that the so I can speak to the one I wrote and I think ROM. You might be able to speak to the one you wrote around interactions as well, though my thinking, how do I consume things, so it's like when I want a database or I want a brand new service. Spun up or I want something like am I going to a Wiki and following some instructions am I grabbing a Helm chart and forking.

C

It am I um pinging an API and getting back some like usable data from that API, which is different than get picking an API and getting it like templated thing out. It's like an API indicates there's something running behind the API.

C

Am I like able to sort of grab bag and like compose my own or like in a way that is more um bespoke to me so like I can follow the the easy path, the Easy Button path, but I can also like go off piece to only slightly like and and be a bit more yeah. That was that was what those four levels were, but again I don't want to I.

C

Personally, don't want to try and get the four levels correct or four or five levels correct here, it's more like those are like the types of things we were talking about, I think ROM. You had similar like reading docs and being on slack and things versus like the ability to sort of get some things given to you in an automated way versus having a bit more of a like um curated experience versus it being like. You know completely uh smooth and like easy, easy interactions.

C

um I think I spoke more about the mechanism. Maybe- and you spoke a bit more about the experience if I were to like compare and contrast, but.

H

Right um I imagine this to Define what the user experience would be um when interacting with the platform itself. So does the user have to do ABC in order to accomplish X? Does the user have to go through a particular set of commands in order for an outcome? Why to happen? And what is the nature of the experience that the user has when they consume the platform necessary?

H

Are they doing a bunch of manual steps or are they having a more black box kind of experience, with the ability to step in and out whenever they want to? Or you know it's just a fully um automated experience where developers continue to develop test locally ship it whatever so I.

C

Think that that was something that, when we were talking about this on the last call friction reduction, streamlining those words were kind of coming up as well, not that they were the you know, anyone's.

D

C

The column, but those were those were things people were talking about so.

H

I think all of those aspects, um the the this term for me- would Encompass all of those aspects. I, don't necessarily want to leave them out.

C

And you were, and you were advocating for interface, and the thing you wanted to make sure we did is that, like that, this would include the level of like friction reduction.

C

um A user would feel in the system uh as well.

C

The mechanisms used like to gain that Improvement, basically just trying to capture the like intention of the word, and then we can.

B

Always change the word.

C

B

I'm kind of calling back to, if that is the platform, provider's responsibility rather than this is what the platform user needs like.

D

B

Like how mature are you as a platform, provider and I'm sure it's a platform uh based on? How do you interact with this platform versus if you're, a user and and and you'll only have you know, uh templates playing around? And you have to deal with that? uh That is not because you are a user, that's because the providers haven't provided anything yet better.

C

Yes and so I guess this is calling into so what I hear from that is calling it a question I think whether or not we want to split the model into the two categories. The reason why I say that everyone seemed very keen on that, but the reason why I think that this challenge is that um that feeling that positive feeling towards it is that uh maybe it's that, like as a platform provider, uh it's it's like it's not as a it's like platform, users, experience.

C

Right, so it's like the the reason it was originally split. The reason that I started with that split and and I know that John like Rift on it is because I was thinking like there are things that, like I, is a I I I I feel like I is a platform.

C

Builder would be encouraged to to work hard on if I was more in the shoes of the user, and there are things that, as a platform provider, I am like I'm, more encouraged from my own shoes, so like from my own shoes, I want to know that the company values the work I'm doing and therefore pays me well and gives me the time and space to be effective.

C

But, like my users, don't give a crap about that, but my users care deeply about like what their experience is and friction reduction and if I can and the value in calling out that that's from the user's perspective might encourage readers of the model to like that. Maybe hadn't been as user driven before to like realize that they're doing these, like this entire paper, is for providers just to be clear.

C

Like we're writing a model for providers of platforms the, but if we can somehow phrase that part of this model is like encouraging and almost forcing uh those providers to think from the perspective of the user,.

B

But but yeah yeah that kind of makes sense, but at the same time, uh if we're creating a a matured model for the platform provider and um uh from for me, it becomes a thing where uh the user will not be maturing.

B

In a sense, the the user will use the platform it's up for the it's the platform that needs to be more mature, uh so you know it. The pressure might come from the users for certain aspects. It might come from uh leadership, it might come from the people who are creating platforms like where that comes from doesn't really matter.

B

It is for me, um in the perspective of the platform maturing uh I I. Don't necessarily think we need to split that up, as in um user and provider I, think it all kind of ties in together in different aspects in different categories.

B

So it's big it, it just makes it hard. Then you say this is from a user perspective, because the user, um like platform engineering, is all about like the product focus and making sure that you know you have your users, even though they are internal users and you have to make sure that they get what they need. That doesn't mean that the users are in itself like pushing maturity forward.

B

They can they can you can get feedback from them and then you would have to make a decision based on it. How you supposed to solve this? It's basically all from the provider's perspective. In that sense,.

C

Yeah so I think that's a good because they say that is like very, very valid, but also slightly like we were exploring whether or not it made sense to split this from the different perspectives.

C

I've done a slight edit to suggest that maybe something like platform provider experience, cluster of topics versus platform, user experience, cluster of topics might be a way of making sure that it's a bit clearer that this is all platform provider's job, but that some things might some of their job might influence their own lives more or less than their users lives more or less, and maybe that maybe that's a middle ground. I, don't know.

D

L

I was gonna, say, I I'm thinking, um I'd propose that we drop end user all together from the maturity model on this phase and consider it more limit the scope there and just call out that we're focused on the platform provider and uh move considerations for the end user to outcomes of the aspect like as a result of this, your end users can, if we need to clarify that into different sections.

C

Okay, I'm just moving, so what I just did if you weren't following, is I moved we had talked about. We wanted to split the the model into personas, and that was something that we had kind of said. Was we wanted that in the final one, we're as we're challenging ourselves to think about that in practice? We're realizing, maybe that's more of an open question and maybe less of a definitive so.

L

I just move that down I'm. Actually, what I'm kind of saying is like not necessarily drop that concept of having like platform maturity from an end user perspective, but just for the sake of the scope of this first version, even and just consciously calling out and saying this first revisions focused on the provider like I, want to acknowledge.

L

I do think that having a measured maturity for the consumer is a valuable thing from that perspective, but right yeah, it's it's creating so many questions, so I'm not saying that we should renege on the um or like back off of the.

C

We can write that into the details instead of it being on the table. Itself is what it.

L

Is like hey, this is for platform providers today. This is not like you'll see stuff for the end users, and that will be an outcomes, and that, like comes in like the motivations of the maturity model, and then we that gives us something I'm thinking of product development like we're consciously. Maybe we consciously say this needs to be in version 1.5, to include more information about your users, I.

I

L

If anyone else yeah.

I

um I I would agree with with Colin's points there. Something that occurs to me is that often this interplay between the the users of the platform and the providers of the platform are so often dictated by a wider policy or decision as as well and the scope in general of the platform maturity model. I, wonder if, at this point, that's almost too too big for that so I would support um Collins proposal. I think it's really valuable to take the in the the user experience into account and it could go into the more descriptive text.

I

So I would support that.

C

Cool, so I'm gonna create a list investment adoption. One of the reasons why I thought this was an interesting topic to raise now is because we talked about wanting like a progression through these. Do people feel like these are in the correct order right now, or would they move investment adoption interface into a different order? If we were to start trying to order these before we add more to the list, I.

L

Think they're in the correct order.

H

I think so too, two.

C

Three votes cool all right awesome then, so we have said that we don't want more than seven. We don't know how many we want throw out another one, who's got one, and where would you put it in the list as well uh and I'll pull up the list of where are.

D

You where'd, you go no it's from discussion there. You are all.

C

Right these are the the ones that have been talked about previously, but we can come up with a new name as well.

L

By chance, Abby so I wish I had this open I'm. Sorry, can you flip to the table where you think again, yep.

D

D

L

D

A

L

Kind of impartial to what you already have in the draft- and it's probably just because I've read it so many times.

C

So I think that um so things that I would like to see from my my version somewhere.

C

That doesn't mean with these words or not combined in some other ways, I think there is something around these two, this ownership and maintenance around this idea of like because I think I, really what where I was riffing off of on this was a conversation a couple weeks ago or like last week, when we were talking about like inner sourcing and how that's quite a mature model, but, like you know, there's like centralizers, intersourcing and and like how how do new features get absorbed into something that is a more mature platform that maybe starts as like someone going a bit off-piste and like doing a thing, because it's a bit different from what everyone else wants, so I think there's something in in that space.

C

Whether or not it's these words I, don't know but like that I think is valuable. The word that's not on here. That I think is most valuable. That I've seen on others is I. Think this idea of feedback I think is a really good one as well.

C

I really liked, and especially what we're saying is like, but then the causes question that whole idea of, like which perspective are we going on user versus provider and and that stuff, but I think that's a word that I feel like I I, definitely like when I saw it was like. Oh yeah, that's missing from the one that I started to put together so.

B

C

B

Idea of feedback.

A

B

I'm not sure about the word, um but if you start thinking about it through this kind of like Loop uh sensibility that you know you got investment for it and then they plan a strategy and they implement it. Then it's getting adopted and then you get feedback. And then you need to change something and then you're gonna have to go back.

B

It can be invest more time, energy money whatever in getting that, and so, when you kind of start over again, so it kind of becomes like a metal thing for me where you can look at like traversing those uh categories uh as um going from you know the immature point to you're mature, but at the same time you kind of also kind of look at like a like continuous Improvement cycle.

B

So I I like how that kind of works, um I.

C

Only worry like what is it? What is it that's about mature for the plot so I liked it, as in like I, think people need to be getting feedback, but is feedback actually a like characteristic along the journey, or is it a thing that evolves over time like I think in some ways this is where I think in some ways like this idea of like how we talk about adoption is, in some ways, feedback.

C

How we talk about like how new things are provided to the like, provided via the platform, is in some ways, feedback like so that's where I'm like sort of at two minds with it. I really love the word, but then I'm wondering. Is it an aspect in itself or is it fed into the rest of it? I don't know.

B

And- and you might look at it as um uh this is the platform maturity model, not necessarily platform engineering maturity model, where feedback is very important if you're doing platform engineering, because it is a product mindset- and you need to be- you know, get your feedback from your customer and then you know Etc.

B

Is this a you know it's quality physical is not physical. It's virtual, but you know, is this a physical platform maturity model, or is this a organizational um uh strategy? Adoption model you know.

C

I think I put them because I don't think we're going to answer that in four minutes, but I think that, like it's going to be, it is socio-technical in nature. The question is, is where does it fall on that scale? I.

B

C

The thing where we're not gonna be able to answer that in four minutes, but I think.

G

C

A really interesting question: um what I.

H

Think what I'd like to answer yeah.

D

H

No I was uh just thinking if um that feedback aspect was more of a binary thing, as opposed to having like multiple levels. You either have an Avenue for receiving feedback and act on it or you don't, um and that really dictates what the kind of maturity is, that the platform practice has. That.

C

Actually brings us back towards sort of this, one that was on the original model or like the like model that we were talking about, where it's like reactive versus, responsive versus, strategic and evolutionary and platform is a product kind of side of things.

D

C

I'd, so what I'd like to understand from the people on the call still is what I'd like to do. One of my goals, coming out of this call, was to get to a point where this model that's on this page, which is right now I, would argue, unconsumable I'd like to make it consumable, but what that's going to require is like, basically deleting it, along with the comments that are on it, because that's the way that Google Docs works and replacing it with something and that's a very heavy-handed action, and so I only.

D

C

Take that action, if and when the group feels like we have enough alignment and enough confidence that the thing that would be that would be replacing it would be a step forward. It's not about it being perfect, it's not about it being above reproach or Without. You know wordsmithing to be done and all those things, but do we feel like as a group that, if, if I were to take on the notes that we've captured here about what we want in the final model, the things we still know are open questions.

C

The words we know, we've already sort of agreed on and the order that they're in, but then expanded that and introduced a few others, possibly even just leaving those three possibly introducing some others. Do people feel like that's a reasonable step forward, or does that feel like too much of a leap right now and that it would create too much of a rift between like the conversations that are happening and the reality of the document. I don't want to create dissonance there if.

B

We, instead of removing something from the document, rather have a um a table documents specifically where these three get added, and then we have a somewhere where we can kind of work on that model for next time, uh I think makes more sense than just removing. Well.

A

B

A lot of this historical yeah.

C

B

C

Maybe what I can do is I can so taking that on board. Maybe what I can do is I can like basically cross all this out so like at you know, do a I can undo it right. So I can do it here. You can tell me if it looks stupid and then I can undo it strike through it, put a whip with a link to somewhere else and then have that somewhere.

C

So that way we don't lose the historic, but we sort of make it clear to people coming to the document that this is not meant to be consumable as it is, and then what I can do is I. uh We can create a new document. I can take on board the things that we've talked about here and create that document from that make that the like high traffic, editable thing um or changeable thing commentable thing, and then we can look to try and merge that back in on the next time we get a call together.

C

Does that seem like a reasonable I'm, seeing a nod at least from Robert to that Colin yep that seem reasonable to people with Simon? So the uh thanks John thanks Ron, so the question then becomes: is it a Google doc or is it a Google sheet, I think I'm going to Advocate? We do a doc I think it provides more uh flexibility for commenting um if anyone feels otherwise. Let me know, but that's that's me.

A

C

Action then, is then in the next day or so, I'll create a doc with this format, but with a like clean version, taking on board all of our conversations as much as I, possibly can but again I'm one human I, probably misunderstood people I'm, probably going to miss things. So please, you know, comment a comment frequently uh and and completely on the on it to the point and then um will look to maybe revisit this in another about a week, maybe a little bit more than a week.

C

I don't know if I'm gonna have time for a call next week. So probably you know 10 days from now. Instead of seven um we'll look to to schedule something in so.

B

Yeah I think it makes more sense to having a dog, because you could even basically just select the a word yeah and add comments based on something you disagree with. So.

C

Yeah and and John yeah I agree uh cool. Yes, all right, then yeah we're two minutes. Over already two hour conversation I super appreciate. The engagement like I think. The only way we get through, like the are able to get as much Community involvement and and as positive and experience with the model at the end is to get everybody involved, and so that's why these are sometimes long conversations but I think very, very worthwhile. Personally, I find it really interesting to hear everyone's perspective. So um yes, please uh yeah. Thank you.

C

I will try and do this and and then please come comment and and word Smith away and we'll we'll get to the best possible outcome. So.

D

A

You Abby thanks. Everyone.

I

Thanks Abby, thank you. Thank you. Bye. Everyone.