Technical Oversight Committee, September 1 2026

Hello. >> Hello. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening. >> [laughter] >> Let's get this machine set up. >> Hello. Okay, let me share. Let me see. Meeting notes. And the size font size is fine because I'm on a new machine and I don't know. All good. Okay. Okay. >> Congratulations on your new machine. >> Thank you. Uh hello to the Oh oh we are complete. Matthew mentioned in the uh our uh channel that he >> [laughter] >> is he's not able to join today. So, hello to the TOC meeting on 1st of September. We have our usual agenda. No working group updates today. So, then go start with reviewing the action items from last week. So, we had no meetings in the last 2 weeks. So, that means in the 1 of August no action items. Okay, great. Then we can jump into the dashboard. Uh so, there is the first one on our dashboard is about adding CF management repository Stratus area in our working group. Um yeah, I I'm asked approval current approvals in that area to approve this request. So, it's a repository. So, the repository is this one. Also I a link to the repository, and it has the Uh what was the Apache um Apache license? Yeah. So, I I don't know from LFX side, Crystal, we we need to check something here. >> Um For Elevate? >> Mhm. Regarding uh this is the repository. It's Apache 2 license 1, which uh the proposal here is to uh uh add this one to the community and uh in the Stratus area of the uh audio working group. So, people wants to maintain it because it's uh archived, the original one. >> All right. If you just need to fork it, no, we don't need to approve anything. >> Mhm. >> Speaking as someone who barely understands what law uh my impression is Apache license is pretty permissive about this kind of stuff. >> Yep. >> Yes. Yep. >> If it was a if it was a repository transfer, there'd be another step there, but if you're just forking it, that's that's fine. >> So, I just said it here so it is discussed, but it's will be a working group topic, so to say. So, if approvers are fine with this, so I mean, then Greg and Stefan can approve the merge if they are also fine with this. Yeah. Any other comments? Okay, then we can proceed with the next one. Uh it's an update for improvement to our um script to generate the contributions. Yeah, we have to look into it. It's uh causing a lot of changes. Yeah, yeah. Then look into I had the impression that it it's working fine. There was there was some improvements here. Another set of improvements. Yeah, we need to look into those. I didn't have time. >> It helps. Yeah, I got Claude chewing on it for like the last 15 minutes. Um I can dump out a comment here in a little bit as soon as it's done. I wanted to have it before we had the meeting, but uh apparently it's deciding to scrape every piece of internet history that this contributor has ever touched. Plus, I don't know what the hell it's doing at this point, but I'll add to the comments once it's done scraping. >> Okay. It's driving up your bill for you. >> [laughter] >> What are you up to? How many tokens? 114,000 tokens. >> Okay. >> Password checked. Yeah, password checked. >> [laughter] >> Spelled the word doll wrong. >> [laughter] >> Again. >> It's in progress then. And uh yeah, other one not our you'll see. Uh okay, then on the RFC side, uh we have the one about a double a double S L C addition to the HAProxy. So, there was the decision to start the final comment period. And we didn't have any additional comments, so we are good to merge this time. Approved. Thank you. And I'm merging. Okay, and I have an action item to generate RFC numbers and issue. Okay, then we have the other one about arm support. Oh. >> Yeah, I I uh I kind of told by the wayside a little bit and then I figured since you were out and TOC was out, we'd hold on that. But I can reach back out to them today. Uh what's exactly the thing you asked where where do we leave this exactly behind? >> So, I talked in the background with people here, and they see this also worth con- worth worthy contribution. Yeah. People were positive about it and willing to put effort regarding maintenance on the maintenance side, and still the automation costs question, whether I I AWS willing to support us with some credits for the automation costs. >> Okay. >> You know it's already really super hard to get an M series um Mac mini. This is just going to make it even harder. >> [laughter] >> Sorry. >> Uh do we want to move it to final comment period and and also reach out to them? Are we Are we waiting on the final comment period to hear back from them on the on the credits? Or are those two separate things? >> Um maybe we can also somehow work uh have a different validation strategy which is not so costly about this to support here. Uh if there are no I don't know um so easy option on AWS side to support us with credits. Could be also an alternative. At the moment we uh assume that we will have the same kind of validation like for Intel based CPUs. If we say we can have slightly lightweight validation for this one reducing costs uh with maybe not having any costs. Yeah, I don't know something like that could be also an option. >> The last time we discussed that we what we wanted or we wanted to wait for the answer by by Amazon for the credits because that was written in the last comment. Mhm, before we approve the RFC. Because once it's approved, well then I can tell you the answer. >> [laughter] >> Maybe uh maybe we can check with them whether they have any progress on that. >> Okay, yeah. I'll I'll >> next time. >> I'll find that email thread and I'll respond to to them and to you, Beyang. I'll do that today. >> Okay, thanks. Thanks, Gus. And I don't have time to check regarding on policies status updates. >> Storage clear is closed. >> [laughter] >> Thanks. I wanted to to do the comment that we have less in progress. Which is nice. Okay, uh then going over to issues. Um This one I thought it's already What was our Um We don't know whether it's free for open source or not. Um Don't know. Um no one commented here. No one requested to have it. Maybe we can just close and if someone finds that it's useful and comes back and requests it again, then we can At the moment when no one from the maintainers is asking for that, I would say we don't need to push so. Are you okay or? >> Makes sense to me. Wait for the screaming to start again and then address the issue then. >> Yeah. Okay. This is the Concourse one. Is this? It should be Look at the beginning there's a checklist that's one thing that opens the delete inactive users doesn't work. >> Ah, okay. I see. And good calls. Yep. Okay. It's still open you didn't have time to look into that. >> No. >> Maybe I should have next week. This week I also won't be able. >> [clears throat] >> Mhm. Okay. So, we have new ones here. >> This is about new CPI for Google distributed cloud. They have opened an issue to request it. Um So, I will think of there something And I saw also another one similar. The stem cell and the CPI. Should they go over on RFC here? Um Is it foundation infrastructure working group topic? This will introduce new CPI and support for a new infrastructure. >> Wouldn't a new CPI be done at the working group level? >> Hm? Sorry. >> Wouldn't a new CPI just be done at a working group level for >> stem cell and CPI? >> Yeah. >> Well Yeah, we can take this also only in the foundation infrastructure working group. Um I think well, it needs to be clarified like um we will maintain this, but still still can be also clarified in the working group. I think it's fine to go over the working up on without RFC. I mean not but not expect bigger changes or I know that there are no bigger changes at least in cloud controller or this blob storage stuff has been sorted out already. >> [clears throat] >> So it's I guess at least for now just If you want to make this visible in the community, we can go over RFC or if I don't >> Yeah, you could also make it an RFC and then even propose to create a new area in the working group because there's a proposal with initial approval that only works with a new area in the working group. >> So I think we have a similar setup in the foundation or infrastructure working group for the Ali cloud. >> Mhm. >> Yeah, like something like this. Uh Because it will be different set of approvers and yeah, they can Um yeah, I will recommend that people go over RFC and maybe also put some words about the maintenance will be handled of the con- for the contribution so we have clarity on that like on arm we discussed. >> Validation might might also be tricky, right? Do we get such an account? >> Yeah, I will put this also a point to be somehow defined in dollars. Okay. The forecast here management we already discussed. It's in progress. I will put this to also in progress. I will comment afterwards. Um A lot of issues here. Um So, this is about right access to status. Mhm. You will propose something here, Stefan. I think it's uh the standard approach we have at the moment. Yeah. Then I will suggest to close this one. Um >> Yeah. Next step would be set the status team. Uh just open the PR. >> Yeah. Um we cannot at the moment uh we are not able to offer anything more than this. >> Okay. Um The minus figures shown there is Okay, the rest I think this is a old one which we need to look if we want to optimize the execution time. So, all of this is all about issues. Costs, I put the cost update in the Slack channel we have for August. I put the latest update so then we can go any other business. >> Just my weekly reminder to register for Cloud Foundry Summit. Um we are nearing about 70% capacity for the event. So, if you have contributors, maintainers, known customers, end users who you want at the event, I urge you to please register sooner rather than later. >> Plus, we need an accurate count on the t-shirts, so there's that. >> Great, it's really good to hear that we are already at the 70% of the capacity. Um and all the agenda is settled for now. The are there any free uh There is um >> No, so there's uh there's no like free speaking slots, but uh there's two afternoons that uh we're we're deliberately leaving a little open. Uh but we'll announce some sort of uh framework for what we intend to do um during the two afternoons in a bit. Uh Chris and I are working on the content for that, and I have a few ideas, and we have to review them and get a few people signed up to um participate. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah. >> Okay, great. Uh also, tomorrow is the first meeting for the AI working group uh workshop. >> Yeah. >> Uh >> It's on the community calendar. I was just waiting for you to give me like a thumbs up on the time because um it always tends to kind of go wrong, so um it's just nice to have confirmation before I can do anything. >> Mhm, yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Ram. So, we have a lot of ideas in the repository. In the meantime, you can check those ideas, notes, um uh yeah. I'm moving on. >> at it. Thanks, Peter. >> [sighs] >> I'm uh yeah. Let's see how it goes tomorrow. Uh we have first uh set up 1 hour to just to get um discuss how to uh approach these workshops and the next meetings. And a bit uh cross to the ideas and uh research notes. >> Yeah. Okay, any other I >> [clears throat] >> topic. No, then yeah, thanks for your time. Enjoy the day, evening, morning and see you next time. Take care. Bye-bye. >> Have a good day, gentlemen. >> Bye-bye. See you.