ld be warranted here to give In the commission's inclination that we could take a look at transportation construction Especially if we are falling below those those regional targets In regard to workforce development grants based on conversations at these commission meetings We are recommending a target spending amount of eight hundred thousand The number is closer to the actual spending from this current year Although last year's guidelines had a six hundred thousand Six hundred thousand dollar target, which is what we had in our prior draft We we actually authorized awards of eight hundred and thirteen thousand four hundred The additional two hundred thousand added a workforce since the draft Includes recommendations for two potential awards of fifty thousand for regional cooperation on workforce programs And an additional hundred thousand dollars for significant regional needs At a prior commission meeting the commission noted that there may actually be different needs in each region And that targeting an equal amount of workforce funds for both regions May not actually address specific needs in those in one region that may be Experiencing some significant needs. And so with those points is a general overview Let me just turn it over to joe and then he will and turn turn it over to jill Thank you Throughout the fall we held six meetings with the various committees and subcommittees We had some fairly robust discussions with these groups on the proposed changes to the guidelines for previous years As john mentioned one of the main areas of interest was the transportation construction grants as being a new program It tended to generate the most discussion All of the groups seem to be In support of using funds for construction grants, but we did have a number of discussions around the best way to implement this program Again, the first item that john talked about was we got one written comment and several verbal comments about The amount of money that we're putting towards that program I think our thought was that we wanted to start this program small You know, we're sort of at the very beginnings of this Let's see how things go and then we can ramp it up as we go along But we did add that additional language that allows us to to bring that level up if there's demand and there's uh And there's space within the overall cap established free to region The second item with respect to that was um the requirement for local matching funds And what percentage that should be It was the consensus of the groups that we should encourage a significant match from the communities But without establishing an exact percentage And the argument for that was that you know the scale of the projects And their relation to direct casino impacts could vary and should be considered on a case by case basis So we added language to the guidelines that emphasized that Emphasize the significance of the matching funds and the extent to which the project Mitigates casino related traffic impacts will be strongly considered in the evaluation of proposals We also discussed the possibility of having multi-year construction grants Due to the complexities involved with community borrowing The commission's inability to guarantee the availability of funds over multiple years And the fact that this is our first foray into providing construction funds It was decided to defer the consideration of multiple year grants to the next round of funding One of our subcommittee members offered to help us set up a meeting with bond council So that we can develop a better understanding of the intricacies of municipal bonding And how that could work within our framework In addition to that and they're in the guidelines we've proposed During the course of this year issuing a statement of interest to the nearby communities To help determine what types of casino related multi-year construction projects might be under Consideration in those communities and in doing that That will give us an idea of sort of what the universal projects is And you know dollar values and so on and that will help us In crafting our guidelines going forward for some of these larger Transportation related projects Some of the other things that we talked about at the meetings We talked about the split of funds between region a and region b And there definitely is a consensus among the regions that the money should stay within the regions We also talked about the rollover of funds within the region if they are underutilized Again all were in agreement that the funds should remain In the regions and that the rollover funds should be the first money used when awarding grants Also a few questions around you know sort of how strong the nexus to the casino Must be in order to obtain funds and we reiterated what we've said multiple times Is that while there certainly can be ancillary benefits That are not casino related the project must address a casino related impact And there was also some discussion about the allowance of administrative costs on workforce Grants and with that I will turn it over to Jill to talk about workforce so in addition To putting the guidelines out for public comment I also sent the guidelines specifically to our workforce partners and other training entities and We additionally met with the workforce skills cabinet The under secretaries of labor and workforce development education Housing and economic development and representative from commonwealth corporation Was there And received feedback on the guidelines very positive feedback One discussion point was Leveraging and coordination of the public funding that might be available through um workforce competitiveness trust fund the skills capital grants or The department of secondary education the esol or abe program funding department of higher education grants and so You know that seems to be Something that we can really emphasize this year and and should to our potential applicants, especially in the areas around hospitality and culinary Additionally we did receive one comment from the jobs action network As a result of this outreach and We appreciate that Um response They have mentioned some activities to be included In the guidelines some of the activities that We believe are Allowable as we have already funded Some of these areas. So for example workforce development assistance such as resume preparation Interview practice and career counseling as long as the applicant makes the strong connection to The casino or to the backfill opportunities in hospitality or culinary You know there is One point That maybe changes the direction of the grant The retention assistance Would be a departure from what we have currently funded And This connection Is maybe attenuated it's Not sure that I would recommend going in this direction But we certainly appreciate the feedback from these community organizations And and I think that would be it I think the message this time around as we Really expect collaboration and we're encouraging collaboration between the Organizations in the entire region and we've incentivized it as well Thanks, Jill So our goal for today is to determine if the commission feels comfortable publishing these guidelines Or if like any more information on any of its components As such we welcome any questions you may have If the commission approves the guidelines today, we would aim to get them posted by sometime next week One thing if the commission does authorize the guidelines, we do ask that It gives us some flexibility on minor Warning changes in the event that we see something that needs correction So with that Open for any questions? I first want to say Having the the opportunity to serve as the commission's representative on these committees It's it's It was unique this year to see the The involvement of the committee members. I mean some of them have been giving up their time for now two or three years The conversations are more Detailed they're more Strategic Even some of the new members that we've added, you know kind of jumped in with both feet and gotten engaged So I credit you john and mary and and joe and jill on Kind of bringing those committees to kind of coalesce around their work and be engaged and be partners With us on this effort so Kudos to all of you for helping to do that I want to just I want to talk Just briefly about workforce development and some of this is Kind of in light of the conversation we had with the skills cabinet just this this past monday night In This doesn't necessarily need to be reflected in the change in the guidelines But I would like to see it may be built into the application I think it's time because we've been doing these Uh This will be our fourth year of workforce development grants Um I would like to see one our applicants go back and have a conversation with our licensees and we can Help convene that conversation if it's appropriate um Just to make sure that Some ongoing workforce development needs are being considered by our applicants with the respect to our licensees Uh, we know in the past there's been Uh Support for the gaming school out in western mass We've not seen as much connection to the the gaming school provider in eastern mass Uh, and yet we still know that there are Dealer and uh dealer positions that continue to go unfilled Um I think as we tie Some money to a demonstration of significant needs Uh that obviously we need to see that our applicants are actually Making that assessment by talking to the local employer community It shouldn't just be all based on Projections or anecdotes. Let's see that they're really having a conversation to demonstrate that significant need in the region um Jill brought up an interesting point again That was shared with us by the team at the skills cabinet talking about New training dollars that might be made available um again not to Necessarily change the guidelines, but if an applicant wants to demonstrate to us that they plan to pursue Other available monies from other stakeholders. It'd be great for them to note that And that On the end The end of the process we might be open to trying to match some of those monies Uh, I think it was two years ago. We had Really supportive hard and fast cash matches from some of the communities surrounding everett I'd like to see if we can have an opportunity to get back to that point and have a bigger impact with our infusion of dollars, but Again, I think some of that can be folded into the application not necessarily change the guidelines as you've had them presented You may dress it Commissioner, I think those are excellent points and to the extent that they're not addressing our application. We can specifically do so Um, specifically the question regarding how are they working? With our current licensees we can include a section on in the application saying can you please describe the contents of your conversation regarding this application with the with the Uh, licensee annually as part of our our reviews We always reach out to the licensees to see what their opinions are about all of the applications But sometimes the comments are more general in nature. They don't really give us the benefit of Of the the true conversation that happened But asking the applicants to do that as part of the application I think makes a good deal of sense in addition to Spelling out some of the matching funds and the other things that you described So I think that's a those are great suggestions And I think we can certainly add a question about Their discussions with regional employers as well Yeah, I again if if we're And I like this idea of making an extra hundred thousand dollars available to address Significant regional needs They got to be able to back that up somehow, right? It's either through data or it's conversation with their um, you know The employers in the region Um, you know, they got to have something to be able to demonstrate there's Significant need in the region still It would be good to have it up front because as you know with our process We bring in all the applicants for for conversations and then we have pretty lengthy Follow-up questions and get detailed responses But to have that from the start would actually be Beneficial to I think them and to us It gives them some time to do it before the application deadline and even beyond that gives them time to Be prepared for that when you do have those one-on-one visits. It makes a lot of sense I just um wanted to uh, I concur with uh commissioner Stebbins that um Your use of committees is just there's no better example here at the commission of working so effectively How much input how much time they provide to this not only only with the guidelines But I know on the review end as well when the applications are are submitted So I um and you know, you're just thoughtful about Uh tweaking the application because every year the needs change. So you're very Your group is really um thoughtful about making those changes really listening to um The stakeholders and um, so once again, I'm I'm really impressed with the the work that's done up front to to make these The strongest guidelines possible the other thing I think that is noteworthy is No guidelines or guidelines, but how hard the team works to make sure Um, the applicants understand and are submitting exactly what you need to give them a fair shake I know how much work goes in there as well Um, they know they can pick up the phone or send an email and get a quick response. So I just uh You know certainly in support of The changes you've made this year and you've laid them out well. So thanks for the the work up front Thank you commission one thing I wanted to mention as I couldn't agree more We continue to get more and more input as commissioner stevens mentioned some really valuable input And sometimes we even joke in the meetings how Uh, even a staff member might have a different opinion from the the community member The community member is winning these arguments lately, you know, so Wow Much the staff members should grin but That's but that's okay. But one thing I wanted to mention in the guidelines I didn't mention in my brief overview Um, as you recall, we have public safety grants and we put play some limitations on public safety grants And there was a a figure that was left out of the initial draft of should there be an overall limit On the amount of public safety grants for this next year and we did put a $200,000 marker in there per grant But again, that is waivable based based upon cause and the and we've already done that once before. Yes I have a It does look good. Um, I just have a couple of um Of questions or comments, um on this I think that Did you say for just next year you're going to solicit statement of interest with respect to the um multiple year joint transportation and be like to just Gather interest, but we won't be funding any of those Well, uh, that's correct. So the plan is that sometime in the uh in the new year, you know, perhaps by may or so If if things work out we would issue a request for statement of interest And that wouldn't be a funding round the funding rounds only occur on the date the february 1st date But what that would do is that we would get the We would learn about what projects are out there that would require multiple years of funding That would help us build the guidelines for the future year and would help us Learn more about the specific applications that might be before us in the future year You never won one project that we have talked about in some of the meetings Is there's the pedestrian bridge that has been discussed? And I think in some of the conversations that we've had in the regional meetings is that Based on where that project stands right now actual construction dollars may not be necessary for for next year and That project is rather complicated. So it could just need special legislation So if something moves on that project We could certainly have conversations between now and next year But I wouldn't anticipate that actual funding would be necessary To come out of the fund for construction dollars within this next fiscal year But we may be back before the commission if things develop on that project And One point you mentioned was the difficulty in the bonding issues. Yes Is there Are we able to do any outreach during the course of the next year to find out if there's innovation Out there with respect to bonding that we might be might not be aware of I don't know if we've solicited public comment for that or if we're able to get any expertise Yeah, uh, joe mentioned that one of our subcommittee members Recommended a couple of names of bond council that we can talk and we can use about some innovation So we will talk to them just as a purely informational basis. Yeah, okay in addition Uh, I think we would rely upon if a municipality has a project that they want to move forward They have some resources as well some council that they can take a look at some of the issues. So Right, I was just wondering if there was an opportunity and and I thought I had understood about the bond council To the extent that we can provide that education to municipalities who might be skittish or or not have the immediate resources to look into it Yep There might be innovations out there. So yeah, and I think we want to just understand Sort of what the nuances are of how we could use our money to help, you know pay debt service on loans taken out by a community It's a little bit of a Little more unorthodox arrangement than typical. So we want to understand a if it's doable And if it is what we would have to do to make that happen And and sort of what mechanisms we need to put in place Yeah, I wasn't sure if I understood you correctly. So we would we can go ahead and do that outreach Okay, as we will do that. Yeah, that's excellent. Yeah, and then secondly with respect to outreach. We want to get The the wide universe of of interest and applications right our communications director That would be Elaine Driscoll Works closely with you in terms of advertising this wonderful program. That's right So folks should stay tuned and watch our website and on these opportunities. That's good because we want Um, we want lots of applicants So and then finally john, I've mentioned this in the past your leadership on this effort. It's as commissioner cameron It's mentioned. It's just outstanding. And it is a program that You know really could be replicated Um across the commonwealth. So at a certain point in time when you have nothing else to do We should think about how You could almost you know bundle this for a template for others Because it's outstanding work. Thank you. I mean this team is just tremendously outstanding and uh kudos go go specifically to mary For the last month. We've been torturing poor mary on all of these figures on these reserves every single day I guess I Duly noted mary And that's project manager mary thorough. Thank you. We know we know exactly how much you provide Behind the scenes and and here in front of us. So thank you Great work any other questions No, madam chair I moved that the the commission approved the final community mitigation fund guidelines for the 2020 community mitigation fund applications Second All those in favor Opposed Four zero Excellent. Thank you all That's work. Thank you very much team Okay commissioners, uh, we're gonna move on to the next item, which is a a letter that's in your packet I believe alex is gonna take a seat Welcome back dr. Weld light bulb. Thank you So commissioners in your packet is a letter for your consideration that has been drafted to be sent to the speaker The senate president and the chairs of the consumer protection and professional licensure committee Relative to the upcoming exploration of the commonwealth's racing and simulcasting laws As the commission is aware this past summer The legislature and the governor signed an extension of these laws, which were due to expire on july 31st Uh, pursuant to chapter 47 of the acts of 2019 these laws were extended to january 15th 2020 Because this january 15th date Is soon approaching we recommended the commission submit a letter Expressing its support for a further time limited extension of the current racing and simulcasting statutes As the legislature contemplates either or what larger reforms are warranted for the industry Uh, as the commission is aware the commission filed legislation regarding racing for consider a for consideration during this legislative session At the november 21st commission meeting the commission discussed this legislation A commission openness to review provisions of this legislation And other legislation that has been filed regarding racing I won't attempt to repeat that conversation however I will note that the proposals put forward and some of those pieces of legislation are likely to require Some significant review by the legislature Although a major reform of the commonwealth's racing and simulcasting statutes is not impossible In the time between now and january 15th enactment of a major reform by that time would certainly be challenging For one reason as the commission is aware the legislature concluded its its planned formal sessions for the year Back at the end of november And formal sessions are not expected to resume until after the legislature reconvenes in the new year The drop letter in your packet has been Drafted mindful of these time and logistical constraints while we know that the legislature is aware of the upcoming deadline We believe that the letter would be beneficial to respectfully express the commission's support for further extension The letter also extends an offer of any commission input that could be helpful In any larger review of the racing and simulcasting laws We hope that these two components of the letter demonstrate the commission's support for the legislature As it contemplates how to ensure that this important industry is not disrupted after the new year We do note that the draft letter Anticipates a discussion by the commission About whether or not it wants to recommend how long an extension could be I further note that even in the absence of any specific date The legislature does face another internal deadline of july 31st 2020 which is the last day for formal sessions For the 191st general court Uh director lightbound is here to help answer any questions you may have and With that I turn it over the commission Uh, I for one I was impressed with the letter john Um, I know you and alex and other folks worked on it. Um, and I've given you You know some thoughts on kind of a first version of lettered around um Another kind of quick edit on the first paragraph the end of first paragraph on page two Uh, the last sentence says should such input be useful um I would strike that I would suggest any input is useful and that Uh, you know, we would welcome the opportunity to review those suggestions those suggestions and input Um, I don't think it's a question of would it be useful. I think it all is useful. Um the With respect to Setting an expiration date or recommending an expiration date um As you pointed out to me As you pointed out to us the fact of what the legislative calendar looks like in 2020 And they're wrapping up official business Uh by july 31st, which would be Midway almost through our racing season um So I was originally thinking a date past that and maybe Past the end of the year But as we heard from mr. Tuttle today, there might be action on beacon hill with respect to sports betting and how sports betting might tie in Racing, you know before the july 31st Deadline uh or kind of legislative deadline next year um I don't know. I don't know where that leaves us in terms of making a recommendation as to an extension Uh You know whether we set it for july 31st Language in the first paragraph the question is whether we actually want to supply a date um or leave it Where the sentence would conclude after the word date My recommendation would be to leave it to the legislatures for discretion Oh, great. Yeah, no sense putting a date in I think it's going to be up to them. It's just a reminder letter that Well things happen if no action is taken So I think my my memory of the purpose of the letter was twofold one was reminding You know sort of a general reminder of the generative teeth and then the other was more um And a more forceful reminder that maybe it's time to look at this You know holistically and make decisions on where to go for the industry And I talked dr. Lightman and I talked about a couple of the comments that I had on the letter Which is and and maybe we don't want to do this, but the comments I have speak more to drawing that point out, which is um Pointing out the number of times that this has only been extended As a stopgap rather than addressed substantively Pointing out sort of the the negative impact that can have on the industry in terms of the uncertainty um That's a question It would speak to not putting a specific date on because it would speak to sort of encouraging them to really take a look at And decide how much time they would need to extend to then accomplish You know a deeper dive on what the statute should look like um in terms of suggested edits um It's toward the end of the second paragraph on the first page that last sentence That talks about it says thus a temporary shutdown would affect the funding available Maybe to emphasize say thus even a temporary shutdown To emphasize that even these sort of short term disruptions And shutdowns can have a negative impact And then in the second page the concluding paragraph where you talk about how There have been Examples of success in the industry Dr. Lightman and I talked about getting the stat on My memory was there was a presentation on the number of mass bread mass born foals And how that had gone up significantly given What has been in place? And I don't know if that's possible to get A hard figure in terms of I know there was some example They did a number of years of how that had really gone up exponentially In showing the success of the program I have some figures on the number of standard bread brood mayors that were in the state for um, you know from 2015 And then in 2019 where you know that Tripled basically right so that was I thought that might be a one or two sentence in there to point to another example of a concrete Improvement in the industry about economic Is as many notes as we can take around the standard bread industry and the vibrancy that's been returned to the standard bread industry I think is Extremely helpful. I think this is I think we all agreed this is how the legislature when they passed the gaming act was hoping The contributions and arrangements would work This kind of lurching from deadline to deadline I can't think of another industry in massachusetts, which faces a deadline Is to how they're going to whether they're going to be able to operate But do we want to try to tell them how many times? No, that's why I threw that out there's more it could go either way But I did want there to be another message in terms of it is also we also think right To look at this substantively And reminders about the fact that we already have evidence of success I think would help in that regard To your point uh, commissioner brian about the the uncertainty that it creates Do you want to add a clause on that last sentence? Even a temporary shutdown would affect the funding available for it to regulate the industry once it resumes comma Creating continued uncertainty for the it's something like that there uncertainty I don't think it's probably lost in the legislature that they use this mechanism of extending the deadline I think it's helpful for us to provide the reminder And I would probably not recommend Going back And counting them up But I I do think this is a helpful letter to just say january 15th It's coming around the corner because it's john points out They're an informal session the holidays come up and like everybody else they're busy and we don't want them to at the last second Forget that there there are some significant implications if an extension isn't in place Manager, I want to point out that there was one number that was included in the final paragraph that alex and I caught today The number of race days this year was not 110. It was 108. Yes next year will be next year will be 110. Yes Um, I really like what I I like for this year. Yes, and I really like the idea of putting in a couple lines about The successes of standard bread and hopefully they can extract extrapolate and think okay It would be possible to do that with with thoroughbred as well, right? So, uh, why don't uh, alex and I try to find a sentence or two and then we can recirculate the letter Great. Thank you. I think this really responds to our request and thank you so much great. Thank you. Thank you Very good Dr. Griffin, please on Now item number nine our earlier item eight on the workforce of higher diversity RFR for small business technical assistance Good afternoon. Good afternoon commissioners. Good afternoon. Nice to see you again Um commissioners as you are well aware the expanded gaming act was an economic development bill Whose intentions were to ensure that massachusetts residents Um and businesses benefited both from the jobs and procurement opportunities provided by the new industry Um working with the licensees vendors And community leaders the commission ensures that the new state that the state's new industry is inclusive And provides opportunities that reflect the diversity of the commonwealth Um licensees were required to set hiring goals And submit strategy plans for utilizing minority women and veterans in the construction and operations of their gaming establishments Um the workforce supplier and diversity development department Is tasked with aiding and monitoring the licensees through these phases But with additional focus on the operations phase of the casino The commission has a mission to maximize the equity and inclusion Um and opportunities for local businesses looking to do work with the casinos As a vendor or a supplier We are seeing evidence of the intended impact And we want to ensure that the commission does everything possible to work with our licensees to maximize these results So with that express purpose of ensuring that massachusetts small businesses Continue to be successful In the expanded gaming industry Um We have posted a request for responses As available as part of the public bid record on com buys We did this on december 3rd earlier this this week. That's www.combuys.com Um the commission intends this grant program to provide targeted Intensive one-on-one consulting expertise to small and medium-sized Massachusetts-based companies Who are current vendors to one of the three casinos Or a company that is identified by a casino as a potential vendor Um business technical assistance Could include designing and executing Business growth strategies providing technical Expertise around finance capital management human resources back office infrastructure Legal And other operational efficiencies Um The grant program is intended um To fund a qualifying a business To fund a business assistance entity Um, which can achieve the following objectives Offering technical assistance to companies that have existing business relationships as I mentioned Um, but may need consulting or technical assistance on a specific issue To ensure continued success as a vendor um Also working with the casino procurement representatives to identify Massachusetts-based and minority women and veteran business enterprise businesses In the procurement categories identified as needed by the licensees The commission may award grants totaling $150,000 in the competitive process to support These focus work focuses We expect grant amounts to range from approximately 25,000 to 150,000 You know that grant funds must be expended by the end of the fiscal year June 30th 2020 But may be eligible for additional funding cycles based on performance and budget availability We are asking Applicants to demonstrate that they currently operate a business technical assistance program The grant program and they can they need to demonstrate that they have existing infrastructure And recent indicators of success with business clients We are Proposals are due on Friday, January 3rd by 3 p.m. And With that I'll ask if you have any further questions Director Griffin on just on your very last point. I'm wondering about the due date. Yes January 3rd Did you've offered four weeks because you posed a December 3rd? I'm wondering if you might want to extend it out another week given the holidays You might lose some applicants because of just scheduling demands Did you consider that? Possibly we actually had an earlier date planned And extended it to the third but we could we could certainly consider it We think because you really want to turn it around fast We do just the funds need to be spent by the end of the fiscal year. So we're Concerned about that Timeline as well No, I was just gonna say it is a good point. I don't know that people focus as much Until after the first of the year. I'm just not sure Maybe give them to Monday or Tuesday not a whole week. You at least give them into the beginning of business week the next business week with the difference We we could we could certainly do that we Our legal advice I think in in the rfr we have the ability to amend the you know, so so we could certainly do that I think this is I think this is spot on Jill and kudos to you and in your team Which kind of just includes you and crystal, but I think your entire team what your entire team But I but I think this is interesting kind of where this has evolved is that you know I think from the experience that you had and the calls you've gotten you're finding some individual vendors that have Specific issues. They're trying to get over and it's a way to help our licensees not lose An opportunity to have a vendor relationship I think this is spot on To take note of kind of the tight time frame are their conversations You can start to have with our licensees to get them to think about The companies they might want to suggest Would be good candidates for assistance just to kind of Tea up some of this work I've had initial conversations with all of the licensees to introduce and and And really ascertain if this would be helpful And they each each of the licensees came up with at least a handful of companies that could potentially Be aided from this program, but I will certainly continue those conversations great Really good work And you don't need a vote to move I don't need a bar of bars posted So moving on any further questions for director gripping So we will look at changing or extending the date to the following week. Maybe Yeah, you know think about it. Think about it. I suspect what maybe Mr. Grossman is thinking is that see how your responses look and and what you know, whether you're getting them in and but But I just think it might be People might be right on the ball and getting it done before the holidays, but just that third because The first would be a date off for most people Right So that's the that would be Wednesday And then I suppose then they go back to work thursday friday You know, they have the week off monday would be Right, right, right So just with that Okay, thank you We want we want to make maximize the opportunity. So it's a great proposal So thank you anything else Excellent As I mentioned Thank you As I mentioned commissioners Zuniga is not here. So we will not be going over the draft that is included in today's materials Um for the gaming commission's 2019 annual report. We'll take that up at our next public meeting With respect to item 11 one I had but it was relevant to Commissions Zuniga so I won't be bringing that up. Do you have any? Using my brain any any updates Okay Then barring no further business. Do I have a motion? Second Second Thank you all those in favor. Hi For zero. Thank you


Hello. Hello, welcome. Thank you. Hello, Ben. Let's um, yeah, I'll put the meeting notes out in the sick channel. We'll give everybody a minute or two to file in here. We have a full agenda for today. I don't know that we'll be able to do it all, but we can certainly try. Hello. Hey, Bartek, welcome. Oh, hi. So while we're still, while we're still waiting for the, for Richie and a few others to file in, maybe a quick round of introductions for once. I can, Brian, Michael, Dottan. This meeting was being a little weird. I have to join via browser rather than yeah. Oh, that's strange. Well, the first time, Brian, you do that. And Richie is coming as well. Yes. He should be. At least he's had a reminder in chat like a minute or two ago. So you might be running into the same issue. Yeah, I used to create my account with Zoom. Yes. Okay. So while people are filing in and this is recorded, I'll just open the meeting and say this is our sick observability meeting right before Thanksgiving in the U.S. on the 24th here. If this is a CNCF meeting, the CNCF rules and conduct and all that apply. Everybody be cool. It's never been an issue, but we always should say it. If you've not been here before, do you want to take a quick second and do an intro? Well, we have a full agenda, but I see some new faces. I'm familiar with the names, but it's at the first time I've seen here. So feel free. I guess I could jump in. I'm Ben. I work for GitLab, and I'm also a member of the Prometheus team. And I work on observability at GitLab. Awesome. Welcome. Yeah, I'm Brian Brasel. I'm one of the Prometheus developers and also involved with orthometrics. And for anyone who's not familiar, check out robust perception. There's a lot of good tips there on the blog. Anyone else before we reach you? All right. Anyone else? Okay. So I put the meeting notes in the channel. We've got a pretty full agenda already. So I guess, Partak, why don't we start with you in order here? Sure. It should be like a super quick thing. So essentially, we talked about kind of collaborating better with other, well, with many CNCF, sick observability-related kind of projects, but not only with other projects as well. We definitely want to have a stronger connection and communication between those. I already kind of spoke with a couple of teams, you, Matt, spoke as well. And we had this idea of those introduction talks. So I would say, let's go ahead and kind of craft some agenda. And I know for a next talk, like in two weeks, we will have kind of a talk from Captain Project, which is kind of impressive. They are kind of collaborating with, well, kind of working on improving the Prometheus scaling of configuration problems. So that's pretty nice. But we would love to have all the, you know, kind of observability-related projects to maybe introduce themself and tell us about, you know, maybe near-time actions or like plants. So we can understand better and maybe hop in on the problems that, you know, to not reinvent the wheel, essentially. And just because we all have the same problems and challenges, let's say, not problems as the CNCF project. So that's the idea. I think we had quite nice introduction to open telemetry a couple of meetings ago. But yes, I would say I'm announcing this and hopefully we can have some volunteers for the next meeting. So why not? What do you think about that moment? Personally, I love this idea. I would love to hear more about different observability projects. And I think this is a great forum that I kind of think. No worries. We're just thinking about kind of the idea of introducing each project. I think, anyway, it's up to, I guess, us. If you have strong connection to the any observability project, please go to them. Or like, if you are from this project, please, actually, I should probably start some doc where we can, or we can maybe put that here on our agenda to essentially schedule this and have, let's say, 10, 15 minutes of talk, introduction talk of maybe relevant issues as well that you are facing right now as the project, or stuff like that in the following meetings. I think you'll be amazing to maintain this table here. But anyway, this is for your awareness. If you are a maintainer, if you contribute to this project, please let them know so we can have, we can learn, essentially. So that's it from the center. Sweet. I would suggest, if everyone, if this makes sense to everyone, we just make a GitHub label to track these kinds of things. And we can use GitHub issues on the Convun board to keep track of all these different projects. Because there's a whole bunch of them. Litmus, we talked to a couple of weeks ago, they're planning to make an intro as well. So does anyone object to that? If not, I will just take an action. I have to make it. And yeah, just add, yeah. To reinforce the point, again, I maintain we need to move more stuff out of the call and not more stuff into the call. Because there is limited time in the call and we should, we should focus stuff into the call where we actually have to communicate with each other live and not put more stuff. But I only have half the context because I got my computer. That being said, I will now officially use myself as chair of the SIG for the rest of this meeting, or at least until we are not talking about open metrics. Yeah, down on the agenda, where we're going to do a review today, we'll take up a good chunk of the time on the open metrics due diligence they've applied for. Yeah, but first we've got a couple things before that to kind of buzz through.  Yeah, sure. The first topic I've added to the agenda is just a report on how we are doing with the like paper for the beginners on observability. We've sort of organized all topics that we want to talk about. And right now, each one of the members of the working group are, I don't want to say randomly, but just what we are most familiar with, what we are feeling comfortable for writing about, we're just picking a one-stop subject and writing, elaborating, and yeah, that's what, how we are doing right now. And of course, we are open to anyone who wants to help us write or just reveal what we are writing. And the link I'll just post on the chat. I don't know if Michael or Simone has anything to add. No. Cool. I mean, we've, yeah, I mean, just for the others that joined now. What we did was basically to meet outside this meeting here, just to agree what we want to write about. We have an idea now, but I at least started offline before I can have text in a shared document that is worth reading. Yeah, and we basically created, we have a task in the board, so to say, and we set up a deadline as well to have something to be delivered. So we have, I think was beginning of January, right? I have at least January first two weeks as my mental deadline here before, I mean, this is like the final submission, but before that we have to iterate. This is great. I'm sorry I couldn't join on Friday. We were dealing with the Docker apocalypse fallout. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows what that means. I noticed that there's two issues. Are we using 16 and 19 on the board for that? Or were you consolidating to one of them? Yeah, I think they, they're different things. One is a white paper and another is an index page. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I looked at this wrong. So we closed rather on 28 and we're going to be using 16. Great. Yeah. Just one another question. Are we still meeting on Fridays, the white paper working group or not? So you're planning to meet every Friday to sync until or every two weeks? It doesn't need to be every Friday, but just to like, just follow up, see that the project is going forward or not? I think we can use the issue 16 to coordinate on that. I don't think that we need to use everyone's time for that. That's fine. We have a Google docs. We have our sections assigned who can use issue 16 to coordinate. Cool. Great. Thank you. Is that it for the white paper? And on to, if I'm, if I'm moving quick, it's because the open metrics is going to be a long document. We're, we're trying to maximize time on where we know we're going to have to spend some, the index page proposal that's next, right? Yeah. Let me just get the request. I'm adding to the chat as well. I'm just started a Markdown file, table-driven, sorry, some, a set of tables with where we can add useful information for those who are kind of lost and doesn't know where to search for information. There is a lot of questions on the PR, and we don't need to go over everything right now, but it will be cool if some, if people just give feedback to the PR, then we could just move on to the open metrics. I was curious for this one too, just to plant the seed here, you know, we could probably use like a, either like our radar, maybe not a radar with like adopt, you know, adopt assess hold kind of radar, but maybe some other sort of graphical visualization of the different domains of observability that might make sense once we've got, you know, the raw table compiled. Maybe as a follow on or something like that might be pretty cool. Cool. Okay, any other comments on this one? No, we need to definitely spend some offline time to make it pretty, but we should incrementally add that and work on the PR essentially, yeah. Yeah. Do we want to do, do you want to talk about the Prime Migrator design doc first, briefly to, I'm guessing to sort of introduce it and then set the stage for maybe in two weeks where we could take a deeper dive through it, and then I guess we could, or I'm concerned that we might not get to yours if we start in on the open metric stuff before the end of the hour. I'll try to make it less than two minutes. So pretty much we started the project. The idea is really simple to allow you to migrate Prometheus data between the various Prometheus long term stores, and it just uses the already existing remote write and the remote read APIs in Prometheus. And there's just kind of a pipe between reading out of one and the writing to another. The idea here is that you can move things between existing stuff in Prometheus into Thanos Cortex, Promise Gel, what have you, or the other way around, or between any of the long term stores. So the basic design doc is up. I don't think we need to go through it in this group necessarily. I just wanted to put it on people's radar. So they are aware that this team, that this tool is being developed. And maybe if people have expertise in remote read and the remote write, they could go into the doc and put their thoughts in. Right. So that's cool. Thanks for bringing this. Thanks for raising it here. I did have a quick kind of a question. This is primarily I aimed, it looks like at the doc at historical data and backfilling versus. So we've been going back and forth about that, and there will be great if people could chime in. As it is, the first version will probably be for backfilling. But we are wondering if we wanted to do an online version of this as well. But we don't know because Prometheus kind of has already an online thing with remote write. So, but thoughts about this are definitely welcome. Yeah, I think it would be amazing if you can share this with like Prometheus essentially mailing lists or at least hook into discussions we have with about backfilling and our storage kind of ideas behind that because it looks like we are solving similar kind of challenges here. But maybe whatever you learn will be useful for future backfilling and maybe export it as well. So it's really connected a little bit. Yeah. Yeah, I know that the horror question who is the main developer on this has brought us up on Prometheus IOC before, but we do intend to send it out to the Dev mailing list as well. Yeah, there's another, I'll just be brief, there's another adjacent idea that we had talked about over the summer. I know Thanos has done some work around it and I would love to spend some time on it as a Dev. I've not had that time over the past quarter, but a sort of a mirroring proxy or a smart sort of L7 if you will remote write protocol aware proxy that could do buffering, mirroring, and things like that. Right now, for example, we run a dozen or so clusters, big ones, and we have Prometheus doing remote write to both staging and production environments and it puts sort of the load on the sending side. And it might make sense for some scenarios to have, almost like a PG bouncer is to postgrass proxy sequel is to my sequel, something like that for the remote write protocol that would be a man in the middle, so to speak, and it would support scenarios like canaries, buffering, some degree of fault tolerance or retry semantics like things like that. So that's why I was asking if it's a sort of, if your design spec here is more of a bulk backfill tool or meant to be more like a bump in the wire inline smart proxy or protocol aware proxy. Now that you mentioned it, it makes a whole lot of sense. We'll think about it. So thank you. Cool. Yeah. And again, thanks for bringing this up and we'll look forward to talking about it in the future. All right. So with that, before we dive into the open metrics due diligence, is there anything anyone wants to mention before we spend sort of the remainder of our time there? Okay. I guess Bartek, take it away. Sure. So okay, the goal of this kind of section of this meeting is to go through the due diligence kind of template. I asked for metrics to kind of to get in together and all members, you are kind of happy to, you're welcome to, you know, comment or, you know, kind of point any maybe gaps or actually, you know, praise this and essentially go through this and agree if we want to recommend open metrics as a project that should be in the incubated stage, not in the sandbox as it is right now. Right. So the team, the open metrics team spent a lot of time on doing this. So it's actually, I read through this and it's kind of have everything in my opinion, but we can, I mean, the plan is to go through all of this and essentially review this together. And maybe we can do this in a similar fashion as we did previously with Cortex and Thanos. So please feel free to comment and essentially we go through most of the sections here. Maybe we could use the reactions feature or maybe put stuff in the doc itself, but just to, I'm trying to gauge how many people roughly have actually read through this doc and have had sufficient time for feedback. I know that I would like to spend some more time with it, but that's not to say we shouldn't walk through it and see where we're at. Yeah, I've skimmed that I haven't had an opportunity to add comments yet. Would definitely like to take another pass as well, but I've at least read it the first time. Okay, then it sounds like just a set of expectations we're probably, as much as we would like to just do it, you know, it sounds like we might, let's spend the time today to walk through it and then see where we're at as a group, but I do want to make sure that we have sufficient time for review by the community. Maybe as a reminder of how the Cortex and Thanos due to the gentleman's handle there, we basically read out one section and then had to think of all agreed or comments or disagreement, because else unless we do divide and conquer, I don't think it's realistic to get even through half the document. And I think reading it live is the only way forward, but at this point, then we are basically back to how we did it with Cortex and Thanos, read the section out and then all agreed or comments or disagree, but I'm explicitly not saying that we have to do this and I took off the hat. So it's just a reminder. Sure. Well, do you want to do that, Bartek? Do you want to kind of read through this and talk through it section by section? I can help scribe or take notes in the doc or comments or we can as a body just move through it? Well, we can do that, definitely. I think with the Cortex and Thanos, people had like at least weak noticed, but I think it's much smaller as well as the project is essentially about the protocol and open protocol. Okay. Yeah, it's an established protocol as well. So most of this should not be controversial or new for folks. So yeah, let's dive in then. So do you want me to kind of, do you want me to kind of drive us through section by section and call for votes and all that? Like I have to say the way Richard did it last time was quite ruthlessly efficient. I definitely won't be that efficient, but we can try. So first of all, governing, let's go. So open sort of ability. The governance was kind of established I think kind of recently. Maybe, I don't know, maybe Richie and essentially maintainers can walk us through like TDR of the coordinates. Does it make sense? It's basically or it is literally the Prometheus governance with three changes. A, it allows for subprojects. B, it replaces lazy consensus with rough consensus as per ITF and C, it has a project lead. And those are the only changes against Prometheus. Yep, that's what I got as well. We have 14 members and you are the project lead. That's the kind of TDR. Correct. But the same kind of voting and consensus of majority vote rules apply, super majority vote. The same thing we do on the Thanos cortex from Q's. There is even off-boarding, onboarding list. So yeah, that would be, that would be it. Does anyone has any comments? Any questions around that? Can I request that? Oh, go ahead, Matt. No, after you. I was just going to request, is this one of the ones that we can revisit? Because I want to, I did not have a chance to read this link. I read the doc, but I didn't read the links out yet. So I'd definitely like to revisit this one if we could. Yeah, what question I have in a similar vein is where are the meetings and are they, you know, are they open? Are they on a cadence, moving forward? They are on a fourth night of cadence, though we had a ton of meetings recently. They were closed as everyone is aware for the simple reason that even people who left for just one or two months, it was impossible to re-onboard them. Of course, we had everything in our head and needed to frantically get it out. That being said, obviously, there was documentation as code with incline Python code, with incline Python and within Prometheus proper itself. Going forward, everything will be public. Because we basically, we thought we would have a short period of crunch and sanity that was longer than we expected or anticipated. But obviously, the intention is to make it all public going forward. Okay. In this case, I think we can essentially give some time for review, I guess, this and then we can get back to this later. And let's move on. Is there a document? One last question I had around the governance and the go forward plan. Is the application to ITF and the various back and forths that will be happening there? Is that expected to be done in the open as well so folks can listen in, even if they're a fly on the wall and not a contributor? So within ITF, this is way outside the scope of governance. But within the scope of ITF, you have the OpsWG mailing list, where everything is discussed in public. I did send the version which we have to the OpsWG chair to do one read through if in case we have any obvious mistakes. And then it will be submitted to the ITF-RFC tracker or internet draft tracker, where everything is public. It will be discussed on the mailing list, which is public. And as currently there are no ITF meetings, it is done through video, which is also public. Oh, super. Great. Yeah, I do realize it's out of the scope of governance, but wasn't sure where else it was. So let's move on. Regarding governance, I think there was a mention that this is basically a copy of Prometheus. I don't see Prometheus's governance. Can someone add a link to that? It looks like there was, but it's been removed. Yeah, I would like to... If you have a Prometheus governance into Google, and that's the first hit that we can also edit there. Yeah, we can link in the dark zone. It's on the website. I see. I see. That's why I'm looking at the GitHub repo, and it looks like it was there, and it's no longer there, or it's moved somewhere else. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, I think it's in the docs repo. I see. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Should we leave that for now, and then go on?  I mean, again, I don't know, I could be wrong, but with Richard Bartek, what do you think? Speaking as a project member, in the scope of the question, if it is self-guarning, I think we can answer this as a yes, and as such, I don't think there's much more to be discussed outside of just this yes-no question. So with my not-to-chair head on, just the project head on, I don't see any reason for needing to follow up. That being said, if that is the group consensus, obviously the project will yield to this. Sure. So why don't we do what you did last time, Richie, and have a call for consensus? So a call for consensus. Is anyone object to being done? I agree. It's certainly self-governing in line with the CNCF principles around project governance. Any objections? Cool. Bartek, I can't edit in this, so you're going to have to scribe. I can suggest it looks like. All right, yeah, I'll do it. Great. I think we should all just like, I'll speak for everyone and say, Richie, we assume that for the remainder of this call, you have your project lead hat on, and I applaud your being specific. I will always be specific when talking about anything procedural, but yes, let's just move on. Indeed. Cool. So the next one is a very straightforward code of contact. Is there a documented code of contact? Team members linked the CNCF code of contact, and I just checked it is linked in the main kind of repository. So to me, all is good. So any comments? I think let's call for consensus. Any objections? Once? Twice? No. Okay, so it looks like we are happy. Next one. Does the project have production deployments that are high quality and high value city for both? Yeah, this is related to us here in this case. So yes, two of the most used Prometheus client libraries have support open metrics, and that's true because I maintain one of them. Oh, no. Yeah, actually, Go doesn't yet. So it's only Java and P9. That's true. Go does. We should probably link them to the document as well, if possible, just so that when we have a reference for what Prometheus does overview. So we can link to it after the consensus so we can move. Exactly. Cool. What else about clients? Also Prometheus server and Datadoc have been supporting open metrics. Yeah, we are here already, and we are negotiating open metrics as well. And there is exemplars support added as well. So like the very powerful feature of open metrics. So, cool. Apart from links, I think, any comments and call for consensus, I guess, straight away? Do we, like, is that enough as a production deployments? I think for me, it's enough. I personally think this is enough given. Okay, please feel free to just speak up if you have comments or questions that are totally okay. Next one, is the project committed to achieving this? Briefly, I know that originally getting vendors to support both format, to support the format for devices and other things that are not just a client library was talked about. Is there any references we might want to add to folks actually that have implemented open metrics for, you know, either... This is something other than client libraries, in other words, like embedded devices that are using those or embedded devices that are writing their own client libraries. How broad is the current user base? Offhand, outside of the client libraries, I think there's only three or four things that have directly implemented it. For example, I know that Dovcott has, although I think the Peore's tech is still open, but I'm not aware of any embedded hardware devices have done it yet because it's too early in the standardization process. Sure. Okay. I mean, my goal here would be if there are even others that have started to use it, even if it's not finalized or whatnot, it might make sense to add it. So, again, when our liaison reviews this and then the TOC reviews this once we... Because the process here is the SIG makes a formal proposal that, yes, this should be advanced. Then a whole bunch of people that are not quite as familiar as the folks on this call are going to then read this document. So, however we can, you know, widen the base or make it a more compelling argument that's not disputable. That would make sense, I think. But yeah. All right. Let's move on. So, is the project committed to achieving the CNCF principles? And do they have a committed roadmap to address any areas of concerns raised by the community? So, the answer is it's committed. There is no roadmap, but that's a natural standard. A sister project to specify a wire format. I guess this is like a planned thing in our roadmap. A sister project to specify a wire format for locks is next and will happen under the umbrella of up and telemetry. We're not aware of any concern by the community. Steve, do you want to maybe... Yes, I put one comment on here. I actually have two comments. One was just, are there any big rock things that could be noted? I think given that most of it hasn't been open to date, the community as a whole probably hasn't had a chance to really comment on it, so that will probably change over time. But does the, at least the committee today, are they aware of big things that need to happen? Could those potentially be documented? My second comment would be this one specifically calls out the CNCF principles. I don't see any explicit mentions here of them, like no king makers, one size fits all, standards body. It might be good in this section to explicitly call out the CNCF principles and ensure that it's adhering to it. So, for the first one, the one thing which we are aware of, but this is firmly out of the scope for 1.0 is high resolution histograms. The reason why it is out of scope is because we as a project made a hard promise to retain compatibility to Prometheus, so we just couldn't make that work. But this is something which we see as one of the highlight features of a future version. Beyond that, there's nothing super pressing because else we wouldn't be comfortable releasing this. As to the CNCF principles that is with my project that on how we replied to the official TOC checklist. So that is basically the question in its entirety. I fully agree with everything you mentioned. I do think that we adhere to all of these, obviously. But like giving this feedback to CNCF TOC to improve the checklist makes absolute sense. Maybe this will be a good one to review next time we meet too, right? Because I did not compare it to the CNCF principles. Yeah, we had the same experience with Cortex and Thanos. So, yeah, also for Cortex and Thanos, we had the same process. Of course, again, this is the TOC thing. But are there specific concerns or not? I'm not familiar enough with the CNCF principles to comment. I have a question around the alignment with open telemetry.  And I'm a little surprised that you mentioned the wire format for locks here, but not the wire format for metrics. And that is certainly something that I find quite worrying. That is something that I would have expected in the roadmap to be very clear on that this is your goal. Do you need to rephrase your question? Which part? The part where you said that we talk about locks and not metrics, because the opposite is true. We talk about metrics and not locks. The sentence here says, assist the project to specify a wire format for locks is next. Okay. That's just a second. I thought you were talking about the section where you left your comment. I didn't leave a comment in that section. No, not in the section, but in the section. No, no, down below. I was looking for your comments, so I was trending. Sorry. Yes. I have a follow-up question for that about the open telemetry alignment, given that we're approaching, again, sensitive incubation under the roadmap and also maybe mapping to some of the principles and not flowing to that. Any more explicit notes on the roadmap on alignment with the open telemetry? So as a wire format, there's nothing directly to be aligned with. That is the one hardcore technical question, because it is a wire format. And as open telemetry supports a variety of wire formats, there is no direct support in this direction. Steve, correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, I think there's two parts to that, though, right? Like, one is open telemetry supporting sending to open metrics destinations. In theory, that should be possible. I don't know if any due diligence has been done to compare the OTLP protocol with open metrics and confirm that it actually can be fully translated. But I think the bigger question here, which might be being asked is, why does open telemetry have a metrics format? Why is it not using open metrics formats? I think that's a good question. So as someone who's been sitting in on quite a few open telemetry metrics calls over the last year or so, but definitely not all of them, there are some incompatibilities, especially around how histograms are with lower equal or greater equal. And also about having deltas instead of counters, which makes it easier to discard state immediately with an open telemetry. But then you have a more or less mandatory sidecar, which rebuilds that state to be able to talk to all endpoints, not only Prometheus type endpoints. Those points have been raised repeatedly. I think another was the suffixes on some, doesn't the OM standard kind of dictate a little more firmly total and suffixes for counters that is sort of optional. I don't know if open telemetry adheres to that or not. But those are all questions which are coming not out of a point of view of due diligence on open metrics or getting something wrong. Because this seems to be concerns for open telemetry and I fully expect that some of those will come up and I absolutely commit to working with open telemetry to keep everything on the happy path 100% percent. That's the only thing which makes sense, personally speaking. But again, this does not seem to be directly related to due diligence on open metrics. I have a suggestion actually. Oh, sorry. The thing that confuses me and I see myself as a proxy of many of our customers who are equally confused is, is there an intention from open metrics to enable any kind of open telemetry support or not? And the thing that confuses me when I look at that is that you clearly spell out the wire format for logs, but not for metrics. And I'm trying to understand, is that intentionally so or not? And if it's not so, then we should spell it out here in the roadmap. Does that make sense? Okay. I think I know, I think I understand what where you're getting it. So again, as a wire format, it's next to impossible to support an instrumentation library, which supports a myriad of wire formats. That is the wrong way around. Like, I cannot with a wire format support an instrumentation library. This instrumentation library can support a wire format. Obviously, it is the case that open metrics is modeled after what client Golang and client Python and such do. And obviously, it's the case that's also one along the lines of what Prometheus has been doing, in which basically has been has been in existence since 2014, based on Prometheus Exposition Format 004. All that being said, again, that does not make seem to make sense. We can definitely put some more verbiage around the metrics part in that logs part is more of an outlook of what is logical next steps for open telemetry as such. Too many opens too many opens. So it's the position another way. This is the roadmap section. And metrics aren't mentioned in the robust section, because metrics are just some extent done. However, logs are a potential future thing, which is wider in roadmap section. So this is all very future looking, whereas metrics, I get that, I get that, I get that. But if, if I understand it correctly, then the argumentation that Richard just used for metrics and the wire format would also apply to logs or not, why are logs different? No, they're not. Again, the outlook section. So for the outlook section, it makes sense to talk about we will specify metrics. Of course, we just did this. Right. And is it does it make sense in the same way that you say here, we want to specify a wire format for logs under the umbrella of open telemetry that you also, if you plan to do so, that you are working under the umbrella from open telemetry to get open metrics as a wire format in there? I think that's a typo. It should say open observability. You're right. It's, I know that it's this, there are many open, open things there, right? Yeah, open metrics, open telemetry. Now it is much clearer to me. That does make worse that stuff. As a point of order, I have a suggestion, maybe again, like I know some of us have been reading in steeped in this, this noun soup, but we might want to jump to the context after this section on roadmap at the bottom of the document, particularly for folks that might be joining our call for the first time or are not, you know, or that would just sort of set the stage for the rest of the document, and it might be a better ordering for discussion and review. Sorry, what do you propose to? I propose that after we finish with discussion of section four, and we come to do a call for consensus, we jump to the bottom part of the document. There's a section called context, the last section, and that sort of, in my mind, that would be one of the first sections if we were, again, just kind of, because it just sets the stage and lays out some of the nouns and such. It might facilitate the rest of the sections of the document happening a little quicker. Okay, a quick time check. Do we go for full hour or minutes as usual? I'm fine to go to the end of the hour. But yeah, let's finish out section four here, for me. Still, we have some kind of questions around what exactly those CNC principles are. Yes, but again, I think into this. As we have, are there actual concerns, active concerns, or is this a case of not having read up on the CNCF principles and or of TOC checklists not being as good as it could potentially be? Because this is literally the same checklist we went through with Cortex and Thanos, so it's. Yeah, so let's break this into two parts. Number four asks two questions, one's around CNCF principles. I think if you're all comfortable that the answer is yes, that's probably sufficient. The second part here, though, I think is probably the one where we might be having more of a hang up. Even in this forum, I think multiple people are raising potential concerns that speak to the need to a roadmap. Perhaps that is worth talking about next meeting and trying to address some of the concerns that have been billed pointed here. So as a reminder of how we did this for Cortex and Thanos is that the SIG gave homework to to the project and the project basically fulfilled this in parallel. And then a consensus was spoken out on the condition that this homework was fulfilled. I think we could adopt the same. I think we could adopt the same process here. All right, so I think you're both saying the same thing a slightly different way. All right, so we've raised the concern the project and more in parallel can elaborate the roadmap and we can call for consensus that's contingent on that happening in good faith. And then when we make a final final determination because just based on time, we're not going to get through this. So in two weeks, we can revisit and close it off and move on. Anyone object to that methodology? Yeah, can we have a call of consensus on this that we're happy with the section above? Essentially elaborating roadmap more from open metrics. Well, does that make sense? Because if we think we are either saying that's fine or it is open, otherwise we need to revisit it again. So Are you raising the concern that depending on the roadmap, there may be concerns? Right. And we would just address them as they come, right? I mean, Yeah, I think this isn't the final sign off, right? Yeah, we're near that. Sorry, but I just reread the thing. Do they have a committed roadmap to address any areas of concern raised by the community? So this is not about concerns about a roadmap, it is about current project, which are then being addressed by a roadmap. So if we're worth everything, and if we are being exact, then we need to be really exact. And then the question is, are there current concerns? And if there are current concerns, are they be, are they addressed by the roadmap? Yeah, and I think there are several listed in the bullet points above, right? So the ask is to comment on which ones are applicable to open metrics, and what would be the roadmap for those items? With my project head on, I don't believe that there are any on open metrics as a project beyond working in good faith with the other projects. But if that is not the group consensus, then obviously it can't be the consensus. But with my project head on, I would at least ask for a consensus on this. Okay, I think let's move on. And I don't think there is consensus in my opinion. Yeah, we'll move on. And we can also work offline in the next two weeks in the doc and comments in the CNCF Slack. Yeah, I think we've made some progress on this one, at least on the first part. And we have some action items for the project to come back and clarify. Yeah, let's clarify this. It would be good to know, just briefly jump would be good to know specifically what the outcomes would be desirable for that work, if possible. The only concern would be doing it completely asynchronously would be that there's some comments made and some work's done, but we come back a few weeks later. Yeah, we're spinning into December. Yeah, I'd like to ask exactly what the concerns are here, because my reading is that there merely needs to be a roadmap. And like in this context, the roadmap is getting into ITF. So if you don't understand what the concerns are about the roadmap. But the line says committed roadmap to address any concerns raised by the community, not roadmap for the project as a whole. And so I think some of the concerns are around, and I think we'll see this in some of the other items too, like how it impacts potentially open telemetry. Okay, then please write out specific concerns and we can take this question off and pivot this into specific concerns, which we can address specifically. Right. Well, that's what I'm worried about is that people like it seems it's very vague right now. And I want I would love to specifically address concerns. But I don't even know how do how do we get to those specific concerns? Or if do we even have the right people? Like, how do we fast track this to making people feel like making people feel like we're addressing the concerns that needs to be addressed. And to me, it's not 100% clear that we have a process for getting there. And I think one of the problems is we're kind of doing it live right now. So I guess, Matt, maybe question to you, do you want to put like some sort of timeline around when people have to provide comments on this doc? So the team has something tangible? I would propose. So I think, Rob, what you're saying, as well as Brian, is completely fair. And in my mind, a specific enumeration of concerns is what would be requisite to actually commit to a roadmap to address them. And if you don't know specifically what's being asked, then there's ambiguity. And then we're we're into December and next year, God forbid. So, so why don't we time box this for two weeks? If that if that makes sense, I think I think the folks that are passionate about this, you know, that that's plenty of time and we could probably even do it faster. But I would suggest that in this document, you know, we make whoever has those concerns, just take some time to articulate them in a in a in a clear, unambiguous way, so that the probe so that the so that the project can can address them with with a roadmap that is seen and rational. And I would imagine that there are more people on this call that might want to the project might want to bring in or or what have you. But there's two weeks from so our next meeting is that I would like to close on this. On this being two weeks, of course, if it's two weeks, then we basically get the list of or in extreme, we could get another one final concern basically right before or even during the call. Okay, well, I'm sorry, I'm at two weeks for the entire activity. So that's a that's a fine point as well. So do we want to say like, by Monday of next week, or whatever, I mean, no one needs to write soliloquies or sonnets. But you know, we could we enumerate the concerns in the next week and then and then give or a week from today, rather Tuesday of next week, and then the project could have another week to prepare. Because yeah, we don't want all this to drop the day before and then we're effectively out another two weeks as well. I think a week is reasonable. Anyone object to that? I want to try to strike the right balance here, you know, so that we can address all of these concerns and but also be time bounded. Because I think there is I'd like to I'd like to move this forward. I think I think the community needs this to to move forward as well. If I could be so bold. So cool, cool. That makes sense. I think then spending last four minutes to rush through the points is not very Yeah, unless there's some super non controversial low hanging fruit that we could just bang bang bang and at least get a get a couple more. Try just read out point number five and see if we have consensus. Go document that the project has a fundamentally sound design without obvious critical compromises that would inhibit potential widespread adoption. Might already got controversial adoption. Okay, what about I think we already have pretty widespread adoption. I think so. I guess the only concern I'd raise is again open symmetry is going to come up if open symmetry is the client library for all data sources and it's not compatible fully converting to open metrics is that not a huge inhibitor to potential widespread adoption. The question is which way the incompatibility goes if you go from premises which even predates the CNCF and which is supported by literally all projects which in within the CNCF and by thousands of others. I would strongly argue and did argue in the open telemetry metrics calls that that there is an installed base to take into account. Yeah, totally. I mean, I totally agree. I think the counter argument though is the client library is just for metrics. If I want logs and I want traces, I need to go use something else. If open symmetry provides a single client library, then I think it's pretty critical that open metrics be fully compliant or there's an adoption problem. Now, maybe you're right, maybe this isn't part of this. I have to have a good reason because I already have a wired up kit that has metrics, logs and traces and I see no value in switching to open telemetry for my company. Sure, I definitely can go both ways. The question is does it potentially inhibit widespread adoption? I think it actually inhibits open telemetries widespread adoption by not supporting Prometheus. Everyone's data pipelines already set up to ingest Prometheus metrics. All the major vendors support it. It's widely deployed as Prometheus obviously is by CNCF folks at a CNCF and users. Not supporting open metrics is a huge inhibitor to open telemetry being deployed in any real deployment. As a vendor, I can't recommend people use open telemetry until it supports it. That's generally what I have seen in the community. The advice for any company of any real size is do not adopt open telemetry just yet because you fundamentally can't get it to work with the current vendors and Prometheus installations that are out there. That's the viewpoint that I've seen with most major end users as well as with people that are interopping with vendors. It's an issue, but it depends. I think it 100% can be resolved one way easily which is open telemetry being compatible with this. It's just a wire protocol. It doesn't try to enforce anything on how you use the wire protocol. At least that's the way that most folks around the project have been looking at open metrics and how it relates. That's my assessment as well. Prometheus being a CNCF graduated project in sort of the de facto way to monitor all sorts of things, not the least of which is Kubernetes. The installed base is effectively Prometheus and at least my understanding from reading the open metrics back and this due diligence is really exactly what you said. It's just getting agreement on the wire protocol so there's a lingua franca and it's modeled after what already exists as a drop in with a few tweaks. If it's scoped just to that wire protocol for metrics, does that alleviate some of your concerns, Steve? I mean that by making a by fundamentally agreeing on what that wire protocol is that enables open telemetry to actually implement it in a go forward way that's deterministic. I'm just raising the potential concern. That's all. I think this falls in both camps, both the open telemetry and the open metric side, but it feels like it could potentially inhabit adoption of one or both projects. It's at least worth raising the concern. To end on a positive note maybe, and we are way over time. My feeling from taking part in the open telemetry metrics calls is that there is a high interest in making all of this compatible and as open telemetry is a client library with explicit goal of supporting a myriad of wire formats, I think maybe we are just having a little bit of a dim pot discussion, because as it is the fundamental goal of open telemetry to be compatible with pretty much everything, at least as far as I understood the calls, that is the goal anyway. It seems to be just another check mark on the list of open telemetry to implement an open metrics bridge and be done with it, because you're not talking about how StetsD or Cortex, Prometheus do stuff either, and those are all on the list like Cortex, Thanos, Prometheus, StetsD are confirmed, at least when I last looked and talked about this, as confirmed targets for open telemetry as such as you have Cortex, Thanos and Prometheus, that directly transports to open metrics, because if you look at it, the one thing which is really breaking is a different timestamp, and you're not supposed to be doing timestamps anyway, and that's it. The rest is compatible. Yeah, and I think maybe that's the biggest call out, right? As long as there's like commitment to collaboration on both sides, and maybe that just addresses this, there is a potential compromise, a critical issue in that if open telemetry does not, then adoption could be impacted. The mitigation there is open metrics commit to working with open telemetry, and open telemetry commits to working with open metrics, thus we believe this is not an issue. That seems absolutely to be what the way forward is, and that is what I've done in the past and what actually I already set my calendar again for the next call, and I also wanted to be at them. Oh, by the way, I sent you a note in the in the meeting notes of the last open metrics, open telemetry metrics calls about my calendar link to do a group explainer of open metrics, if you haven't seen it. I haven't seen it, no. I know you went at that meeting, but I highlighted you, Bogdan and Josh. Point being, I wouldn't have set in all those meetings starting at 21 local, if not for an honest desire to be interoperable with open telemetry. People yelling at me, of course, I need to get into a new call. Yeah, I think we've made good progress here today. Thank you, everybody, for staying a little bit late. Let's continue this online and MC in two weeks, and for folks in the U.S., or wherever, have a great Thanksgiving if you celebrate it. Yeah, thanks for having us on the call. Oh, the calls are all, please join at will. Thank you, everyone. Bye-bye. Thank you. Hey, nice to meet you, by the way.


A mid-increasing cause for diversification of the economy, Nigeria's crude oil export jumped to 5.6 trillion in the first quarter of 2022, reflecting nearly 200% increase when compared to the same period last year. The figures are contained in the foreign trade report of the National Bureau of Statistics. Nigeria's total match industry stood at 13 trillion in the first quarter of this year. It is indicating an increase of 11.05% over the value recorded in the fourth quarter of last year and 65.41% higher when compared to the value recorded in the fourth quarter of last year. The export trade in the quarter under review stood at 7.1 trillion, showing the rise of 23.1% over the value recorded in the preceding quarter and also an increase of 137.9% over the corresponding period of the preceding year. On the other hand, total imports were valued at 5.90 trillion, indicating a decrease of 0.7% over the value recorded in the preceding quarter. Thank you.


Mary? Hi. Hello, I'm Susan Thompson, resource manager. Hi, I'm Mary Hansen and I'm applying for one of your kitchen jobs. Great. Here's a copy of my resume. Great, have a seat, Mary. Thank you. Mary, do you have any experience working in the kitchen? No, but I want to learn. I work hard and I cook a lot at home. Okay, well tell me about yourself. Well, I love to learn new things. I'm very organized and I follow directions exactly. That's why my boss at my last job made me a trainer and the company actually gave me a special certificate for coming to work on time every day for a year. And I'm taking an English class to improve my writing skills. That's great. Why did you leave your last job? It was graveyard and I need to work days. Oh, I see. Well, what hours can you work? From 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Okay, well do you have any questions for me, Mary? Yes. What kind of training is needed? Not a lot. Most new workers can learn everything the first day. Do you have any other questions? No, I don't think so, but I've heard a lot of good things about your company and I would really like to work here. Well, I have a few more interviews to do today, but I will call you tomorrow if you get the job. Okay. It was sure nice to meet you. Nice meeting you too. Thank you so much for your time. Yes, good luck. Thank you.


So my first small step was being curious to learn how things worked. The second small step was being open to new challenges. The third one was understanding the importance of bringing teams together and bringing contributions for people to solving problems. And a giant leap was to tackle on the challenge of bringing innovation to urban air mobility. I'm Luis Valentini, Chief Technology Officer of EVE Air Mobility. I'm a Bachelor of Science in Aero and Aeronautics and Astronautics in 99 Masters in 2001, and I'm a Purdue engineer.