►
From YouTube: GitOps Principles Committee Weekly Meeting 20210526
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
Thanks
christian
yeah,
okay,
so
welcome
everyone
to
the
recording
and
meeting
for
the
may
26
2021
get
ops
working
group
principles.
Committee
meeting.
A
There
is
one
topic
that
I
want
to
mention
is
that
is
the
I'll
write
it
here,
real,
quick,
I'll,
speak
I'll
speak.
It.
A
Okay,
so
I
just
put
on
there
there's
a
the
licenses
and
principles
pull
requests.
I
know
we're
already
on
track
for
this.
We.
A
Part
of
the
checklist
for
for
merging
all
the
work
that
we
did
that's
already
ready
to
be
merged
for
the
prince
for
the
first
pre-release
for
the
principles
that
pr
needs
the
repo
to
have
licenses
first
licenses
pull
request
is
here:
if
anyone
wants
to
give
that
a
look
over
now
would
be
a
lovely
time
to
do
it
and
honestly
anyone
in
this
group
can
can
do
that
for
the
future.
A
Ideally,
the
goal
will
have
a
process
set
up
where
other
maintainers
will
have
to
approve
pr
before
it
gets
merged,
but
that
has
not
been
set
up
yet
so
as
long
as
we
have
general
thumbs
up,
then
that's
fine
also
dan
is
on
the
call,
and
he
is
a
maintainer
so
and
jesse.
So
if,
if
either
of
you
just
want
to
even
give
a
just
a
a
an
informal
thumbs
up,
it's
okay,
we
don't
have
to
have
the
pull
rook
best
gods
rain
down
upon
us.
A
We
can
just
if
this
is
recorded.
So
it's
not
like
we're
hiding
anything.
You
can
just
take
a
look
and
see
if
it
just
looks
good
generally
once
it
does.
We
can
thumbs
up
it
and
merge
that
and
then
I'll
merge,
the
it's
just.
It's
just
apache
with.
B
A
attribution
on
it
is
that
right.
A
Yeah
there's
two
licenses
apache
for
code
and
and
then
creative
commons
4.0
for
for
anything,
non-code
related
like
documentation
like
this
or
other
things,
and
those
are
both
the
you
know
the
cncf
recommended
licenses
for
those.
A
A
All
right
beautiful,
then,
ultimately,
we
are
ready.
To
I
mean
this
is
kind
of
fun
like
if
someone
else
wants
to
if
one
of
the
I'll
check
the
little
oh,
you
know
what
here
I'll
share
my
screen
just
to
make
it
really
cool
for
you
all,
because
I
know
this
is
kind
of
a
big
deal
for
everyone.
We've
been
meeting
for
months
about
this
and
reach
consensus.
A
Okay,
this
is,
has
been
merged
now
and
then
yeah.
So
at
this
point,
if
one
of
the
other
maintainers
wanna,
I
can't
approve
my
own
pr,
but
like
we've
already,
we
already
have
ultimately
done
this
in
advance.
A
So
all
these
approvals,
if
you
feel
like
doing
the
honors
and
hitting
the
merge
button,
be
my
guest,
it
says.
B
A
Ultimately,
ultimately,
yeah
because
they've
been
involved
that
was
yeah,
chris
and
and
and
leonardo
have
been
involved
the
whole
time
I
just
I
just
went
ahead
and
asked
for
a
review
for
all
the
maintainers.
We
don't
need
another
official
review
from
all
the
maintainers,
because
everyone's
already
signed
off.
Okay,
it's
officially.
A
That's
so
that's
great
now
the
other
items
on
the
checklist
are
we
initially
said
we,
we
didn't
really
get
too
specific
about
exactly
what
the
pre-release
is
going
to
be,
but
we
could
start
with
a
v
one
of
the
0.1.0
december
style,
pretty
fast
follow
we
could
do
if
we
want
to
go
to
things
like
alpha
beta.
You
know,
but
I
think
that
whatever
is
the
simplest
for
the
story
to
communicate
to
the
public
is
probably
the
best
is
my
opinion,
because
people
have
been
kind
of
waiting
to
understand.
A
What
is
this
group
doing
anything
like?
Are
they
really
working
well
together,
and
I
think,
based
on
this
and
even
just
looking
through
of
the
commits
and
these
videos,
you
can
see
that
yes,
we
have,
and
yes,
we
are
moving
ahead
now
there
is,
I
just
want
to
note
there
is
and
then
I'll
shut
up
and
let
my
let
whoever
is
next
be
next,
but
there
was
william
babylonia
from
from
red
hat
left
some
suggestions,
and
I
basically
just
summarized
where
the
process
is
and
saying
that
like.
A
If
this
like
we're
ready
to
merge
like
any
moment
and
if
this
gets
merged
before
this
is
able
to
be
properly
reviewed,
this
discussion,
you
can
just
open
up
a
separate
pr
for
that,
but
I
at
least
wanted
to
point
people
to
this
and
I'll.
E
Saying,
by
the
way
I
am
william,
hey,
hey
so
just
wanted
to
clarify.
The
intention
is,
on
the
north
circumstances.
Stop
the
progress
of
this
at
all
is
again
as
a
discussion
for
a
future
again.
E
Do
not
please
do
not
stop
for
this,
but
in
a
for
the
future
to
go
and
clarify
exactly
what
is
what
you
put
it
there,
I
think,
is
phrasing
that
into
that
note,
because
again,
since
the
notion
of
taint
or
tainted
is
not
defined
anywhere
else,
and
it
has
many
meanings,
I
was
just
trying
to
point
out
that,
okay,
so
it's
on
the
north
signal
center
trying
to
delay
anything,
so
it's
just
for
a
future
iterations
to
try
to
consider
phrasing
that,
in
a
way
that
has
a
definition
already
in
it.
A
I
just
want
to
say
I
personally
love
that,
and
I
I
I
don't
know
if
you
got
to
see
my
response
yet,
but
I
would
love
to
if
you
want
to
if
you
haven't
read
through
it.
Maybe
please
read
through
my
response
and-
and
we
could
discuss
that
here
with
any
any
anyone
else's
viewpoints
or
just
asynchronously
after
the
fact.
So.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
that,
because
I
think
you're
right
that
that
one
note
was
a
little
bit
rough,
but
we,
I
think
we
we
all
agreed
that
you
know
this
is
a
pre-release
and
the
intention
is
for
these
notes
to
be
either
folded
into
the
glossary
section
or,
like
you
said,
for
if
taint
becomes
a
glossary
term
great.
If
we
decide
it
should
mean
something
else
great
or
to
actually
flesh
out
the
principles
themselves
and
for
us
not
to
have
a
long
list
of
notes.
C
Those
are,
those
are
definitely
temporary.
Notes
like
we
can
be
real
clear
on
that.
I
think
we
had
we've
been
talking
about
narrative,
adding
narrative
of
some
kind
to
the
doc
or
a
a
a
parallel
doc,
so
whether
it's
best
practices,
whether
it's
getting
started,
whether
it's
narrative,
we'll
figure
it
out,
but
yeah-
definitely
a
lot
of
that
needs
to
fold
in
there.
We
have
a
lot
of
that
work
already
done.
So
it's
it's
interesting
that
this
pr
just
merged
and
we're
like
yay,
and
it's
so
small,
compared
to
everything
else.
C
The
work
is
still
there,
so
just
for
everybody
who
might
just
be
tuning
in
just
coming
in
the
work
is
still
there.
We
intend
to
to
tease
it
out
and
spruce
it
up
and
put
it
in
its
own
dock,
so
yeah
really
a
good
observation.
I
will
echo
what
scott
said
thanks.
A
That's
great
okay,
so
I'm
thinking
we've
been
like
this
has
been
like
super
like
awesome.
So
far,
I'm
thinking,
maybe
we
should.
How
does
everyone
feel
about
moving
back
to
the
to
the
kind
of
like
hand-raising
agenda
way
of
going
about
this?
That
way,
we
can
know
whether
or
not
we're
like
cool.
We
covered
all
the
bases,
let's
give
people
back
time
or
whether
we
have
yeah
yeah,
referring.
F
To
so
scott,
just
referring
to
the
suggestion
in
that
vr
by
william,
I
think
that
can
be
written
without
you
don't
even
need
the
word
tainted
in
there.
You
know,
all
you
got
to
do
is
say
followed
by
a
reconciliation
of
the
system
back
to
the
desired
state,
and
that
way,
yet
you
don't
have
to
you
know,
take
this
strange
word
and
give
it
a
definition
somewhere
unless
you
plan
to
use
it
regularly.
F
F
A
G
Yeah,
I
don't
this
is
my
and
we
can
do
this
asynchronously.
This
is
a
comment
to
what
chris
just
said.
I
I
I
don't
think
I
think
the
the
note
for
principle.
Four
is
talking
about
what
if
I
commit
my
aws
credentials,
I
accidentally
merged
that
that
is,
that
is
still
the
desired
state,
even
though
it's
not
you
know
not
desired
state
in
that,
like
I
don't
I
don't
want
it
that
way.
I
made
a
mistake,
so
it's
it's
less.
I
think
less
about
reconciliation.
G
I
so
I
I
think
attain.
I
do
great
attendance,
the
wrong
word
and
I
do
think
we
can
probably
take
it
out.
I
do
I
do
want
to
keep
conscious.
This
is
like
a
like
a
break
last
situation.
Right
like
how
we
need.
We
need
to
stop
the
reconciliation,
do
something
right
and
then
turn
it
back
on.
F
Then
but
but
then
christian,
you
expect
the
system
to
go
back
to
the
declared
state
right.
G
E
E
The
note
there
is
that
this
helps
the
customers
and
anyone
using
this
principles
understand
that
not
because
you
had
to
disconnect
temporarily
for
any
reason
and
reconnect.
It
does
not
mean
that
you're
breaking
git
ups
as
the
principles
it's
more
like.
Yes,
those
scenarios
exist,
you
disconnect
you
do
whatever
you
have
to
do,
and
then
it
just
go
back
to
reconciliating
to
the
way
it
was
doing.
It
will
treat
the
system
as
like,
whatever
just
as
they
won,
basically
on
the
reconciliation,
but
not
because
that
had
happened.
E
E
F
Point
that
I'm
hearing,
though,
is
that
if
you
break
glass
enough
to
go
and
do
something
to
the
cluster,
that,
if
you
want
that
to
become
the
new
state,
then
you
have
to
go:
make
changes
in
your
git
repo
as
well
right.
If
you
don't
expect
that
to
become
the
the
new
state
and
you
just
needed
to
fix
something
or
whatever,
and
once
you
resume
the
reconciliation,
then
it
would
go
back
to
the
state,
that's
declared
in
git
right
and
it
could
overwrite
something
you
possibly
did
during
break
glass.
F
A
Cool
and
just
as
a
point
of
order,
I'm
going
to-
let
me
let's
say
remind
us
now
that
we
have
a
few
hands
raised,
that
we
should
go
back
to
hand
raising,
but
we
can
just
do
that
in
order
and
they'll
show
up
in
order
and
we'll
give
a
two
minute,
two
two
minute
maximum.
So
no
one
feels
like
their
conversation
is
going
to
be
blown
away,
I'm
next
than
mosh
and
I'll
be
very
short.
Yes,
chris.
A
I
totally
agree,
and-
and
in
that
in
that
note
that
I
added
to
the
to
the
bottom
of
the
link
that
the
review
to
with
williams
review,
I
listed
what
I
thought
we
had
discussed,
but
I'm
not
an
authoritative
voice,
the
authoritative
voice
or
anything,
that's
my
point
of
view.
So
if
anyone
disagrees
with
the
way,
I
summarized
it
please,
you
know
voice
your
difference
of
a
viewpoint
there
and
before
I
give
this
to
like
the
next
person.
A
I
just
wanted
to
ask
if
there's
anything
from
this
conversation
that
came
up
because
I
thought
it
was.
I
also
thought
it
was
a
good
observation
and
we
all
knew
it
was
a
little
bit
rough
but
but
purposefully,
okay
for
the
notes,
temp
tip
for
now,
do
we
feel
like
there's
anything
we
can
mine
from
this
to
anything
we
can
draw
from
the
conversation
so
far.
That
could
then
help
us.
A
You
know
I'm
going
to
lean
very
much
away
from
that
for
now
at
least
before
pre-release,
because
that
was
our
whole
point
of
doing
all
these-
that
we
we
we're
going
to
at
least
start
and
create
a
pre-release,
but
but
for
follow-up,
it's
a
pre-release
so
that
we
can
then
iterate
on
this
and
improve
it
right.
So,
if
there's
anything
that
we
can
do
to
take
what
you've
noticed
and
make
that
better,
let's
discuss
it
anyway,
I'm
off
now
and
then
it's
mosh
and
then
jesse.
H
Cool,
so
my
comment
is
really
around
the
the
going
off
the
beaten
path
so
like
if
you,
if
you're
turning
reconciliation
off
and
or
rewriting
git
history
or
anything
like
that,
like,
I
think
we
need
to
be
pragmatic
and
say
people.
There
are
circumstances
that
that
you
need
to
do
that,
but
but
that
doesn't
change
the
principles.
If,
if
you
go
off
the
get-up
path,
you
can
come
back
onto
it,
but
that
doesn't
change
the
fact
that
you've
gone
off
of
it.
H
H
Like
security
type
thing
you,
you
have
security
principles
and
you
follow
these
principles
and
if
you
break
those
principles
then
you
no
longer
doing
something,
secure
and
and
that's
fine,
sometimes
you
you
require
to
do
things
that
are
not
secure
and-
and
you
understand
that,
but
that
doesn't
change
the
underlying
principle.
A
Thank
you
mosh.
I
I
left
a
comment
on
there,
so
I'm
not
taking
up
extra
time.
Basically,
I
agree.
Jesse.
C
I
I
agree
too,
for
the
record.
I
think
that
that
was
a
good
summary.
I
think
that
there's
a
maybe
a
bigger
picture
thing
just
to
call
out
here
that
yeah
we
know
we
need
to
get
to
the
narrative
work.
We
know
we
need
to
support
the
principles
in
context,
so
I
feel
like
we.
We
could
now
iterate
over
the
notes
and
find
other
things
to
talk
about
with
the
notes.
C
C
I
mean
it's,
it's
basically
at
stake
right,
where
we
have
we'll
have
things
to
refer
to,
but
do
keep
in
mind
that
I
think
that
that's
the
goal
is
that
okay,
now
we
have
these
notes,
let's
massage
them
into
into
the
rest
and
one
random
thing
just
because
I
have
the
mic
totally
agreed
with
william
on
the
the
idea
of
of
a
discussion
doc.
I'd
actually
like
to
see
the
narrative
broken
up
into
topic-specific
docs.
I
think,
having
one
overview
that
then
links
off
to
particular
talking
points
would
be
awesome.
C
This
is
definitely
one
where
we,
you
know,
as
this
working
group
can,
can
help
the
community
kind
of
come
to
some.
I
know
best
practices
is
no
longer
in
style.
We
don't
like
to
use
that
term.
I'm
going
to
do
it
anyway,
because
I'm
old
best
practices
right,
like
I
think,
that's
one
of
the
things
that
people
are
going
to
be
looking
for
from
us.
What
do
I
do
when,
when
I
have
drift,
are?
Is
it
okay
to
have
sort
of
these
ephemeral
non-compliant
states
in
in
my
system
right?
If
it's
not?
C
What
are
the
guidelines
for
correcting
them?
So
I
think
a
lot
of
this
plays
into
those
those
narrative
concepts
that
we
need
to
come
that
we
need
that's
sort
of
like.
I
feel
like
that's
our
next
piece
of
work
because
relatedly-
and
I
don't
know
dan
if
you
want
to
bring
this,
but
the
website
work
is
just
starting
to
kick
up
now
and
we're
going
to
need
to
actually
give
content
there.
C
A
Well
I'll
raise
mine
for
a
second
just
to
say,
I
tried
to
take
a
few
of
the
notes
of
the
things
that
you
said,
but
I
think
that
those
are
good.
Are
there
anything
else
in
the
chat
in
the
zoom
chat?
Is
there
anything
else.
A
Do
we
want
to
brainstorm
here
or
what's
the
most
effective
way
for
us
to
brainstorm
that
best
practices,
because
there's
nothing
stopping
us
from
from
working
on
that
in
a
pr
while
we
we're
working
on
it
in
a
separate
branch
or
even
just
working
on
a
a
hack,
md
dock
again,
while
we
as
we're
even
before
or
during
cutting
this
initial
pre-release.
A
We're
already
at
the
stage
of
the
pre-release
we've
already
all
agreed
to
that,
but
and
in
fact
you
know,
I
could
do
that
right
now.
You
know
with
not
moderating.
So
what
do
you
all
think
about
what
jesse
said
and
whether
or
not
and
if
and
and
if
you
think,
if
you
agree
that
that
those
are
worth
working
on
during
this
meeting?
A
C
Jesse,
I
think
you're
next
together
I'll
be
short.
I'm
down
with
that.
I
I
thought
the
hackmd
approach
worked
really
well.
My
question
is
for
the
group:
do
you
do
we
think
so,
in
addition
to
all
the
questions
that
scott
asked,
do
we
think
we'd
be
better
off,
starting
with
a
proposed
narrative
and
workshopping
editing
and
modifying
it
or
starting
from
a
blank
slate
as
a
team?
I
think
that
if
we
could
answer
that,
then
that'll
guide
us
toward
what
the
right
first
step
is.
G
Yeah,
so
in
general
I
did
like
the
hackmd
approach.
I
do
want
to
give
the
ability
for
people
to
do
things
asynchronously
as
well.
I
think
what
we
did
last
time
was
really
give
me
like
a
good
baseline,
and
then
we
put
it.
C
G
There-
and
we
just.
G
I
think
I
think
there
was
a
lot
of
opinions
last
time.
I
do
think
that
starting
with
the
clean
slate
would
be
best
only
because
there
was
a
lot
of
pain
in
some
of
them,
microsoft.
I
don't
and
I
think,
having
a
great
performance
would
be
helpful,
so
I
know
that
you
know
I
know
william
put
some
time.
I
know
she
put
some
time
as
well
scott.
You
know
various
people
put
some
time.
I
just
wonder
if
there
were
there's
a
cleaner
way
of
doing
it.
G
So
like
a
central
discussion,
doc,
essential
hack,
md,
you
know
open
up
a
standing
pr
and
work
via
that
pr.
So
this
is
kind
of
my
thoughts.
Questions
around
that.
A
Thanks
christian
sorry,
real
quick
point
of
order,
emotion,
right
before
chris
just
asked:
how
do
you
raise
the
hand
button?
Do
you
see
a
reactions
button
at
the
bottom
now,
chris.
A
The
very
bottom
below
it,
you
don't
see
hand
raise
nope.
Maybe
you
need
to
update
your
client
next
time,
but
you
can
just
raise
your
hand
like
in
the
air
or
just
say:
oh
hey,
you
know,
and
that's
fine
for
now
got
it.
We
won't
stop
you
because
you're
because
of
the
because
of
the
client
version,
awesome.
Okay,
mosh.
H
Cool
so
I'll
spend
quite
a
bit
of
time
in
the
cluster
api
group,
and
I
think
there
was
probably
about
20
or
30
times
as
much
discussion
and
debate
in
that
group
around
many
many
different
topics
and
and
what
worked
really
well.
There
is
a
google
doc
primarily
because
and
a
google
doc
using
mob
documentation.
So
you
give
the
the
email
list
write
access
onto
that
doc
and
then
people
just
start
writing
into
that
doc.
H
When,
when
doing
it
in
heck
md,
I
found
that
very,
very
clumsy,
like
I
couldn't
even
see
the
comment
up
so
heck
and
he
for
for
the
final
destination
and
and
mark
down
for
the
final
destination
is
okay,
but
as
really
a
collaboration
and
discussion
tool,
it
really
is
subpar.
In
my
opinion,
google
docs
really
works
a
lot
a
lot
better
for
that.
A
Does
anyone
have
an
objection
since
no
one
else's
hands
raised
I'll
just
raise
my
for
a
second
or
actually
chris?
Did
you
have
your
hand
raised,
or
was
that
just
a
question
for
how
to
do
it
for
next
time?
Okay,
cool,
just
making
sure
I
don't
want
to
overwrite
it
yeah.
So
does
anyone
have
an
objection
to
starting
the
content
in
a
google
doc?
I
do
not
have
any
objection
to
that
and
I
agree
that
that
would
be
a
great
way
to
go.
Personally,
I
don't,
I
also
don't
want
a
bike
shed.
G
So
I
do
have
one
concern:
is
that
how
does
it?
How
does
that
get
written
back
to
github?
So
we
we,
so
we
can
do
it
all
in
a
google
doc
as
long
as
like
the
end
result
of
the
google
doc
is
moving
it
to
get
as
long
as
we're
not
doing
this
okay
copy
paste
like
every
every
week
we
have
to
like
update
the
you
know.
So
as
long
as
like
the
standing
pr
is
look
at
this
google
doc
as
we
work
on
it,
I'm
okay
with
it.
So.
A
Okay,
cool
then
I'll
erase
mine
for
a
second.
I
I
I
would
like
to
yeah.
I
had
a
thought
about
that
as
well,
because
I
ended
up
doing
the
the
get
commit
stuff
you
know
with
all
the
co-authorship
and
everything
and
that
all
worked
out
great
I've
done
a
lot
of
that
in
the
past,
and
it
worked
out
great
for
this.
It
was
essentially
like
signing
the
declaration
of
independence
or
something
like
that.
You
know
what
I
mean
like
it's
not
like
each
little.
You
know,
capitalization
was
this
person
did
this.
A
Sorry
it
then,
at
that
point
all
of
that
was
was
shared
co-authorship,
as
we
had
suggested,
and
everyone
agreed
to
no
one
or
no
one
had
a
problem
with
at
least
so.
But
my
thought
for,
like
the
quicker
feedback
loop
this
time
to
your
point,
christian,
is
that
we
can
make
commits
with
the
correct
co-authorship
for
who
was
on
each
call
and
when
we
want
to
do
this
in
in
synchronized
meetings
like
this
and
it'll
just
be
the
responsibility.
A
Someone
will
take
the
responsibility
to
compile
that
after
after
each
meeting
it
doesn't
have
to
be
any
any
of
us.
A
You
know,
and-
and
we
can
add
that
to
to
that
repo,
even
if
it's
on
around
four,
because
someone
else
can
cherry
pack
that
in
as
long
as
they,
you
know,
know
who
to
add
the
correct
co-authors
and
then
and
then
we're
good
at
least
that's
what
I
was
thinking
and
that
way,
we'd
have
a
quicker
feedback
loop
in
the
pull
request,
and
that
way
other
people
could
then
contribute
more
on
the
pull
request
level
as
a
normal
per
request.
Kind
of
like
adding
code,
comment,
suggestions
and
things
like
that.
A
As
opposed
to
having
it
relegated
only
to
comments
and
conversation,
it
could
really
be
both.
That
was
my
thought.
A
A
G
Christian,
so
I
do
have,
I
do
have
a
question,
and
this
is
actually
a
question
directed
at
moshi
because
he's
the
one
that
brought
it
up
last
time-
and
this
is
the
reason
why
william's
here,
because
I
I
because
we
had
actually
had
a
deep
conversation
about
this.
So
in
one
of
the
notes
I
forget,
which
one,
I
think
believe
is
notes
for
three
about
the
reconciliation
loop
about
the
control.
Loop
mostly
indicated
that
it
is
an
open,
ended
control
loop.
G
I
actually
think
it's
a
close-ended
after
speaking
with
william
a
little
bit,
but
I
would
like
to
I
want
to
hear,
because
I'm
not
actually
convinced
one
way
or
another
from
moshi.
So
this,
I
guess,
is
a
question
to
moshi
directly.
Is
why
why
the
reconciliation
loop
is
an
open-ended
loop
versus
a
closed
natural
loop.
H
So
when,
when
I
say
closed
loop,
that
means
that
there's
feedback
built
into
the
system
about
what's
actually
happening.
So
I
apply
something
I
don't
just
apply
it
all
the
time
I'm
actually
looking
at
at
the
result
of
what
I'm
applying
and
then
applying
some
some
function
to
back
off
or
to
cancel,
or
something
like
that.
So
I'm
not
doing
something
blindly
and
a
good
example
of
this
would
be
creating
something
via
an
api
that
just
creates
new
instances
all
of
the
time
and
they
they
completely
fail.
H
And
then
you
you
can
explode
something
because
you're
not
actually
looking
at
the
result,
most
of
the
reconciliation
loops
that
happen
in
like
if
you
take
kubernetes,
for
example,
most
of
those
are
closed.
Loops
inside
kubernetes,
where,
where
it's
an
open
loop,
is
on
the
the
get
ops
process
itself.
So
if
I
commit
something
into
a
git
repo
and
I'm
using
something
like
flux,
for
example,
to
apply
that
into
a
cluster
there's
no
feedback
from
flux
back
to
to
the
get
state
to
say.
H
H
To
give
you
feedback
that
something
is
wrong,
and-
and
that's
that's
why
I
say
it's
a
it's
a
it's
an
open
and
to
close
it,
you
need
to
you
need
to
bring
the
feedback
back
onto
the
git
commit
to
say
on
this
git
commit
this
commit
is
actually
being
deployed
in
these
environments
and
you
can
do
that
with
a
git
tag
or
enviro
in
get
github
environments
or
good
lab
environments,
or
anything
like
that.
But
but
if
you
don't
know
the
state
of
that
application,
then
it
then
it's
open.
A
Thanks
jesse
did
you
want
to
chime
in
on
this.
C
C
C
There
are
a
number
of
one
or
more
pod
objects
that
instantiate
containers
then
spin
up,
there's
nothing
in
the
git
repo
that
explicitly
lays
out
that
actual
state,
the
desired
state
is
implied,
and
I
think
we're
bumping
up
against
that
here
too.
As
far
as
whether
it's
an
open
or
closed
loop,
it
depends
on
the
context
of
the
system.
For
me,
if
I'm
using
flux,
for
example,
it
could
be
any
tool,
I'm
looking
at
the
desired
state
coming
into
actuation
at
flux,
and
that
certainly
is
monitorable.
C
You
can
have
dashboards
for
that.
You
can
have
logging,
you
can
have
any
sort
of
thing
and
whether
or
not
we
want
to
get
implementation
specific.
There,
I
think,
is
a
question
for
like
more
narrative,
but
I
think
that
that
overall,
I
think
that's
something
that
we're
going
to
have
to
tackle
sooner
than
later,
because
we're
going
to
we're
going
to
keep
tripping
over
it
ourselves
as
a
group,
definitely
will
confuse
folks
looking
for
guidance
from
us.
C
A
Thanks
jesse,
william.
E
Yes,
actually
he's
a
similar
comment
on
that,
so
if
we
decouple
this
from
the
actual
implementation,
because
not
because
there's
a
githubs
controller
there
with
a
reconciliation
cycle,
it
means
that
it
will
follow
everything
and
we
focus
on
the
domain
or
the
scope
of
that
reconciliation
cycle.
E
E
E
This
is
the
delta
and
only
apply
the
delta
so
to
to
classify
that
action
that
the
from
the
gito
perspective
as
an
open
and
close
might
be
more
implementation
specific
and
then,
if
we
just
scope
it
to
again
the
scope
of
the
action,
it
might
be
a
different
I
at
the
end
and
the
reason
initially,
I
started
this
conversation
with
christian
was
because
I'm
in
the
telco
world,
okay,
so
everything
that
I
do
is
telecommunication
and
things
like
that,
and
there
are
very
specific
definitions
for
these
words
and
this
phrase-
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
whatever
is
put
here-
does
not
conflict
there.
E
A
Cool
thanks,
william
russia,.
H
Yeah
yeah,
so
the
closed
loops
that
that
actually
happen
after
flux
does
something
and
you're
handing
off
that
that
state
to
another
system
to
to
do
another
reconciliation
loop
for
me
that
that's
kind
of
really
out
of
scope.
What
for
for
get
ops
that
the
get
ops
loop
is?
If
I
make
a
commit,
merge
it
and
then
I
come
and
want
to
make
another
change
and
another
commit,
and
now
I'm
going
to
make
a
commit
on
a
commit.
H
But
I
have
no
idea
whether
that
commit
has
actually
been
applied
yet
so
I
I
don't
have
any
feedback
on
that
so
like
in
order
for
that
for
to
have
a
loop
you
that
loop
needs
to
be
inside
the
place
where
you're
applying
that
change.
So
if
I
want
to
update
something,
I
should
know
that
what
I'm
updating
is
actually
the
current
version
and
there's
no
drift
or
there's
no
failure
somewhere
along
the
line,
and
you
can
you
can
monitor
externally
and
all
sorts
of
things
you
can
do.
H
But
ultimately,
if
I
want
to
make
a
change,
I
should
be
able
to
know
whether
a
that
change
was
successful
and
b,
whether
the
previous
change
was
was
successful
and
whether
I'm
making
a
change
into
an
inconsistent
state
or
not
and
and
kind
of.
I
think
that
that's
the
the
scope
of
where
I
think
that
the
closed
loop
applies
not
so
much
in
in
the
application
of
the
state
more
at
the
the
introduction
of
state
chain.
F
So
it
seems
like
at
core
gitops
is
open
right,
that's
the
that's
the
basic
implementation
and
it
looks
like
there's
many
different
ways
you
can
close
it.
I
think
that
falls
in
the
realm
in
my
mind,
of
things
like
best
practices-
and
you
know-
and
you
know,
reference
architectures
and
things
like
that.
You
know
there's
various
ways
to
try
to
close
the
loop.
There.
A
I'm
gonna
lower
my
hand.
I
I
had
a
I'll
have
a
note
to
make
about
this
kind
of
stuff
afterwards,
but
I'll.
Let
you
all
go.
I
think
moshe
was
next
again
and
then
william.
A
E
Okay,
in
going
back
to
the
where
we're
measuring
this,
so
if
git
is
the
source
of
truth
roughly,
if
we
go
into
the
tools
that
are
known
for
close
to
reconciliation,
that
is
replacing
the
traditional
database,
the
traditional
database
is
not
the
one
receiving
the
feedback
is
the
controller.
The
controller
that
is
taking
that
source
of
truth,
which
is
in
the
traditional
tools,
are
probatory
databases
et
cetera,
that's
the
tool
that
is
doing
the
reconciliation
and
is
seeing
the
feedback,
not
the
database.
E
It
again
depends
on
where
we
look
at
it
and
how
but
that
that
that
was
my
my
comment
on
there.
H
H
So
gitops
is
this
high
level
controller
that
that
includes
these
technical
and
social
or
human
elements,
and
it's
it's
that
system
that
we're
closing
the
loop
around
not
specifically
get
as
a
source
of
truth
so
get
as
a
source
of
truth
and
implementation
of
statehood.
I
think
those
are
are
sub
components
or
subsystems
inside
of
the
greater
get
up
system
which
is
which
is
comprises
all
of
these
things
and
and
it's
the
closed
loop
over
that
entire
system
that
that
I,
that
I
think
is
relevant.
A
Thanks
mosh,
okay,
so
my
note
is
only
gonna,
be
I'm
super
interested
in
this,
but
I'm
disciplining
myself
to
not
to
say
that
we
should
stop
this
conversation.
It's
super
interesting,
but
I
just
want
to
ask
you
all
about
the
context
of
the
conversation
now.
My
thought
is
that
I'm
actually
emotional
I'll
lower
your
hand.
My
thought
is
that.
A
Is
that
this
will
be
relevant
when
this
is
this
will
be?
This
will
be
relevant
to
this
committee
when
items
from
the
previous
recommended
narrative
are
are
discussed
for
bringing
back
in,
because
we
started
discussing
things
about
loops
so
far
and
I'll
just
share
my
screen
for
a
second.
So
far
we
don't
have
any
such
we
have.
A
No,
we
have
not
one
mention
of
of
loops
in
any
way
in
the
principles
or
the
notes,
so
this
is
not
really
relevant
to
the
current
status,
but
I,
but
I
understand
we
as
jesse
was
saying
we
have
a
lot
of
work,
that's
been
there
that
has
been
done,
some
of
which
may
be
non-contentious
in
any
way,
some
of
which
might
we
might
have
a
lot
of
debate
around.
A
I
know
the
I'm
glad
you
brought
this
up,
though,
because
I
know
this
question
about
what
kind
of
a
loop
are
we
really
talking
about
what
the
context
is
that
was.
That
was
something
that
was
contentious
before
we've
we've
circumnavigated,
that
by
by
not
by
just
remaining
agnostic
within
the
principles
about
what
kind
of
loop
we're
even
talking
about,
or
even
even
referring
it
as
to
that
as
a
loop
at
all,
a
loop
is
a
thing
that
helps
the
rest
of
these
principles
as
described
function
and
by
the
way
moshe.
A
A
I
guess
it's
just
my
opinion
as
well,
so,
but
my
opinion
is
really
based
on
on
a
kind
of
intuition
thinking
about
where
these
concepts
are
going
to
come
in
handy
and
be
useful
for
other
people
and-
and
I
think
one
thing
I
mentioned-
and
just
before
sort
of
handing
this
out
to
whoever
is
next-
which
I
guess
no
one's
raised
their
hand
yet.
A
But
in
the
comment
here
about
my
sorry,
my
reply
to
william's
comment,
I
just
I
made
one
note,
and
I
think
that
I
think
this
is
true-
that,
since
these
getups
principles
are
meant
to
be
applied
broadly
and
specific
use
cases
will
build
on
them,
we're
being
very
careful
not
to
assume
anything
about
specific
systems
or
tools
within
the
principles
or
the
notes.
So
far,
I
think
we've
all
agreed
to
that.
A
That
was
my
paraphrased
memory
of
the
of
the
spirit
of
what
we're
doing
with
this
meeting,
and
so
I
think
I
I
wanted
to
agree
with
what
chris
said
just
a
little
bit
before
then
too.
Just
give
my
like.
A
You
know
super
thumbs
up
as
well
that
that
what
kind
of
that
this
question
might
really
really
really
depend
on
the
tooling
that
we're
talking
about
the
specifics
of
the
tooling
and-
and
I
really
appreciate
what
moshe
said
too
just
recently,
because
it
really
also
how
we
describe
I
mean
excuse
me,
we
may
use
terminology
from
systems
theory
to
describe
different
parts
of
this
entire
process.
A
You
know
whether
we're
talking
about
git
ups
as
a
whole
that
includes
the
human
and
machine
processes,
whether
we're
honing
in
just
on
the
controller,
whether
we're
holding
in
just
on
the
source
of
truth,
whatever
that
may
be.
You
know
that
that
relates
to
principle.
Oh
god,
I
got
to
memorize
these
now
that
relates
to
principle
two.
A
You
know
immutable
desired
states
or
whether
we're
or
whether
we're
you
know
we're
described,
describing
like
just
a
part
of
a
subsystem
and
not
the
whole
system
itself.
That's
the
desire,
that's
the
actual
state
we're
discussing.
So
I
guess
I'm
summarizing
the
things
I
agreed
with
and
say,
and
also
to
say
that
I'm
not
sure
what
the
next
step
is.
With
this
conversation,
except
perhaps
for
someone
to
volunteer
to
work
on
some
glossary
items.
A
F
A
Cool
thanks
chris
jesse.
C
Yeah
that
just
might
be
another
planning
decision
like
I
think
the
glossary
is
great.
I
think
an
entire
reference
document
is
probably
in
order
that
accompanies
the
the
principle
I
mean
this.
We
knew
this
starting
out
right.
We
knew
that
the
principles
it's
like.
Oh,
you
know
four
principles,
easy
peasy.
We
know
that
the
devil's
in
the
details-
and
we
know
that
the
most
value
we
add
is
in
all
of
the
support
around.
So
I
love
the
idea
of
a
glossary.
I
think
I
don't
know.
C
If
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
this
is
I've
never
worked
in
a
committee
like
this,
like
I
worked
in
open
source
working
groups
that
are
just
sort
of
like
more
chaotic
and
like
more
so
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
put
like
a
project
plan
together
or
like
what
we
think
the
deliverables
should
be,
but
I
feel
like
that
might
be
helpful
just
so
we
know
what
we're
working
toward,
because
I
mean
I
like
I'd,
love
to
know
that,
what's
in
my
mind,
is
in
your
mind
too,
and
that
we're
all
working
toward
the
same
thing,
because
glossary
sounds
to
me
like
a
markdown
file.
C
That's
like
glossary.md!
That's
a
good
start.
I
feel
like
I
feel
like
we
have
to
take
all
the
types
of
docs
here
right
like
tutorial
narrative
reference,
so
I
might
might
be
something
we're
talking
about,
or
maybe
we
talk
about
that
on
slack
more
asynchronously
over
you
know
over
the
next
week
and
then
revisit
it
next
week.
Maybe
that's
an
agenda
item
for
next
week.
F
I
was
just
wondering:
how
do
we
plan
to
store
these
artifacts
and
how
does
that
relate
to
the
open,
get-ups
project.
A
Can
help
with
that?
Just
because
we've
discussed
it
a
bunch
and
the
the
the
best
thing
I
can
do
is
share
my
screen
again
and.
A
A
That
is
still
a
pull
request,
because
it's
paired
with
some
other
things,
it's
basically
bringing
the
charter
back
in
and
that's
paired
with
governance,
so
that
that
pr
is
still
open
and
that's
being,
I
think
the
schedule
is
that's
being
reviewed
this
week,
so
it
was
being
reviewed
last
week,
but,
like
you
know,
we
all
had
things
came
up
that
that
came
up
including
myself,
and
so
we're
looking
at
that
this
week
too-
and
I
can
point
you
to
that
pr.
But
for
now
it's
this.
A
A
A
The
main
reason
that
we
distinguish,
those
two
things
is
that
cncf
working
groups
are
not
meant
to
be
forever.
They're
meant
to
be
around
as
long
as
they're
necessary.
The
the
that.
A
That's
why
I
think,
when
alexis
was
recommending
initially
that
we,
we
really
jump
start
with
the
good
ops
working
group
and
and
jumpstart
the
process
for
having
a
sandbox
project
as
well,
even
though
we
didn't
quite
have
a
name
for
it
yet,
and
we
just
kind
of
reused
the
getups
working
group
temporarily,
it
was
important
to
have
a
place
where
there
would
be
lasting
things.
That
would
not.
A
That
were
not
meant
to
be
temporary,
but
this
is
a
project,
that's
ongoing,
and
so
chris,
I
think,
if
I
don't
know
if,
if
you
had
a
more
specific
question,
because
I
think
the
specifics
we
haven't
exactly
figured
out
yet,
but
we
do
have
some,
but
exactly
what
those
documents
and
code
and
programs
are.
We
do
have
some
pointers
to
those
that
were
in
the
initial
google
doc
that
you
were
part
of
with
yeah.
A
Well,
I
can
point
to
this,
and
then
I
can
probably
defer
to
I
mean
I
could
describe
it
or
I
could
someone
else
could,
but
I
would
defer
probably
to
dan,
since,
if
he's,
if
you're
still
around
when
discussing
the
website
because
you're,
I
think
dan
has
been
leading
the
website
team
for
now
and
but
right
now,
in
terms
of
the
documents
we
had
agreed
as
a
team
to
rename
the
principles
repo
just
to
documents
for
now,
because
some
of
these
documents
should
be
as
we're
going
to
be
making
releases,
pre-releases
and
so
on,
they
should
be
released
together.
A
So
the
glossary
right
now
we
have
it
in
literally
inside
of
the
same
file
as
the
principles,
but
as
this
gets
longer,
we
may
not
want
that.
We
may
want
to
hyperlink
between
the
principles
and
the
glossary,
but
either
way
those
should
all
be
released
together
because,
for
example,
the
discussion
that
we
had
that
that
moshe
had
brought
up
about
the
use
of
the
word
continuous
that
that
we
ultimately
realized
you
know
agreed
as
a
team
to
to
to
move
into
the
glossary.
A
If
those
were
released
separately
from
the
principles,
they
would
be
out
of
sync.
So
that's
that's
why
we
have
just
one
documents
directory
this.
The
idea,
generally,
I
can
just
say,
is
that
the
website
is
intending
to
draw
from
from
this
and
perhaps
other
repositories,
but
but
in
terms
of
how
that
goes,
if
there's
any
more
specifics,
then
someone
else
could
address
that.
So
I
think
jesse's
next
and
I
don't
know
dan
if
you're
on
and
if
you
want
to,
if
you
have
specifics
afterwards
to
describe
but
that's
that's,
all.
I've
got
jesse.
C
B
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
online.
If
you
want
me
to
give
you
give
a
quick
overview
of
what's
happening
with
the
website
right
now,
yeah,
okay,
so
with
the
website,
we
have
a
pretty
simple
structure
in
in
plan
right
now.
Basically,
we
have
a
home
page.
B
We
have
an
about
to
talk
about
governance
and
history,
links
to
press
releases
and
stuff
which
we
imagine
will
be
coming
out
community
for
getting
involved
member
companies.
We
want
to
have
a
way
for
people
to
basically
say:
hey,
we're
part
of
this
open,
get
off
standard,
we're
into
it.
Some
get
involved
slack
getting
up.
Repost
calendar
patterns
is
not
going
to
be
ready
in
the
next
two
weeks,
but
the
other
stuff
should
be
patterns
is
basically
a
place
where
people
can
document
their
setups.
B
They
can
say,
here's
how
I
built
this
with
aws
and
flux
and
or
argo
or
whatever,
and
here's
how
it's
all
set
up.
And
here's
like
a
working
diagram,
basically
like
inspiration
that
people
can
use
and
imagine
that
people
can
submit
these
and
share
them
and
say
you
know,
make
comments
and
debate
them
or
whatever,
and
then
we
have
events
for
calendars
and
links
to
upcoming
events
and
that's
basically
the
structure.
So
there's
actually
not
a
blog
on
here
right
now.
B
Blog
plus
one
so
yeah,
the
the
home
page,
should
have
the
principles
on
it
as
they
get
longer
and
stuff.
As
we
have
a
glossary,
I
think
there
will
be
child
pages
on
the
principles,
but
to
start
off
with
it
right
now.
It
feels
like
we
have
enough,
like
it's
relatively
short
enough,
that
we
probably
just
fit
it
all.
B
On
the
home
page
on
the
home
page,
you
can
see
most
of
this
content's
like
placeholderish,
but
introduction
to
what
git
ops
is
prompt
to
read
the
principles
or
get
involved
and
then
showing
github
stars
and
encouraging
people
to
shar
stars
there.
B
Some
social
proof
where
we'll
have
the
member
companies
listed
and
hopefully
lots
more
to
link
to
for
that
about
page.
Then
the
principles
on
there
and
you
can
see
this
is
the
short
the
older,
shorter
form
version.
B
So
if
as
it
gets
longer,
we
might
need
to
summarize
it
and
then
have
a
read
more
link
to
it,
then
upcoming
events
and
then
past
events
and
recordings,
and
then
you
know
the
menu
so
right
now
this
has
been
sent
to
design
so
they're
working
on
it
and
I'm
hoping
that
we
can
have
it
up
in
the
next
two
weeks.
A
A
It
is
3
59.,
it
does
not
sound
like.
We
have
a
burning,
a
burning
issue
at
the
end
here,
so
I
was
going
to
say
that
the
action
item
that
that
we
said
that
was
going
to
happen
last
week.
I
did
not
actually
do
that
because
we
didn't
we
hadn't
merged
it
until
just
now,
so
that
action
item
will
be
carried
over
and
we
will
release
the
the
first
pre-release
of
the
0.1.0
pre-release
will
mark
it
as
a
pre-release
in
github,
and
we
can.
A
Then
I
think
the
most
important
thing
is
that
the
communications
team
and
the
principals
committee
people
as
much
as
possible.
We
communicate
well
about
how
we're
going
to
socialize
this,
because
it
probably
will
be
good
news
to
spread
around.
So
I
think
that
was
already
in
the
events
committee
this.
This
was
just
discussed
in
the
last
meeting
that
bought
up
right
against
this
one
and
then
let's,
let's
continue
on
slack
if
for
whoever's
interested
asynchronously
to
just
discuss.
A
If
you
have
opinions
about
how
that
gets,
socialized
beyond
just
that
to
get
the
get
ups
working
group
repository
or
excuse
me,
the
get
ups
wg
twitter
handle.
You
know
blasting
out
this
awesome
news
once
that
tag
is
there
get
making
some
copy,
perhaps
for
each
of
us
to
put
in
our
company
blogs
or
to
to
retweet
yeah
thanks
chris
thanks
everyone,
it's
401
any
other
last
words
or
are
we
just
saying
goodbye.