CNCF TOC Public meeting 18 Aug 2026

Morning. >> Morning. >> Hey folks. >> Hello everyone. >> Ahmed back from all your travels. >> Yes, finally back home. Nice. >> Welcome everybody. >> Awesome. >> Hello. Hello. Thank you Katie for joining us. Katie is our host today. Yay. I presume we should wait a bit more before we start sharing the screen. >> Yeah, we always have that huge rush of, you know, tag members or community people right after an election and then it kind of dies off and back to mostly TOC members. It'll pick back up again soon, closer to CubeCon, so we probably don't have to wait too much longer. Awesome. Glad to see Marina Yan. Katie, do you want to share the slide? Otherwise, we can have um Bob or Rian. >> I am I'm happy to share. >> Okay. >> Should be fine. Just making sure that I can't. Okay, one second. I think I have everything ready. Okay. Okay, I cannot. I need to refresh them. I have a new laptop. Never mind. Can anyone share, please? >> Barbara, do you have it up? >> Yeah. Ren, do you want to or should I? >> I go through that every time. Katie, >> you have it ready. Bob, please do. I need to look for it. >> Okay, one moment. >> I found it. Let me share. >> Great. And is these recorded as well? >> Yep. The public one is auto started to record. Got it. Um, cool. Hello everyone. Uh, thank you for joining for our public TOC meeting. Um, as usual, we have the LF antitrust policy notice. Pretty much please be respectful to everyone in the community and abide by our kind of contact. Um, we do have a few agenda items that we'd like to discuss today. Of course, we have the recurring items as well. Um, I think let me let me share this. I think this is the Yes. Yes, Bob. That's the one. Can anyone share that? The GitHub issue. One sec. >> Work in progress. Okay. Wonderful. Um so uh as usual as I mentioned we have uh some recurring items. Uh we currently we don't have any open votes. Uh so I mean well we can click on the link but we don't have anything open. Uh we don't have to do any kind of reviews in that regard. Uh next let's look into um reviewing and assessing the projects in moving levels uh especially the new ones that came in. And currently we should have four of them. Uh so we have a few of them in uh evaluation with the TC. We have new ones which are cages, nets, jpc and cube armor. Um as you can see two of them are going for incubation and two of them are going for graduation as well. Do we want to get any two sponsors within this call? Should we do it one by one? Um, actually I think everybody is tied up right now. The only one that might be available is Mario and I don't see him on the call. I did ping him to see if he would take up K agent. So, and have not heard back. So I think right now closing out the other ones. >> Okay. So it seems like all of the TC's have something assigned. Um the good news most of them are in adopter interviews which usually is supposed to be one of the later stages. So hopefully we're going to have a few more TCS available uh to take on new due diligences for these projects as well. Um, should we move next to review the TC board? Um, so as you Oh, there's a lot of new things happening. It's 112. There's a lot of things happening. Um, how do you want to address this, Karina? Do we want to go for the latest items? I think right now um probably go to our agenda and then while while we're discussing that let's see what we can close out on the board because there's a lot of stale issues on the board um and then come back and revisit that. >> Sounds good. Uh so in addition to these recurring items uh as mentioned we have a special agenda or a prepped agenda for today. Um the first item is to have a reminder to the community members to review the white papers that we are having currently um on um storage landscape and dragonfly for IO block uh bottlenecks as well. Um so I the both of the white papers are linked here. I definitely encourage you to have a read through and provide reviews accordingly. I think that's going to be very very valuable. Thank you, Bob. Yeah. Does anyone have any kind of maybe comments or perhaps any anything that they would like to discuss in it in regards to the white papers at the moment? So regarding those two white papers uh in which do you know kind of which phase are these like are they uh looking for just open for reviews? Should we just go and and comment on those uh pull requests? >> Yes, ideally commenting on the PR is um the best the best way. Again it's it's transparent. It also encourages open discussion as well. So I definitely encourage you to do so directly. Karina um wanted to so the landscape V3 um there's a lot of great additions to it and so it' be great to see other um eyes on that one and thank you Brandt for your comments on that one in your review. It's awesome. So, it's nice to see another white paper out. Um, it looked like there was a another performance paper that was linked off the white paper that I asked for removal for right now because it wasn't published and that was a great catch rant. However, I would love to see that one published because it's still an important area. So TOC liaison for uh tag infrastructure um be great to um make sure that that one's getting out too a new one. Um and then this second white paper the is a minor update to the AI scheduling one. So that's a really quick review too. Thanks Katie. >> Awesome. Thank you Karina. Great. Cool. Uh so I think the biggest item of discussion is evaluating the overall CNCF ecosystem project health. Uh so a bit of preview because I'm going to focus more on the graduate graduated projects as well and um Karina is going to do a full introduction of uh some of the work and some of the reviews that she has been doing. Um but I think it's very very important to understand that the CNCF ecosystem has had 10 years of development and within these 10 years of development we had varied levels of or different criterias and different ways to evaluate projects for different maturity levels. I think in the last years we have been better at being very declarative in terms of the criteria that you use and provide um guidance if especially if there is any kind of exceptions and also document those exceptions as well. So I think we've been better at documenting and being transparent with the community on how these evaluations are happening. At the same time, we need to recognize that uh we still need to look back and have some level of calibration across projects within the same maturity level. Um now of course we have a lot of tooling uh a lot of um dashboards. We have the LFX insights which is quite helpful and has been evolving quite well within the latest years as well. So we have more metrics um and with metrics we can also perceive some of these discrepancies between the projects as well. Um Karine, I know of course you you've done all the work on this one. Can you provide perhaps an overview of this and then I can focus on the graduated um projects too? >> Yeah, definitely. So some of this is a rehash because we went through and discussed the governance criteria updates and we had the spec criteria updates also. So TOC again has been focused on um providing more clarity um while also giving room for there is always going to be some subjectivity. Um however some of the patterns that through looking out of the projects and again thank you to the LFX insights team um for pulling together all the data um that they do on the back end. Um so looking at the data and looking at all the projects across the ecosystem so namely 72 projects across incubating and graduated um because there's over 200 in the ecosystem but um some highlights um review concentration so there's maybe one or two people actually reviewing PRs all right So, a lot of projects have one person merging, but a better indicator of health is how many people are reviewing PRs, right? Um, and in some cases, um, the data showed that the same person might be merging their own PR. So, those are some good things to look at. Also, when the TOC looks at projects and removing levels, there is obviously the TOC looks at um the diversity of the maintainers. Um if we go back and do another review to see who's actually active, there's a big discrepancy there. On paper, again, it may be that um there's good diversity. However, in practice, um, we need to keep an eye on and work with the projects, um, that may not have as much active diversity. Um, we've also seen some postmilestone activity decline. What this means is there's a huge push, right, to move to another level where whether it's incubating or graduated. Um and then after moving to that level, we'll see a decline in contributions, diversity, etc. Um that's another um area that the TOC needs to keep an eye on and uh and thankfully we can see that through the data. Um and that just means that we can um keep reaching out to projects and making sure that the ecosystem and specifically the projects remain healthy for the ecosystem. Um looked at in the data um should have updated this to predictable organization instead of vendor. Um but really it's organizations that maybe we could see indicators earlier that are perhaps moving from one project to another project. And that just means that the CNCF, the foundation can step in and the project's team to help um gain maintainers for the project if another organization or group of maintainers has moved on. Um, and this is something that's just been seen. It's um, we'll see it also as projects mature. Um, we'll see groups of maintainers move on to newer sandbox projects. So, it's um, it's just signs of a healthy ecosystem too. Um something that was interesting too is uh there's some projects that maybe the primary organization um that contributes to the project has been acquired multiple times by other companies. Um that's also normal in you know the system that we all work and live in. However, what that means is a loss of um I'm reaching for the right word. Um institutional knowledge. There we go. Close. [laughter] But institutional knowledge. Uh and that's why we keep uh writing everything down, right? And then iterating and if it's inaccurate, we keep continuing. And I loved what um I know Kevin brought this up at the panel in Japan. Um making sure that all our context is captured. Um and that helps us scale and helps the projects be sustainable. So thanks Kevin for those words of wisdom. Um and then uh the last one that I put here, it says five patterns, but it's actually six. Um actually no it's five but we do so uh another thing that was great to see is that there are a lot of indicators that projects are ready to move to the next level. So we've been doing a big push to um get through the backlog. However um we have a number of projects that are ready for whether it's incubating or graduation. And so the TOC, it's good to proactively um reach out to get these projects into the backlog um so they're ready. Um and I think the TOC is ready to see them in the queue too. Um also uh the criteria updates for governance again. Um we merged a lot. That'd be good for community and others to review the merges and then the new documents. There will be a blog going out. Um, it almost went out yesterday, but I pulled it back because I wanted the TOC members here to review it again to make sure that um, what we're publishing the TOC continues to stand behind. Um, so you'll see that going out. I don't believe it's next week, but then week after. Um, however, it's all based on the information that's already been merged. Thanks, Katie. And, uh, and then back to you, Katie. Yes. Um actually actually in regards to the five new patterns observed within the ecosystem um I was I mean everyone has discussed about AI and so forth but I'm wondering if with the help yes we can see perhaps few maintainers but perhaps with the help of the the coding assistant the assistants and AI in general they are capable to maintain more. I'm just wondering if this is something that we would be able to observe. Um just putting it out there if anyone has any kind of comments or any observations or insights into that. Um but the next one is of course we have our graduated projects. We currently have 29 of them. Um the graduated projects are supposed to represent mature uh stable uh projects within our ecosystem. they are pretty much the um northern stars in kind of the area that they actually operate in. Um also we have have to recognize that the graduated projects well actually we have to recognize that as the TUC's when the project is graduated we don't have as much interaction or follow up with the projects and I think we need to recognize that and perhaps uh remediate that as well. Um now this comes especially uh when it comes to as I mentioned we have uh evolved our criteria throughout many years and it's only natural because again we had multiple uh situations and kind of use cases that we need to consider and evolve the criteria accordingly. However we did not necessarily retrofited some of these new criteria to the old projects. So for projects who have graduated for example 5 to 7 years ago um the criteria was very different than what we are using using now. Um so I think it's very important for us to have some level of calibration because we want to ensure uh some level of similarity what it actually means to be graduated within CNCF. Um and perhaps this is where we need to be a bit more proactive in reaching out to the graduate projects and help them perhaps retrofit some of these criteria as well. Um I um I know Karina has been working in the background uh doing a very comprehensive report around the gratitude projects and some of the gaps that we uh I mean the projects would need to fill but I think that's going to be for some of the future sessions. This is mostly for us to kind of see some of the upcoming work within the TUC. Um I think however this is very important. We have to do actually we need to care for our graduate projects. These are again the ones who have the biggest communities. um and the ones who are some of the gravitational points within our ecosystem. So I think here as well Karina you proposed a freel approach um for monitoring the graduated projects. Um I mean I have my perspective of it. Would you like to introduce yours as well and then we can go for it? Um so I pulled this from and I thought I included the link but let me go find it unless Bob or somebody else finds it first. um pulled it from the discussions that we had in other TOC issues um because this has been a hot topic for a couple of years now. Um so tag reboot was a topic for several years and as the TOC is trying to move faster um and I know we all try to avoid the term bike shedding but we'd like to not bike shed and move forward. Um anyway, what I would like to say is that these um the layered approach is from the documentation and it'd be good to uh discuss this as a group on whether this is the right approach. Um are there alternatives that we would like to discuss and um what you think Katie? >> Yes, thank you. So, I think I posted the original issue. It's something that Ricardo opened in 2024. It's been a while. Um, but also I think um the TUC has changed massively the the way that we operate and trying to be very proactive not just in evaluating projects but to oversee the entire ecosystem and to actually hold the entire vision for the ecosystem and I think this is what's important. um the issue is there. I think it's quite important to understand that this um again has been recognized by the TC. We just need kind of the time frame. We need a planning and actually implement this as well. Um so yeah, this is pretty much to discuss um how do you see this? Um how perhaps you see we should approach this? If you have perhaps any feedback that would be very very helpful. Yes, Brand >> I I think there's probably a lot of unspoken agreement on like the overlays of all these things together. Um, which I think are really interesting and really fun opportunities to like actively explore. So when I see the discussion on like the five patterns of like risks and things like that of looking at projects that are maybe ready for moving levels that haven't applied um as well as the overlay of projects that have applied but maybe aren't ready. Um and then the overlay of what we've mentioned with insights uh metrics all the things that we can automate. all all of that feels like there's a like a a theme in there and I I'm certainly not the one that's proposing something novel here cuz I'm sure everyone's thinking about it but like that automation piece right in the middle of like evaluating graduated evaluating projects that need to move evaluating projects that shouldn't move like there it seems like there's a pretty common theme here and especially when I look at that first comment by Justin Capos on 1496 and like it it just comes right full circle of like hey the the problem is still the life cycle of managing these um one one one of the problems maybe not the only problem but um kind of like acknowledging that and looking at like how do we not spend time on things that don't need the time yet as when I think about what's maybe in the in the backlog for application that should be postponed till later. Um really interesting. I'm I'm really really excited about like trying to pick away at that. Thank you, Brian. Um I think some some followup thoughts here. Um you're right. I think with the TUCC's uh we have to be very very specific with our time and actually where we put our resources because as you mentioned like you've seen even at the beginning we have new projects that are in the queue but we don't have the TC's to actually do the due diligence uh not not yet at least um so we have to be very very um I want to say maybe selective is the right word we have to be concentrated pretty much um I would love also again like because we have the tooling of AI and I'm I'm pretty sure that a lot of us are using AI in some capacity in terms of automating some of they work. Uh perhaps this is something that we can leverage to have like a mockup due diligence process. So it's not going to be a full QC um due diligence, but perhaps something of an automated report saying that you need to still fulfill this required criteria. Um or actually fulfill everything and this is the right time for you. So perhaps providing this milestones for for the projects a bit more practically might be helpful for them. But again only if this can be automated. Any other feedback comments? Perhaps you are working with a graduated project well like you're using a graduated project uh that have has graduated maybe 2017 2019 uh time frame. Um how do you see their interaction with the community? Perhaps you have any concerns or maybe kudos. Yes, Karina. Well, Mauricio, I think Karina, you're first. Um, I'll let Mauricio go first. Go ahead. >> Just uh I I guess just a quick comment about that. Like I worked for at least two projects that graduated and uh well very close with two projects that graduated and that was exactly the the feeling. It's like as soon as they graduated they stopped thinking about it, right? So my feeling always was about that like how do you create like a continuous process that after graduation like TLC or like the the tax or a group basically suggest what the project should do next right and after graduation it feels to me that they should enter into the new phase where they will just keep getting advice and there will be a stream of advice coming uh towards the projects based on more mature projects in the ecosystem. So you can start like gracing the maturity of all the projects kind like in a like in another order way. Um I do feel that defining the process might make some sense like and again again I haven't been in those discussions uh so far but I would love to kind like understand before automating something I would love to understand what the process is and what the objective is right when I see the layers I do understand kind like what the the the overall picture is but when you go into the concrete right like if you pick one project what is this project should be doing based on recommendation from this group or other groups into the CNCF. That's the kind of thing that I would like to see there. So hopefully that makes sense. Yes. Um I think currently the way that we were looking at the graduation refresher is again it's a refresh. Um it is not supposed to be a new level of due diligence. It's not supposed to be a new label. It's however supposed to be um perhaps a credibility coefficient for the community that the project is still kind of aware and involved and actively looking to kind of lies and partner with CNCF throughout their journey. Uh so uh I think at this stage what we're looking for is to understand what are some of the items that are missing. I think again like we Karina has done the report as well and some of the items are like they're missing a security assessment or it hasn't been done for a few years. So perhaps we we can open an issue for them to concentrate on that. Perhaps um they're missing a release. MD file because that was a topic of discussion that was introduced um again after like a very particular use case that we have to evaluate within the CNCF and then we require that from all the projects but then that applies to future projects not necessarily to the past projects. So things like that just making sure that everything is calibrated. Um supposed to be very action based and very practical as well. Um and again as as Karina mentioned at the beginning um I mean new patterns in terms of how the ecosystem behaves but when it comes to I think one of the biggest challenges for all the projects not only graduated projects is organization diversity in terms of contributions. Um but I think that can be tackled in a different way as well. So we are looking to understand where what they can do to calibrate their criteria but also what we can do in order to sustain their health within CNCF. Karina. >> Um, so one of the the flags and again it's been 10 years. Um, the security self assessments especially with all the security concerns right now in the ecosystem, right? uh this tax security has done an amazing job with one coming out with the security assessment and then two jumping in and helping ask the questions of the project and help review their assessment. Um the assessment came out after some of these projects moved to the level that they're at. So at the time it wasn't required as criteria. Um, so bringing them up to the current level um that we're at in the ecosystem would be healthy overall. And a quick reminder for the TOC is that um it's in our charter that right now we cannot ask governance changes of graduated projects. That would have to be a request back to the governing board. However, for technical requirements, other um road map, uh release, etc., all the criteria updates that we've made based on health of projects and what we've seen. Um it absolutely would be great to engage with the projects to make sure that they're meeting the current level of maturity that is expected in the ecosystem. So the security self assessment was one. Oh, go ahead Katie. No, like I was just kind of giving the the nods here. Uh security is a very important aspect especially now with like so many CVs coming up with again the more code you have the more security risks you potentially have and everything is multiplying now. Um so yeah security is very important aspect of this I would say. Oh, >> no one said that. [laughter] >> You didn't say that. >> Yeah. >> Um, and Brent, I see you written here. I wanted to give you um kind of uh the spot to speak next, but Karina, do do you want to finish anything or can we invite Brent to speak? >> Go ahead. Yes, please. Bren, >> I I think I'm still kind of processing a lot of this on the fly with conversations that have been had previously. So tag security and compliance we've we've talked about a lot of things over the history of just my involvement with a tag and and much before I even joined um to kind of the the layer of like what is the possibility um supply chain security it has a lot of different I want to say threads to pull on but one of them was very much like the the angle of like securing the project like source itself self um and trying to think about like how to maybe do that independent of the platform that's hosting it. Um, and me from a like TOC reviewer standpoint, I think like I would get a lot of value out of not only what's coming from insights, not only what's coming from like the OpenSSF like badges and things like that that kind of look at maybe more of the platform layer, um, but what can come from like the source layer that gives me confidence about like what what is implemented, what's happened, and what security auditing can be done. Um, and so I know we've talked more than a few times about like solutions in that space. Um, and and we have the expertise in our tags to like pursue um, a lot of these opportunities. And so I'm trying to look at things from like the initiative layer of like what would be a great new initiative that could exist and and that was one of them when we talked about kind of the systemic issues of who is approving and merging and who contributed the change. um like we have we have all the expertise and the tooling to maybe validate some of these things but controlling some of the platform layer it can be very difficult I I believe across the landscape um to control those rule sets to enforce them um where maybe there are alternative tools and initiatives in place that could could solve some of these I mean to Bob's comment, I think it sounds easy. It's not easy as well. Um yeah, getting especially across projects, getting them to use um similar approaches. It is challenging, but I think again that was by design because we didn't want to get involved so low into the project development as well. Um, so yeah, it's it's it's a bug and it's a feature at the same time. Uh, Marina Moore, do you have any any insights? I think Karina tagged you as well. I don't think I have anything in addition to what to what Brand said really. Um, I definitely think that um there's probably space for something in tax security and compliance to help out with this. I'm not sure exactly what shape that'll take yet, but yeah. Yeah, the tax security was definitely crucial to a lot of this especially. Um, cool. Anything else perhaps you'd like to discuss? Karina, >> I was just going to mention that it would we have to be definitely careful that we're not overloading tag security. Um, they're sustainable right now. We want to make sure that they remain Yeah. Um so how do we scale what they're doing um through some of the automation um and insights and then to Brand's point the initiatives that maybe introduce more automation and guidance. >> I I also again I I agree on this. I think automation now is might be more achievable. I'm not going to say easier, but more achievable with with some of the new tooling on the market as well. Um, so yeah, tell us how we can help you as well. I think one of the results of of this discussion we're going to open a new issue on the TSC repository because as mentioned the uh issue related to this initiative for graduation refresher was open two years ago. Um and perhaps like now we just need to kind of make sure that it's uh it has all of the relevant kind of status of the ecosystem and our approach to implementing that as well. Uh so any kind of feedback or comments definitely welcome on the on the issue as well the new one. So again I know I know a lot of Karina has the uh the draft um issue over there so hopefully she's going to share that soon with us. >> Yeah >> and I think Oh god. Um I said definitely I wanted to highlight another um thing that was outstanding uh that we've talked about that goes with the health um issue. If you recall the sub project maturity levels um at the last maintainer summit in Amsterdam uh we had a session talking about maturity levels and um maintainers from Argo project um discuss their maturity levels and their project and that they would like further guidance too. Um, so I don't know if this group would like to since Katie it's um your show today with the time whether that's also an open discussion. So just wanted to throw that out there. >> I mean we have the time we we still have uh 20 minutes as well and I think we just have only one one point to discuss of discussion on the agenda. Um I plus one to this uh even if we don't discuss this with today definitely we need to return to this topic. Um there has been a lot of again like when we're doing the due diligence especially throughout incubation graduation we see uh that a project is not just one repository it's a collection of repositories and this is especially the case if they have uh different kind of plugins or different offerings for different proh cloud providers and so forth. Um and that has been their uh their choice of implementing that. Um currently again historically we do not have um um a way of declaratively saying that all of the criteria applies to everything within the or um perhaps we need to be very declarative in that regard. Um but yeah, looking to see what the group here has in terms of feedback, thoughts or maybe we can open an issue and discuss about that. Yeah, sounds like I see some nods. Um yeah. Okay, we can always come back to this one as well. Uh and then the final item on the agenda was uh the due diligence pipeline and open items. Um so I think this is looking at our current projects >> and the TC work >> our current projects. Yes. >> Yeah. So I think we've is this looking at the TC work kind of board or do you want to focus specifically on the open health issues? I think it's a combination but yeah >> first first would be the applications to move levels. >> Yes, I think we've we've done that at the beginning. >> Um usually um if we want >> Yes. I'm sorry. Um, >> no, no, no. Because we only looked at the new ones. We didn't look at the the current ones. So, um, we currently have cozy stack where we are. Are we looking are we looking from the due diligence kind of standpoint? Yes. >> Um, start with um the adopter interviews, I think. >> Okay, let's do that. So looking at the adopter interviews, we have Meshery and here we have Karina and brand. Um, so the quick update on meshy and I'll add it to the comment today is that there's one outstanding interview this week and then um the security self assessment that we just talked about. There's a lot of discussion on that issue and it's great that the project actually they were really self-reflective and very honest in the uh self assessment which has made for some really great discussions. So it's really good to see project doing that. Uh so I see that one wrapping up um before the end of August. Um and that's it for me. >> Cool. I think the next one is cloud native PG and I think Karina and and Brent I think you're collaborating on this one too. Um focus right now is close out mesh and brand is scheduling the interviews for the cloud native PG for the adopters the um they've been working on their governance um from recommendations so it's great to see how fast they jumped on that. They've been a very responsive project and uh so right now it's coordination since the uh main uh person that we've been working with is on the other side of the world. So it's time zones and I see that one probably wrapping in September. Nice. Uh open EBS. I don't think we have Alex on the call. I haven't seen him. Alex gave a quick update um since he's last minute on travel today. Alex um will work to wrap this one up this week and send it out for review. So if everybody can review that when he sends it out. >> Wonderful. Um the next one is Cubert Graduation and I think we have Jeremy. >> Yeah. Hey, how's it going folks? Um, we've been struggling to get adopter interviews for this, but Andrew from the Cubert project has come in uh real clutch and we've got three people lined up to do um different ones across different industries. So, it's a really good cross-section um across a bunch of different time zones. So, scheduling these is going to be a little rough, but I'll add everybody to um that was in the thread to uh to be optional if you want to sit in on those. Um we also have an ongoing discussion with them about um governance. Uh it's pretty heavily skewed towards IBM and Red Hat. So just wanted to get some uh some move movement from them and a little bit of a plan on how to remediate that a little bit as we go forward. But other than that, it's looking pretty good. >> I know it's been a tough one to get adopters for this one. So but it's looking good. So yeah, I'm hopeful that we can do this. Um, the next one is open classroom management and we have Joseph and Kevin. I think Joseph was FAK for today's meeting. Kevin, >> yeah, I can give update. So, uh, I'm, uh, just putting together the, uh, uh, drafted DD report and, uh, no blocking issues so far. Um and and also I'm uh just putting uh together some of the non-blocking uh feedback and we will share it to the uh project maintainers and also uh for the adopter interviews um Ricardo has done uh some of the adopter interviews and I'm working with him to uh uh put together more details and uh also uh all The adopter interview [clears throat] reports need to be uh reviewed by the doctors. Yeah, that's that's all for the updates. >> Thank you, Kevin. Uh next we have Carmada. And here we have Ahmed and Chad. >> Yep, that one is in for TOC review. Um Karina provided some comments on there. Um, I'm just incorporated those Karina and I'm going to reach out to Hungai and team about that blocking issue to have them get that resolved. But, yep, it's it's in for review. >> Awesome. That means we just need to also update the status, right? >> Yeah, I need to move it. You're going to say something, Karina? >> Yeah, it looks like um it looks like he he's on top of it. Okay, looks like he's already remediated those items. >> Uh, great. I will go look at that. Verify. >> Nice. >> Great. Uh, thank you, Chad. And then we have KCP and we have Mauricio and Alex. Mauricio. >> Yes, Alex is not here. Uh, yeah. So, uh, we were scheduling, uh, a doctor interviews. I think that we did two already and uh I was on holidays until yesterday so I haven't had a chance to catch up with Alex but yeah I know that we did two uh and those were kind of okay like the second one wasn't perfect uh but yeah I need to catch up with Alex on this one this week I don't know if he's away for the entire week I need to check but this is moving forward >> cool uh I think he mentioned he might be back this week but Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Um, cool. Uh, Karina, do we do we still want to look at the new assigned projects because um what's currently in progress? It's pretty much uh kind of initiatives and level changes which is with CNCF stuff. So, I wonder if we want to look for those. >> Um, not the new ones right now. I'd say we do a quick review on the archive candidate. So, um, we also have a few open health issues. Um, perhaps we can review them, too. Yes. Yes. Um, so we have Oxia, uh, subs and virtual cublet at the moment. Yeah, we don't have anyone assigned to this. Um, how do you want to go for this? Karina, >> um, it looks like because it's the onboarding deadline, uh, Daniel and Rion, would you like to give an update on this one? >> Yeah, I'm just looking at their onboarding issue. Um, yes. So, we put a new automation that flags ones that have not completed on boarding at 3, six, and nine months, I think. Rihanna, maybe you can correct me. Uh, so that's why this one was flagged as onboarding warning. Um, they have just a few basic things. I mean, the important things, the IP, the transfer to GH, all that stuff is in good shape. there's just a few open tasks like they haven't just done the SSO dance to connect to open SSF to start on a badge. Uh they haven't started on the security MD or governance MD. Um and I think the largest remaining task would be just getting them into license scanning. That's the big one for us. But um I think the next step is to follow up directly with um with the primary maintainer. Who is Merlmat? Who's Merl? Matteo Merly. Um looks like he's got no GitHub activity last two weeks. He might be on PTO, but um that's probably next step. >> Mhm. It's interesting. Um because I don't think we've had a case like that before. And I'm looking at the project. I mean, I'm looking here. Um, but it's it's officially like they're using the sandbox kind of label, which is not entirely true. Uh, as well. So, I'm wondering if in the worst case scenario, we'll have actually have to archive it before they actually on board it. Do we have a deadline for that perhaps? like if they >> nonresponsive because they they're using the thing is like the way I'm seeing it they they're using the CNCF label but they're not fully kind of leazing with CNCF to fully on board either. So it's kind of in a gray area. >> Yeah. And kind of the the key lynch pin for whether it's LF project or not from our from staff point of view is if they've signed the contribution agreement. That's that's the big one because that activates them in PCC that unlocks all the the services. Um, and then there's some things that are on the onboarding that that are kind of like best practices that we expect projects that are in sandbox to need to go through over time. Um, but but that's kind of the big um, and this is why we do it now much early in the pro process is getting the trademark, the IP, the contribution agreement signed and completed. So that's that's really the most important thing >> um, from an LF point of view. >> Okay. Um, thank you for the update. Let's keep monitoring. Interesting case. Um the next one we had was uh the new ones of course virtual cublet. We have Jeremy already speaking about this. Seems like there is a new cut release. Jeremy, do you want to speak through this? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Sorry about that. Um it's uh it has had a release. Uh it looks like that was last month. Um there's a little bit of activity in the Slack channel. Um but I think it's still in the same kind of position where there's really only one like real active maintainer. Some people doing some contributions. Like if we look at the the release that was cut, um there's some documentation updates, some deprecated things that allowed them to bump to Kubernetes 135. a couple of bug fixes. Um, a lot of lot of updates. Um, but a bunch of these were first-time contributors. Uh, I think most of the changes that landed were first- time contributors. So, that's a good sign, I guess. But, um, still seems maybe like it needs uh some more attention from the maintainer side. any insights perhaps why we had this new I mean I presume are these new contributors coming in because they're worried the project is unhealthy as a result of that >> uh I think Cisco is working on a provider and some of the >> changes were related to that I think they might be from Cisco but >> right I mean we need contributions so Yeah, I think it might be worthwhile to follow up with Pierce to ask because the last comment on this issue was from October. Um, and there hasn't been like a public update on the health issue since then. Um, actually there's one inside of the uh, sorry, not this issue. There's one inside of the virtual cublet repo that was opened. Still open that Ricardo opened. The last comment on that was that uh he's no longer working with VK, but he's here to try and help anybody who wants to contribute. >> Here's the uh here's the link to that. I'll put it in the chat. >> I'm looking for this one as well. Yeah, got it. Yeah, got it, too. Yeah. Uh, one face. Yeah. Um, okay. Karina, should we find someone who would like to proactively reach out to the maintainers and ping them? Would anyone be willing to reach out to the maintainers? >> I worked on this in the past. So, like I I'm happy to reach out to to peers. Um I know from the Microsoft side we have flow investment in this and it was a Microsoft thing originally. >> I was uh looking at the activity in the project um to see and then I can follow up with you Jeremy if you're going to reach out to them. >> Okay. Uh the re just quickly is that it's a single reviewer, single or so. So it's just it's a single person maintaining this project. Um it overall it it doesn't meet the requirements, but it'd be good to do one more followup before moving to archival or moving to vote for whether to archive, I should say. Sorry. >> Sounds good. Um and we also have SOPs. Um the the project has questions. So for Brandt the and this might be a good followup for for you is the it sounds like the project would still like to know their options. Um the governing board uh there's really no good way forward for the project. The governing board most likely would deny an exception. Um we don't have a strong case for the project um unless they can provide one. However, the the project has outstanding questions on what it means to perhaps move to being an LF project instead of a CNCF project. Um, and what that entails. Um, so instead of a full TOC meeting since I think your time is so valuable. Um, Brandt, if you'd like to take the followup on that one. I will. >> Awesome. Fantastic. >> Sounds good. And I think we are complete with our agenda. Yes. Um, we have three minutes. Anything perhaps we should have discussed and we didn't. Any follow-up comments? Anything you want to bring up in these three minutes? >> Maybe someone who didn't speak today would like to speak. Yeah, >> I was just going to thank you Katie for a good that was a great discussion on project health. Um >> I am looking forward to >> I'm I'm looking forward to this again. Um it's great to see that you see being proactive in this regard. Um and actually crafting initiatives and time for this. uh I think it's very valuable again because we are growing and we are growing a lot. So it's crucially important for us to do it sustainably and not just for the sake of growing. So uh with that no more philosophy. Thank you very much everyone who attended today. Thank you very much for your feedback as well. Uh I'll give you two minutes back and see you next week. Bye folks.