►
From YouTube: Foundational Infrastructure Working Group [Mar 17, 2022]
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Okay,
welcome
all
to
this
foundational
infrastructure
working
group.
Meeting.
Yeah
first
item
is
that
we
have
a
new
contributor
for
our
working
group,
who
has
made
a
bunch
of
pr's
the
azure
cpi,
and
also
working
on
force
agent
and
porsche
linux,
censor
builder
yeah.
This
will
be
the
first
step
in
becoming
an
approver
eventually.
Hopefully,
I've
had
a
call
with
him
in
slack
yesterday
and
he
was
interested
in
this.
So
yeah
we'll
see
it
comes
from
this.
A
This
is,
I
think,
the
first
time
that
the
this
process
is
actually
gonna
happen,
since
the
dlc
was
formed.
So
we'll
see
what
roadblocks
there
are
it's
a
very
simple
change:
it's
just
adding
a
name
to
a
file,
but
we'll
see
yeah
so
put
that
out
of
the
way,
I
think
we
can
go
over
the
open
forum.
B
Just
a
question
who
needs
to
approve
the
pr.
A
I
don't
know
I
guess
we're
going
to
find
out
next
toc
meeting.
Okay.
D
A
Maybe
it's
just
us
as
tech
leads
for
the
working
group,
but
I'm,
but
let's
see
so
I
at
least
added
you
in
the
cc
so
that
you
aren't
aware,
what's
going
on
there
yeah.
So,
let's
see
we
have.
A
A
C
A
C
A
Let's
see
yeah,
this
was
had
to
do
with
the
setups
and
that's
firewall
stuff.
This
is
an
addition.
A
We
found
out
that
broke
wardens
themselves,
so
on
warden
stem
cells,
it
should
exit
early.
That's
the
idea
to
not
do
this
on
warnings
themselves,
because
it
doesn't
make
sense.
There.
E
A
F
A
A
F
So,
what's
the
id
again,
two.
F
A
This
one
has
been
reviewed
10
days
ago,
so
we
just
need
to
bring
joseph
basically
to
get
this
going.
I
will
start
a
comment
collecting
all
the
things
that
are
blocked
on
joseph.
E
E
A
A
A
F
A
F
Oh
yeah
do
netello,
has
sensed
the
action
logs
and
I've
checked
those
yeah.
Actually,
the
discussion
is
in
the
issue.
Unfortunately,.
F
And
that's
strange:
the
brush
acceptance
is
supposed
to
create
a
two
gigabyte
disk
and
migrate
to
a
four
gigabyte
disk.
How
could
we
end
up
with
a
20
gigabyte
disk?
F
It's
it's
strange,
but
what
I
see
in
the
logs
is
the
expected
behavior.
The
new
dist
is
detected,
mounted
partitioned
migrated
and
then
the
old
disk
is
unmounted.
So
everything
seems
fine.
F
Well,
yeah,
but
why
20
gigabytes?
It's
just
weird.
F
Yeah,
that's
what
I've
read!
That's
what
I've
just
checked,
yeah.
A
And
based
on
that,
you
had
yeah
so
help
me
11
minutes
ago,
yeah,
but
then
what
what?
What
else
do
you
need?
F
Yeah,
I
would
need
a
confirmation
that
this
is
this
comes
from
the
bosch
symptoms
tests
because
the
the
disk
size
doesn't
match
or
what
was
the
pro
the
the
test
or
something
but
and
why?
How
could
the
the
size
be
the
same
as
before?
But
it's
a
definition.
It's
definitely
a
different
disc.
So.
A
A
Yeah,
I
think
that's
it.
Actually,
benjamin,
if
you
want
to
do,
are
busy
or
something
you
can
also
understand
yourself,
but
this
was
just
what
the
what
github
decided.
F
And
with
the
way
the
monkey
patch
is
done.
C
F
A
But
yeah
this
is
what
they
call
it.
So
I
I
wouldn't.
I
should
read
that
and
yeah,
but
this
is
just
reopening
a
class
and
overwriting
a
method
or
something
I
think
that
that's
the
idea,
but
yeah
I
mean
there's
even
a
test
for
it,
so
it
seems
good
enough.
I
guess
but
yeah
that
okay,
for
for
you
to
decide.
B
A
I'm
like
that
person
says
he's
they're
in
the
vmware
slack
so
I'll
reach
out,
because
I
mean
we
within
vmware
have
an
internal
process
for
requesting
features.
So
I
mean
it's
okay
that
they
have
this,
but
if
they
want
the
bosch
vmware
team
to
work
on
this,
they
should
follow
a
different
process
because
like
unless
someone,
otherwise
this
goes
to
over
for
contribution,
and
I
don't
think
that
person
wants
that.
So
I'm
just
gonna
reach
out
and
get
some
details
there.
I
will
assign
it
to
myself.
F
A
I
can
also
figure
out
should
be
okay
yeah,
it
should
be
okay,
but
it's
just
about
like
who's
gonna
work
on
it
right,
and
I
want
to
figure
out
like.
Is
this
something
if
it's
multiple
customers
that
want
this?
This
could
be
something
that's
prioritized
on
the
vmware
side.
I
don't
know
if,
like
someone
else,
wants
to
quickly
jump
on
this,
but
I
don't
expect
that
so
this
would
be
more
of
a
some
more
in
vmware
to
prioritize
this.
A
A
Issue
so
there's
like
things
that
are
prioritized
and
then
I
usually
try
to
assign
someone.
So
that
means
someone
is
working
on
it.
I
don't
want
to
set
this
to
prioritize
because
I
I'm
still
gonna
find
out
if
we're
gonna
prioritize,
but
at
least
I'm
gonna
be
the
point
person
on
this
issue
to
get
that
figured
out
if
we're
gonna
prioritize.
This.
F
And
when
you
send
yourself,
it
goes
away
from
this.
It
goes
no,
no,
no.
A
A
Yeah
it
just,
I
moved
into
discussion
a
different
phase,
so
it's
not
an
inbox
anymore.
A
That's
that's
the
idea,
and
then
we
have
the
10
so
everything
that
has
been
just
so
this
one
has
new
things:
the
last
activity
and
this
one
as
well.
A
Let's
see
what
the
last
activity
was.
That's
the
stillbots.
A
That's
okay,
createvent.
F
A
That
that
is
the
reason.
The
most
recent
right.
E
D
D
E
D
D
D
It
misses
well
with
all
the
ruby
version.
Oh
oh
yeah,
this
was
the
problem
with
all
the
ruby
versions
it
works.
So
if
you
re
use
ruby
2.6,
it
works
perfectly
fine.
If
you.
A
A
I
understand
okay,
what
hell
is
here
yeah
there
that
we
already
looked
at
that
discussion,
this
one
sticking.
E
A
I
will
check
in
this
one
where
that
story
is
yeah.
That's
it
there's
nothing
else.
We
want
to
discuss.
B
Oh,
I
just
wanted
to
ask
I
think,
reuben
and
dahan.
I
I
just
I
shared
that
spreadsheet
with
you
about
working
under
repositories,
no,
no
emergency.
It
looks
like
there's
about
20
that
we
think
may
be
in
foundational
infrastructure
or
should
be
archived,
but
you
would
have
the
best
context
into
that.
So
no
no
rush.
Just
one
of
them.
That's
yeah!
I
made
a.
A
G
For
archiving
what
exactly?
Oh,
so,
basically
I
just
I
I
ran
through.
B
All
the
repositories
in
the
cloud
foundry
github
board
and
there's
about
120
or
so
that
are
not
currently
listed
in
a
working
group,
but
are
also
not
archived,
so
we
want
to
either
assign
those
formally
to
a
working
group
and
add
them
to
the
charter
or
archive
them
so
that
all
all
assets
in
cloud
foundry
are,
you
know,
belong
to
someone.
B
So
basically
I
just
yeah
there.
It
is
so
you
know
I
pinged
the
app
runtime
platform
already
went
through
theirs
and
then
app
runtime
interfaces
and
foundational
infrastructure
both
have
large
chunks
and
then
the
other
is
all
I'll
ping.
Once
once
those
big
chunks
are
done,
you
know
there's
a
couple
for
service
management,
a
couple
for
deployment
and
then
some
that
you
know
the
cff
owns,
but
just
trying
to
work
familiar.
A
B
A
B
Yeah,
that
should
not
be
foundational
infrastructure
that
is
like.
Yes,
that
is,
but
this
is
like
yeah,
it's
not
arp.
So
like
yeah,
maybe
it's
national
atmosphere.
It's
like
no,
it's
a
it's
a
collaborative
project
and
various
people
are
commenting
and
you
know
don't
take
it.
Just
write,
write
in
the
notes,
like
not
foundational
infrastructure,
yeah.
B
B
A
That
means
we're
gonna
get
we're
gonna
get
that,
like
I
mean
we
basically
at
some
point,
we'll
end
up
with
some
sort
of
like
working
group
that
owns
the
things
that
run
the
foundation,
and
I
mean
like,
for
example,
the
community
automation
would
be
also
something
like
that
right.
It's
like
this
yeah.
B
A
B
Basically,
I'm
trying
to
get
this
list
of
125
down
to
a
list
of
about
you
know
a
dozen
and
then
then
we
can
talk
about
what
to
do
with
the
edge
cases.
Oh,
I.
B
B
Mean
I
figured
it
should
be
easy
enough
with
this
number
of
them.
I
I
went
to
the
toc
first
and
I
had
like
eric
and
people
take
opacity,
because
I
figured
you'd
have
the
best
context
and
then
I
just
all
I've
done
so
far
is
ping.
The
you
know
the
three
working
groups
that
have
what
we
think
are
a
lot
of
repositories
that
they'd
have
context
into
the
foundational
infrastructure
platform
and
interfaces.
B
D
A
B
Right
I
mean
you
know
I
can.
I
can
monitor
those
things,
but
I'm
not
gonna
be
maintaining
over
tap.
No,
but
yeah
we'll
see,
I
don't
know,
yeah,
there's
definitely
some
that
are
sort
of
other
and
I
think
we
need
to.
We
need
to
come
up
with
with
what
that
is,
then,
if,
if
there
are
some
assets
that
are
not
in
a
working
group,
you
know
what's
the,
what
are
the
rules
for
that?
Basically
yeah,
but
first
I
figured
we
just
there's
a
lot
of
these.
B
That
can
be
archived
in
a
lot
of
these.
That
are
probably
need
to
be
added
to
working
groups
like
in
the
app
runtime
platform.
It
looks
like
they
there's
like
20
or
more
that
weren't
in
the
that
are
being
maintained
that
are
being
used
that
need
to
be
added
to
their
charter.
I
have
no
idea
what
percentage,
maybe
half
of
these
need
to
come
into
foundation?
I.
A
A
A
C
B
B
F
Maybe
andy
payne
has
kept
the
grants
for
creating
new
reports
yeah,
possibly
I've
seen
in
the
list,
something
that
I
identify
as
yeah.
Greenhouse
ci
is
the
the.
F
F
A
B
A
Yeah,
like
we
inherited
all
those
resources
from
back
when
there
was
like
a
dedicated
windows
team
and
then
the
wind
that
so
I
think
they
were
in
the
process
of
deprecating
that,
but
I
mean
that's,
not
something
that
that's
currently
active
being
actively
being
done,
so
we're
just
keeping
the
state
status
quo.
F
The
rest,
systematic
release,
yeah
yeah,
see.
A
A
B
Or
just
write,
archive
or
or
you
know,
write
a
note
saying
like
this
is
not
foundational
infrastructure,
don't
know
what
this
is
or
maybe
try
this
group
or
you
know,
yeah.
B
F
B
Stratos
is
kind
of
in
its
own
little
world
there.
I
think
eric
was
going
to
reach
out
to
the
community
about.
If
someone
wants
to
pick
it
up-
and
I
guess
yeah
norm
mentioned-
you
might
be
interested
in
that
so
that's
cool
and
then
the
cf
for
kate's
project
is,
you
know,
gonna
be
archived,
but
you
know
so,
probably
not
until
we
have
a
beta
of
the
cf
on
gates
project
soon.
B
So
I
put
that
in
its
own
kind
of
separate
column,
but
that
will
sort
itself
out
fairly
soon.
F
And
in
this
in
this
table,
what
what
does.
B
F
B
D
B
Being
actively
worked
on
so
once
cf
on
case
is
actually
released
right,
then,
presumably
or
certainly
once
it
hits
ga,
I
would
think
they
would.
They
would
then
archive
cf
4k,
so
I
I
mean
no
one's
working
on
it
right
now.
I
believe
it's
being
maintained,
but
they're
not
working
on
it,
because
all
the
efforts
in
cf
tom
cates,
which
is
about
to
have
a
brand
new
name
and
yeah
so
that'll,
be
the
you
know
the
reference
deployment
for
cloud
foundry
on
kubernetes.
B
B
When
did
that
pop
up?
That's
what
they're
working
on
now.
So
basically
the
cf4
case
ran
into
some
architecture-
architectural
limitations-
I
guess
we'll
say
so.
They
they've
kind
of
have
started
over
on
cf.
It's
right
now.
It's
called
cf
on
kate's,
but
it's
going
to
have
a
better
name
in
a
few
weeks.
A
B
A
The
difference
is
like
cf,
on
gates
is
like
basically
using
kubernetes
operators
to
implement
to
see
a
re-implemented
cf
api.
So
you
don't
need
and
like
you
would
just
use
all
the
existing
plumbing
that's
in
kubernetes,
instead
of
trying
to
put
the
cloud
controller
in
uae
and
everything
on
top
of
kubernetes
right.
So
it
also
changed
the
cfcli
to
be
able
to
use
kubernetes
native
authentication
and
stuff,
but
then
it
is
using.
A
F
So
the
cloud
controller
is
replaced
by
some
communities
operator.
B
B
So
yeah
and
that
should
hit
a
an
initial
release,
maybe
in
april
and
then
you
know,
I
don't
know
when
a
ga
would
come,
but
but
but
the
plan
is
that
this
this
will
be
the
the
method
for
deploying
cf
on
kubernetes
and
the
cf4
gates
project.
Much
touted
will
sort
of
be.
You
know,
pushed
aside
so
yeah
I
mean
that's
a
big
big
project.
F
B
Yeah
I
mean
there'll
be
a
big
promotion
once
once
you
hit
the
ga.
All
of
this
will
be
communicated
like
hey.
You
know
why
another
cf
on
kate's
project,
yeah.
B
It
but
this
has
been
they've,
been
working
on
this
pretty
hard
for
a
while
and
it's
it's
almost
ready
and
I
think
we
just
found
a
name,
but
I
need
to
confirm
good
confirmation
from
the
team
to
go
with
that.
So.