I mean, did I ever tell you the story? I mean, I think you know the story, actually, but I'm not sure if you do. I bumped into Jeremy Corbyn during the coup, and I was working in a pub at the time, and I just finished my shift. So it was like, I don't know, maybe midnight, something like that, and we were on the tube.  And I was just like, oh my God, it's Jeremy Corbyn. And he remembered me from UCL occupation, and we started chatting. And I had to say to him, I was like, mate, like, I've got to ask, like, how are you doing?  And I'm not saying that in a hyperbolic sense. These people want to see you in an early grave. And he, and there was no lie in his eyes. He was like, this is fine. This is what we expected. No, this is what I've been wanting to do my whole parliamentary career. Why would I let this bother me? And I couldn't tell if that was really clever or really dumb. And I still don't know, to be honest. But what do you make of this whole thing?  Their integrity? I mean, as you point out, it seems more like a stunt. There's no political mandate. There's no ideas. And if you think about go back to Corbyn, I mean, this is the group of MPs who've been on the outside. The party has not been reflecting anything what they've been for decades. They've complained about it, but they haven't left. They haven't taken out and said, well, let's just split the party. And you've got some MPs who, yes, now they're on the outside and they want to piss in the tent, basically, which is just ludicrous. There's no principle in this at all. If you support the Labour movement and want to get rid of the Tories, you have to support the Labour party. This is nonsense, no. And so do you think that they want to get rid of the Tories? No, I think that's the real problem. Look at their voting records, look at what they stand for.  Confidence and supply for the Tory government. There's a difference between institutional racism. And I think that institutional racism is where you look at processes that have been designed to have particular racialized outcomes. And they are also the sum total of conscious or unconscious biases held by the people that make up those institutions. And you need both those things, I think, for something to be institutionally racist. So there's that. And then these institutions have failed adequately to deal with racism. And I think that we're in that latter space here. And so then you've got to think, well, how do you improve? But I mean, there seems to have been quite a lot of work done here, right? It's been in the news for a long time. There's been reports. There's been high-profile expulsion from the party. You know which party is institutionally racist? The Tory party. And there ain't nothing. No one's mentioned it. No one's said anything about it. And this is... Because people go, yeah, that's why we vote for them. That's part of their marking. And I think this really is overplayed, like... And that's not to say there's no anti-semitism. Of course there's anti-semitism. But the idea that this should be the thing that overturns the Labour movement... Honestly, I don't know what more do you want? It seems there's been a big focus on this. So this is a very off-the-record thing that I heard. And so I'm not going to be naming the name. But a Labour MP of Tinge was asked Why don't you leave the Labour party over anti-semitism? You've got an anti-racist conscience. And he was just like, I'm a black man! Where am I going to go? Where am I going to go? Also I've had to deal with institutionally racist policy-making for all these years. And I think that this is where the fractiousness comes in. Where we're thinking about how do you integrate this into a wider anti-racist movement? Is that there are lots of people, in particular, thinking about Muslims and black people who are on the sharp end of the state apparatus, going, hang on, a second, we've been here all this time, and it's been happening, and we did get a news story. And I don't think that's the reason not to do things. And I think that's a very toxic thing, where you let sort of lowest common denominator politics seep into it. But at the same time, that's where the sense of perspective comes in, where you go, if we weren't able to eradicate anti-Semitism from society in 2000 years, you're not going to do it overnight from a membership of half a million people. You're simply not going to. A hugely interesting kind of theological background to this stuff, and the way in which the kind of evangelical right relates to Donald Trump.  And in some ways, it's just because the evangelical fundamentalists are quite capable of practicing that kind of compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance. But also, there's a really great essay by Adam Kotzko, who's an American left theorist, thinker, who hears himself from that kind of theological background. And he talks about the way in which the American evangelical right thinks of Trump as a Cyrus. So Cyrus in the Old Testament is a king who is used by God unknowingly, you know, for the greater salvation of his people. So essentially, they're able to reconcile it in terms of this kind of providential plan, this kind of acting of God through his... It's a really deeply disturbing thought when you get into it. Cardi's socialist leanings are not just the result of trying to distance herself from Nicki Minaj. In fact, it was the other way around. So Cardi beat was when there was the Democrat primary for governor. She endorsed the one that used to be Miranda in Sex and the City. Cynthia Nixon. Cynthia Nixon. I went to her party. I don't know why I forgot her name, but I was just like, Miranda, she endorsed Cynthia Nixon.  So that was a strange quirk of ratbeats. But Cardi actually, I think is a really valuable political voice. She is authentic. She is to the point. She is saying to her fans, like, I understand this. You can too. There's no jargon. I like her. And the right knows that it does very well in culture wars. So when you've got a discussion point about Winston Churchill's legacy, spoiler alert, the man was a white supremacist racist. In his own words, in his own time, it would be insulting to his history. It would be insulting to him. He's turning his grave. I'm a racist. But they do, they do really well on that ground. And you know, and here's the thing is that at the moment to me, politics seems like it's a big fight between who wins on what vision. Is it a vision of a shared past or a shared future? And I'm scared as someone who really values anti-racist politics. That if I articulate it as strongly as I want to, I'm playing right into the culture wars narrative that the right wants from me. That's true, right? And I think like, I think what did we really underestimate how important that racism is to politics? I mean, I think what, since that year, the last 40 years, there's been 13 years of labor rule. And what is it that has kept the Tories in power for so long is they play racism really well. It's anti-immigration, right? And actually, Corbynism would be really popular if we just said this is national socialism. You say, look, it's just for white people, close the borders, which is why Corbyn's done exactly what he should do with Brexit. Corbyn cannot come out and say, yeah, all the immigrants come in. Because that does play 100% into you. To get the labor majority, you have to win between, I always drive from Birmingham to Manchester and it's literally after you get out of the city, between city to city, it's just lots of poor white areas that voted Tory, right? Those are the people you need to convince. And the way that the Tories have kept them on side, when it makes no economic sense at all, is because they play to this idea that we look after you, it's not about the migrants, et cetera, et cetera. And they played that book too perfection and the left has not been able to deal with it. I could have made a law and order point if they wanted to. And this is what Jacob Rees-Mogg essentially did. Although I think what he was doing on question time was, and this is why he's such a canny operator, is that he goes really hard, really hard, really hard and says something unexpected and you go, oh, he's unexpectedly reasonable. And he knows that hymn book and he sings from it. But he made essentially a law and order point, which is this is what the law says, you bring her back, she faces trial here. And in some ways that is a very traditionally conservative argument. Yeah, and I think, can you continue to have a government that deport criminals to other places? I don't even know what his discussion, she should be on a charter flight long time and should be in his role right now for the UK to deal with. This is legally, this is outrageous. Use of arbitrary power, although it exists on part of the British state, don't get me wrong, has not been dramatic or scandalous in the same way that it has been elsewhere. There's not been any kind of sharp break in government. These rights, rights to citizenship, rights to legal process, rights to challenge, the arbitrary actions of the state, these are not rights that exist just for people you like. The fact that they're guaranteed for you means they're guaranteed for other people. I particularly want to press you on, which is can you do anti-racism and economic left populism at the same time or do you have to make a choice? Can you?  I guess it depends, I suppose it kind of depends what the goal is. I think this is, if you look at the Labour Party buying which Corbyn's in, I don't know if he's pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit, but because of that immigration rhetoric, you just have to be. And Labour Party has to be anti-immigration to get in power. That's just the reality of the Labour Party. Now, the question is, do you push electoral politics? When we're talking about socialism, to my radicalism, maybe the political sphere, maybe the Labour Party can't possibly provide this. I mean, this is basically my argument, is that within the formal structures of the political of course you can't. Within the main course you can't, no. Do something else. Why are we relying on the Labour Party? And I think actually, the truth is that the left, the far left of the Labour Party should have broken off, they're the ones you should have broken off, because understanding that their politics, this can't work. Because there is a real problem in this country, the majority of the people are white. Obviously, whiteness is important. It kind of does frame a lot of these debates. And I have to say, if you want to get elected, then anti-racism is a bad idea. What I find really interesting, and you saw this with the school strike for climate protest last Friday, is that it started playing out as a culture wars issue. And you had the sort of turning point, UK, we're not far right really, mom, oh no, wait, hang on, someone's just been defending Hitler's domestic policy. Weird, weird, so weird. National socialism. Doing the thing of sort of denouncing it as a cultural phenomenon. You've got all the people who you would expect, Dan Hodges, Toby Young, all of that lot, sort of going after some school children for political hypocrisy. And I thought that that was sort of one moment where culture wars was working for us. Because you could just go, what is identitarian about not wanting the planet to die? I was doing some broadcast media and they were saying, no one cares about economics, it's all identity now, what about Black Lives Matter? And I was just like, hang on, hang on, hang on. What's identitarian about seeing Black people killed by the police, no trial, no arrest, no nothing? In this country, we don't even have capital punishment. What's the identitarian aspect of this? And I feel that when you ask the question of, well, why is this culture, that's your way of saying the thing that you want to say. Oh yeah, and I think that's, you can't win on the ground the culture wars are started unpervised by the right because they can't win the economic argument. Like you need to get poor white people to come along with you and the economics of this are pretty clear, that neoliberalism is terrible, it doesn't really work for you, right?   It's the culture wars, it's not something that can ever work for you. The big difference in America and Britain is that Britain had its slaves in the Caribbean rather than on the island and this somehow is supposed to separate it. But actually the relationship between slavery is very similar actually and the relationship with the descendants of slaves is basically identical in both places. Even the migration thing we overplay because America is massive and the great migration from the South to the North is very similar in structure to the migration of the Caribbean to here. Although it doesn't get nationalized because we're not different nations, and if you look at how people are treated, they're identical, which is why someone like Malcolm just speaks, he's like, yeah, it's kind of the same. And then some of the African-American stuff, African-American studies is too insular. But then you have black feminism, for example, which has probably been the most influential, particularly for this generation, ideas of intersectionality, Kimberley Crenshaw. And also culturally, I mean, a lot of our culture comes from America anyway. So if you understand the hip-hop references and what that does and Cardi B, et cetera, it's a whole language that comes with it. So I think a lot of it is applicable, I think, and I think it has been applied. Chris Leslie, probably the most ideologically coherent out of them, this guy who, you know, he judged that the Labour Party had failed to appeal to which magazine readers in the 20s. Who reads which magazine? How is this a key? Don't ask me. Don't ask me. I didn't even know they still made which magazine.  Like everyone else is in there being like, you know, best like blackhead remover 2019. Like the rest of us, I don't wait for a magazine to tell me how to clear my pores. But he also, you know, thought that the Labour Party had been too hard on landlords in 2015 in general. Really?  So yeah, I mean, this is the guy, and he also has said, you know, about Labour's economic policy in the last manifesto, but it would scare away big business and, you know, it would be, you know, it's unrealistic under the rule. So, you know, the thing that unites them, I think, on the economic front is capitalist realism, right? These are people who miss the old days of being able to say, there is no alternative, so you can choose, you know, brutal neoliberalism, but with, you know, a happy diversity face. What colour is your sanctions letter going to come in? Well, you can choose it with a kind of brutal Tory face.  These are the politicians of the dead centre. These are the people who, you know, really want things to reset to the way they were prior to 2008, really. That's, they are, you know, politicians of nostalgia. That, I think, is what unites them.  It can be more different than the way in which the leadership of the Labour Party now envisions its role. So it's not really a surprise on that front that they've gone.


Hey Eric, how's it going? It's good. How are you? Pretty good. And Randy, are you there? Hey, yeah. Excellent. This isn't your first time, right? You've been here before. Yeah. Okay. A couple of times in the past and just last week. Okay, that's what I thought. I just want to make sure. Cool. Yeah, I apologize. You know what? I meant to send out a note reminding people that we now have a password. Hopefully that didn't mess you guys up. Caught me for a second. I have to go to the specs. Yeah. Busy busy day. Hey, Tommy. Hey. Hey, Timmer. Hey Doug, how are you? Good. And Randy. I'm sorry, not Randy. Yeah, Brian. Sorry. Sorry, getting you guys mixed up. Hello. Hello, sorry. Mr. Mark, you there? Hello, Matt. Yes, you're there. Mr. Clemens, you there? I have arrived indeed. Excellent. Hi. So this is Matias. Sorry. And we're so excited that you're here, Clemens. Hey, Lucas. Hello. Morning, David. Good morning, Doug. I knew someone was going to ask me. What's the password? 777777. Somewhat. Yeah. It's the first time it's actually done this to me. It's actually required a password. They just turned it on like. Earlier this week or late last week, something like that. Yeah. I'm not quite sure why. Hey, ginger. I was very confused that the link disappeared from the read me page because that's what I've been using. What did I do? Just point you to the agenda doc instead. Ginger, are you there? Yes, I am. Thank you. Cool. All these new security features. Yeah. It's wonderful. I have to admit, I keep hearing about them turning on security features or all these other conference calls and stuff because. You know, bad things happen at times. I get to be on one that actually does something weird. Just once I'd like to actually see it for myself. Not that I actually really want to. Just got to keep morbid curiosity. Kind of more than anything else. I have.  It was terrible. I was going to say, I'm sure we could get somebody to zoom bomb. We need to live in this call up a little bit. That would definitely do it. Yes. I'm not, I'm not going to tell you what happened, but it was, it was awful. It was traumatizing. I'm not going to tell you what happened, but it was, it was awful. It was traumatizing. And so I'm very glad that they're doing that. Interesting. So offline, you're going to have to tell me what exactly you saw. Cause I don't obviously want it on a real zoom call words, especially where it's recorded. But like I said, morbid curiosity. I just. Cause I'm expecting the usual stuff. I'm expecting usual stuff like. Say it again. You could probably Google it. I'm sure there'd be lots of stuff. No, see, see that'd be different, right? Cause that, then you're going to get rid of some really sick stuff. But, you know, stuff that you got from a CNCF call, I was hoping wouldn't be too bad.  But coming to this, I was like, you're talking about stuff that's even more disgusting. It was terrible. I don't want to think about it. Okay. I apologize for the slight diversion there. Let's go back. There are, there are, there are Reddit groups and fortune groups where kind of open zoom chats are being posted. And the kids just go and storm them. Wow. Okay. Let's get back to the fun. We're at time anyway. So Lance, you there. Yes, I'm here. All right. And Michael. Michael. I apologize. I butchered that I'm sure. Michael. Okay. What about Thomas? Hello, everybody. Hi. Hello. All right. We'll circle back around. That's stuff we get later. Let's get on with the fun stuff. All right. Community time. Anything from the community. People like to bring up. That's not on the agenda. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's not on the agenda. All right. Not hearing any. Excuse me. We do have an SDK call this week. Let me just double check. I don't think we have anything on the agenda. But let's just go see. Yeah. Nothing on the agenda. So if we don't have anything by the end of this call, we may just cancel that call. Although I do wonder whether this. Question here from Grant as an SDK issue or not. So we'll talk about that one later. Discovering interrupt. Not this week. Okay. Okay. That's a reminder. We did agree. November 2nd for interrupt. So please take a look at the interrupt doc itself. Help fill it out and start coding away. Right. Timer. Anything you want to mention from the workflow side of the house. Yeah. Thanks Doug. From the workflow side, we finally finished all the logo stuff. We updated the website. CNCF pages are updated. And it's a lot of work. So I'm going to take some questions from the public. I know we were talking about. Nicos also for saying that the logo looks like an open source USB logo. That was funny actually. But other than that, from the spec side itself, we are kind of trying to enforce open API. For some sort of a service invocation. So we're going through that. And trying to figure out. If we should start preparing or not for the cube. All right, cool. Thank you. Any questions for him? All right, before we jump into PRs and stuff, any other topics people want to add to the agenda? Or should we talk about before this? Let's jump into it. Okay, so this one is for me. I don't want to vote on it today, even though it was put out there before Tuesday, mainly because I think it needs a lot of thought to put into it. Basically what I did is, first I tweaked the asynchronous text to make it a little bit more generic. There was a little too much logic in there about what to do in certain situations and I found myself repeating text that really was already described in the synchronous response case. So I basically just said the async should look almost exactly like the synchronous case. You're just getting the results from a different endpoint. So I tweaked that a little. Hopefully I didn't mess anything up. So please take a look at that. I did change it so that posts can take a list of services instead of just one. And I'm very nervous about this because I think doing a post one at a time, especially if you're doing some sort of like mass import is just a real pain in the butt. I think having the ability to do a batch upload is very important. However, that introduces a whole bunch of interesting problems like what if one of them fails?  I took a very much a all or nothing kind of approach to it because I didn't want to get into partial air reporting type stuff. But even aside from that, you then have to figure out, well, how do you tell the caller what the various IDs are for all the things that were created? So I have a mechanism to return that in the response, but I had to worry about whether the response is going to be too large or not because then you get into pagination. So I decided to go with just returning the list of IDs in the same order which the post came in on. So lots of interesting choices I made. I'm not convinced they're all necessarily right. So please look that section over in particular. But I did some feedback on it. I also explicitly pulled out the support for import to be separate from the normal put and post operations. I think before this PR, I basically said you could do a put or a post and then you could put like a career parameter there. And inside that same description I described how you handle import versus a normal put or post. And I found that I was jumbling up the text a lot. I thought it was a little bit hard to follow. So I decided to pull out the import logic, meaning the career parameter, into completely separate APIs. That way we can talk just about import separate from a normal put or post. And I think that makes it easier to read. Okay. If people want, I can obviously scroll through this and talk to anything in particular. But let me just go in and stop there and ask if there are any high level questions. And keep in mind, like I said, I don't want to vote on this today. I think we need a lot more thought process put into this besides just this quick review. So let me pause there. Nothing? Okay. In that case, I'm assuming that means most people did not have a chance to review it because I doubt everybody is violently agreement with what I wrote there. So I'm going to assume you guys just need more time to review it. Clemens, you keep coming off mute. Is there something you want to say? Yeah, I thought I looked at the associated bug but not the PR. I think this idea with the import is good. I'm generally leaning towards pulling these sorts of walking up to the service and changing 500 things. It's a little strange to me. And I would rather want that service to go to the source and pull. So I'm not sure what I like the whole notion of kind of this bull push at all. But I will admit that that's taste. And so I think the solution you have here to say, there's a way to go and do inserts where you are assigning numbers and then you do effectively replication where you keep all the numbers. We're fine giving you something and then you go and take ownership of it or another service giving you something and you want to go and retain the entire shape of it. I think that distinction is good. Yeah, I have that reviewed all the text. Okay, that's fine. I didn't I didn't notice your comment about the push versus pull. And I thought that was interesting. So I hadn't thought about that. Do you think that in all cases where there's going to be the equivalent of some sort of batch upload of stuff that the discovery and point will always be able to reach out to the to the source of that bulk? It might not. Yeah, well, it might not be. That's the one thing that worries me about that. Because it certainly would be easier if you could pull it, right, that you don't have to worry about partial success and partial failure type stuff, right? Okay, but something to think about because I it is an interesting approach I hadn't thought of. Okay, any other comments, questions? Okay, so I'll just assume people need time to review it, which obviously was my plan. So please, in particular, you know, read over the batch stuff. That's the part that worries me most. I think most everything else is fairly straightforward. At least I think if I remember correctly. Okay, I'm not hearing any other questions, comments will move. We'll keep moving through the agenda. Can I ask one thing?  Can you sort of describe the thought process between the the post approach where you have this kind of non item potent, you know, server back end, assigning the identity to versus like a like a put approach where you have more of an item potent, you know, you can do it over and over and over again. And the identity is stable. And if you've got distribution, it's very easy to reconcile versus multi master updates in a kind of a post world. Yes, so my mind, so let's ignore the import case for a sec. In my mind, I keep it very simple. To me, post is for create, and put is for update. Okay, because if you ignore the import case, then you're when you're talking about a brand new service being added to discovery endpoint, my assumption is that it does not have an ID yet. So it's a brand new thing, and you're just sticking in there. And therefore, post is the right way to go put is when you already have an ID associated with it. So you're just going to be updating that resource. Now, import, there was an interesting twist into that whole thing, right, because with import, you want to keep the ID that you had before. And that's why as part of my PR here, the difference between put versus post for import, I think is very, very slim. They're almost the exact same thing, I think, in most cases. And that's something else that I wasn't 100% sure I would be perfectly honest. And the reason I kind of did it that way is because I was trying to make it as easy as possible on the user of the system, right? So for example, somewhere in here, I talk about how on a post for, yeah, I think on a normal post, not for the import case, you can include an ID and an epoch value, and they'll be ignored, right? Even though they're going to be ignored, I allow them to be in there because I want to make it easy for somebody to do a get to one discovery endpoint, maybe basically an export, and then turn around and do a create on this other discovery endpoint and not have to go through and modify the entire chunk of JSON to remove all these fields that are just going to get ignored. I want their life to be easy. So I'm not sure I'm completely answering your question, but those are the kind of things that are going through my head as I was writing this up. And to your original question, though, to me put versus post is create versus update. That's what really comes down to you for the most part. Does that help? A slightly different view on that. Like I agree that in general, that's how they work. But when you think about like, where is the where is the entity being created? Who who is responsible for the creation of the the entity and who's identifying it? If it's if it's the client that needs to be able to maintain stability of that ID across a set of masters, then the the the notional object is being created by the client and of course put is item potent. And so I can put that idea over and over and over again, I don't end up creating multiple things. Even when I'm doing that across multiple masters and in a distributed scenario, I just wonder if that wouldn't simplify some of the challenges for reconciling and things like that. And, and yeah, you know, yeah, so it's interesting because I think I want to put in here. I think I do support that notion where basically what you're saying, if I understand you correctly is the client kind of picked the ID, right? And I think you can do that today with what I have here, even through a put, but you have to tell us it's an import, right? Because by default, I assume put is more of an update. So if the object doesn't already exist, it's going to give you an error saying, you know, 404. But if you give us the import flag, then it then we're basically saying, Okay, yeah, this ID is, you know, doesn't exist in the system, we'll create a for you and we'll use the ID you passed in. Right. But I think what's interesting is, if I understand that you're kind of touching on something that's a bigger topic, which is either where's the source of truth or who actually owns these things, right? And we haven't actually touched on that yet. And I think that's a good topic because I don't know the answer. I've been kind of assuming that each discovery endpoint thinks it's the source of truth, at least for the stuff that it knows about. I'm not 100% convinced that's right. No, interesting area of thought, for sure. Yeah. And of course, that then goes into some of the stuff I've mentioned in Slack around the stuff, right? As I was coding this up, I kind of did Scott's little sample that he showed us last week or the week before, right? We had a ring of discovery endpoints, each treating the next guy in the chain as upstream, right? So he keeps querying his list and and you can see services propagate through the ring. Well, you know, depending on how you choose to do the propagation or who chooses to query who at what point in time, you can get into really weird situations where somebody deleted a service from one endpoint, but then that service doesn't get deleted through the entire ring, rather get recreated because because the one you just deleted it from ends up querying another guy that says, Hey, what do you have? And he says, Oh, I don't know about that one that you have, because I don't have it, even though it just got deleted. So he ends up recreating it, thinking the other guy recreated it or the other guy created it fresh, right? So you get into really weird situations and I wasn't, I don't know what to do about those things yet. So those are the things I want to talk about at some point. Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay. So as I said, please, please look this one over. I'm not so much concerned about getting this one soon because of anything other than I want people to know what to code up for the interrupt, because I know people are very short on time and very, very busy. So I'm trying to keep this spec changes down to a minimal or get them in as soon as possible. That's my reason I'd like to get this one in sooner rather than later. Not because I want to close on the discussion. So please do get a chance to review it if you can. That way people can start coding it up. Okay, thank you all with that one. Lance, I hope you're okay. I wanted to talk about your question, because I thought that would be a good one. We didn't have a whole lot on the agenda anyway. You okay with talking about this one? Yeah, I'm fine. I added it to the SDK agenda, but we can talk about it here. Okay. Did you have an issue or just make whatever it's SDK? Because if there actually is an issue, then there may be a spec issue to fix. So okay, I'll let you talk about it. So this is the issue for everybody that's looking. So the the the the situation is that it's possible to receive an event that has a data base 64 property indicating that the data itself is binary and has a data content type of application JSON. So is it legitimate? Is it against the spec for an SDK to recognize that it's binary data decode the binary data in JavaScript that then it is just a buffer, which can be a string. And I can then if I know the data content type is application JSON, I can parse that JSON if I'd like to and turn it into an object. And is that legitimate? Is that purely an SDK question? And would it be contrary to the specification to actually receive an event that has database 64 and a constant type of application JSON? Jamie, your hands up. Yes, I was trying to understand what what last was was talking about in the chat yesterday. So I think my my thought is that an SDK would need to support that. But having said that, I don't think an SDK should ever produce events like that. Because that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of of of the spec, right? Whether that's a spec guidance, I don't know. But I think for completeness, it should accept stuff that looks like that. That would be my opinion.  But with binary data that was actually just JSON that had been converted to a binary buffer. Scott, here's your hands up there. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, comments. I forgot you were trying to speak earlier. And then we'll get the Scott. Sorry, I'm not good with the hand raising. Yeah, so that's a that's a legitimate way to to encode anything that is not encoded in the same encoding. So I mean, there's Jason, Jason needs to be in UTF a, etc. But you could have the situation where but it's representable in all kinds of different character sets. So you could have a situation where the outer and the inner character set don't, don't match. And the same is true for if you want to carry XML data, that might also be while that's text, if that is encoded in a different way with a different character set, and you would also carry that as binary. So I think the combination that you mentioned in the beginning, like, it's binary, but it's, it's a text format. So I need to go and first run that through a character set decoder. Did anybody else lose comments? Did we just lose it? Yeah, comments.  Something is wrong with my network. So let me say that again. So if you find that the the binary that you have binary and you have a an encoding for the payload that or data content type that indicates a text, then you run that through the character character encoding or decoder, presumably UTF-8, unless the the content type says something else, and then you deal with the text. So that's a legitimate representation just as just as data is. Okay, class your hands up. Yes, probably not about application JSON, but in general, for other types, an SDK might not always be able to determine if it's binary or text. So if it gets in a message in binary mode and has to determine then for forwarding it in in structured format, it sometimes may have to to guess or apply some kind of heuristics or something. And I discussed this with Alan, I think last year around that time. And so there might be cases when you have to be ready to to receive events, that the payload is either in binary or in text form, depending on the heuristics, the according SDK has applied. Scott, your hands up. This is this feels similar to the question we had maybe six months ago around. Is it like how do you do a wrapped binary thing with a JSON event inside of it? Is it anywhere close to that? We're talking about like actual binary data inside the payload. I think it's interesting because I think in this case, it is text data. It's just base 64 encoded. Right, Lance? Yeah, I see. But your but your use case is interesting, Scott. I hadn't thought about that. No, we did think about it. We had a discussion. We did but I meant the correlation is interesting. I hadn't thought about it. Oh, I, in this case, I think the SDK would reject it. It's not a valid cloud event and it's not it's not encoded in the correct way. What what makes it invalid? It doesn't follow the normal parsing rules. Why is that? No, it doesn't. It's I think it's fine because data base 64 does not contain JSON. It contains binary. And then you are from from a client, the client is just giving you a byte array and says, here's the content type. It really leaves it to the application what to do with it. Yeah, it seems like this, I think, I think Jim might describe it best when he said it, it's legal, but really funky, my words. But I think Lance, I'm not sure you got a direct answer to your question about what should an SDK do with it. But let's let's let's let's let's let's pretend that the event comes over in Avro, then it's clear. As soon as you have a proto or an Avro event, there is no question what the what the solution to this is. Because if it's binary, then then the content will all come in, but you cut out there again for about five seconds. Okay, so so if the if the event is Avro or proto, and the payload is binary, and it says content types is application JSON, you know what to do. Right. And and like, in the spec, it says, you know, if the data is binary, there must be a base database 64 property. Then in the next sentence, if I remember correctly, it's the next sentence. It says if there's a data property and data content type that is of a type that the SDK knows how to parse, it should be parsed. So as soon as I convert from base 64 into quote binary, I then have a data field and a data content type field that I know what to do with. It seems legit to me, but it was just a weird case that I came across when I was kind of going through the JavaScript SDK tests. So the one's hands up, so I'll raise mine. It seems to me that an SDK that receives this, at a bare minimum, should treat the the data of the event as binary. The fact that it has a data content type of application JSON is interesting, but does not change the fact that this thing came across as binary data. And therefore, if the SDK has the notion of, of, of a binary blob just being passed on as a binary blob, then it should as, as the bare minimum, whether it then tries to be smart and say, Oh, because the content data content type is application JSON, I'm going to try to parse this as JSON and then pass it on as a text thing or as a JSON object. I think that's a nicety that it may choose to do if it can. But if that for some reason fails, I think it needs to drop back to be straight binary. Right. Then I think you also need to be very clear with your, with your readers or your users, that you're going to be doing this magic under the covers for them and almost offer them the choice of not doing the magic. But I don't know. Jim. Another side issue here. I believe for us to claim compliance with this spec as a, as a service provider, we have to support JSON format, you know, that's I think one of the sort of ground rules. So I guess it's very non idiomatic for, for me to expect us to be able to process JSON payloads where JSON is not in the data is it's been funcally put into some base 64 scheme for some reason. I guess it just it sort of unravels the string a little bit from an event handling perspective. And how can what is, what is being JSON format compliant actually mean, I guess, in that case? The mean I understand every single weird way that an event might be represented. So Lance, let me ask you this. I'm wondering whether I can rephrase this. So we keep talking about this being sort of an odd case, but I'm actually starting to wonder whether it's not. Because today, if you use the data attribute, and you put JSON in there, and the content type is application JSON, everything's fine. But when the user gets that data, it's going to be a JSON object. But there's really no guarantee that that JSON is formatted the exact same way that the user or that the client sent it. And by that, I mean, spaces and everything. Right. So what if the use case here is someone wants to guarantee that the exact formatting for their JSON payload, space for space, new line for new line is the exact same, but the receiver is going to get therefore they don't want any middleware, knowing that it's JSON to do any weird funky formatting on it. And they want to make sure it gets passed through as is byte for write. Therefore they're going to pass it as binary. Is that a valid use case for this scenario? Yeah. And in that case, I think I should not do what, what my inclination was, which is to parse it as application JSON and, you know, decode the binary binary, parse it as application JSON and then have a, you know, basically an object as the data. Yeah. So in that case, the thing you get back is a string of the base 64 encoded data. But what we're really talking about is the payload was a JSON string, not in the cloud event wrapper knows nothing more. And it's up to the consumers to understand how to turn that back into whatever it's supposed to be. I would actually say in that case, you give back a buffer, you the SDK wouldn't try and turn it back into a string. You're really saying this is a byte array. And here's the byte array. And then here's the content type that was given for it. Yeah, right. You can do that if it's in the data field. You can do that if it's in the database 64 field. Well, that was the only way I see I've always thought from an SDK perspective, if the if it's in the data field, that's the JSON value. So why not just give back a JSON value? Well, the JSON value in that case would be the string of the base 64 encoded binary block. Well, I mean, again, I wouldn't consider it a string. I would just consider it a JSON value. It's an object. Yeah, it's but it's invalid as as part of that data field. It has to be a JSON valid JSON object. It can't be bytes, because it has to be able to go between structured and binary form. Yeah, I mean, it has to be a JSON value. So it could be a string. It could be the word true. It could be it doesn't have to be an object. Yeah, that's right. That's right. I'll observe that there are overwhelmingly server plumbers in here. And we try to be really smart. There's an intent expressed by the publisher of that event. And they and the the publisher says, this is binary. And and then they use the data content type as the hint for what that binary contains. And that hint is for the ultimate receiver of that event. And I don't think the middleware has any business in boxing with that. But would this be preserved in all cases? If that's that's converted to an HD binary and back then to structure it? Yeah, that's that's that's why we did basics. We did data underscore basics before we because we have no other way of distinguishing true binary in JSON from from from strings. And that's why we have this. It's an annotation. Yeah, sure. But in this specific case, if you have this JSON as database 64, and you send it on in binary mode, it's then still this expression of sending it as binary is still preserved. Yeah, absolutely. Because because we're converting we're converting from we're converting this into binary in our kind of in memory model. That's why we have types. And then if you're sending this on as as HTTP as an HTTP binary type, then you're just mapping the binary into into HTTP binary. And then you also back out as as such. At an HTTP binary, it would get content type application JSON and the a 64 decoded value would be in the body. So that's correct. Yeah. Yes. But then this, if you would then convert it back to structured, this wouldn't be binary anymore, it would be just in the data attribute usually. Are you talking about a different scenario? Well, that's an interesting scenario, because when it when it comes in in binary mode, and it wants to go out in structured mode, you know, you've got two options, then you can either just jam it into the binary field, or you can look at it and go, Oh, it's Jason, therefore I can drop it in the data attribute directly. I think that's that's the this this translation use. But then, but then, Jason, but then we can we can lean back on the Jason. You cut out a great Clemens, you cut out again. I'm having network issues that are weird. Has Microsoft had any issues this week? Sorry, that was a dig there. Yeah, we can, for that, however, we can lean on the Jason spec and say, well, Jason is exactly what's in the spec and whether you encode that as binary or whether you encode that, like, like the preserve character by character thing, and with the right indenting is not Jason, right? That is, it doesn't preserve it doesn't preserve the new lines, and etc. by default, you can reformat it's still the same document. And I also feel like the scenario the class is talking about there is almost out of scope for us in the sense that it's really up to that piece of code that's doing the conversion from binary to structure to make that decision on its own, and whether it made the right choice or not isn't for us to decide. Yeah, well, my point was that the choice is lost over this chain. But that's, but that's, but that's up to that person that wrote that bridge, right? We can't control what kind of logic is in a bridge. All we can control is something like Lance's question, which is, do I treat this binary blob as a Jason string? And I'm convinced myself that no, they asked for it to be passed along the data as binary, therefore, you need to pass along the binary to the receiver. That doesn't, that doesn't exist, right? There is no binary blob if it's in the data field. No, no, no, I'm talking about Lance's scenario, which is it's in the, it's in the, it's in the, it's in the, it's in the bait, I'm sorry, database 64, whatever it's called. Incoming message with database 64 set. I think I'm leaning towards that too, Doug, and I need to go back and change my PR that, that like that, well, someone mentioned earlier the intent, I think it was you Clemens, like, what is, what is the, the person or the system that's creating an event, they're creating an event with a certain intent. And if that intent is that the data is binary, it doesn't matter what the content type is, if they express it as binary, we should leave it as binary. I think that's the safest of nothing else. Yeah. In the goal in SDK, if you had a structured message as with a database 64, and you converted that and tried to send it out as a binary message, it would use the contents of that buffer and write it out as the payload of the body. The contents of the binary data. Yeah, because the base 64 encoded data inside of database 64 would get turned into bytes in a, in memory buffer, that buffer would be flushed out as the payload of the body of the, the binary message. And that sounds right. Now the receiver could turn that into a structured message. And if it happens to be JSON, it doesn't know that the intent of the original sender was that the data that is basically 64 encoded. Actually, I want that to stay binary. It would convert that to likely data with a JSON object, because we don't have a signal to say, actually, this was, this OG event was a binary database 64 thing. Because, you know, on the other side, after it goes binary, it's going to look at the data content and coding and try its best. Ryan, your hands up. Yeah, this, this, this might be a little bit of a rabbit hole or a bit too pedantic, but I was trying to think of an example. Avera is an interesting example because Avera actually has two representations. It has a JSON representation and it also has a binary representation. So I'm wondering if that's an interesting use case to look at where you might have receivers that, for whatever reason, or producers that can't operate on the binary representation versus, you know, the structure of JSON representation. I think they want to comment on that. Okay. Gem, your hand is up. I think this is a good discussion and I, I'm wondering if we need, is this an SDK issue or is this a general best practice issue? Because not everybody's going to use SDKs. Yeah, you know, rightly or wrongly. So do we need to sort of codify these sorts of cases somewhere? My opinion, I think this would be excellent information for the primer once Lance decides what the right answer is. Well, I mean, it sounds like we sort of, it sounds like we sort of agreed that if, if, you know, if the client says send it as binary, then you send it as binary. If, if, if a receiver gets binary, then it's presented up to the application as binary. Yeah, those SDKs that are facing the client or the application code are not going to try and monkey around with representations to that extent. Yeah. And then when you have these translation or transformation scenarios of structured to unstructured or whatever structured to binary or other, sorry, that's where these sort of principles, I think come into play. Okay. I'm not seeing anyone else's hand up. So to wrap this up, Lance, would you be willing to take an next item to write a paragraph or so for the primer? Sure. That'd be excellent. Thank you so much. All right. So let's go down here. Perfect. Any other questions or comments about that topic? That was a good one, Lance. I liked it. Got his thinking. Yeah. Thanks for all the good commentary. Yep. Okay. Okay. This one, this one that first grant you're on, right? Yeah. So Grant, when you first opened this one, I thought this was going to be a trivial thing that I could treat as a typo. Grant, why don't you introduce this one? Because I'm not convinced which way to go on this one. So I'll let you talk to it. Yeah. So following the base 64 confusion and dialogue, which I think was great, I was trying to understand it as well and just reading that paragraph. Let me pull it up. It's on the screen if I can't see it. Yeah. Cool. Yeah. So it's under the handling of data. And so it reads if the momentation of that, the type of data is binary, the representation must be stored in this data base 64 key. Otherwise, if it's data, then it must be in data. So I thought it made a little bit more sense, especially in the first case where data is not in my code quotes, because I think it's trying to represent data in terms of just the concept of a cloud event data field, which might be in base 64. And so yeah, I made the PR to remove the quotes, because we also use the code quotes right after in the member name. That's pretty much the summary. Okay. Yeah, I gotta be honest with you. I don't know why this one thought I'd need to bring this up because I think you're probably right, but I wanted to hear from other people who are more English major type thing, like I'm going to pick on Scott because you've done this stuff in the past. So Klaus, your hands up. Yeah. So I think that's actually just a leftover because data was an attribute earlier. And I think in the last weeks before we did the 1.0 release, I rewrote some of this to make it clear, maybe I just, it's probably really just a leftover. And I agree that this change makes it a bit more clear. Okay. Anybody read this and disagree with removing the backtacks around the word data in those two spots? Okay. Thank you all. I, like I said, I don't know why this one got me concerned, but I want to make sure I didn't just blindly accept it. Okay. Just double check. You open this, when did you open this 18 hours ago? Say what? Um, yeah, I'll wait till Friday to make sure no one else brings up any issues with it, since technically it was opened up after Tuesday. But if no one mentions anything by Friday, we'll go and emerge it. Okay. So thank you for noticing that. Um, I know Slinky is not on the call, but Clemens, I think there was some back and forth on this issue. Do you want to summarize where things are with this one, since you've at least been part of it? Yes, I actually made a comment today into this, into the PR. I imagine I did some work. There we go. There we go. That was this, um, Oh, he already made change. Amazing. Um, so I said, I think last time we discussed this, I said this section seems a little iffy. And I still think it's iffy to have different sub protocols, um, for different, um, encodings. But when I looked at the W3C interface, that's that link. Um, that I have in that comment, if you would click that once, if you do me the favor, I'm sorry, this one. Yeah. Okay. Sorry, I was, I was distracted by something. Okay. Um, so you can only, you can, the WebSocket interface as, as defined in the browser where I find the WebSocket interface most useful. Um, you can't give any of the fancy other headers and you can't say, here's the extension and that's what I would usually use. Um, but you can really only give a protocol. So they have the WebSocket interface that's in the browser is dumbing this down quite a bit. And so that's really our only option to go and make wishes. Um, and so you would, in this interface, you would say, I'm willing to use the protocol cloud events.json comma cloud or yes. Cloud events.json comma cloud events.avro and then the, um, the server will then, you know, negotiate whatever it can. Um, and so that's the, that's ultimately what, what the constraints are for, for the change. And so I, I agree with Slinky that using the, the, the sub protocol is right. Okay.  Um, which section should I go to? Uh, we're, it's fairly far down, um, right there. Yep. So frame type text and binary. So that was, that's what I was looking for. So now I'm, now I'll be, we'll be happy with, uh, with the spec as it is. That was my only, only objection that I have. The rest is basically just, uh, the, the necessary things you have to go and say to, you know, make the mapping work. It's, it's really just, ultimately it's just, you know, put structured events onto, um, uh, uh, WebSocket frames and the rest is all just explaining what it is. Okay. Thomas, you made a comment here. Um, did you want, did you want to talk to your comments at all? I know Slinky's not on the call, but did you want to talk to it? Yeah, I'm happy to. So when I read through it, actually today, sorry about that, um, I was wondering why, first of all, what do you mean by all implementations? So was it, was it meant to be the client and the server side or the intermediary or whatever is, is meant by this? But I think this is a phrase which comes from the other protocol bindings as well. And then the second thing was, why does the JSON event format is necessarily to be supported or why do we explicitly say this needs to be supported? Maybe. And also say something about this. Clement, do you have any opinion on that one? No. Okie dokie. Oh, hang on. So, um, ah, uh, because we, we, I think we mandate that JSON must be supported anyways. In the main site, yeah. So for cloud events, you have to support JSON. Okay. Well, if that is somewhere, then, then I'm fine with this and Jeff was a bit confused about the all implementations, but probably it's meant to really the client and the server and then I'm fine with it. I think we have this exact same clause in the main spec that we can go and look it up. But yeah, I was a bit confused with support. Yeah, I was a bit confused because here we're talking about web sockets and might be a little bit the different level than just a normal HTTP where you would expect text. But here we can choose to switch to binary. And then, but yeah, I'm not so concerned about this and we're really mostly talking about frameworks and we're not, so that might be the unclear piece. Okay. Um, so I don't think you have to use JSON in your application. Mm hmm. I understand that, that every implementation needs to implement it. So it's actually ready and for interoperability point of view. Yeah, and then the second comment was really about the JSON batch format. So there it's written, it contains the web socket message contains a cloud event. And then I was thinking, hmm, JSON batch format, which is defined in the JSON format is this supported as well. And I probably this, this formulation needs to be adapted a little bit. So it could either contain a cloud event or an array of cloud events. Okay. It sounds like that's more of a clarification kind of thing, right? It's a minor thing. Okay.  Sure. Okay. Clemens, you're okay with it moving forward? Yeah. Did you, did you sell a reservation? I couldn't, I wasn't a hundred percent clear on whether you had reservations or not. Okay. Cool. All right. Anybody else on the call? Have any questions or concerns that we need to relay over to Slinky? Okay. Cool. Making forward progress. That's good. All right. Um, tell you what, since we're running out of time, let's skip this one that I was helping me be able to get to. Grant, this issue that you were typed in here, is this a SDK question or a spec question? Just trying to figure out which phone call we should discuss it on. That's not, not a spec. It's SDK. Okay. So we can save that for next call. Yeah. Okay. Okay. In that case, since we do have a whopping five minutes or so, who opened up this one? John opened up this one. So, okay. I'll let you guys, I'll let you guys read this right here. So to me, I don't actually think we need to do anything in the spec in this space because the spec in pretty much all the key places say, if the, either the value here, if it's present, especially for optional ones, I'm sorry, no, for instance, right, for optional attributes, in almost every single case, we say if it's present, it can't be things like a non empty string, which implies it can't be null. Um, and all the required attributes are defined to be values that can never be the null value. For example, timestamp can't be null, right? Has to conform to some RFC or something like that. So I'm not sure this is actually an issue, but I wanted to bring this up because I think Clemens and Klaus, you guys, and I, oh, Lance too. You guys all had comments on this space. So let's, I wanted to get a brief discussion on this to see what everybody's thinking. Who want, does anybody want to go first? I do, I do. Okay, go Scott. There are some bad actors in the ecosystem that do send down payloads that have JSON nil values. Clemens. So, so, so when I was young, I don't want to go that far back in time. Okay, but go ahead. So, see when you have, you have strongly typed schema that is schematized records, like in a database or, or in the program language, the way how you say there is no value in this thing is not. So that's, that's how, that's how I look at it. Like you create a cloud, you create a database table that contains a cloud event. Right. The only way how you can say that field has no value is by putting null into it. But we fast forward 40 years and only 40. Okay. No, I'm sorry. Like it's, it's, I don't know how to handle nils in properties because the cloud event spec says it must be a thing. It must have a value. And it's not the string nil that I'm getting. It's, it's the, the JSON nil, which doesn't translate. Like that translates to a null pointer in go. Yeah, but you since you can treat if, if the value is absent, you can trade the indicator. No, as you put, as you're pulling the value off the wire, you will see that in the JSON there is a, is a null value, which means you can go and ignore that field completely. You don't have to map it into anything in your, in your, in your go in memory representation. The, the go marshallers don't know how to do that. They'll do that for pointer types. But if, if the, if you're trying to marshal something that's a string and it gets a JSON value of nil, it just blows up. So, Clemens, you're having is defective. Jim, your hands up first. I'll then, then I have my own. I'm just interested in an example here because nil is a string. So it is a valid value. It is not semantically valid, but it is a string. No, the, there's a special JSON nil, n, u, l, l. Right. But we're talking in what context, what attribute value are we talking about here? Well, in the case that I've run into it, a test grid sends or sorry, event grid sends certain extensions that it expects, but that doesn't have set as some nil values. And my SDK had a little trouble with that one. So, so much. Sorry, I'm just pushing this. So as an ACB header with the word, with the string of nil or null. I think it's structured in a structured if it came in as a header, that would actually work because it would be the string again of nil and I could just treat it as a string nil, but it was coming in as a JSON object. Oh, OK, well, that's an invalid, isn't it? Because it's not a string. That should fail to pass, I would have thought. That's exactly what I heard according to the spec. Well, I might wait my hands up. So let me ask the question to Clemens, since we're picking on you here. What does this sentence mean to you? If present, it must be a non-empty string. To me, an attribute with a value of null or nil, whichever your favorite language is, is present. I don't think it's present. Really? Null is a way null is a way to say there is no value here, which means it is not there. That that's that's my that's my my my read of the utility of null is to say there is literally nothing here, which means you can ignore it. But it's still there for structural reasons. OK, let me get one more of this. Ryan, go ahead. Go ahead. No, go ahead and finish Clemens. It's OK. So so so if you have a strongly if you have a strongly typed object or if you have a database table, right, you can't make you can't make the property go away in the strongly typed object. You can't make the column go away in the database table. But if you say nobody said anything here, which means the field is absent, you you use now. We have the special we have no special case in some and the same is true for for would be true if we were expressing our events in strongly typed in in proto or in Avro, any of those those models prefer strong typing. We made other choices here because we want to have the flexibility. But but otherwise just no just says it's not there. OK, Ryan, you're going to get the last word on this one. Yeah, I think the more restrictive we are in our client implementations, the more assumptions we're making about how all of the upstream producers work. And I I think just for robustness sake, I would prefer to make them handle these cases as gracefully as possible, unless there's a really good reason that we can quantify that something like you know, this is going to create more garbage. I'm not convinced of that. But I just prefer to earn the side of handling these cases gracefully than being draconian. OK, and with that, we're going to have to call it a day on that one. Obviously, it's not over yet. We'll have to discuss it because I'm either way. I think we may need to put something into the spec or primer to talk about this particular case, whether it's to reinforce what some people believe is already in the spec or it needs to loosen things up to allow for null between interpreted as empty. I think something may need to be said. So that's it's a good thing that someone brought it up. So let me go ahead and do the roll call and then we can move over the SDK call. So let's see. I heard Grant. OK, so Ken was vanished. Matthew, are you there? Yes, you on call? Matthew. OK, I heard it in chat that he was here. Oh, excellent. Thank you. Appreciate that. Manuel, are you there? Yes, I'm here. Excellent. Daniel. I am here. Excellent. And usual. I'm not sure how to pronounce that. I apologize if I'm butchering it. That is perfect. Yeah. OK, this is the first time I'm joining. Cool. Well, welcome. Which company are you with, by the way? Sorry? Which company are you with, if you want to be associated with the company? Yeah, yeah. I'm working for Freedom Mortgage. Freedom Mortgage. OK, cool. I'll figure that out later. Thank you very much. And there was a phone number where they're gone. Never mind. OK, did I miss anybody for roll call? No, Doug, I think you need to moderate the next presidential debate, though, because you're pretty good. Lord, let's not get in the politics. It was interesting, though. I'll give them that. All right. So if you handle things better, that's all I'm saying. I don't know about that. You guys are much nicer. Put it that way. OK, so if you're not interested in the SDK call, feel free to drop it. Have a good rest of your day. And then, actually, I should ask while we're switching over, where's my SDK thing? Here we go. So do we have any other topics to talk about on the SDK call? Because if not, we can end the call really quickly. Anybody have anything? I can move over the topic. Oh, gosh, darn it. I forgot. Sorry, Grant, I forgot about you. I apologize. Here we go. Do do do. Yep. OK, why don't you? What was that, Clemens? We have one governance issue, probably. Do we? Oh, that's right. You. Yeah, your your issue. OK, we'll talk about that later. All right, Grant, I wanted to go and introduce your question. OK, yeah. So just for context, some I'm working on creating lots of samples for using cloud events with a new API and in our documentation, like we have a lot of copy and pasteable samples, different programming languages, so folks can get started. And yeah, some of these samples use the SDKs. Some don't, various different reasons. And I notice, like, what the SDKs themselves, some of the repos, like JavaScript, Ruby, Python have, like, full samples in the start that you can just copy and paste and get started, especially if, like, you don't know about cloud events or or sort of it's sort of not not the focus of the product, but some SDKs don't. So I was wondering, like, do we want to consistently, like, have samples in our readme? Should I point developers to our readme or is that really not the best place? So yeah, sort of trying to get dots. And then maybe we can add PRs. So I have the samples if we want to do that. Anybody want to comment on that? Is this request attempting to bypass the PR and issue process grant because you've you've raised issues in the SDKs and you're not getting traction. And this feels like you're trying to go around that process. No, I mean, I'm wondering if, like, other people, other like, I don't know, other companies like have links to to. So, like, I raised an issue like what they go SDK. And I think I created a PR of like, there's not a sample you can just like copy and paste like the other SDKs. So. So I was wondering, like, is this something that's truly, like, not useful for other people or. I'm not trying to bypass the process, of course. I'm a little confused. I'm very confused by the question. This sounds to me like it's a question of what's expected in our readme's and what can come. Daniel, you're you're cutting out there, unless it's just me. Daniel. OK, Daniel, you there? OK, hopefully Daniel will be able to come back. I guess I'm confused. Can Google expect that the readme's will consistently list X, Y and Z so that Google's own documentation doesn't have to do that. I think that's what I'm hearing. OK, so Daniel, Daniel, for about 30 seconds there, you went silent. You may want to repeat it again. Sorry. Hang on just a moment. OK. Yeah, I think that like the last bit was sort of good summary. Like, well, where do we want these samples to live? So like that. So Google's going to have our own documentation of like how to get started with a hello world basic minimal sample. Or can we have like some of these hello world samples be in the SDK themselves? So again, but I think that's where I'm a little confused. Are people trying to like do PRs to add samples to the SDKs and they're getting pushed back? I find it hard to believe that SDKs would reject samples. That's why I'm a little baffled. Oh, Grant is making issues to ask to produce those those in the read me. Sorry, can you hear me now? Is this better? Yeah. I guess what I was saying is I'm what I'm hearing is that we're asking what whether there's a specific set of things that work we can expect from all of the read me's so that when Google when something close like Google asks or directs developers to our read me's and says you're used cloud events for for these reasons, it can expect that the read me's will contain what is cloud events here, examples and lists of A, B and C, so that Google's own documentation doesn't have to repeat that. It can expect that the samples are. So is there some kind of a consistent list of things that we can expect? So that's what I'm hearing from Grant. Is that is that correct? So it's more so it's more like do we have like a standard for our read me's rather than we guess we can request specific things and put an individual poor quest. But if we don't have an overall expectation, then you know, individual poor cast can go out of date, they can be inconsistent. Can we can we coordinate all of this, I guess. OK, so I see who you're somebody. I don't know the pace of this, but let's take a look at this issue. So yeah, I created a get up issue and then provided like some sample code of what down below like of what would be nice. But I guess it depends like. I guess it depends on like what we want. I mean, do we want? But I guess should we assume some proficiency in like the programming language? Or like getting started, if you go scroll down a bit, like more tangentially, if we can have like I was thinking like this type of snippet and then read me that would solve for go. There's a whole directory full of many, many, many examples that are full. That compile. I guess what what the samples directory like there's no instructions of how to use those samples. Yeah, it needs more more documentation, but I don't think that this particular copy and paste is helpful because you either you're you're new to go and you don't understand and you're not going to get it from this because you need to go in it and all this other stuff or you already know go and you don't need something that looks like this. So so Grant, are you so Grant, are you suggesting that while we have picking on the go SDK, while we have samples in the go SDK and as Scott said, maybe there's some additional documentation needs to be created. Are you saying that while those are nice, it would be better to have in the actual main read me full snippets of code itself? I mean, maybe maybe for the go like go SDK, like it's just we point to the samples HTTP folder and like there's more there's like right now there's there's no like read me's or are getting started guides in the samples folder. So maybe we just point there. It doesn't necessarily have to be in like the read me, but. Just like like having a I mean, I can imagine like having. Because consistent way for new developers to get started in in five minutes with SDK to be something that we sort of expect for every language. OK, because I can't. No, no, no, we have no documentation. We have a whole website that's dedicated to the go SDK for cloud events. Go go to the Doug, can you navigate to the main read me? Come on. There you go. And then scroll down to the going further. And then click on look. Look at the complete documentation. Bam, click that guy. OK, I guess I didn't. And then if you go back to the read me. There's dig into the G doc. Cool. That's that's cool. And then check out the samples page. So I don't know what more you need. You've tried really hard to make it easy for people to get started. I guess that's where my confusion kind of comes from, too. Is what is because, Grant, I'm trying to understand what what's missing, either from this or if it's that you've come across other SDKs where they're not as thorough as what Scott is presenting here. Because I just I find it hard to believe that if you open up an issue, I'm sorry, if you open up a PR to add additional documentation someplace, I can't imagine one of the SDKs would actually say no. Unless the argument is, well, it's not necessarily appropriate to put all that into a read me as opposed to a dedicated samples directory like Scott was planning to. I can see an argument there, right? You don't want to read me to get too big or something, right? That makes some sense. I just trying to figure out what the next actionable thing here is that you're looking for. Yeah, I guess I didn't see the. They like get up.io page going further. I mean, in terms of. The action I was proposing, which is right now in the GitHub issue. Not in a PR was just having that. Sample, but I guess we have the sample in the going further.  You have you either have modules or you have it locally or you need to turn modules off. And I don't want to explain all that. So what's the next step here, Grant? I mean, I was mostly looking for discussion. I think we're going to have my separate. Tutorials and stuff for. It depends on each language. I mean, what's interesting, though, is I mean, there is one thing I remember for you. For sure, whether it was you or Daniel said something along the lines of should there be some consistency across the SDKs and in general, you know, consistency is nice. Sure. Whether we need to be formal about it and say in the SDK dot markdown document says every SDK must have X, Y, Z in this particular order or this particular format. We could certainly explore that as an option if that's what people want. But I'm not sure whether that's reducing the freedom that each SDK team wants to do the right thing for their own project.  And the thing is completely unusable, except by the people that wrote it. Then I think that's a separate issue. We should bring that up and say this guy, you know, say, you know, guys, this is not being maintained properly. Something needs to happen here. But whether we need to consistently across the SDKs, that's something worthy of a discussion. I just don't know whether how people feel about that. I mean, do people feel like we need to have that level of consistency across the SDKs relative to documentation and samples? I mean, I don't think they need to be they need to be the same. OK. Grant, are you going to say something in there as well?  Like every language is very different. I guess, like from a user perspective, if we link all that, like, I guess when we're preparing docs, we were just linking to the SDK readmes for getting started. And I don't think that would provide like a uniform experience right now. But I mean, the more I think about this, I think I don't think there needs to be really any changes. OK, because because my suggestion would be two things. One is if, as you said, you guys want to point to the SDK readmes as the place to go for documentation so you guys don't have to duplicate it inside Google. And that makes perfect sense to me. If one particular SDKs readme or samples that we want to call it, isn't good enough for a novice to come in. And I think that's a problem in general. And we should get PRs open against those SDKs to beef up their documentation and samples. I think that that's that's given, right? Because every every SDK needs to be good enough to be used by a novice user. I think once the SDKs are at an appropriate level, right, where they're all good enough, then I think it's fair to come back and say, hey, I've been looking at all the SDKs and they all kind of had the same information, but they presented in a very different way. And this isn't a language difference. This is a stylistic difference or this is some have, you know, samples embedded in the readme, some have samples directory, you know, or there's just it and it makes it kind of hard for a user to bounce between them because they're structured so differently that it makes it confusing for people, right? And at that point, I think it's fair to come back and say, I think we should have a consistent approach. And here's my proposal to be consistent. What do you guys think about being consistent all the SDKs? But I think it's it'd be fair to I think it'd be fair to have that discussion after we do the first step, which is make sure each SDK at least has appropriate level of documentation in the readme. Right. So if I were you, I focus on that first so you guys don't have to duplicate it in Google, then come back and say, look, the inconsistency is really annoying from user perspective, because that's a concrete thing that we can deal with. Does that make any sense? Yeah. Because I'm not I'm not hearing a whole lot of excitement about out of the gate, mandating consistency across SDKs. And I and I think if you wanted to get there, we may be able to get there at some point in the future. But I think we first need to take the first step of forget about consistency. Do we even have the right documentation? Right. Even if it's inconsistent, we made a choice that every SDKs it has some minimum level of stuff. But it's idiomatic in the language and how those modules are presented. If everything had to start from, OK, let me teach you about Java. Every library had to do that to be you could just be insane. Yeah, I don't think I hopefully no one wants that. But at least if when but if one SDK went really farther than all the others in terms of educating people, like, for example, let's say they did that insane thing. And I say, hey, I'm going to teach you Java, right? Then at least we can look at that SDK and say, man, those guys are nuts that they did that. There's no way in heck we're going to do that for go. Or we could look at that and say, hey, you know what? We're getting tons of praise from Java. We should do that for all of them. Right. But at least at least then we can have a discussion and compare the SDKs because they're inconsistent and say, you know what, let's make them all consistent. And what they did over there is really, really good. And we have concrete example of something to look at right now. I don't feel like we're at that point to even have that discussion. I'd rather focus on the immediate problem of is the documentation in any particular SDK good enough? And if not, let's get someone to open a PRs to fix it. And so, Grant, that's why I'm coming back to you and say, look, if you found as you're doing your work that some particular SDK, if their documentation is not good enough, open some PRs against that to get that fixed and not necessarily worry about your higher order question of consistency yet. We can work on that later if that becomes an issue. Once you complete your exercise of all the SDK documentation, being good enough for that SDK in isolation, that make any sense at all? I mean, yeah, I mean, like, I guess I like for the not not to pick on the go SDK, but like, is it reasonable? Yeah, like, do other folks want to have? We're not expecting anybody to teach like go fundamentals, but just to like, have one tutorial or one, one page that like complete, completely sets up an application and starts a server. I don't I don't think there is this tutorial as a separate markdown and we can link from the read me, I'd be happy to accept it. Okay, I guess like, some of the other languages have the tutorial ish thing inside the main reading, but but do they have this like 20 examples of how to use the SDK? Scott, I'm not picking about the SDK itself. I'm just I'm really just trying to get this use case. If you want traction, here's my advice is PRs over issues gets work done. Yes, I know that my I was first, I have a specific, the specific code that I'd add in a PR in the GitHub issue. But I think there was like, like my proposal was to add that although I don't as he said, I don't think we want to. Well, I don't know, I would be fine adding that specific sample and and the command line steps right below. Except that command line step isn't isn't correct because now you also need to tell them that they need to make that into a certain file called Hello. Yeah, yeah, you need to admit your project and and write it in the file. Do it inside the checkout of the go SDK. There's just like there's a ton of gotchas that somebody that is trying to test out go for the first time is going to hit and someone that's used go for more than two tries would never even think about it anymore. And you need to you need to have go from from the start. So I'm I'm not using I use I use go very rarely. And yeah, I'm not I'm not sure I'm not sure this would help me all that much because I would I would rather have a snippet that explains how that works. And then I would if I didn't have a sample to look for and I would always look for the samples, then I would go and just create a baseline go app somewhere else and and then go and try to try to put that in. But I yeah, I would always I was always go for the samples and see what the samples are, but I would I would look this to be informed, but then would always jump to the samples. So Graham, maybe you should do a PR to show what you're thinking of in terms of how to change the go line SDK, whether it's just like, you know, large change the read me or whether it's a tutorial directory that that that really hands all the person from nothing to a foreign go program. And you point to that from the read me. You know, that's your your call, but maybe a PR would hope solidify the discussion and make it less abstract. Yes, sounds good. Okay, I think. Okay, yeah. Cool. Thank you, sir. Yep. All right, Clemens. Let's talk governance. Yeah. Um, so I finally found someone who can help with the C sharp SDK and who is unfortunately sick and couldn't join today. But so our George Love who works in the in the Azure SDK team has volunteered to help out with the C sharp SDK because John Skeet fell. The so we so we fix this organizationally now comes to the governance question. I would like to I would I would like to give up my committer status and give that to Josh because it's basically just a swap within the company. But I'm not sure that works with the current governance rules. And the question is, are we Apache or are we not? I would prefer if we had if we had a rule that allows us to swap places with the company rather than and have the vacation rule, et cetera, rather than you know, binding this to people and and of course if three people if three people from from Google or three people from from Red Hat are working on on a particular SDK because of the level of engagement because, you know, they fulfill those they fulfill the criteria. That's perfectly fine. But then it should be possible for any of any of the three of them to go on vacation and nominate someone else who can go and do the work or if they get sick or whatever so that there's still three people from Google being able to go to work on this. That's that's my that's that's the goal that I have here. OK, so my my my tactical goal is for Josh to be able to work up work as a committer basically immediately taking over for me. OK, I know Slinky can't be on the call, but I know you and he did have a conversation in Slack and I apologize. I didn't get a chance to read it. Could you channel your best Slinky to see what what that conversation was like between the two of you? There was a yeah.  And I think he mostly misunderstood my intent that I had, like I didn't want to I didn't want to make it like one company, one developer. That's I think that's what he understood. And because he said, you know, I didn't have I've had a hard time finding traction with others. And now if we have multiple people from Red Hat, then then that's what it's going to be. And that's I think that's that's very reasonable and I didn't want to preclude this. What I wanted to what what I don't like about the Apache model is that a and this is what happened to the Apache project is that some VC funded company shows up and rotates their entire staff through the project. And now, even though only four people are effectively working on it, they have a super majority of 50 people with committer status who will go and basically just dominate the project and votes. And so that's something that I want to that's something that I want to avoid. Interesting, how can you avoid that last scenario? That's interesting. In that you that every every committer slot needs to be needs to be earned like here. Yeah, but once you earn it, you you basically have it, right? So I mean, I think maybe it's interpretable.  Yes. Right. I don't know how you avoid that. Well, I'm not sure how I can avoid that, but I would like to avoid that. OK. So let me ask you this. In your particular case, what was the guy's name, Josh, right? Josh live. What would be and I'm not I'm not necessarily pushing back on what you're suggesting. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. What would be wrong with saying, OK, Josh, I need you to take over. Go ahead and start submitting a whole bunch of PRs as necessary to get the job done. And you come in as the basically one of the only maintainers in there. I guess, John is too. But between between you and John, you'll you know, review and approve the PRs.  The whole point is that I'm too busy. Yeah, OK. I thought you'd say something like that. OK. So the point is the point is that if I if I could be reviewing PRs in a timely fashion always, then we wouldn't be doing that switch. We're literally doing that switch because I need to get this off my desk. Like now. Yeah. OK. Anybody just want to comment on this because it sounds like Clemens is basically asking for a change to the governance model to allow for this type of situation. No one wants to comment. I'll pick on somebody if I have to. In this particular case that there does Clemens have any backup in the SDK? There's John Skeet. I think it's the guy's name. Joe Skeet from Google. See, what's weird to me about this Clemens is I kind of see. I think it almost depends on the SDK, right? I think if there's an SDK that has lots of different people from lots of different companies active in there, I could see a lot of tension with your proposal because typically it's not it's not company based activity, but your SDK is different because for the most part it's been Microsoft. So it makes perfect sense that you swap out one Microsoft person for another, right? And that's what I'm struggling with. Yeah, I have the same I have a similar problem, but I'm also seeing that there's there's a there's a danger I see in general. Like there's there's some brokenness that I observe in governance elsewhere. And that's not a problem that we can probably solve here today, certainly not where projects accumulate maintainers, which then also translates into kind of voting rights, kind of on on on contested issues where if you can stop the project successfully, and you can have 80 people on it, just by voting people through, everybody has them then retains maintainer status and all of a sudden they have a supermajority where they can cancel out particularly smaller entities and smaller entities might quite well be because we amongst us middleware people, right? There are no there are no 200 developers in Microsoft who are caring about these kinds of events at the infrastructure level. It's probably 20 or 30. Right. So we don't have VC funded startup, which is making eventing or messaging their only thing and our 2000 people. Right. And so so even even though we're the trillion dollar company, you know, we we run there. We run we run for tighter ships on those things. So there's there's a there's a there's a natural ill distribution. And then and then individuals are even in a worse situation because they they I mean they try to contribute, but then they get steamrolled by by companies which are just rotating their entire staff through it. And so my question my question here is as perpetual across everything, it's like, how can you avoid that sort of abuse because it's keep it keeps happening? Yeah. I am kind of amused by this because the idea of a company like Microsoft being swamped by a little startup is just ironic. I don't know, but it happens. I know. I know it's just funny. It doesn't it doesn't only happen. It doesn't only happen to us, right? It happens to Red Hat. It happens to it happens to Google. It happens to Amazon. It happens to it kind of happens to everybody. Where we're like, whoa. Yeah, no, I totally agree with you.  Yeah, it's not just in our past standards days. It was always the exact opposite, right? It was always IBM, Microsoft, you know, the worlds would dominate those groups. And now we're hearing about little startups doing it to us. It's just amusing. But I also but I also agree with you that I've always thought that there should be some rule for maintaining your maintainership, right? Like, you know, you you earn a certain number of PRs means you get to be nominated to be a maintainer. Well, in order to keep that maintainership, it seems like you should have a constant stream of PRs going as well. You can't just vanish and hold on to for five years. That doesn't seem right either to me. Yeah. And I think I think there's some TTL on your on your but the TTL that needs to I mean, this needs to get complex, right? Because sometimes software just sits there and it's done. True. And then how do you measure this? Right. OK, so let's let's get a little more concrete here in terms of the problem. So it seems to me. We may need to take the situation into account. And I don't know how we're going to do it in terms of changes to the government stock, but it does seem like the situation you've brought up is valid. And unless someone on the call or in the group, like I should say, vehemently disagrees and wants to say Clemens, you're full of it. If if Josh wants to be a maintainer, he needs to do this time and do PRs. Unless someone's going to say that, then I think we need to figure out some way to accommodate this type of situation. And there's two things about that that I think we need to think about. One is changes to the government stock. And how to deal with the short how to deal with the situation immediately. Because as you said, you need to get this off your plate now. And you may honestly need to wait for government stock change. So let me let me start with the first question. And I need people to be brutally honest here. Is Clemens request invalid? And I'm going to pick on the current maintainers that I know are on the call. For example, Scott Lance, I don't know who else has maintainer rights. Daniel, I think you might as well, right? Is his request just insane? And we got to say no. I think he's during it. The new maintainers, this is our guidance, but there's also an escalation path and for an SDK like C sharp, where it might be a little less easy to find C sharp enthusiasts. And the bus factor is now one. It does make sense to promote somebody out of a trusted circle. Actually have an escalation process in here? Maybe not. Not that they get a close look. OK. OK, so thank you, Scott. You don't think it's insane, at least in this particular case. Lance, any thoughts? I tend to agree.  There needs to be some way to deal with the situation like this. But I am curious about the escalation path that you mentioned, Scott, that it's in that document. I could have sworn we had something, but I can't see it in the mind of finding it. I thought it was like maybe if there's not any. Well, there's this. The thing is not maintained. Yeah, like, you know, if it's not being the criteria. We have to go over to a new maintainer. Yeah, I think I think it's at some we're basically in here, but I'm not even sure that's quite the same scenario because we're not saying that the project isn't being maintained. It's just you just need to walk away from the project for a month or two. Abandon it and then it will be not maintained. That's one way to do it. So OK, one last person I think might be maintained Daniel, your maintainer, aren't you? Yes, I am. I'm the only maintainer of Ruby right now. I think it's I think the this makes complete sense to me. As in my case, I'm I am I'm a maintainer because Google is a company and this products are have an interest in this in cloud events. And so it's my job to to make sure that we have a reasonable SDK. And so from a company's perspective, it's one kind of one it's it's the company that has the interest, not the individual. And so one engineer could replace another engineer in that in that role and just kind of have the same role from the from the project's perspective. So I that seems to make a lot of sense to me. Yeah, OK, OK, so let's do this since we ran out of time and I'm getting really hungry for lunch. Let's do this just to make sure. OK, so I would say that's right. So technically we are not following the rules here and I'm hearing that people are OK with that because this is a not only a special case, it makes sense what I want to call it. So let me do this. Let me post a comment in the SDK Slack channel saying explain the situation saying it at least for this bigger case it makes sense. And if I don't hear any objection by say end of day Friday that we're going to go ahead and make Josh a maintainer in the C sharp SDK. However, we also need to then look at changing the governance doc because I don't like the idea of the governance doc not being accurate to match reality. OK, and so I'd like to then have us work on an update to the governance doc to allow for these types of situations. And it could be as simple as hey, we realized there are going to be some weird cases that we need to address like and here's an example and we're going to address those by this way. And maybe it's as simple as just a vote among the other maintainers to say yes, this is a special case. Kind of like what we just did. Right. But at least then there's a process that we can follow when something like this does come up again and we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time. Does that sound fair, Clemens in particular, since you need to bail on this quickly? Anybody else have a comment on that or disagree with that process? OK, I'll take the action item, as I said, to at least get the quick switch over happening through the Slack channel. And then we'll talk about how to change the governance doc later. All right, cool. Let's go back over here. Where is SDK? OK, anything else you guys want to talk about on today's call? Anybody else? All right, cool. We are done. Thank you, guys. And we'll talk again next week. What's for lunch? I have no clue. Food at this point. I'll take anything. All right, thank you guys. We'll talk again next week. Have a good one. Thanks, Doug. All right. Yep, bye. Bye.