Cloud Native Computing Foundation Technical Oversight Committee, 5 May 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-05-05

Description

CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-05-05

A

Good morning,.

A

A

What can folks a few more minutes to come on in I am camera off this morning, because I'm having bandwidth issues so I'm hoping everything holds up.

A

All right there never be a few Mormons come on in Liz whenever you would like to start just perfectly fine.

B

Nobody should give it one moment it will see your folks coming on, but yes, so guess a busy day today.

C

Okay, that's a forty people and all people like streaming in now, everybody.

C

All right, maybe we should get started. Sorry welcome to you the COC meeting for my.

C

Why do we put the zoom details yeah, it's.

A

It's so that we can make sure that, like that, everybody knows where this actually is four slides ahead of time. So yeah.

C

As well, alright and Amy will be checking off who's here, yep, alright, so in our agenda today we're gonna go through the six get some updates from the six I'm, a quick look at what is wasting for TOC input and then late-breaking proposal we've been thinking about how we want to revise and improve the sandbox process. So this is the first exposure today like of an idea that we've been thinking about around improving sandbox. So hopefully you will get five minutes to talk about that. At the end, say, who's first seek delivery.

A

D

Update I approach it to yourself from captain Sam Fox. The review is done through filip mosz, so captain is here as a complaint for delivery in ops purposes. Litmus is a framework for chaos, engineering and chaos, testing some negative space, suppose of them our sandbox. We have done the really they're, not waiting for a sponsorship decision, so let was I'm just as we speak. Updating the issue here that they have to read. The document also dig in the QC issue, tell Vegas Bill packs.

D

We look into this and the question we have here back to it, you see is mainly one about wording. Instead, what the official definition of end uses for the scene, CF criteria is so what we saw is called a lift up. X here is that most of their end-user adopters are actually compromise with people who built it, and the requirement is that there's three end users using it in production.

D

So the question here is, in the case it's more like a lady's bill, packets built by VMware and Heroku, which doesn't mean sales force and as their end users, the name obviously they're clouds and environments, but as a TAC requirement. Would this mean that a we want the pure open source project accepted and it's an end user also, they also count as end users or would end-users be like actual companies using it as as the application. So that's the pose that question back to to the TOC. What's really meant by this criterion is what we.

C

Have to revisit that definition for spec projects already so I. Think part of this is really just a judgment, call on what counts as independent and what is only used for a particular project.

D

Yeah, you can make a recommendation based on this. We put it in our recommendation in there, because this is independent, so I think wanted to potentially tenant is also. It must obviously be adopted by somebody else, except the people who are actually building this project. The other was a small SME internal service. Web workflows is still under review. This was the former groupie group actually with a subdirectory in the server less working group standards.

D

We had some initial conversations we're talking with them. We specifically want them to swim with other work. Floristic related groups with projects was in the CNTs, as this is mostly about defining a standard. However, they were found workflow so talking to our go obviously make sense, and also talking to Brigade make sense because they all respect project. So this is expect to be there. Ii would assume that others seems they have project would adopt that spec.

D

So the ideas was happening without cloud events here and last but not least, for artifact, huh we had the presentation we asked met to provide some more details and also to some follow-ups, especially with the projects we watch. It would get published on it all the doc. The details are on the issue and obviously so far we haven't heard back. So that's why this is not yeah yeah.

E

And I can explain a little bit about why I haven't come back. We've been asked to provide a whole bunch more detail, things like the incubator. Due diligence talk about three people using it in production. There were certain graduated in incubating characteristics that we are asked as part of the sandbox review, and we just don't have that information. Yet it's going to take us a while, because we submitted at sandbox- and we are asked to do more, and so it's just going to take us a little bit longer to pull that information together.

C

I think you can speak to why they are not just being held to sandbox criteria.

D

They always happen in the review in there and be using sandbox criteria, but some projects. When we talk to them, they already have some of those criteria for incubation already, so they don't need to stick to this, but like having coding standards and these information for project already. Has it available I, don't see anything, that's why it shouldn't actually post it. Yeah.

E

In cigarette delivery, it's become kind of the standard to start doing the incubator due diligence as part of a sandbox project. Other projects going through so gap delivery for sandbox have already been doing. The incubator to diligence.

C

Okay, I think this may speak to one of the reasons why we want to streamline sandbox process in general, and so let's not dwell on that. But, let's you know point notice.

D

Okay, one more like.

D

Yeah they're still working with number one. Okay is now a narcotic repository and had over before the air get working groups working on, obviously with the Charter and the user story. So what they're working on right now is I think we're interesting they're reaching out to people or companies running air-gapped installations of urbanism, what their best practices are.

D

It's already one in there from Cray they're discussing with some additional companies who have this information available is mostly focused on aircraft installations of kubernetes itself, not yet applications running on top of this right now they are kind of figuring out how some of those users can share this information because, as the air-gap, you can assume that some of them are governmental organizations and for them it's a bit hard to share this information, but I also find they create one already being quite interesting on how.

D

They also have there was demo scheduled around scenic border. Ibm's uses just scope, you and I read that on the container signing and how they handle this across registries, which is one of the issues. Obviously, I'll get environments like especially the transfer of container images between registers and getting them in the right place. Is he on the operator working group just briefly by next week? We should have that operator definition proposal to have a more wider discussion with the TOC, which was the initial request.

D

I didn't link in the document right now, because, honestly, it's under heavy cleanup right now, so it doesn't make sense to look at it right now, but I talked to the people leading their working group visit they're, confident as it's ready by next week,.

C

C

Cool, thank you, which thing is next I have not memorized the order to.

A

Be fair, I changed it up a lot, so you know all.

F

Right, it's a strategy. His asks, good morning afternoon evening, breakfast lunch dinner. All that stuff, TOC folks, hope, everybody's good out there saying say: staying inside I have a better update, actually I just sent it in chat on our list. Yesterday, I sent that out to the list. We are pretty much up and running at this point. What this means is, we have read me a contributing markdown file.

F

We've got working groups that have moved past the stage of being proposed, like governance, and so many more things like labels and meta stuff, and you can talk to us and that's really awesome.

F

The governance of project is alive and kicking. Josh. Burkas is heading that up last time we all met as a group.

F

We collectively looked over the project, related graduation criteria and sandbox criteria, so we can see what exactly the TOC is looking for, so that all of our folks and our crew can be on the same page and Josh from folks are gonna, have some recommendations already from things that we should either change or either make brought, make more broad or make less broad, so you'll see those shortly, and then we're also now at the stage where we're preparing the communications to maintain for to project maintainer, z' and contributors for all the 40-plus projects, both calling for support we're putting a survey and focus group, some focus group things together.

F

I know people have survey fatigue. So this isn't anything. That's like checking the pulse, it's more like discovery survey of what people like that they're doing in their projects. For instance, like do you have a contributor program that you love that you want to tell us about. So it's not all sad stuff like what is your problems?

F

We want to collect the stuff that people are doing. Good and best practices is not just you know the stuff that needs help. For example, in those communications we're also preparing a a welcome to our fourth Thursday meeting of the month for everyone. You know the same cluding TOC and this would be an AMA for maintainers contributors, six for them to get direct support and help for anything, governance, related or contributor strategy related, literally anything that falls into under that Sun.

F

And if it doesn't fall in our Sun world, then we will kick it and help you figure it out and where to get responses and answers. We're also going to be doing a heads up about the maintainer circle planning and hooks. So we can get some other maintainer x' to come on board into our little planning circle of trust here, and then we can get that kickin as well, we're close to setting up a slack channel for maintainer, x' and contributors. So we can all gather somewhere together and that's really it for us.

F

So we are out of our meta stage and on to the real deal. The link that actually set in chat in those in zoom chat is our. Is our list and I sent an update to our list? That has things like issues that you can help us with things that are on things that are on our horizon and things that we've done over the last couple of weeks. So I would love 64 of you in this room right now to help us out in some way.

F

Trust me when I tell you there's work here for everyone there truly is: we've been doing a really good job of using our issue board as well to to try to to map out and plan publicly some of the things that are on our horizon, so that folks can jump in a lot of that. Stuff definitely has a signees, but it's we're talking like two to ten people. Teams that are gonna be needed for some of this stuff, so don't necessarily get set back.

F

If you see an assignee just comment on an issue and say hey, you really want to work on this I know Lee and some other people have. So thank you for everybody that has come forward so far, and we've got a really good core group of people right now,.

C

Wonderful stuff, just pausing for a second in case anyone has any questions and it seems, like everyone is happy, I'm, very happy. So, let's move on to SiC Network.

G

No Paris is right, I'm pretty pumped about that.

G

Okay, great, so, uh-huh updates from sick Network, some project updates, so we've got contour as a proposed incubation level project, that's gone through CID, review and I think is pending some discussion in the TOC and and probably a boat there that we've got another project. Chaos smash, that's recently presented within the working group and is under review sake review at the moment. There's a backlog of about three projects, ambassador nursery and kuma of projects proposed for various levels, I believe sandbox and incubation, and then coming up on the seventh.

G

That there's on the schedule is a presentation from we work about the the survey of later seven protocols, I'm very relevant and interesting too. I think the world is on way filters, and maybe some webassembly so should be an interesting topic for us. Another topic that has been in review it kept proposed for adoption within the sig is well. He is some is essentially a white paper. It's it's efforts have been you know. Hopefully I'm category you know capturing it accurately or or in that the best of light.

G

That is something I've been related to and an offshoot of some work that that was being done in within the telecom user group.

G

That group having it naturally a more service provider, centric orientation and part of the effort that the the crew, Geoffrey and Watson, and a number of others that are kind of behind this particular set of principles, have tried to bridge the divide, I think toward the enterprise side can between service provider and enterprise.

G

Anyway, that's been proposed, I, don't think it's been given it's it's full do just yet in terms of potentially incorporating that in as a white paper within the sig. So that's a to-do item. Lastly, hopefully we'll talk about this, this coming Thursday is well, is a proposal for a working group around service measure, performance, I, assume unbeknownst. To most on this call, there was a separate Linux, Foundation project being formed that was focused on well workload, measurement, workload, definition and measurement.

G

Actually, it was a really long project name at first blush sounded fairly related to Sina and some other things that maybe the apps it might be interested in are already defining or some of its projects. Defining point is that Linux Foundation project in its formation had recently fallen through, but some of its its work remains, and so there's some that's specific to network that that will propose and consider having as a subgroup.

G

There's some that's that's the update I'm sort of waiting for those that are representing the cloud native networking principles if I'm miss characterized. That effort feel free to correct I have I, have no public shames now.

H

I think it was goodly, it's basically just a set of principles that I asked Watson to help me develop so that I had common language when I started looking at them, things like cloud native network functions and trying to get performance working in a more cloud native approach.

G

Okay, very good, it turns out I didn't put yours.

C

That sounds really interesting and I think actually getting some more kind of public awareness to what we're talking about and that kind of telco space to be useful and really I have one question for you: eat so contour. That's an incubation level right.

G

Contour, yes, it is, and.

C

Do you know or anybody else from the TSE, do we have like a TLC member who is lead on that Matt.

G

Mr. Klein is private point yeah.

I

Hi, what's up Liz I was.

C

Just checking to make sure we have someone who's gonna drive that through yeah.

I

I think we're actually done. I had sent the DD doc out to the private TOC for comments. I was actually going to follow up right.

C

I

Today, on that, yep.

C

That's for comments and then and it's.

I

It has been in public comment for some time through the sake, I was looking for some private TOC feedback just to see. If there's any major concerns, if there are, we can talk about them. If not probably do a vote this week or next week.

C

Getting through some projects.

J

Thanks Matt I'm, assuming there's nothing else that you want from there contour team right, so we're all set on our end, not right now, if.

I

There's any feedback from the TOC, we can talk about it. Okay, thank you.

C

Anyone else with any questions for Lee and Sikh Network.

C

Okay, let's move on to signal time.

K

Hey everyone, yes good.

L

Questions for the sick, Network I was Michael me. Can you share the link of the white paper on the chat box, Thanks.

K

Okay, so sick of runtime, hoping everybody can't hear me so project updates. So I, don't last meeting we had a presentation from middle Q. That's basically bare metal, no provisioning for kubernetes and just standard bare metal provisioning for machines, and the project is currently in review they're playing for sandbox. So we created a document and it's publicly available for everyone to comment. So just waiting for some sick chairs and tech leads to review the document, and the next step would be to create a PR emerge that PR into the cig.

K

Runtime repo and that'll become our artifact for the TOC to find sponsors and we're also following the new sandbox template the working sandbox template.

K

Another project that we have in the pipeline is quai and that's basically, a container registry with lots of different features. Security features for image, scanning and different ways of storing this container images. And then we have their presentation on our media and Thursday.

K

Our next meeting, so they're applying for incubation in harbor finally got their consolidated due diligence document completed from all the relevant six Sagat delivery, six storage security and SiC runtime, and their recommendation is to graduate so I think their next step would be for the TOC lead to kick off that two-week public comment period. And after that you know if everything goes. Okay, kick off a vote and we have another project cube at the open PR in the TOC, a repository for annual review.

K

So we like to schedule a presentation to help out with the review. So hopefully we can help their TOC with the review. This project is in sandbox, cube edge is basically run in container type of workloads in the air choose and kubernetes.

K

Then we we have some roadmap items. We had a presentation from container device interface at our last meeting, so this is a team mainly driven by Nvidia and yeah they're. Looking for a home, I had to do the work. So possibly you don't interested in bringing up a workgroup and maybe working with the OCI folks and trying to define those container standards, and you know the way they interface with different devices. In this special case, I guess is GPU type of devices, because there's Nvidia driving this group and yeah.

K

Finally, we have our next DLC liaison and yeah. That's Elina and yeah welcome and you know glad to be working with her looking forward and last item that we have is we're continuing to reach out to more communities in some examples of these or Bottlerocket, which is operating systems specifically designed for containers.

K

This is driven by a WS open source. This different approach of operating system for containers are similar to what core OS is but they're. Looking at using a more of an API driven type of approach, they have a container manager in the operating system. So that's an interesting project in the space another project in our group that we reached out to firecracker so I think a lot of folks are familiar with this project. It's basically a micro, VM runtime, also by AWS, open source and used primarily I, think were service type of workloads.

K

Then Lapine is research. Project IBM would reached out to the community too. So that's in between approach between micro p.m. and a unit kernel, so it's basically a stripped-down Linux kernel and so allows you to run all those Linux workloads I supposed to cut a unicorn. All that has to be custom-built. So that's a very interesting project.

K

So there's a research paper and the link and then finally, are we reached out to W a sec which is webassembly runtime and the project that we think it's within the scope of the search, yeah yeah and that's that's it for the updates.

A

What note in here, um the annual reviews aren't required to be able to go through this egg's just wanted to be able to flag that here.

K

Yeah, so I don't think that required, but we like to help out and but I don't know. If what the requirements is it a presentation? No.

A

It's um obviously we can take this offline and all of that, but being able to put up a PR into the TOC repo, just being able to say here's what we're doing for annual review. It is separate from being able to do an incubation review got.

K

A

K

A

K

Callus but let's, let's take it offline or at the end, let's get.

C

Great and I think for Harbor, Shang I think I managed to look up the issue either the lead on the due diligence on that.

K

Yeah, that's Jan, so I don't know what the I think the next step would be to week review or probably come in period, and after that it would be. You know a TOC vote or a final vote grace right.

C

And thanks to all the six for working on that I think it's been around several. So yes,.

K

It's been about three or four months: multiple, six and trying to get them all together.

C

Thank you for coordinating all right, any other questions for sick run time and.

C

Let's move on to six storage, then great.

M

So good morning um we have had a number of projects going through a review process. Both tik vir at harbor are are doing sort of larger graduation reviews.

M

Fourteen ikv that the due diligence, reviews and process is in progress, Dockers is mostly written and we're we're reviewing that and the presentation of schedules for our next sequel next week, the rook graduation, the DD doc, is, is being written by the team.

M

So so there's there's there's a backlog here, because I when Rick was first accepted as a section project as it was back then, before the concept of sandbox and incubation, we didn't have a property, the documents written so we're kind of having to do one. At this point and harbor, you know, as Ricardo mentioned, we've folded in the sick comments into the main due diligence doc.

M

Finally, we've been working on a number of documents. The storage landscape version two is: is now finalized, we're leaving it open for comments for another week or so and then hope to hope to publish it soon after that. So this this includes a bunch of updates around the use of databases which were which we hadn't scopes in the first version, and it also includes a number of updates around Orchestrator and management interfaces and control plane interfaces, but in general this is a.

M

This is a really powerful document to to kind of as an education tool and also to help. You know just familiarize themselves with the landscape and kind of covers everything from storage attributes to the the different aspects of a mother storage system, as as the interactions between volumes- and you know, block and filesystem type solutions, as well as API, driven solutions like Roderick stores and databases and key value stores. So we've tried to make it as broad as possible. So hopefully people find that useful and we'd love to have any commons.

M

If, if there are any before we, we close this off we're also working on a performance and benchmarking paper. So this is being stuck now for a month or two just because of other of other workloads, but we're hoping to to start working on this again in time for the next meeting and we've also been working on a use case template. So we're going to be scheduling a meeting to to review that template and then send it stands for for.

N

A wider review.

M

And also we had we had a little bit of a surprise. We had a survey running which has.

H

M

Running for a few months now,.

N

M

It's being sort of slowly accumulating responses, and we now have sort of 54 responses to this. It's a fairly comprehensive survey with lots of lots of questions and lots of coverage. So so we're going to be having a separate meeting to to attempt to to summarize to summarize this and we'll be looking to to share this, both at the upcoming virtual cube con- and you know to this forum to because there's the mic, there's probably a lot of useful, useful information there.

M

That can help us prioritize what to what focus on next, based on based on the end user responses and that's six storage.

C

Great any questions for six storage.

C

All right, thank you. Alex.

O

Hello, so first observability we had our first proper call last week already took quite some to do so internally and I think they already made good progress, which I think everyone on this call will be happy to hear, there's two things where we actually need input. /, help from TOC the boat for the third chair, Steve Flanders and the world for Tikrit hasn't seen any boats or questions and I would just ask for people to try the ask questions or volcano and also completely move there and forward.

O

Then there was a question about if we should be doing interviews as part of our project. Incubation review and I'm kind of worried of this course. I don't want to introduce impromptu or implicit processes which which TOC already has as part of their process, so I think we should actually agree with in TOC a chatty site or the six need to agree or whatever, but I think between the six.

O

We need to have one single common approach on how to do this and not six doing their own thing as currently seems a little bit to be the case. So we don't want you to work twice. We don't want to take anything away which, as proposes, is part of TLC's work. On the other hand, we might be in a position to it isn't an altar. We just need to know what TOC prefers.

O

We don't have strong feelings, we just need to know, and the last thing is we are still getting up to speed and for now on going back is just trekking in that pull request until become better all the time.

C

O

C

My own thought on the doing the user interviews is that probably whoever is the TOC person driving the due diligence can work with the TAS. If we work with the Sagan decide what you know who's going to do, what.

C

As I guess, on a case-by-case basis, you know there could be people in the cig or not, who have good contacts to do those user interviews effectively. Anyone else got any thoughts on that.

P

Yeah I, don't I, don't think a strict rule is required. I know there is a when I when I did a when I looked into a project for incubation, the Dragonfly I actually did the user interview, but I also know you know if, if, if sig wanted to do a user interview just to validate some of their observations, I, don't I don't see anything wrong with that either. So it just seems like it's. It's it should be, could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I, don't know what the what the downside of that is.

P

I mean there. Is there a need for consistency here.

O

Yes, to some extent, at least in my opinion, we currently do have a hard rule, at least implicitly, by the simple fact that we have a process and that process fairly lists. User interviews has been part of the TOC due diligence, which in turn means if we start doing this within the six and we do it softly different or anything, it will not really decrease workload in my opinion.

O

So if, if the TOC is fine with doing it on a case-by-case basis, then we can just aura: TOC can just adapt the documented process, and it's done I just want to avoid this thing there, at least within SiC observability. We immediately had that suggestion of hey. Let's do things which are not part of the process and longer or even medium term. That's probably not a good idea for any of us.

C

I think we can clarify the documentation around this, to say that you know the person from the TOC who's driving the DD can because they're basically delegating work to the Stig and ultimately have to sort of take responsibility for it. So they could agree with the sink, whether or not on a case-by-case basis, who's going to do which aspects, but I could completely get behind clarifying that no.

O

That sounds great cause, then everyone knows what what to do, how to do. It sounds good great.

C

All right any questions for sig, observability, okay, next one I think, is a so there's been a proposal for six service and it's much as on hold right now. While we have a discussion about how this potential sig could relate to at delivery and how its charter can be written so that it's clear what it owns and yeah so I know Doug couldn't make this call right now.

C

So that's the status for now we're going to be having a discussion with all the sort of interested parties about how we can best get a group of people together to deal with this weird thing called service all right and there's one other sig, which is six security, I think with a variety of work and coronavirus related issues.

C

They are absent this month, but okay.

A

Moving on was the conversation about annual reviews. Here we have three of them or sorry, four of them currently in that need TOC sponsors. So I want to be able to highlight that here and I know. There was a question about the Nats for graduation.

C

Yes, so I think that's a bit of confusion around naps because it's been going along for such a long time. It came up for discussion about graduation some months ago. Toc various people on the TOC had concerns about the diversity in terms of organizations of core maintainer z--.

C

Now the last time I looked I think they had actually got some changes to the core maintainer z--, so that particular bridge may now be crossed and there's now a bit of discussion about whether they've actually had due diligence, which I think Quintin I think might have driven back in the day so or possibly Alexis. No, that's true. Alexis did some of the DD, so I think that is some DD and TOC folks.

C

We need to kind of identify where that's gone and make a decision about, and they certainly did do a pretty thorough, graduation PR. So I think we need that on our to-do list for sure.

C

Yeah and the annual release- I guess that's in our weekly to-do lists, so hopeful.

A

Is so I'm really just kind of highlighting that we need to be able to get to TOC sponsors for these to be able to move forward? So great.

O

I can sponsor bail, packs yay.

A

Go put a comment on thread. Thank you.

A

Once going twice moving.

C

On alright, so we have nearly twenty minutes, so you discuss what might be quite a controversial.

C

Point, but maybe will turn out to be not as controversial as we fear, say, I think in the TOC we've had concerns for a while building up about sandbox. It was originally intended to be a low barrier to entry.

C

It's supposed to be there, so that we can so that the CNC F can enable projects to have this neutral collaboration ground, potentially really early in their resistance and for experimental projects for people from different organizations to be able to come together and work on an idea, and what we've observed is a lot of projects, seemingly wanting to use sandbox more as a marketing tool than necessarily purely as a collaboration space, and we've also seen an awful lot of work going into an effort and from cigs from ourselves a lot of for one of a better word lobbying that we have to deal with from projects you want to get into the sandbox and, to be honest, it's a distraction when we're trying to you know, projects that are a bit more mature that are incubated.

C

Graduation stages are potentially having efforts and focus taken away from them because we're being distracted by all these people, you know right you're, wrongly, with the best will in the world. They want to get their projects into sandbox. So we want to streamline that process and make it much less onerous and at the same time we don't want to end up in a situation where every single project on the planet kind of comes into the sandbox and guess, like some kind of giant marketing, beast it's against the kingmakers principle.

C

So we've written a proposal we've been through a couple of different ideas that we've bounced around inside the TOC. What we've ended up with thinking is a simplified sandbox submission process that doesn't go through a sink recommendation process. The submissions would still be public, so sinks if they feel particularly strongly about a particular project. Can still, you know, raise their comments on the mailing list or in a discussion rather than doing them all one by one. We would review that spreadsheet on a kind of regular cadence.

C

Perhaps every quarter or every C months offer up a debate just to go through everything. That's on the spreadsheet. You see in that document we kind of tried to clarify the criteria. A lot of those criteria are qualified by in the TOC s opinion, but really trying to lower the qualification bar and.

C

Correspondingly, have some new branding that makes it clearer to users to the community for everybody out there that sandbox projects are not kind of they don't have the stamp of endorsement of like having been through gee diligence. Really. What we're saying by sandbox is it's an experimental project in the cloud native space and that's pretty much always saying about it so yeah.

C

That proposal is there and now obviously, I can imagine that might be creating some concern for existing sandbox projects and maybe for some projects who've been through or who are going through the process at the moment, I can only apologize if this ends up, meaning that some projects have done a lot of work to do something that we're now ready to make easier, but I hope that in the future that makes things easier or the other thing I didn't actually put this on here, but it would stop being a spawn model and it would be a simple route model.

C

Hopefully that will make us get less. Lobbying requests so yeah that that document is there we'd love feedback and comments, and does anybody have any immediate kind of gut reaction thoughts about this proposal? I do.

Q

I think it's a great idea: I mean I was actually involved in helping create sandbox, and that was our driving concern was to try to figure out how to take away the endorsement. You know component of it that just being part of sandbox was not an endorsement of support or media I mean prior to that you know all sandbox projects were looked at when you look to the website we're at the same level. So as part of wanting to avoid it as a marketing tool. Do we plan on having them be I mean?

Q

How do we really facilitate that so that it's someone brand new looking at the CN CF, doesn't misunderstand and have to understand the differences between these would be. My first question.

C

Say that's the idea behind having this new branding I think it was Brendan who first suggested it, and he kind of said.

C

You know you can't somebody like actually Matt Navarro, to come up with something that's more kind of fun and less serious to kind of give a different feel to the branding that we're giving to the sandbox I mean that's not like a kind of final decision, but I think it conveys the kind of emotion that we're thinking of here that by requiring sandbox projects to use that kind of something experimental about the branding, it would be clearer to the community and we're also talking about not giving sandbox projects beyond any existing commitments already be made, not giving them automatic slots @q con, for example.

C

Q

C

Marketing benefit would be and non-existent. Weird hide.

Q

Yep nope that was actually gonna, be my next questions. That's perfect! No I, like the idea that I, like it being the whole idea, was just to make it easy and not have time spent with due diligence, and we seem to have like suede now we're swaying back to the site. I think it's smart.

M

D

Think is important that the project has a certain quality. Well, if you consider them experimental like the early stage, might be actually a better word phone and then I guess two factors to it.

D

There's like one: how far is the approach it, along with its capabilities that is providing to the community and how good is it from like an open source, say process that it that it's providing like has it been have like the difference in CI I quit criteria contribution strategy, these kind of things I need is actual independent ones, and maybe we want to be or the TSE wants to be bit stronger like it has to fulfill a certain level of quality after project that it is still a quality stamp, but the technology might sell be the early stage.

D

C

The one thing that we really have to be careful about here when we put in criteria is we want to be able to enable people from competing companies to come together and work on something from scratch, and that's something that and I think this seems yeah really. You know it's one of the reasons why it exists right to bring together and people from companies that would otherwise compete and to give them that neutral collaboration ground.

C

So we have, we have been concerned about making sure we're not putting in criteria that you end up with a chicken and egg situation that we can give them back experimental, ground and but criteria that we currently have in that document- and you know totally up for comment- is whether or not in the TI C's opinion it's a fit for sense EF. So this is really the the judgment around like making sure we're not getting projects that are nothing to be reflective.

C

Is the project roadmap, in line with the goals of the CNC f that really we're trying to address this idea that competing companies could come to get all individuals from a variety of organizations could come together and say we want to work on this particular problem as a project we want to space in order to do it. This is what we're trying to achieve, and then we also have a criteria about whether we believe it to be on a good path to becoming well governed and vendor-neutral.

C

That's quite loose language deliberately, so so that we can exercise judgment, but hopefully with the indication of what we wants to see.

M

Comment on this because I I kind of like the motives behind you.

H

M

Some of the some of the view, diligence and putting some sort of constraints and the marketing, because ultimately, those were all the problems with sound bugs, but I'm quite sure, I understand how this will work in terms of two things right. If we disconnect the projects from the sakes, that's probably this connecting them from the most valuable part of their community. So so we're not having the projects interact with the SIG's or or presents at all seems harder to understand how they then move forward, but then also.

M

Secondly, if the TRC is trying to understand the project roadmap and their viability and all of those sort of things does enough. Come back to the original thing that the TSE is going to need to work to understand the project and the project will have to present the TOC and we're kind of back to square one. Yeah.

G

Here's some similar concerns that Alex about potentially overcorrecting, possibly and if the it seems like could be you working groups, might be a possible place to easily form kind of come together in a vendor-neutral way.

G

The part of the my concern with lower and bar I think more recently, we were sort of talking about raising the bar around sandbox.

G

You know in certain areas, and it looks like in certain areas were considering lowering it the I wonder if that doesn't begin to overwhelm.

G

You know the number of projects sort of trying to make it into incubation status and then distance well, not disincentivize, but not incentivize enough, those that were shooting for the current sandbox requirements if they, if those projects just sort of find that well.

C

So I have a few thoughts on this and, if anybody else in tears, he wants to jump in. Please stop me from you know: people might be bored at the sound of my voice, I think in terms of the community and the connection between projects and sakes. There is no reason why that can't happen anyway. We're just saying that doesn't have to be part of the process for sandbox application. I think you know, like sig runtime is reaching out to a group of projects that we saw earlier.

C

That seems like a really healthy thing, and it doesn't necessarily lead to those projects coming into the CNC F, but it means that there's knowledge, there's an understanding. I think that's wonderful, but those that doesn't have to be coupled to admission into you know as an official project and I. Think the other thing is we we're trying to reduce the benefits really of being in sandbox like we're trying to distinguish.

C

We want to encourage the good projects to come in, but we don't want people to come in just because they want to get a slot cubicle and trying to reduce the incent I. Don't know we will we'll see whether this reduces the floodgate of kind of projects desperately coming and knocking on our door and trying to be a sandbox and I.

C

Think what we'd really like to be seeing is the good project who are some way down the road shooting for incubation and sandbox being something that people do less as a kind of matter, of course, because they see it as a rung on the ladder and more about what we're not ready for incubation. So we're just gonna have to go into sandbox, but we want to get out of it as quickly as possible.

C

R

I'm, a guy who tried to push kick lock twice so based on the experience, actually do like the draft. A lot I think it addresses most of the concerts, which were there.

R

One quick question is, you know: does it effectively, as of today put the current process like bridging the current process until the new one is act because I was I was approaching some of the toc members about sponsorship, so should I stop and then, on top of this you know I do like the change I'm, not in all about timing, because you know I initially submitted 2018, then literally got dropped few hours before the TOC meeting, because there was a project reboot, so I literally was waiting several months until the new process was settled and collection was completed to work with a new process, a new TOC group and was actually this week approaching from chaos new members, and so it's kind of like it's there's a V a bit.

C

Yeah I thought your dazing is ever going to be a good time. You know, there's always unfortunate going to be some projects you get caught out by changes in process and but yeah I mean it's. It's an example of why you know that the multiplied by every you know every project by the number of TOC members. By the you know the number of times we get approached about sandbox and it's one of the reasons why we feel like now.

C

We just need to find a simpler process so that we can discuss them together, assess them I think everyone will be happier if it's a very relevant sponsorship, because it's been difficult to explain what a lack of sponsorship means.

R

Does it doesn't mean that all current submissions get all holds as of today, and we should not talk with TOC sponsors, because we need to start switching to the new one when it's in place, or we should try to finish the current selfishness.

C

It's a great question: I mean this at this point: it's a proposal. It's not a decision and one level. You know if people you know scroll all over it and say that it's terrible for you know any number of reasons. Then we'd obviously have to take it back to the drawing board. On the other hand, if people probably think it's a good idea, maybe we can evolve to adopt it quickly. I, you know, I, don't have a simple answer to that question, but could.

E

I just ask: what would be the next steps and processes from here, so we go review it. We leave comments things like that. What happens next, with this.

C

So the document ends with next step, circulate for public comments and discuss what to do with existing submissions. There may be other things we need to add to that list.

Q

I just want to make sure that we're not just moving the problem like we're yeah, you know, I, don't know, I'm, not sure that people looking out from the outside will understand still the differences between marketing and not and I'm a little concerned around the language of identifying good and bad projects, and what that means. I, like the idea that coming into these cigs and work groups to marinate I mean sandbox really was for, like could also be I.

Q

Have this great idea and I want to find like-minded people to grow it, and that wouldn't be something that would meet the criteria of we feel like that has good contributor Shipman is going to become incubation. It was also meant to be like this could completely flop, and that's okay, but at least the ideas get out in the community and has a chance to collaborate with people so I'm a little.

Q

That would be my one concern after this discussion is that.

N

I think I think we need to see what is the goal that that we're looking to achieve from these projects and measure that, as opposed to measuring something that none of us would be able to measure, and that is the desire they have for marketing right.

N

I think that'll be difficult for us to measure and we doubt it'd be better for us to measure with what's the goal that we're looking from these projects and if that's healthy participation in exchange with the community, if we have a way of measuring that- and Chris has suggested that you know we could look at the health. Dashboard is as one measure, but if we have a way of objectively measuring those criteria that we're trying to promote, then we can take the subjectiveness of what's good and bad out of the equation.

N

I, don't I, don't think any of us intended to characterize new projects with whether they're good enough or bad enough or have enough.

N

You know formal processes in place. That's one of the reasons they would come so that they could learn those. You know what are the processes that they can do to engage and and become more collaborative and mmin to be more productive projects. I think that's why they come to the incubator, but we need to measure something a little bit more objectively and and something that that we can say is truly. You know what it is that we're looking for these projects to achieve, rather than what we want to exclude. I. Think.

Q

C

Think we we are up to time, and so these are good thoughts. Please do you know think about it. Add your thoughts in that document and you know it's it's a proposal. It's not a decision, so you know we'll we'll take it forward, as you know, based on people's comments and thoughts, and you know the TOC response to those comments.

C

So thank you in advance for your thought on that.

C

Okay, I think I think that's the end. All.

C

Right take care everyone thanks very much thanks.

A

Good to see everyone play all right.

K