►
From YouTube: GitOps Principles Committee Weekly Meeting 20210602
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
Nice,
this
meeting
is
being
recorded,
so
welcome
everyone
to
the
june
2nd
2021
edition
of
the
principal's
committee
weekly
meeting
from
the
get
ops
working
group.
There's
no
reason
to
be
this
formal,
but
we
are
recording
for
people
that
listening
later,
so
please
everyone
act.
Accordingly,
I
pasted
in
the
link
to
the
the
google
doc
for
our
meetings
right
to
the
header
for
today's
meeting.
So
please
pop
on
you
know
any
agenda
items.
A
We
have
two
two
agenda
items
on
there
now
I
may
as
well
get
started
so
first,
one
that
I
think
pretty
most
people
in
this
meeting
know
already
is
that
we
we
have
a
a
public
pre-release
of
the
of
the
principles
of
the
get-ups
principles
and
the
glossary,
and
so
that's
you
know.
Everyone
who
worked
on
that
through
meetings
and
asynchronously
in
github
is
thanked.
You
know
both
in
the
pull
request
and
and
get
co-authorship.
So
thank
you
that
was
awesome.
A
We
know
that
it's
pretty
terse
right
now
and
if
I
understand
correctly,
our
goal
for
for
the
principles
is
to
keep
them
short,
but
but
precise,
and
for
any
of
the
notes
to
to
move
to
other
supporting
documents,
ultimately,
whether
that
be
the
glossary,
the
best
practices,
doc
or
or
other
supporting
documents
in
the
documents
repo.
A
But
that's
where
we
stand
now,
it's
version,
so
we
can
where
it's
at
right
now
will
always
be
there
in
version
0.1.0,
so
yay,
robert
yeah,
exactly
yeah,
that's
the
fun
part
of
collaborating
through
git,
but
you
know
the
for
those
on
the
call
who
who
might
not
have
been
here
in
past
meetings.
What
we've
done
sometimes,
if
we
want
to
do
focused
collaborative
editing,
is
we'll
throw
it
inside
a
hackmd
document,
and
just
do
you
know,
essentially
google
doc
style
collaborative
editing
for
markdown.
A
So
just
do
like
pretty
focused
real-time
collaborative
editing.
We
can
always
do
that
if
we
need
to
do
that
again,
okay,
so
that
was
really
it
for
that
announcement.
Just.
B
A
quick
comment
around
that
announcement:
do
you
think,
like
what
do
you
all
think
about
kind
of
like
doing
some
blog
posts
or
some
other
means
of
kind
of
like
socializing
this
to
the
broader
audience,
because
I
think
right
now,
it's
it's
something
that
we
are
aware
of,
but
still
like
part
of
the
whole
work
group
and
principal's
objective
is
to
kind
of
get
everybody
on
the
same
page
as
to
what
git
ups
is
all
about.
B
So
I
think,
as
as
as
the
committee
that's
in
charge
of
defining
like
collaborating
around
these
principles,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
world
knows
about
it
right.
So
what?
What
do
you
all
think
are
good
action
items
that
we
could
promote
or
run
on
ourselves
to
to
get
this
socialized
to
the
to
the
broader
community.
C
It
was
just
a
great
idea:
we
we
this
is.
This
is
a
project
for
the
website
committee
that
I'm
working
on,
which
is
we
need
a
blog,
so
we
can
put
that
post
somewhere,
but
absolutely
I
think
I
posted
the
principles
around
a
few
different
places
and
got
a
pretty
tempered
response.
Oh
neat,
interesting,
you
know,
okay,
so
having
a
blog
post
where
we
can
introduce
like
this
is
why
this
is
important.
C
I
wouldn't
mind
taking
a
crack
at
it
and
then
sharing
with
the
group
and
then,
as
far
as
the
website
goes,
I
think
we
should
be
having
it
launched
in
the
next
two
weeks.
I
think
we'll
have
a
draft
relatively
shortly
here
to
share
with
everybody
and
then
make
some
quick,
iterations
and
launch
it
and
then
iterate
as
we
go,
so
we
should
be
in
good
shape
for
that.
B
Cool
I'll
also
write,
because
I
think
that
the
more
the
more
like
exposure
that
we
have,
the
better
so
I'll,
also
kind
of
give
it
a
good
crack
at
and
having
another
version
of
a
post
that
we
can
promote
through
other
channels.
So
that
kind
of
like
there's
also
this
sense
of
consensus.
Right
like
this,
is
something
that
now
multiple
members
of
organizations
are
are
agreeing
to
to
be
kind
of,
like
the
baseline
of
of
what
getups
is
all
about
right.
A
A
What
feel
like
similar
versions
to
these
principles
over
the
last
several
years
you
know
they've
been
out
and
then
and
even
on,
even
when
in
the
announcement
for
the
get
ups
working
group,
the
principles
as
they
oh
look
my
hand
down
the
principles
as
they
were
are
still
summarized
on
that
read
me,
so
I
think
just
at
a
glance
it
might
not
look
super
different,
but
I
think,
what's
what
what
a
lot
of
the
people
might
not
realize
is
just
how
how
many
voices
there
are
in
this
symphony.
A
People
have
have
really
high
priorities
for
themselves
for
their
companies
the
tools
they
represent,
the
open
source
projects.
They
represent
the
the
commercial
interests
that
they
have
and
to
make
sure
that
the
principles
are
something
that
everyone
like
across
the
board
has
broad
consensus
on
so
yeah
like
now
that
we
have
that
it's
a
also,
it's
very
short,
you
know,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
the
content
still
in
get
history,
so
I
think
that's
part
of
the
goal
now
of
these.
These.
A
These
weekly
meetings
is
to
to
look
back
at
some
of
this
and
and
draw
from
some
of
that
get
history
and
from
other
things
we
might
want
to
add
and
really
flush
it
out
a
little
bit
more,
while
keeping
the
principles
themselves
really
really
short.
Yeah.
B
And
another
thing
that
comes
to
mind
real,
quick
and
sorry
to
kind
of
just
blurt
out
things
out
of
agenda,
but
it's
just
kind
of
stuff
that
comes
to
mind.
What
about
the
cncf,
you
know
being
a
cncf
working
group,
should
the
cncf
somehow
communicate
promote,
adopt
like
what
is
the
role
of
the
cncf
us
being
working
below
the
cncf
in
terms
of
kind
of
like
establishing
this
principles
or
something
that
they
are
effectively
promoting
and
adopting
right.
This
is
kind
of
not
just
our
position,
but
also
the
cncfs
adopted
so.
C
That
oh
go
ahead,
scott!
You
can
go
dan,
oh,
the
cncf
has
a
standing
policy
of
not
picking
winners.
So
as
far
as
promoting
the
adoption
of
the
standard,
they
certainly
won't
do
it
as
like
a
here's,
our
recommendation,
but
they
are
a
marketing
arm
for
any
project
underneath
them,
and
so
they
should
be
willing
to.
Once
we
have
the
blog
post,
we
could
do
a
blog
post
on
the
cncf
blog
too.
We
can
do
a
webinar
on
the
cncf
webinar
rotation
like
so
they
have.
D
C
Of
different
arms
that
we
can
use
to
promote
this
stuff
that
we
should
take
advantage
of,
but
they
won't
there's,
I
don't
think
there's
a
situation
where
they'll
be
like
get
ops
is
what
you
should
do
officially
stamp
recommendation
cncf.
You
know
they're
not
going
to
do
that,
but
hey
here's,
a
here's.
Some
cool
here
are
the
principles
that
the
get-offs
working
group
has
come
out
with.
C
You
know
like
they'll,
do
promotion
and
marketing
for
us,
and
actually
one
more
thing
on
that
in
the
events
committee,
we're
working
on
more
get
ops
events
and
for
get
ops
day,
zero
at
kubercon
eu
that
was
just
a
regular
day:
zero
sponsored
event
by
weaveworks
and
red
hat,
but
for
kubecon
us
that's
going
to
be
a
co-located
cncf,
hosted
project,
a
conference
which
means
that
multiple
sponsors
can
come
in
and
be
part
of
it
and
enjoy
it.
C
But
it
also
means
that
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
marketing
for
it.
It
has
more
of
a
cncf
stamp
of
approval,
so
that
marketing
arm
is,
I
think,
in
a
really
good
shape,
and
I've
shared
this
with
with
the
rest
of
the
community.
Here,
but
for
those
elsewhere
that
don't
know
we're
planning
to
do
like
a
get
ops
con
standalone
conference
next
year,
so
this
is
going
to
set
us
up
to
do
that
and
it's
all
going
to
happen
under
the
guys
at
cncf.
I,
like
kid
ops,
tv,
that's
a
great
idea.
A
Nice
that
was
pretty
much
very
similar
to
what
I
was
going
to
say,
except
I
like
to
focus
on
the
on
the
adapt
con
thing.
One
thing
I'm
not
totally
sure
of
we
can
check
into,
and
this
should
probably
be
added
as
an
action
item.
If
someone
on
the
call
doesn't
know
for
sure
right
now
is
whether
the
cncf
project,
blogs
are
also
a
service,
that's
made
to
sandbox
projects
or
if
that's
only
incubation
projects.
A
C
E
I
actually
just
so
totally
unrelated
to
what
y'all
are
working
on.
I
just
went
through
the
webinar
thing
via
the
cncf,
so
I
actually
had
that
information
in
my
email,
so
I
can
search
it
and
send
it
to
you.
A
That's
awesome,
and
did
you
see
the
note
that
jason
just
I
don't
know
if
everyone
saw
the
note
that
jason
just
posted
about
excuse
me
sorry
cloud
native
tv,
I
thought
they're
supposed
to
have
multiple
shows
a
day.
Did
you
want
to
say
anything
about
that
jason.
E
I
I
would,
but
leonardo
just
mentioned
that
he
probably
knows
way
more
about
it.
B
Yeah,
well
I
I
I'm
actually
in
that
working
group
we're
launching
next
week
there's
going
to
be
one
show
every
day,
I'm
I'm
running
one
of
those
shows,
but
it's
focused
on
on
latin
america
cloud
native.
B
So
it's
going
to
be
it's
going
to
be
in
spanish,
so
it's
going
to
be
ldl
github,
so
that
doesn't
really
work
well,
but
yeah.
So
it's
launching
it's
launching
next
week
it's
going
to
be
bi-weekly
shows
we've
got
about.
I
think
it's
10
shows
altogether.
I
think
11
or
something
so
yeah.
That's
that's
cloud
native
to
me.
B
Oh,
that's,
fantastic!
That's
fantastic!
Let
me
are
you
on
the
on
the
I'm
guessing
you're
in
the
cncf
slack
right,
I
can
find
you
there
yeah,
okay,
fantastic
I'll
reach
out.
I'm
gonna.
Send
you
a
message
right
now.
A
Okay,
cool
so.
A
C
Sure
so
something
I've
been
thinking
a
lot
about
with
this
initial
version
of
the
getups
principles
and
looking
through
them,
and
I'm
sorry
that
I
wasn't
more
involved
in
the
week-to-week
meetings.
I
missed
a
couple
of
the
meetings
and
did
some
contributions
early
on,
but
looking
through
them.
C
I
felt,
like
the
wording
of
things,
revealed
the
hands
of
a
committee,
so
it
felt
like
maybe
they
were
worded
in
such
a
way.
That
was
very
precise,
but
maybe
not
as
compelling
as
I
think
we
could
make
them.
So
I'm
interested
in
in
thinking
about
how
we
can
take
these
principles
and
keep
wording.
That
is
precise
as
it
is
now,
but
trying
to
make
it
simpler
and
maybe
more
catchy,
because
a
big
part
of
this,
of
course,
is
like
not
just
having
principles
that
are
accurate,
but
also
having
principles
that
are
catchy.
C
And
so
I'm
interested
in
taking
some
time
to
like
rework
some
of
the
wording
to
make
these
things
more
human,
readable,
more
straightforward,
more
clear
things
that
are
more
easily
repeatable
and
more
memorable
by
themselves,
and
I
felt
like
even
the
even
the
structure
of
having
each
item
being.
The
principle
of
x
that
feels
like
a
transitionary
state
where
it's
like.
We
have
a
principle.
That's
about
this.
How
should
we
word
that?
C
C
This
is
the
commandment,
you
know
and
it's
clear
and
it's
draws
a
very
bright
line
in
the
sand
and
you
see
it,
and
maybe
you
want
to
get
deeper
into
it.
You
want
to
learn
more
about
what
that
really
means,
but
there's
something
that's
bright
and
strong
enough
there
to
get
your
interest
to
even
go
into
the
glossary
and
stuff,
and
I
don't
want
to
shove
everything
into
everything
that
should
be
in
the
glossary
into
the
principle
itself.
C
So
I
don't
know
if
people
feel
the
same
way
if
you
feel
like
it's,
that's
not
a
problem,
maybe
I'm
the
only
one
that
thinks
this,
but
I
just
feel
like
if
we
could,
as
we
move
forward
in
the
next
version,
be
thinking
about
how
to
make
these
more
memetic
for
lack
of
a
better
word
like
something
that
makes
it
so
that
it
catches
in
the
brain
more
making
them
clearer
and
making
them
stand
by
themselves
without
any
introduction
and
simplicity.
C
C
No,
I
I
think
it's
something
that
should
be
on
the
principle
itself
like
like
looking
at
the
first
one,
the
principle
of
declarative
desired
state,
okay,
so
this
introduces.
This
is
what
this
principle
is
going
to
be
about.
C
C
C
State
state
should
be
expressed
declaratively
and
readable
by
humans
and
machines.
I
mean
like
make
it
just
super
simple
super,
straightforward
yeah.
We
might
leave
some
stuff
on
the
on
the
table,
but
it
gets
the
idea
really
clearly
across
and
it's
like
what
do
you
know?
You
know
the
the
state
should
be
declarative.
C
C
You
know
a
short
phrase,
especially
that's
something
that
is
going
to
be
more
more
memorable
and
I
always
think
about
the
google
sre
handbook.
I
don't
know
if
any
of
you
have
read
that
it's
like
really
really
good.
It's
really
well
written.
I
don't
know
who
wrote
it,
but
I
actually
took
out
and
put
on
my
desktop.
The
phrase
hope
is
not
a
strategy,
because
it's
it's
damn
mimetic
right,
it's
memorable
as
hell
and
it's
really
insightful
and
it's
like
it's
like
something
to
live
your
life
by
right,
like
it's.
C
Like
really
good-
and
I
want
the
principles
to
get
there
like,
I
want
it
to
be
that
strong
that,
like
something
that
someone
would
take
and
stick
on
a
poster
and
like
if
you're
not
willing
to
put
it
on
a
poster,
then
maybe
it's
not
simple
enough,
and
I
always
go
back
to
feynman
richard
feynman.
If,
if
you
guys
like
richard
feynman,
he
used
to
say
that
if
you
can't
express
it
simply
you
don't
understand
it
well
enough.
Yet
so
I
feel
like
we
haven't
quite
got
there
yet
sorry
go
ahead.
Scott.
A
That
has
something
that's
something
that
we've
talked
about
in
past
principles.
Meetings
right
is
that
we
we
would
want.
We
want
the
principles
to
be
something
that
can
be
printed
potentially
printed
out,
just
not
just
in
a
repa
but
printed
out
on
a
poster,
including
any
anything
required
for
it.
So
if
the
glossary
is
required
for
that,
then
that
should
fit
on
it
too.
You
know
etc,
but
I
just
had
a
suggestion.
I
do
think
we
can
discuss
it
here.
A
Set
of
set
of
thoughts
about
it
and
it
might
be
good
to
you,
know
sketch
up
something
like
what
that
might
look
like
the
one
thing
I
want
to
just.
I
have
like
a
feeling
of
like
almost
like
butterflies
in
my
stomach
from
like
the
months
of
going
over
this
text
with
such
a
broad
range
of
people
from
different
organizations.
A
You
know
like
moving
back
and
forth
between
arguably
bike
shedding
specific
words
or
or
even
just
you
know,
philosophically
you
know
debating
like
the
the
merits
of
of
specific
phrasing.
So
I
would
probably,
if
I
were
you
just
as
a
quick
suggestion
as
couch
it
as
as
kind
of
a
formatting,
a
change
in
formatting,
primarily,
but
that's
just.
C
Yeah,
because
it's
not
it's
not
about
the
principles
really
being
differently
like
the
the
the
ideas
expressed
here,
are
really
good
and
like
the
core
idea,
is
really
good.
It's
just
thinking
like
how
can
we
format
this
and
phrase
it
in
such
a
way
that
it
becomes
memorable
and
clear
and
doesn't
require
a
lot
of
parsing
and
you
might
need
to
leave.
C
You
know
some
piece,
some
point
on
the
on
the
floor,
but
maybe
you
get
deeper
into
it
in
the
glossary
you
know.
Maybe
it's
does
it
have
to
be
in
the
in
the
headline.
You
know
I
don't
know,
but
okay,
that's
a
good
idea.
I'll
put
it
in
discussions
I'll
do
a
write-up
on
that
this
week.
Any
other
thoughts
on
this
before
we
move
on.
C
B
Okay,
sorry,
no
it's
about
the
same
thing,
so
I
I'm
just
basically
going
to
echo
what
you
both
said.
I
do
become
very
nervous
at
the
thought
of
going
back
to
the
drawing
board.
You
know
what
I'm
saying
like
like
going
back
to
a
point
where
there
is
a
lot
of
argument
back
and
forth,
but
I
do
think
that
dan
is
not
questioning
the
content
rather
the
form-
and
I
think
that's
you
know
it's
almost
to
me-
the
way
that
I
understand
it.
Then
it
might
be
wrong.
B
Let
me
know
if
I
am,
but
it's
almost
a
matter
of
con
condensing
into
a
memorable
one-liner
right,
not
that
it
should
communicate
something
different
or
that
the
content
is
wrong.
Just
it's!
It's
there's
redundancy
and
maybe
we
don't
even
need
the
principle
of
something
you
just
state
the
principle
period.
You
know,
but
I
do
worry
about
kind
of
like
the
response
of
the
community
being
one
in
which
we
go
back
to
the
point
where,
where
there's
a
lot
of
argument,
it's
kinda,
like
the
only
thing
that
I
I'm
not
saying
it's
not.
B
I
agree.
I
think
I
think,
condensing
into
a
shorter
form,
that
is
that
it's
easy
to
memorize
that
it's
it's
catchy
and
whatnot
definitely
supports
the
purpose
of
the
principles,
but
I
would
I
would
tread
lightly
on
on
making
sure
that
we
through
that
process,
we
don't
confuse
the
principle
so
that
people
argue
that
it
no
longer
communicates
what
has
been
agreed.
It
communicates
after
all
these
weeks.
You
know.
C
Yeah
yeah,
my
I
I
want.
Ultimately,
people
aren't
going
to
adopt
git
ops
because
it's
the
official
statement
of
the
the
get
ops
working
group
under
the
cncf.
This
is
august
standard
they're,
going
to
use
it
because
it's
catchy
and
it
works
for
them
right.
So
I
I
think
it's
it's
important
enough
to
bring
up
rob
earth.
D
D
That
would
be
great
and
I
would
probably
then
maybe
agree
that
that's
a
better
way
to
do
it.
But
just
looking
back
at
all
the
discussions,
we
we
had
certain
princesses.
Some
principles,
you
know
were
talked
over
for
like
three
meetings
in
a
row
and
then
we
had
to
take
a
break
and
then
come
back
to
it.
So
you
know
saying
that
okay
well
now
rewrite
that
it's
it's
yeah!
It's
it's
really
hard
for
me
to
you
know,
go
all
in
on,
but
I
I
agree
in
principle.
C
A
Okay,
in
the
spirit
of
staying
on
topic,
I
think
we
we
have.
We
have
a
goal,
and
I'm
probably
probably
gonna
now
move
to
to
going
back
to
our
two
minute
hand
raise
thing
that
was
good,
though
now
we
have
an
action
item.
Does
someone
want
to
add
that?
Oh,
I
think
you
did
have
that
right,
maybe
not
anyway,
if
someone
wanted
an
action
item
for
dan
to
put
that
in
the
discussion.
A
A
And
sorry
folks,
don't
know
what
happened
just
then
in
the
docks.
A
Okay
cool.
I
asked
asked
jason
to
come
the
next
agenda
item,
as
I
asked
jason
to
attend
this
meeting
because
jason
is
working,
has
worked
and
is
working
on
the
cncf
glossary
and
we
have
a
glossary.
That
is
part
of
the
git
ops
working
group.
Sorry,
a
part
of
the
open
get
ops
principles
by
the
ops
working
group:
that's
a
cncf
project,
so
it
seems
like
we
should.
That
would
be
nice
to
coordinate
somehow
there,
and
maybe
we
could
learn
some
things
from
that.
A
So
do
you
want
to
just
introduce
yourself
can
take
it
away
for
a
second
jason.
E
Yeah,
absolutely
hey
folks,
nice
to
nice
to
meet
all
of
you
so
so,
like
scott
said,
I've
been,
you
know
been
working
for,
I
guess
a
while
on
this
cncf
glossary,
so
there's
a
longer
story.
Essentially,
there's
a
committee:
that's
focused
around
communicating
the
business
value
of
cncf
projects
to
stakeholders
and
really
early
on.
We
figured
out
that,
like
it's
as
you
all
have
already
have
already
learned.
E
It's
really
hard
to
like
do
anything
if
y'all
don't
agree
on
like
a
common
lexicon
or
essentially
how
you
use
the
words
that
you
use
like
continuous
right
or
any
any
other
one
right.
Well,
so
we
built
this
glossary,
the
cncf
really
liked
it
and
they
published
it.
They
published
like
an
official
version,
one
of
the
glossary
and
shared
it
out
at
kubecon
yeah
thanks
thanks
scott,
so
we've
we've
got
a
repo.
We've
got
folks,
adding
stuff
to
it.
You
know
when
we
got
some
publicity
at
kubecon.
E
We
heard
from
a
lot
of
folks
that
this
is
not
the
only
glossary
attempt
in
town
and
so
basically
what
I'm,
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
talk
to
other
folks
that
are
doing
them.
See
what
practices
we
can
share
and
see
see
where
we
can
like
make
sure
that
this
cncf
glossary
works
for
you
in
your
use
case
and
when
you're
trying
to
promote
like
your
own
stuff,
like
the
products
that
the
get
ups
working
group
are,
are
doing.
E
A
Awesome,
I'm
just
I
just
want
to
be
sensitive
to,
even
though
I
invited
you
here.
I
just
want
to
be
sensitive
to
to
a
time
and
agenda,
so
there
are
no
other
agenda
items
on
here
right
now,
but
can
people
please
put
them
on
if
something
comes
to
mind
and
we'll
keep
track
of
that?
Okay.
E
Thanks
cool,
can
everyone
see
my
screen
hold
on?
I
gotta
grab
something.
E
Can
everyone
see
my
screen
yeah
awesome
to
make
it
a
little
bigger
yeah.
So
that's!
This
is
the
state
where
it's
at,
where
it's
at
today
right,
so
we
just
got
done
at
kubecon
with
our
version
one
so
between
now
and
the
next
kubecon
we're
trying
to
launch
25
new
terms.
E
So,
let's
just
go
through
what
we
have,
so
the
readme
was
really
just
there.
Introducing
you
to
the
project
right,
like
not
gonna,
be
a
big
surprise
to
anybody.
We've
got
a
style
guide,
which
we
found
pretty
useful
and,
like
things
that
we,
I
guess
things
I'd
recommend
if
y'all
are
looking
at
doing
your
own
glossary.
This
is
this.
Is
pretty
nice
like
to
just
have
like
a
very
clear
style
guide
right
at
the
beginning,
the
other
one.
E
Anyone
like
the
definition
layout's
been
been
pretty
handy,
so
we've
been
doing
it
all
on
markdown
we
haven't.
We
haven't
settled
on
like
a
really
like
consumable
format.
Yet
right
like
we're,
we
stuck
to
really
like
our.
We
were
very
aggressive
about
our
mvp
being
pretty
bad
and
so
right
now
it's
a
big
pdf.
That's
handmade
right!
That's
the
that's!
The
current
release,
we're
hoping
that
in
time
for
kubecon
there'll
actually
be
a
website,
but
the
the
artifacts
that
make
up
the
definition
are
just
like
this:
they
all
go
in
a
markdown
file.
E
You
put
in
like
a
little
metadata
section
yaml
at
the
top,
and
then
then
your
definition.
We've
got
two
two
basic
formats
right
like
when
we're
dealing
with
something
that
is
we're
dealing
with
something
that
is
that
like
where
it
makes
sense.
We
do
this
kind
of
set
of
like
what
it
is
problem.
It
addresses
how
it
helps
and
then,
when
we're
dealing
with
something,
that's
more
like
just
the
straight
concept.
E
You
know
we
just
we
just
try
and
we
we
get
out
of
that
syntax
and
give
you
a
more
more
open-ended
way
to
describe
things.
But
it's
it's
been
handy
and
I
guess
what
I'd?
What
I'd
hope
y'all
get
out
of
this
is
if
you're
gonna
do
more
glossary
stuff
one,
you
know
maybe
give
us
some
feedback
about
bits
of
metadata.
That
would
be
helpful
to
you
as
far
as
like
allowing
you
to
link
to
us
or
us
the
link
over
to
you.
E
You
know,
and
the
other
thing
the
other
thing
I'd
hope
is
that,
if
you're
gonna,
if
you're
gonna,
go
down
this
path
like
at
steal,
some
of
the
stuff
that
we've
we've
made
because
it's
some
of
it
has
been
been
pretty
handy,
including
a
guide
for
people
who
are
really
new
to
get
on
how
to
actually
do
like
a
pr
that
then
links
to
those
github
guides
because,
like
you
all
have
seen
right,
as
you
were
editing
your
your
principles,
it
it
can
get
to
be
really
unpleasant
to
do.
E
So
you
know
here
you
can
look
at
just
the
terms
that
we've
got
so
far
right
same
particular,
one
I
think
api
gateway
is
done.
The
the
other
thing
that
we
did,
that
would,
I
thought,
was
really
good.
Is
we
we
set
different
statuses
right
so
as
people
go
to
like
add
in
something
like
add
in
a
new
term
right
like
it,
you
know
it's
hard
to
try
to
decide
like
what
really
fits
into
like
the
cncf
or
like
a
cloud
native
term
right.
So
we
have.
We
have
a
couple.
E
We
have
a
couple
couple
statuses
that
you
can
be
in
right
like
not
started,
feedback
appreciated
or
completed
right,
and
so
it
lets
us
take
in
new
terms
as
feedback
appreciated
really
easily
without
actually
having
to
like
say.
Yes,
you
know
like
someone
just
just
sent
up
like.
I
think
it
was
like
zero
trust
architecture
or
something
was
the
term
right
like
it's
not
on
like
no
one
was
thinking
about
it
and
you
know
they
got
in.
E
We
got
them
to
change
their
their
status,
to
feedback
appreciate,
and
then
everyone
was
comfortable
just
letting
it
in.
So
I
guess
just
some
some
tips
for
making
it
easy
to
get
content
in
from
folks.
The
other
thing
is,
if
you
do
like
some
of
this
stuff-
and
you
want
to
borrow
it-
and
you
think
hey
this
geez
this.
E
This
could
be
changed
in
this
way
or
that
way,
and
you
you
send
it
back
to
us
like
we're,
you
know
we're
pretty
open
to
changing
the
way
that
we
work
so
we'd
love
to
like
take
any
good
ideas.
Y'all
have
our
improvements
on
this
format.
Y'all
have
and
that's
about
it,
for
the
glossary.
The
other
thing
is,
you
know
again.
If,
if
we
can,
you
know
if
we
can
publicize
the
work
you're
doing
through
this
glossary
or
at
least
link
to
stuff
right,
then
we'd
love
to
be
we'd,
love
to
be
doing
that.
E
That
was
about
it
like
I,
don't
I
don't
really
have
a
long
speech.
It's
a
glossary
right
like
it's,
it's
dull,
but
it's
valuable.
A
Awesome,
thank
you.
That's
that's
rad
yeah,
I
mean
I
I
definitely
my
mind
mulled
over
this
a
bit
about
how
how
this
could
or
may
this
could
be
beneficial
or
maybe
too
much,
depending
for
our
for
the
needs
for
the
glossary
for
for
the
the
principles
or
for
the
get
ups
glossary.
A
I'd
love
to
have
other
people
think
about
this,
but
I
just
have
a
couple
of
quick
questions.
If
you
don't
mind,
one
is.
A
One
is,
are,
you
is
the
cncf
principles
project?
Excuse
me
not
pencils,
I'm
not
sorry.
There's
a
cncf
glossary
project
intended
to
be
versioned
for
one
thing
you
know
like
in
the
sense
where
you
could
say
you
know
yeah.
A
E
It
is
right
now
right,
so
it
is
right
now
because
right
now,
like
the
the
release,
is
literally
asking
a
designer
to
go
in
and
and
create
a
pdf
right
once
that's
once
that,
once
that's
like,
once,
we've
moved
past
the
next
kubecon,
what
we're
hoping
to
do
is
just
have
a
live
site.
That's
really
easy
to
link
to
where
you
can
go,
grab
the
appropriate
terms
and
just
just
move
through
it
and
then
and
then
no
it
won't
be
versioned.
E
A
E
And
we're
actually
like
so
we're
pre-planning
all
the
terms
that
we're
actually
gonna
put
so
we
like,
we
went
through
and
selected
the
first
25
terms,
we're
going
through
and
selecting
the
next
25
terms
you
can
see
if
you
go
to
our
our
project
board.
Where
is
it
projects
right?
It's
yeah!
There
we
go.
E
The
other
thing
is,
if,
if
you
don't
feel
like
building
out
your
own
glossary
right,
if
you
all
just
want
to
contribute
terms
here,
like
that's
totally
fine
like
we
could
make
like
a
a
get
ops
category
or
something
so
we're
you
know,
we
don't
have
anyone
that
is
really
strongly
opinionated
or
passionate
about
like
about
the
glossary.
We
just
are
pretty
sure
that
it's
really
useful,
so
we
keep
doing
it.
A
Yeah,
that
was
my
second
that
was
going
to
be.
My
second
question
is
at
what
level
of
granularity
for
things
that
each
project
might
need
would
would
make
sense,
for
you
know
a
combined
glossary
for
cncf.
So,
for
example,
if
the
word
continuous
has
a
special
meaning
for
get
ops,
might
it
not
also
have
a
different
meaning
for
other
projects
within
the
cncf
landscape?
A
A
E
Yes,
absolutely
right,
we
could
always
make
a
goes,
make
a
subfolder,
that's
for
get
up
stuff
and
then,
like
that
branches
off
somewhere
and
then
like
like,
I
said,
the
cncf
is
paying
like
an
actual
designer
to
come
in
and
and
build
a
site
right.
So
a
lot
of
that,
like
a
lot
of
that,
can
also
be
reused
like
should
you
all
be
doing
like
a
get
up
specific
one
or
make
a
getups
page
in
the
same
glossary.
E
You
know
we
we
ran
into,
like
I
don't
know,
but
you
so
we
were
talking
to
the
c
n
f
right,
which
is
like
a
telco
specific
working
group.
They've
got
their
own
glossary.
They
were
happy
to
like
share
some
things
with
us,
but
they
want
to
keep
most
things
inside
their
own
glossary
because
they
wanted
to
be.
You
know,
very
technical
and
also
very
telco
specific
in
their
words
right
and
like
the
the
only
guiding
principle
for
this
one
is
you
know
it
should
be.
E
A
Awesome
thanks
jason.
That's
that's
amazing,
I'm
guessing
that
we
probably
have
to
think
more
about
it.
As
a
group,
I
think
dan
just
dropped.
I
was
just
going
to
ask
him:
maybe
he
had
to
had
a
technical
issue
or
something,
but
I
was
just
going
to
ask.
We
can
follow
up
with
dan
because
dan's
leading
the
the
the
website
project
right
now
for
for
open
get
up
so
we'll
see,
I
guess
how
how
those
might
be
able
to
coordinate.
That's
really
cool.
A
I
did
just
want
to
mention
one
other
thing
and
I
don't
want
to
steamroll
over
anyone.
So
please,
let's
do
the
raised
hand
thing
so
like,
oh,
I
guess
I
didn't
do
it.
B
B
E
B
Like
how
you
have
you
considered
like
I,
I
don't
know
anything
about
the
project
right,
so
I'm
just
curious.
What
do
you
see
going
forward,
I
guess
personally
or
if
you've
spoken
about
it
in
the
in
within
the
project
of
the
glossary
being
not
just
in
english?
Do
you
see
that,
as
like,
eventually
adding
metadata
and
directories
and
structure
within
this
project
to
add
other
languages?
Do
you
see,
as
kind
of
like
a
glossary
dash?
B
Yes,
as
a
separate
project
where
spanish
equivalents
of
everything
like
just
curious
of
what,
how
you
see
that
going.
E
Forward
yeah,
so
we
don't,
we
don't
have
any.
We
don't
have
any
like
plans
or
thought
about
it
right,
okay,
so
that
would
be
like
it's
definitely
aside
from
like
we
we'd
like
it
to
be
there.
I
don't
actually
know
what
like,
what's
actually
a
best
practice
in
terms
of
doing
like
multiple
language
sport
so
and
when,
like
I
guess,
when
we
get,
we
get
someone
involved
that
wants
to
produce
content
in
another
language,
then
we'll
we'll
start
thinking
about
that,
because.
B
D
B
It's
like
if,
if
this
is
something
that
people
are
out,
there
are
already
interested
in,
maybe
participating
it's
it's
a
it's
the
whole
easter
egg
to
translate
25
terms
at
a
time
than
when
you
have
10
000
right
so
yeah.
If.
D
B
E
D
E
A
Yeah
robert,
did
you
want
to
say
that
out
loud?
Are
you
able
to
speak
or
did
you.
D
D
So
it's
kind
of
hard
to
have
that
in
a
lot
of
different
languages,
when
the
website
is
up,
you
could
probably
just
have
an
easy
way
of
doing
that,
having
multiple
versions
of
the
same,
which
then
will
be
generated
based
on
what
what
what
language
you
select
on
the
webpage
and,
like
I
said,
norwegian
scandinavian,
whatever
that
means
so
danish,
swedish
and
norwegian,
I
guess,
and
very
badly
german
and
three
words
of
spanish
and
some
japanese
actually
not
to
brag.
A
That
is
awesome
very,
very
relevant,
humble
brag.
I
love
it
yeah.
I
can't
help
with
any
of
that.
Unfortunately,
but
I
love,
I
love
that
this
happening.
I
was
just
gonna.
Ask
you
jason.
Do
you
just
just
to
mention
what
I
think
our
current
need
is?
A
A
We
put
them
in
a
in
a
in
a
repository
called
documents,
because
the
idea
is
that
some
of
these
will
depend
on
one
another
and-
and
so
in
the
case
of
the
get
ups
definition
and
principles
we
do
want
them
to
be
versioned
in
part,
because
it's
a
kind
of
dog
fooding,
because
we're
talking
about
you
know
ultimately
versioning
things
as
a
as
a
way
to
direct
operations.
A
In
this
case,
it's
not
really
there's
nothing
machine
readable
for
this.
These
definitions
are
really
just
human
readable,
but
they
are
principles
on
which
other
systems
will
be
built.
So
we
want
to
be
able
to
version
them
and
we
want
the
glossary
atoms
to
be
able
to
be
versionable
along
with
them,
so
that
when
there's
a
you
know
when
there's
an
update
to
one
of
the
principles
and
that
an
important
note
gets
moved
to
a
definition
like
with
what
happened
in
past
meetings,
we
can
do
that.
I
guess
what
I'm
wondering
is.
A
Maybe
it's
something
we
can
think
about
for
the
kind
of
asynchronously
you
know,
but
I'm
wondering
if
it
might
make
sense
to
use
a
system
like
what
you're
open
sourcing
for
the
cncf
glossary
and
but
then
but
then
have
that
somehow
compiled
into
a
format.
A
Excuse
me,
I
want
to
say
I
didn't
mean
compiled,
I
mean
yeah.
I
mean
ultimately
rendered
into
some
kind
of
format
that
that
we
could
write
back
to
our
repo
and
then
version.
You
know
so
just
something
that
I
might
want
to
think
with
you
about.
If
that
seems,
or
we
might
want
to
think
about.
That
seems
like
a
relevant
way
to
go.
Yeah.
E
Yeah,
so
as
far
as
as
far
as
that
like
if,
if
it's
handy
for
like,
if
it's
handy
for
the
glossary
project
that
changed
like,
for
example,
we
you
know
we,
the
get
ops
working
group
would
love
to
see
the
glossary.
Do
you
know
when
you
do
a
release
cut
like
an
actual
release,
and
this
is
the
glossary
at
this
moment
in
time
right
like
like?
E
If
that's,
if
that's
a
feature
that
that
is
important
and
adds
value
to
you,
then
like
we'll
we're
totally
open
to
adding
it
right,
but
it's
it's
really
just
right
like
right
now
the
goal
is,
you
know,
get
people
to
read
the
terms
and
hopefully
update
them,
and
then
you
know
as
they're
as
other
use
cases
appear,
you
know
meet
those
needs,
but
so
so
far
use
cases
are
super.
E
A
Cool,
so
we
have
12
more
minutes
left.
I
think
I'm
someone
mentioned
principal's
committee
burn.
What
is
it
ptsd
from
arguing
about
terminology
yeah?
Actually,
if
there's
nothing
else
with
the
glossary,
I
think
that
item
is
is
done
and
yeah
jason
you're
asking
just
to
speak
this
out
loud
about
like
what
the
hand-raising
thing
is
about.
It's
it's
because,
like
sometimes
the
meeting
can
be
this
number
of
people.
A
Sometimes
the
meeting
can
be
twice
or
more
than
this
number
of
people,
and-
and
there
are
some
pretty
it's
just
a
way
to
like
help,
run
the
meetings
fairly.
So
everybody
gets
a
chance
to
speak
yeah.
It
was
just
like
a
moderation
technique.
That's
all,
but
I
think
what
I'm
wondering
is
what
should
we
do
with
the
rest
of?
Oh,
hey,
jason.
I.
A
A
great
setup
gonna
copy
it
thanks
yeah,
it's
a
cool
slack.
It's
a
cool
zoom
feature,
isn't
it
anyway?
What
do
we
want
to
do
with
the
rest
of
the
11
minutes
that
we
have
left?
Do
we
want
to
just
kind
of
take
that
back
or
do
do
we
want
to,
as
the
principles
committee,
look
at
some
of
some
of
the
content
that
was
in
the
glossary
and
other
supporting
documents
before
we?
We
we
added
the
pared
down
pre-release
that
we
just
did.
A
So
I'm
gonna
throw
out
an
opinion
in
the
absence
of
one
of
another
one.
I'm
gonna
say
that
we
should
get
our
time
back,
because
10
yeah
11
minutes
might
be
too
too
short
of
time
to
really
focus
on
one
of
them.
We
could
possibly,
but
only
if
we
were
like
really
in
the
zone,
and
I
feel
like
we're
now
at
kind
of
we've
stepped
up
a
bit
on
conceptual
land
of
how
the
project
might
work.
A
You
know
with
glossary
items
and
with
you
know
like
with
what
dan
said
about
some
potential
simplification
as
a
discussion
and
and
and
maybe
what
we
can
do
for
the
next
meeting
is
just
have
set
an
agenda
ahead
of
time,
which
I
did
not
do
by
the
way
of
like
specific
items.
A
From
from
that,
a
lot
of
the
content
that
we
had
before
that
last
simplification
and
just
kind
of
maybe
individuals
who
are
interested
can
look
at
the
pieces
of
those
and
see
if
you
want
to
bring
up
specific
points,
you
know
what
I
mean.
What
do
you
all
think
about
that
is
like
a
way
forward
for
next
time,
or
do
you
have
any
other
ideas
of
how
to
make
it
better.
B
I
think
I
think
that
works,
and
I
think
that
works
and
I'd
like
to.
B
B
I
don't
want
to
say
committee
because
I
don't
want
to
have
like
the
20
committees,
but
like
just
get
up
git
ops,
content
initiatives
that
can
be
driven
by
the
word.
The
working
group
that,
together
with
the
principles,
kind
of
help
us
like
bring
this
high
level
concepts
to
the
ground
and
and
kind
of
like
talk
to
people
as
to
what
they
actually
mean
right
like
what?
What?
What?
How
does
it
look
like
in
practice?
And
why
is
it
different
from
from
just
good
all
continuous
deployment?
B
And
you
know
kind
of
like
share
what
what
our
common
understanding
is
in
at
a
more
ground
level,.
D
Yeah,
I
was
just
gonna
say
that,
having
having
initiatives
regards
to
content
and
stuff
going
back
to
what
I
said,
I
was
last
meeting
that
I'm
going
to
do
a
get
ops
principle
or
get
ups
in
a
general
presentation
internally
at
my
company
and
I'm
still
not
done
with
the
presentation.
So,
if
you
had
a
presentation,
I
could
use
like
having
that
kind
of
material
laying
around
for
people
to
use
would
be
great
but
as
well
doing
stuff
like
you.
G
D
A
G
Yeah,
I
think
last
meeting
I
mentioned
like
having
a
like
a
press
kit,
almost
right
or.
D
G
A
some
sort
of
kit,
I
think
that'd
be
that'd,
be
useful
to
have
once
you
know
around
the
principles
specifically
also
in
regards
to
like
blogs
and
things.
I
think
last
the
committee
before
this
one
we
I
I
did,
take
the
action
item
away
of
being
able
to
promote
some
of
these
blogs,
not
necessarily
from
the
working
group,
not
only
from
the
working
group,
but
just
from
just
in
general
out
there
just
to
get
more
exposure.
G
Feedback
from
from
the
people
out
there
so.
B
A
At
a
certain
point
you
know
we,
we
had
hoped
that
the
principles
committee
would
be
somewhat
short-lived.
It
went
on
a
bit
longer
than
we
thought.
A
And
we
it's
still,
it's
still
necessary
to
bring
in
the
other
content
that
we
had
before,
but
I
think
I'm
just
kind
of
thinking
about
what
let's
see,
what
leonardo,
what
you
were
just
saying
and
what
including
white
christian
just
mentioned.
You
know
how
we
have
the
getups
con
committee
and
then
we
just
renamed
the
get
ops
committee
to
the
events
committee
to
broaden
it
a
bit
because
there
are
other
get
ops
related
events.
A
Do
we
want?
Would
it
be
worth
broadening
the
principles
committee
to
be
the
documents
committee,
since
we
have?
We
have
a.
We
said
that
the
stated
purpose
of
well
sorry
finished
this
last
30
seconds
I
have
before
you
know,
since
we
know
that
our
goal
now
is
to
move
a
lot
of
that
content
from
what
was
originally
coupled
with
the
principles
to
be
supporting
documents
that
are
inside
of
the
same
version
documents
repo.
B
D
B
So
I'm
thinking
I'm
thinking
everything
from
from
architecture
diagrams
and
use
cases,
and
all
these
types
of
things
right
that
can
that
can
work
together
with
the
principles
that
can
demonstrate
what
the
what
the
principles
are
about
and
also
evolve
them
in
terms
of
not
the
principles
themselves,
but
the
understanding
everything
around
them.
We
talked
about
glossary.
We
talked
about
notes
like
all
these
things
are
going
to
change
over
time,
so
yeah.
I
I
like
the
idea
of
of
extending
I'd
like
to.
B
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is.
I,
like
the
idea
of
extending
the
purpose,
I'd
like
to
clearly
define
what
that
purpose
is
going
forward
right
to
to
make
sure
that
we
have
clear
objectives
as
to
what
this
renamed
committee
would
would
be
in
charge
of.
Does
that
make
sense.
A
A
Yeah
business
value
subcommittee,
yeah
that
doesn't,
although
that
also
doesn't
sound,
very
sexy
or
exciting,
but
important,
but
still
important,
so
yeah,
so
we've
defined
right
right
now.
Currently,
the
open
get
ops
project
is
defined
as
cncf
sandbox
project
for
lasting
programs
documents
and
code
from
the
git
ops
working
group,
and
the
idea
of
that
was
that
working
groups
aren't
meant
to
be
forever
or
not
even
forever,
but
men
working
groups
aren't
meant
to
be
lasting.
A
Working
groups
are
meant
to
be
temporary
to
achieve
a
purpose,
and
that's
the
same
is
true
with
the
get
out
to
working
group.
That's
why
they
get
up.
That's
why
the
open
get
ups
project
was
started
for
all
of
the
lasting
artifacts
and
things
that
will
continue
to
be
useful
to
people.
So
the
reason
so
far
that
we
just
named
the
repo
documents
is
because
it
just
was
one
of
the
three
things
that
we
said.
This
is
for
that's
that's
really
yeah
we
can
always.
We
can
always
change
that.
A
We
can
always
make
the
name
of
the
group
but
of
a
group
different.
I
was
just
thinking
that
maybe
principles
at
this
point
might
be
a
little
a
little
bit
narrow
for
what
for
now,
where
we're.
A
Now,
where
we're
going
with
this,
which
is
to
spread
some
of
that
love
to
you
know,
we
also
have
a
lot
more
content
than
I
think
people
coming
into
this
now,
we'll
see
it
just
looks
like
a
quick
one
pager,
whereas
the
pr
before
the
last
simplification
was
lots
and
lots
of
information
about
best
practices
and
so
on
and
other
you
know
the
the
real
meaning
of
of
the
value
of
why
we're
even
doing
this.
B
I
guess
a
question
that
I
would
ask
is
then
what
do
we
really
need?
A
committee
like
isn't
this
like
are:
aren't
we
all
just
generally
talking
about
the
purpose
of
the
working
group,
so
we
basically
just
as
a
working
group
work
together
in
different
objectives.
Our
first
objective
was
the
principles
now
that
we've
done
that
we
just
keep
like.
Maybe
we
should
just
have
a
working
group
meeting
of
a
regular
cadence
and
have
specific
objectives
that
we
just
nail
over
time.
B
B
G
Yeah,
so
I'm
on
the
so
I
agree
with
leo
in
principle,
but
we
need
to
discuss
on
how
that
looks
like
because
we
do
have
the
monthly
meeting
and
then
like,
or
are
we
talking
about
in
lieu
of
the
monthly
meeting?
G
This
is
what
we're
all
doing
kind
of
like
a
public
forum
sort
of
thing,
and
then
also
you
know:
there's
there
there
is
the
danger
of
having
just
like,
like
infinite,
subcommittees
right
of
doing
every
little
thing
versus,
but
then
there
is
the
the
other
danger
of
like
having
too
much
to
do
in
one
committee
sort
of
sort
of
thing
right,
and
so
I
guess
my
my
primary
concern
is
that
you
know
how
do
we
scope
the
work
of
this
specific
group
so
that
way
it
won.
G
You
know
people
wanting
to
join.
You
know,
no
knows
what
what
what
group
to
join.
I
guess
that's
one
right
which
committee
to
join
and
then
and
then
two
so
that
way
it
doesn't
necessarily
like,
I
don't
wanna,
say
get
it
get
away
from
us,
but
like
if
there's
stuff,
that
is,
there's
gonna,
be
natural
overlap.
But
there's
stuff,
like
you
know,
like
the
events
committee
like
get
off
con
like
we
wouldn't
talk
about
that
here,
necessarily,
even
though.
D
G
Related
so
I
I
do
want
to,
I
guess
I
guess
we
don't.
F
E
A
Makes
sense
so,
as
noted
we're
at
the
top
of
the
hour,
I
don't
want
to
if
we,
if,
if,
if
folks
on
here,
do
you
want
to
stay
an
extra
couple
of
minutes
just
to
kind
of
round
this
one
out?
That's
okay!
I
don't
want
to
like,
say:
oh,
don't
don't
say
anything
but
don't
feel
obligated
to
and
don't
feel
like
you're
going
to
miss
it,
because
we
are
recording
these
last
moments.
So
robert,
do
you
want
to
say
your
bit.
D
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
say
that
perhaps
perhaps
it's
even
possible
to
have
certain
topics
that
needs
to
be
discussed
more
than
the
you
know,
the
monthly
one-off
get-ups
meeting
and
then
one
could,
instead
of
having
you
know,
a
committee
for
everything.
That's
going
to
pop
up
just
have
like
an
ad
hoc
conversational
slack
find
that
people
want
to
discuss
this.
You
know
gather
your
get
your
crew
there
and
kind
of
just
go
like
all
right
we'll
do
it
once
a
week
and
then
present
it
at
that.
D
A
Okay,
all
good
yeah,
so
in
that
case
I
think
just
as
like
to
summarize
that
last
point
quickly,
just
so
no
one's
confused,
we
have
not
decided
to
change
anything.
A
We've
decided
to
change.
We
have
not
decided
to
change
anything,
I'm
almost
sorry.
A
I
mentioned
it
now
honestly
because
it
took
us
a
while
to
get
a
cadence
where
people
come
together
regularly
so
but
but
that's
interesting,
we
should
probably
discuss
it
and
I
will
say
that
this
is
probably
an
area
where
we
want
to
filter
up
to
the
like
this
kind
of
a
thing
to
the
you
know
to
either
the
monthly
group
or
the
chairs
meeting,
because
you
know
it
wouldn't
be
decided
for
each
committee
like
the
way
we've
had
it.
A
So
far
as
we
have
committees,
I
mean
it's
a
formal
sounding
name,
but
really
what
it
means
is
a
group
of
people
that
are
are
working
on
a
specific
topic
so
and
a
lot
of
the
people
are
on.
Some
people
are
on
multiple
committees,
not
everyone,
it's
all
according
to
individual
interest
and
ability.
So
we
I
think
in
before
we
have
we
shouldn't
change
that
unless
we
have
something
better
to
replace
it
with.
So
that's
my
that's
my
suggestion
anyway.
A
Just
so
we
don't
confuse
folks,
but
that's
it,
and
we
are
now
four
minutes
over
not
too
horrible
thanks
all
for
waiting-
and
I
will
see
you
unless
there's
anything
else,
burning
I'll,
see
you
next
time,
alright
and
and
see
you
on
slack
bye.
Everyone
absolutely.