CNCF TOC Public meeting 4 Aug 2026

Uh, you're muted. >> Hi. [laughter] >> I like Jeremy's better, though. I should try to do like a mohawk. >> Yeah, there is actually a mohawk in the back. [laughter] >> [clears throat] >> I wasn't sure what my hair would look like coming on camera, so it was one of those. [laughter] >> Yeah, >> this feels feels really nice. Uh except when you're in the sun for a whole bunch and you've got to put a bunch of sunscreen on the side of top of a mountain. [gasps] >> Yeah, >> you guys don't know the struggle. You guys do not know the struggle. [laughter] >> I would think you got it easy. >> No. And I put it on this weekend and it still doesn't matter. 50k in the microwave. Doesn't matter. >> Oh yeah, man. You should see the I don't know if you can see the difference in my neck and [laughter] [sighs and gasps] >> man. >> I come from a long line of red heads, so I I turn red. Um there's no in between. It's like very pale, bright red. [laughter] >> Yeah. Same for I go from zero to lobster. Mhm. I go from Yeah, I'm the opposite. I go like super tan and then Yeah. Looks like I'm Native American. >> I'll say like one of the things I love about Japan is their sunscreen is is so much better than the stuff you can get here in the US. It and it goes on like I swear by it. It's called this brand called Anessa. It's like they call it like milk sunscreen, but it's really milk is just like the the texture of it, but like really good SPF 50, water, sweatproof. They they know how to make it versus here. >> Well, that's usually why I don't wear it because I hate the feel of it. It's the Yeah. A Hi, kitty. >> Yeah. not open source without one cat. Thanks for volunteering. >> Hi. >> Always looks like a um microphone that follows you around. >> Right. It does like a boom. >> Yeah. >> So funny. >> It's it I swear it's like always around this time, too, where he just like wants to get up and just be on my keyboard. >> Yeah. So cute. Um, Bob or Rion, can you do me a favor because I built these slides at the last minute and I need to next time incorporate the other slide at the same time, the everybody play nice slide. Um, could one of you bring that up so that we can officially >> Yeah, if you wouldn't mind because I am >> playing. Yeah, I'm having keyboard challenges right now. [sighs and gasps] >> Thank you. Thank you. All right, next slide, please. And thank you all for joining. I saw some new faces um or names at least. You don't have to be on camera if you don't want to. All right. Usual LF antirust policy notice. Um CNCF meetings involve participation by industry competitors. A lot of us work together downstream actually or upstream as we're all doing today and it's the intention of the Linux Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees adhere to meeting agendas and be aware of and not participate in any activities that are prohibited under applicable US, state, federal, or foreign antitrust and competition laws. All right, go read that if you need a refresher. Thank you. All right, I'm going to share my slides. Um, I know it's super exciting. >> Okay, [clears throat] can you see that? >> Yes. Yep. >> Awesome. All right. Did a quick pivot uh last night while you know jet lag and working at 2:00 a.m. as you guys already know I do. Um okay. So we had So last week was the KCON Japan. Saw a lot of you there and that was amazing. Um and the ones that weren't there, you were there in spirit. Um we had a governing board meeting. Um and as part of that meeting, uh a lot of the discussions were around items that tags are already working on or that tags can help us >> [clears throat] >> um work on too. But that got me thinking also um about all the amazing things that the tags are doing. And uh for any tag leads or tag liaison, we have a lot of tag liaison on here. Thank you TC members. Um as you're thinking about working with the different tags and what does that mean? We're kind of going to go through some of that. But first, but first, I did write an agenda. Um, we have the spec project criteria updates that are out. Everybody, please finish reviewing those. Like to merge those today if possible. Um quick recap is that we are continually um looking at improvements to processes to criteria. How can we pro provide better clarity to maintainers? And something that came out of the build pack um DD that um Facilo was working on is that and other um in Toto other projects uh that came through it's obvious that the TOC has not provided enough clarity around um specification projects and um what maturity means at each level because it's different than other projects. Uh so please go look at that um review and again we'd like to merge that soon. Okay. Again what I started with is that all the tag work it does matter. Um we went through the fun restructuring last year right? Um, and this year it's a year of stabilization, but what that also means is that TAG should be ramping up their work. Um, and the governing board responded favorably with uh the TOC updates and next governing governing board meeting, it'd be really nice to be able to show how much more progress is being made. um and um really identify some key areas that we can bring forward to the governing board. Um these three topic areas, cloudnative and AI standardization, cost management, AI observability, the speed of agents versus human systems, those were three breakouts that the governing board wanted to dive into. Um, and the tags already have some work in these areas, right? So, as you're working with the tags, think about other initiatives that you can encourage and then also what you're hearing from the tags and bring it back. Um, we talked about how many tag initiatives have been completed since March and actually it's ramping up quite nicely. Um, and we we still have a lot of opportunity though. Um, I wanted to go to this one really quick. All right. So, what I mean by opportunity is that um with the new TAG chairs, tag the tech leads um being elected and others continuing to ramp up. Not everybody is assigned an initiative. Um I already um briefly chatted with the tag infrastructure leads and they're going to look into that. Um here's some other highlights is that every every chair, every tech lead should at least be driving one initiative within their tag. It can be small, it can be larger, but um if you look back at the tag charters um really they should be helping drive work assignments or at least whether it's guidance, you working on a white paper, are you actively engaged in your tag? Um, so really this is something that would be good to go through with each tag and Marina I saw you jump on so thanks for joining. Um, okay tag charters. Um, so I threw this on here because, um, having a sidebar conversation with Brandt, Brandt, um, we when we started the whole tag reboot, tag restructure process, um, we were talking about one of one of the reasons is that we lost a lot of the technical acumen in the community, right? And really what the technical advisory groups um that are serving underneath the TOC really what they should be doing what they're chartered to be doing is helping provide guidance to project maintainers to the projects themselves. Um are we identifying gaps in the ecosystem? Um things like that. It's not um tags are not meant to be creating work items for end users. That's a part of the tab. Uh members in tags can work with um different constructs in the tab and they're working on their user groups etc. Um, but want to make sure that as you're working with the tags, if you're a liaison, you're keeping an eye on what what are the work items. This is and ultimately this helps everybody uh also prevent burnout because uh what we saw previously in some tags was they were trying to be everything to everyone and you can't, right? So, if we scope it back down to what is your tag chartered to do? Um, and hopefully that can help like go back and read the charter over again and see um is the work item, the initiative that I've put forward, is it in line with the TAG charter and the TOC charter? Um, any questions up to now? I feel like I just talked a lot. Unless some of you have jet lag like me. Except for Chad. He probably [clears throat] was on a bike ride this morning. Um, so if we go back and look at the completed initiatives. This is fantastic, right? We had the AI scheduling um white paper go out. Um that one took a long time to get out, right? That was part of the previous structure too. Um but tag infrastructure did put out the data storage and cloudnative AI and the infrastructure life cycle which is fantastic. um tech security and compliance. This is awesome and love to hear from you, Marina, if you have any other initiatives you would like to highlight right now that's in process. >> Um I mean yeah, we have I sorry off the top of my head we have another um vulnerability reporting recipe card we're taking a look at. Um, I think we had something with AI and security. Um, potentially a white paper that we're looking at. Um, I think we have other ones, too. Those are the ones that I've been thinking about, though. >> Nice. Nice. See, they're it's fantastic. Um but if you think about it for how many tech leads and how many chairs are in each tag, if everybody is assigned or is working on um some technical deliverable, some technical guidance um just think how much um the entire EOS ecosystem can benefit from that. Um, do we have any other tag lead representatives here that want to call out some initiatives in flight? Okay, Carol, you don't have to speak up. I just saw you. All right. So, this is what I wanted to highlight. Um, and we can go back and dive into the spec. Um, open initiatives. Um, since we don't have as many tag leads on as I was hoping, we can still run through initiatives with the tag liaison um, and do a triage. right now. I wanted to open it up for um tag liaison what you're seeing um within your tags um different open initiatives that maybe you'd like to highlight for cross tag opportunities. And this is where I pause until it becomes so uncomfortable somebody speaks up. All right, I'm going to volunteer you, Brandt. >> Yeah, I was looking I was kind of looking at initiatives last night and wondering like trying to trying to put some of these pieces together. Um, particularly I I think that there's a lot of good discussion happening right now around the um, review sub project. So, I'm not going to maybe lean on that one too heavily at the moment. Um, particularly because I think that there's really great opportunities and also I don't want to steal other people's thunder um, because they weren't originally my ideas. So um kind of reaching back to um like TAG infrastructure for example um I've been hopping on to their calls as of late and then looking at the initiatives and I wanted to I needed to go back and audit and make sure that like what I see in the initiative board is correct because there's only one in progress um status. And I think that that either could be that those statuses aren't being updated. I've seen that in the past of like some we updated one status um on a different board or a different place and it didn't synchronize in a way that made things very clear. And so more so as a liaison, I feel like I need to audit some of these and make sure my understanding is correct in order to represent them well. Nice. Thank you for that. Um I know that the next time when we talk about initiatives, um it'll be a different discussion because I'll warn you first that we're going to talk about them. But um [laughter] I I know you don't mind Dylan, but I'm wondering if you can jump in too. Um I did highlight that tag infrastructure did put out two artifacts, a great white paper and then the infrastructure life cycle. Um, and we did talk on Slack about assigning initiatives um to tech leads. So, I wonder how it's going in your tag. Um, any interesting items that you're working on right now and um any cross tag collaboration that you want to highlight? >> Yeah. Um I think a lot of this is just there has been a lot of activity with initiatives. Um I think a lot of it is just we haven't been uh up to up to kind of speed with the paperwork so much on the GitHub issues making sure people are assigned make sure labels are showing proper status. Um the current initiatives that are active right now is there's another storage white paper uh I think it's the storage landscape version three that is there's a PR that Shing has been pushing for that um there's also I believe uh a new one that Kashif is working on um and then there's also one that was um uh uh left over from before on the tag reboot. Uh it was a an AI paper uh about sustainability that kind of intersects between operational resilience tag and infrastructure. We did start reviewing it, but I think there was a little bit of a uh miscommunication about what tag was actually sponsoring it since it was a little bit in limbo um instead of us just reviewing it. but TAG infrastructure can step in and uh and co-sponsor it with operational resilience tag and make sure that they um have a proper home for the initiative. Um so I'm waiting for I I'm following up with those um the [clears throat] folks that were leading that initiative. It didn't they part of the issue is that you know they're not a tech lead on any of the tags. Um, so we just need to make sure we have uh a tech lead assigned from both tag to the initiative to drive with the with the authors of the paper. >> Do we have anybody here from operational resilience? >> Oh yeah, I am here. But um what [clears throat] was um the question? Sorry, the context >> Dylan >> the the one that you were talking about um the white paper that it's either infrastructure or operation operational resilience. >> Um yeah, sorry I was trying to find a link to the issue. It's it's actually I think it's both. Um I think and that's part of the the maybe a little bit of the confusion is I don't believe it belongs in a single tag. I think there's overlap between the infrastructure tag and also the operational resilience tag. Um I linked the initiative issue in the chat. Um there is uh there was an it was originally under tag runtime. Uh they split it up into two papers and um the original draft for the first paper there was a PR. Um but we we ended up we ended up closing it out of confusion. Um, so we need to just um I don't know if we can just reopen that same PR or if we have them resubmit. Um, but then we also need to make sure that we have uh tech leads assigned to help continue to drive this process for them um to completion. >> Um, on that one here, let me see which one is that Dylan. So the uh I posted a link to the initiative in the chat. It's 1675 and then the PR that was closed was 2041. >> Let's just reopen it. >> Okay. Um, it's not an issue. This look's open. The 1675. Okay. >> Yeah, the initiative is open. Um, I think it was they had a draft PR for the paper um that they were requesting reviews on. Um, and I the PR was what was closed. Okay. Yeah. Let me just reopen it. Um >> Okay. >> And can you put a comment down? >> Perfect. >> Yeah, I will I will put a comment on there and then I will make sure that um I believe um uh her name is Maria Stool. Um >> Maria Soul. um >> uh that um she has she has joined our uh tag meetings previously, but I'll I'll continue to coordinate with her and see and and make sure we get an assigne from TAG tech lead from TAG infrastructure assigned to this to drive this. Um and then Carol, if you could have someone from operational resilience um also help review this as well um that would be great. Yeah. Yeah, we'll do that. I I will uh ask to detain and try to review this. Thank you for this reminder. >> Awesome. Thank you. So, this isn't this is the AI sustainability one, which is the is this the one that >> um Go ahead. No, go ahead. Sorry. >> Which is the operational resilience one? >> This is this is that same one. This is the one where it's a bit it's a it's shared between both tags. Um because there's elements of of both. Um, when it comes to AI sustainability, um, I think there's factors that come from an infrastructure point of view of how you build, how you deploy and set up the actual infrastructure in the data centers in a sustainable ways, but then there's also input from operational resilience in terms of how do you monitor sustainability, the metrics you track, um, that sort of thing. So there's really it's really both tags have a have an overlap here on this single initiative. >> Okay, sounds good. Um, anybody else? Because otherwise we're going to start going and triaging. All right. So Dylan, while we're here, do you want to go through some others of yours? >> Uh, sure. Um, I believe the other one is, let me see, I gota Sorry, I'm on mobile at the moment. Let me see if I can pull it up. Um, >> okay. I'm looking for it to >> There's a the the one still in progress uh is the storage Landscape V3, I believe it's called. >> I think Ching just put out a PR, a draft PR for that one. >> That is right. I did see that one. >> So, that one is ready for TOC review, I believe. >> Yep. There we go. Storage landscape white paper 3. Yep. >> Mhm. Yeah, I have that on my list to review. Um, who who here is a tag infrastructure leaison TC members? >> I am one of them. >> Awesome. I will add you and see if we can get this one out the door faster than the last one. Um, she was so patient on waiting for all of our feedback. So amazing. Thank you. Um, okay. What next, Dylan? Uh I believe the next one um [clears throat] one thing is the infrastructure life cycle. Um I think there was some confusion about it being completed. It's still very much in progress and making a we're picking up a lot of steam. We have a couple new contributors. Um our two new tech leads Thomas and Mass are also very much uh pushing this very well. Um the confusion I think came from the fact that the uh previous tech leads were trying to do the collaboration in the TOC repo with GitHub PRs. Um, and there's a lot of friction trying to do that with folks that maybe are contributors that are not part of the of the CNCF GitHub or uh and so um we have transition to a Google doc. Uh and that Google doc is listed on the initiative GitHub issue. Um, and that has assignments for content, the outline, and um when we uh plan to finish up writing that content hopefully within the uh the end of the month. >> Okay, awesome. >> And what I'll do is I'll go through and make sure all of our initiatives are labeled properly. I didn't realize we as chairs had the ability to change labels on TOC issues. >> Yeah, you were given the power. >> I have the power. All right. Well, that's good to know. I'll go through and make sure everything's audited properly then. >> Amazing. Thank you, Dylan. >> Yeah, the uh Yeah, there we go. at the the the 1631 that's the infrastructure life cycle one um and then the I know Kashif was working on a new initiative but I don't think I don't know if he had opened it yet or started it he was working with Antonio on that initiative um okay so it's not one of these how were the other ones. So, you're working on landscape. >> Yep. Landscape, infrastructure, life cycle, and then there's a new one coming from Kashif um soon with Antonio, but I don't think they've uh I don't think they've started the process just quite yet. I think it's still incubating. >> Okay, awesome. Uh DRA, I'm excited about that one. [clears throat] >> Yes. Yes, very much so. Uh Nikki, >> hi. Um about the cloud native AI sustainability one um or the cloud native AI sustainability papers. The one that Maris Soul is driving. I think it might be the the other one. This is this says that it's the second white paper. Is thank you for pointing that out, Nikki. What's um is this still one applicable? Yeah, I'm I'm not sure if it's this one or the other issue. They're quite similar. I think one builds on top of the other. Um, I was last I heard from Marisol, she was looking for a review and I think Dylan was uh had volunteered to take it on and then I think this was all before we revived the technical community group for environmental sustainability. But now that we have that group of people and experts in sustainability, um I had proposed to Marisol that we share it with them. Um with that group and so that should uh help move things forward. I missed Dylan's update uh if there was an update mentioned before. >> The update was just that there was confusion. Mirisol had a draft PR for one of the first paper. Um I don't think there's a PR yet for the second paper that I've seen. Um but that 2041 is the first paper. Um and um there was some confusion on um if the initiative was orphaned or not. And so the PR was uh closed in error, but we just reopened it today. And I'm I've been working with Mirisol on trying to ensure that the I believe we've already Ching did the uh Ching and I did did a review of the paper uh from TAG infrastructure, but we just probably need a pass from someone in operational resilience and then we should be good for a final TOC review. >> Yeah, great. Um I know now Diana and I um we're tech leads and both have sustainability um knowledge and we can provide that additional review. >> That'd be great. >> Yeah, because I think this, like I said before, I think this sits right in the middle between the two tags. Um there's definitely input from the infrastructure side as well as input from the operational resilience side. Yeah, thank you so much for uh keeping this this initiative going. By the way, >> of course, not a problem. >> Yeah. So, we'll we'll we'll um we'll we'll continue with the review. Thank you for bringing it up. Okay. Awesome. Thank you, Dylan. You guys are doing great work as always. >> Anytime. >> Okay. um Carol or Nikki. Um quick reminder for I'm super excited for the environmental sustainability technical community group and um Nikki as your um working with them. Um just the technical initiatives still need to be sponsored and um assigned to lead within a tag. So just to make sure that we're following the right processes and having those published through tags um just if you can give them thank you Nikki. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, as Sila has been really helpful with helping to figure out if one which initiative should go through a tag in the TOC and which ones can be like the cloud native sustainability month. We ended up um making a TCG uh project. So that that's really helpful. >> That's perfect. How is how is that? Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. How is that going? Would love to hear an update. Yeah. Um, we have, I think, six events being planned right now and we're still have a few that we're waiting confirmation from and they're all going to be in October. Um, we want to share a blog post about it and actually This is great. Um because I had an open question if we could use the tag operational resilience as a kind of a sponsor for the CNCF blog because the categories for publishing the CNCF blog are there's a few different categories but the one that would best suit this is if we were to publish under tag operational resilience. So I I don't know if there's any problem with with doing so. We we weren't sure as a tag either. >> So for for that um that's fantastic. uh go ahead and open just a quick initiative with a link to your draft blog and um Carol um would you like to help make sure that's assigned to somebody within your tag for review and helping get that out the door? >> Yeah. Yeah, I I can help with that. >> Thank you. That's perfect. Yeah, I will hang with Nikki. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, awesome. I was just Does somebody have a quick link to the TCG? I was going to pull it up. >> I can link it in a minute. >> Okay, no worries. Okay. Um, Carol, do you mind if we go through tag observability um operational resilience? >> Yeah, >> really fast. >> We can do that. >> Okay, >> fantastic. You have a lot of initiatives open. Um, Nope. Sorry. Okay. So, which ones are stale? We have the help wanted. Are these still applicable? >> Yeah. Uh it's because I think we still reorganized because we have new tech leads. So uh like we will do a new discovery that really a new applying new labels if we really need help wanted but we really didn't discuss like is continue with the latest status with the before team right now. Um so yeah we really need to take a look with our new techlet that maybe also they have new like Nikki is here that is on sustainability also Diana that is more from observability and try to decide how to push this and how to really get get more people involved to start it that I think is the tricky part. Yeah. [clears throat] V or Dana, did you disappear or did you >> Yeah. Hi. Uh yes. Yeah. Uh exactly. So we did uh talk um about for example the clonative observability personas initiative couple of times but obviously we were doing the onboarding um and I looked through it and it does seem like an interesting initiative. So definitely I I'm interested in taking this over obviously but uh probably other leads uh they might be interested too. So um I think yeah the correct way would be to discuss this among us and see how we can uh jump start it again. It seems like a great idea. >> Fantastic. Okay. Between you two, can you help make sure that um everybody's assigned or driving one? And it doesn't have to be a current one. Perhaps there's a new initiative that um makes more sense, but if if these still have interest, it'd be great to see these move forward. Okay. [clears throat] >> Awesome. Thank you. Okay, Marina, I'm getting back to you. Can I call on you again? >> Yeah. [laughter] >> All right. Um, your tag always has the most activity, which is fantastic. Um, are there any stale items or items you'd further like to highlight even further because I know you already raised a couple. Yeah, let's see. I think there's a few of these that are unstarted. [clears throat] I think we went through last week and so anything that says needs triage, I believe that should be up to date with the ones that are um like not yet active. >> Um, but I think it look it actually does look like we're missing a couple. So we try to make that active. Sorry. And [laughter] then um let's see anything else to highlight here. Um I think we're in discussion with the folks for the cloudnative AI security white paper. Um I think that they started the work on their own and so we're trying to figure out how to fit that into the tag process for a white paper. Um so we're chatting with them about what the what kind of next steps there are. Looks like there's a couple issues on that one. Um, what else >> controls? Oh, sorry. The controls catalog I think is wrapping up. That one should be finished soon. >> Okay. >> So, that one doesn't necessarily need triage anymore. >> Yeah, I think that I thought that we had updated those last week, but I guess we missed a couple. Sorry. >> It's okay. [laughter] >> Um, >> okay. That's fantastic. Um, is the MCP server one moving forward? >> Yes, I believe that was moving forward. Um, there's some folks in um, Asia time zone. I believe they focused on that one. So, I don't know the exact like status this week, but I think it's moving along. >> Okay. >> Movement. Nice. Um the cloudnative AI ones, the security cloud native AI security ones, those seem rather timely. >> Yeah, that's what I'm going to try. I'm I'm currently I have some, you know, a conversation going with a couple folks. I'm going to try to get them to come to the meeting either this week or next week to kind of figure out what what we can do to move that forward. >> Nice. Um that seems like a good candidate too for cross tag collaboration. Yeah, >> I wonder if you want to drop that maybe into the tag leads channel and see or at least when you have those meetings if others >> I think I want to talk to them first because I think the main thing I'm hoping to do is reduce the scope a little bit of the paper, right? Because >> [clears throat] >> um I think that there are a lot of papers in here and I think some of them might be cross tag but some of them might be like, you know, a security one that relates to a different white paper that's in some other tag. So, we'll just see where where that discussion goes and then Yeah. >> Okay. Nice. All right. Thank you. Um, let's see. So, you have a cloud native AI security white paper down here. Oh, is this just the Okay, >> I think those might be sub issues. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Okay. And the supply chain security insights is that taking off with the supply chain security. >> This is another one that is I believe wrapping. There's been a couple of remaining things before we we've been able to close it out. So hopefully we'll get that soon kind of finish [clears throat] wrapping for the first stage. >> Okay. Is the Kyerno joint security assessment actually still in progress? >> Yes. If you click into the issue, I believe there was um um well it was a month ago, but it wasn't that long ago. Um but there there's still some progress being made finalizing the um joint assessment doc. There was I think a couple of action items missing from the project and then um but it hasn't been long enough that [clears throat] I I think it's still I think we're it's just waiting to hear back from them. >> Sounds good. Okay. Uh the compliance use cases. >> I am trying to remember what the status of this one is. Is there anything in the [laughter] Okay. Yeah, we're we're trying to figure out if it's still basically. Yeah. >> Okay. Um Yeah, I mean that sounds fair. Close it if nobody's interested and um see who isn't assigned anything in the tag if this is something like >> we have some new tech leads too. So maybe this will be taken on by somebody new. Um, so yeah. >> Okay. Awesome. Let's see. Were we missing any others that we didn't talk about? No, that's a lot of great work going on. Um, it'd be fantastic to see a lot of these land before North America. >> Thanks. Yeah, hopefully there's a couple of them that I think are really close to the finish line, so hopefully we can get that. Okay, >> nice. Okay. Are there any others that anybody would like to highlight? Um Nikki or Diana, are there any others that you would like to highlight? >> It's not listed. Um it it isn't listed here, but we uh have some interest in the green reviews sub project again. >> That is fantastic to hear. >> Yeah, I am also really glad um I had to pause that while I worked on the other things that I work on in in the ecosystem, but now finally there's um well Diana, credit to Diana for bringing it up. And then we've had um a couple of folks who are interested in continuing it and I would like to help hand over. Um so there is hope. That's wonderful. Um, and if you I hate to call you out again, Dylan, but Dylan has been a huge driver of the project reviews sub project. Um, it'd be great to see some of that folded into there and have the green reviews surfaced um in the central group too and maybe see more traction. Yeah, I think it'll it will have to look differently as in we were building pipelines that became really complicated and added a lot of overhead. Um I I can bring this to the project review group though if if there's an option to self-report. Um yeah, I can bring it up so that we can discuss it. >> Yeah, that would be fantastic. Okay. Um, we could talk about it briefly now too since we've done a lot of the triage if you're ready to otherwise um the next project reviews meeting. >> Yeah, Diana and I are both here. Um, and >> okay, >> if Dylan is on the call. Yes. Yeah, >> I am still here. Yes. Um, happy, please. I've been I've been pushing even new contributors that have been joining our tag infra to do and volunteer for reviews, even if they're not a chair or a tech lead. Um, and we actually had someone who just picked one up. So, it's a real big win to see some people from the community just jumping in and helping out with reviews. Um, but I'm happy to mentor, walk people through how the review process works and how we can continue to keep the process rolling. I think it would be really great to understand how the software corbon intensity score could be included in the project review but without creating all the pipelines that we were trying to create before and like who would I think the main question is who would be making that calculation Mhm. >> And like how can we create like build I don't know if we need to provide access to to hardware and Oracle credits or anything like that like like a environment. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's a great question. Um, normally, uh, I think maybe this is a great way to kind of evaluate where in the reviews, um, maybe this is a a technical uh, area. [snorts] Uh, and we might we upgrade the I've been meaning to kind of take a pass at the technical reviews and improve it to the fidelity that Josh has done a great job with, the governance reviews, because there's like examples in a handbook and everything. Um, but it's probably what we need is probably a multi- kind of multi- uh what am I trying to say? Kind of like a like kind of like a in-depth approach where the reviews right now with like the governance and the security and the tech reviews, we generally advise folks not to spend too much time on really diving too deep. Like if so for example if someone's doing a technical review uh even if a project meets the criteria if that information is not easily accessible or readily apparent or available it's still not as good even if that project doesn't meet that criteria. So the advice I've been given to folks is that reviews really shouldn't take too much time. Uh it should be like a a quick pass. You're just collecting information. You're not trying to fix anything with the projects yourself. You're just trying to raise where are the gaps, where our projects are doing things well. And then that information is then across the three reviews, uh, then presented to the TOC member that's doing the due diligence. So that way the TOC member has less work themselves and can easily just go through and have all the information readily available to them. So why am I saying this? Well, when when it comes to including this information into the project reviews, we probably want to do something similar where identifying which parts of the reviewer, whether that belongs in if there's parts that belong in the governance review or if they're parts that belong in the technical review, what information we want them to surface to the TOC member for them to properly be able to score and do the due diligence of a project uh that meets the are or the criteria at the different levels that we expect them to uh for this if that makes sense. >> My my question is how do you um right now there's there's a there's is there still a section about how a project scales and what kind of resources are needed for that project to scale? Um, how is that calculated or evaluated by by the TOC? I I don't know if that is still in the set of questions. So, it is, but I wouldn't say that it's there's any calculation. It's still a human being kind of looking at the project and kind of saying, "Oh, does this meet the bar?" And if we want some sort of programmatic calculation that probably will require uh more ideation or you know more exploration to figure out how to do that. So the way currently right now that a technical review is done is that it's broken down into day zero, day one and day two. And the reason why it's done this way is we are changing our approach where the the technical review produces a document that is intended to be a living document for a project. So when a project joins the CNCF as a sandbox, they only have to meet the criteria or focus on the day zero uh which usually covers the design and the architecture of the project. when they go to incubation then they have to meet the criteria for day one which is usually covers installation deployment uh that builds upon the develop design from day zero and then where I think you're kind of u asking about is usually those questions show up in day two there is a like the day-to-day operation phase which is required for graduated projects so a lot of the scalability and the um you you know, the kind of the the operational reliab operational resilience style questions or type of questions usually are incorporated in the day two. But if we want projects to think about sustainability over time, then this probably uh there is a section in the sandbox around design uh that probably should incorporate sustainability um you know and that in that in in the first onset. So right now it's just a bit kind of a free form open word like for example one of the one of the one of the criteria for a day zero sandbox is describe the project's high availability requirements describe the resource requirements describe the storage requirements please outline the API design so it's very much kind of free form um and left up to kind of the interpretation of the technical reviewer. But if we want to incorporate some sort of programmatic calculation, there's probably more to kind of explore and discuss uh given the how the current process is. I think this is really helpful to understand how like that it would be a kind of free form explanation. I wonder if we could still use the softer carbon intensity standard and kind of let folks understand what that looks like. Meaning like what kind of hardware is used, what kind of what is the how does it how does the application scale? That's mainly what the software carbon intensity asks like what is the the rate of scaling this application rather than like what are the resources CPU and memory it asks how does it how does it scale I'm just thinking out loud I haven't quite um thought this through but the link links are really helpful and we will have a tag operational resilience meeting tomorrow at this time. So we'll reconvene there. Um, is there any other part of the assessment that of the review that is that requires a reviewer or the person submitting the project for review to like build tooling in order to be able to answer part of the review? I not not quite. So what happens is when a project would like to move levels, they file an issue. There's an application template for each of the levels in the TOC repo. And then Rianne has done a really really great job of automating at least in GitHub that when an application is open and a and a certain label is applied it will prompt a new issue asking for someone to do a technical review asking for someone to do a governance review asking someone to do uh uh you know uh a security re review if it's required. I don't I don't think we have automation for security. But um the I think the thing here is there's also the possibility of like if we don't want to incorporate sustainability maybe it doesn't or this calculation into kind of the human review. Maybe there's a additional automation or tooling we can think about that happens when it when that gets triggered when a project submits an application. Yeah, it we are at time but I I was going to ask about LFX insights but we can talk on another time or >> yeah it'd be it would it would be really cool to see more integrations with the LFX insights because I know a lot of the especially when you're doing a governance review uh a lot of that information for a governance review comes from LFX insights. I think we that's a great point to end and and we'll continue on with LFX insights maybe. Thank you. That was a great discussion and thank you Nikki for um bringing that up. Hey everybody. Yes, we're at time and we will see each other in the next meeting. All right, thanks all. Cheers. >> Thank you. Okay.