►
From YouTube: GitOps Working Group - March 11, 2021
Description
Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hxifmCdOV5_FbKloDJRWZQHq0ge-trXJKF-BgV4wHVk/edit#heading=h.w91ueqcmi7nz. For more info see https://github.com/gitops-working-group/gitops-working-group
A
Okay,
all
right,
I'm
going
to
start
again,
so
we
have
this
for
for
the
record.
So
first
thing
on
the
agenda
is
to
talk
about
co-chairs.
A
What
we
need
to
do
is
we
need
to
elect,
nominate
and
then
elect
co-chairs
for
the
get
ops
working
group.
We
are
I'll
remind
everyone
under
the
app
delivery
sig.
So
from
a
process
perspective,
I
will
send
out
an
email
to
the
get
ops
to
I'm
sorry
to
the
sig
app
delivery
mailing
list.
We
do
not
have
a
mailing
list
specifically
for
the
working
group.
A
That's
kind
of
the
the
best
practice
that
has
been
applied
across
the
different
sigs
is
that
the
working
group,
the
agenda
of
the
working
group
and
what
we
do
is
of
relevance
to
the
entire
sig.
So
when
it
comes
to
certain
communications
like
nominating
and
electing
co-chairs
that
goes
to
the
sig
app
delivery
mailing
list
and
then,
when
there's
specific
things
to
the
working
group,
we
can
certainly
do
that
and
that's
where
we
have
our
own
channel
in
slack.
A
So
I
will
send
out
a
note
to
the
email,
an
email
to
the
mailing
list
as
well
as
drop
it
on
slack.
What
I
propose-
and
I
would
love
to
hear-
if
there's
any
objections,
if
you
have
objections,
please
speak
up.
Otherwise,
we'll
assume
that
my
proposed
schedule
is
about
right.
What
I
would
propose
is
that
we
do
a
one
week,
four
nominations,
and
then
we
do
one
week
for
voting
the
voting.
A
I
suggests
that
I,
I
suspect
that
we,
I
guess
this
is
one
of
the
areas
where,
if
we
get
more
nominations
than
three,
then
we
are
going
to
have
a
vote
for
you
know
down.
Selecting
I
think
more
than
three
co-chairs
is
a
little
bit
difficult,
but
ideally
perhaps
what
I
would
suggest
is
that
we
on
this
on
the
maybe
through
the
slack
channel,
suggest
some
folks
that
we
want
to
nominate
and
if
it,
if
it
stays,
you
know
two
or
three
which
would
be
ideal.
A
Then
perfect,
then
the
vote
is
really
just
there:
a
formality
where
everybody
says
yep.
That
sounds
good.
If
we
end
up
with
more
nominations
than
that,
then
I
guess
we'll
have
to
figure
out
how
we
down
select
from
that.
So
I'll
pause
there
and
open
it
up
for
comments
or
suggestions.
So
I
was
to
summarize
I
was
suggesting
a
one
week
nomination
period
and
then
a
one
week
voting
period
and
the
voting
should
happen
on
the
app
delivery
mailing
list.
A
Yes,
very
good
point:
what
is
expected
for
the
co-chairs
is
really
to
herd
cats
really
to
keep
things
moving
along.
However,
it
is
not
a
project
management
position.
It
is
something
where
you
know
somebody
who
has
some
some.
You
know
desire
to,
engage
and
understand
at
a
deeper
level
what
is
happening
within
the
different
work
streams.
A
Also
chairing
the
meetings
acting
as
if
you
will,
the
spokes
persons
for
the
get
ops
working
group
back
to
the
app
delivery
sig
those
types
of
things
it
does
require
some
level
of
time
commitment.
So
we
want
definitely
somebody
who
can
commit
some
time
to
make
sure
that
we
as
an
organization
as
a
group,
continue
to
move
forward.
I
think
that's
the
most
important
thing,
and
so
committing
to
move
forward
is
not
just
herding
cats.
It
is
actually
engaging
and
saying,
okay
understanding.
A
What
are
the
blockers
to
us
moving
forward
on
the
website
and
helping
move
these
different
work
streams
along.
B
Just
another,
so
a
couple
of
questions
so
has
a
question
on
the
chat,
but
I'm
going
to
kind
of
jump
over
that
question:
real
quick
self
nominations,
gooder
and
yay
or
nay,
yeah.
A
Okay,
so
from
a
time
commitment
perspective,
I
would
expect
this
is
just
my
gut
feeling,
I
think,
with
the
scope
that
we
have
ahead
of
us.
It
probably
means
on
the
order
of
half
a
d
half
a
day
a
week,
maybe
as
much
as
and
I
think
it'll
be,
you
know,
it'll
be
cyclical,
but
half
a
day
to
one
day
a
week.
A
I
certainly
don't
think
it
would
be
more
than
one
day
a
week,
because
this
the
chair
does
not
mean
that
they
are
doing
the
work
of
all
the
work
streams,
but
the
the
chairs
have
to
have
enough
of
a
knowledge
of
what
is
happening
in
the
work
streams
to
recognize
blockers
recognize
when
there's
connections
that
need
to
be
made
across
the
work
streams.
A
A
D
D
Let
me
let
me
just
re
record
a
few
people's
names
here
in
the
notes,
so
we've
got
tony
and
I
think
omer
and
anybody
else
want
to
throw
their
name
I'll
say
it's
a
good
idea.
I
think
that's,
I
think
two
people.
B
A
Out
the
email
later
today
we
can
do
nominations
there
and
of
course
we
can
also
put
them
in
the
slack
channel.
But
official
nominations
need
to
go
on
the
mailing
list.
A
Excellent,
thank
you.
Okay.
Next
topic
is
logo,
so
I'll
bring
everybody
up
to
speed,
and
then
we
can
have
a
discussion
around
that.
So
there
were
two
parallel
efforts
going
on.
Maybe
three
on
in
terms
of
getting
a
logo
for
the
working
group.
Amy
has
had
the
designers
from
the
cmcf
work
up
some
designs
we
had,
and
then
we
had
a
number
of
individuals.
So
maybe
it's
just
two.
We
had
a
number
of
individuals
who
were
starting
to
work
on
that.
A
There
is
an
issue
linked
in
the
notes
here
to
a
an
issue
in
github,
where
some
of
that
discussion
has
been
happening,
and
so
I
will
point
everybody
in
that
direction.
I
guess
the
the
point
of
discussion
today
is:
do
we
need
to
have
any
discussion
live
here,
or
should
we
just
continue
the
discussion
in
in
the
in
the
github
issue?
A
There
are
there's
some
great
feedback
in
there
about.
Do
we
really
want
to
eliminate?
Do
we
really
want
to
include
the
words
working
group,
or
do
we
want
to
just
have
git
ops
and
not
have
working
group
or
any
other
name
just
get
out?
The
word
get
ops
and
the
the
logo,
so
these
are
some
of
the
things
and
officially
we
should
have
the
discussion.
A
Anything
that
we
we
discuss
here
should
be
pulled
back
into
the
discussion.
The
issue
online,
so
those
who
can't
attend
can
chime
in
as
well,
but
I
just
want
to
open
it
up
for
any
discussion
that
folks
might
want
to
have
and
hey
scott
good
to
see
you.
C
I
think
that
we're
wider
for
a
wider
audience.
I
think
it's
good
that
we
continue
the
discussion
on
the
the
github
page
right,
the
the
tracking
issue.
I
don't
know
if.
C
B
I
I
think,
going
with
get
ups
alone
might
be
taking
too
broad
of
a
of
a
position
right
like
we're
saying
this
is
the
get
ups
logo
so
kind
of,
like
I
think
it's
it's
too
general,
perhaps
and
kind
of
like
we,
we
might
be
like
stepping
up
beyond
boundaries
of
what
the
logo
is
about.
Like
is
the
logo
about.
Is
it
logo
for
the
working
group,
or
is
the
logo
looking
to
be
used?
As
I
don't
know,
a
label
in
products
when
they're
get
ups
compliant
right?
B
I
think
the
purpose
will
determine
whether
whether
we
want
to
be
as
general,
what
are
we?
What
are
we
identifying?
Is
it
us
as
a
group
or
is
it
the
technology
as
a
pattern,
and
what's
going
to
be
the
long-term
usage
of
it,
I'm
inclined
to
think
that
at
this
point
we
are
talking
about
something
to
represent
us
as
a
group,
not
not
as
a
as
an
overarching
technology,
I'm
not
sure.
A
So
one
point
one
point
of
clarification
and
then
I
do
see
some
hands
up
so
I'll
move
over
to
I'll
move
over
to
you
and
then
to
scott
is
that
this
is
the
logo
not
for
the
working
group,
but
for
the
project
remember
we
are
a
sandbox
project,
so
this
is
the
logo
for
the.
G
A
Project
and
so
there's
a
relationship
to
this
other.
This
discussion
around
the
fact
that
the
name
of
the
project
should
not
be
working
group,
because
that
working
group
represents
a
set
of
individuals
and
that
we
need
to.
We
have
this
discussion.
That's
also
ongoing
around
what
is
the
name
of
the
project,
and
so
this
is
this.
The
logo
is
not
for
us
as
a
working
group.
It's
a
logo
for
the.
F
H
Yeah,
so
I
totally,
I
have
essentially
two
questions.
One
is:
can
we
maybe
before
we
have
a
big
discussion
about
what
the
logo
should
look
like
to
find
some
sort
of
criteria
for
coming
to
an
end
of
the
discussion,
because
the
logo
is
obviously
something
of
personal
choice,
taste,
preferences
and
maybe
people
emotional,
and
I
think
it
would
help
if
we
have
a
clear
understanding
what
what's
our
kind
of
target
quality
gauge?
H
What
do
we
need
to
have
so
that
we
can
pass
it
make
a
decision,
and
I
would
like
to
suggest
a
model
which
is
what
are
we
willing
to
defend?
What
are
we
willing
to
go
to
war
for
with
other
people
who
are
trying
to
abuse
our
logo
or
whatever,
and
maybe
try
to
find
the
minimum
thing
that
actually
represents
that?
H
Well,
let's
say
we
have
a
logo
and
some
company-
let's
say
hitlab,
decides
to
use
this
logo
as
part
of
their
product
marketing,
actually
representing
a
version
of
git
ops,
which
is
the
anti-thesis
of
how
we
understand
git
ops,
and
then
we
have
to
do
something.
Otherwise
our
working
group
or
project
would
be
kind
of
drawn
into
that,
and
people
would
start
to
associate
their
product,
which
is
not
what
we
believe
should
be
with
our
initiative
and
that's
a
scenario
that
I
see
actually
as
very
realistic.
E
D
Let's
think
about
I,
I
would.
I
would
suggest
that
we
think
about
the
kind
of
logo
for
git
right,
so
there's
a
few
different
ways
that
git
is
represented
from
a
from
a
picture
standpoint
floating
around
the
internet,
but
most
of
the
time
it
looks
like
a
you
know,
like
a
simple
branch
or
a
simple
fork
right,
and
so
I
I
think,
the
from
from
my
standpoint.
The
principles
are
the
way
that
we
will
be
defending.
What
is
a
proper
implementation
in
the
view
of
this
community
of
git
ops
and
what
it
is
not.
D
I
think
the
logo,
especially
as
an
open
source
group,
is
going
to
be
tough
for
us,
we're
going
to
have
limited
capability
to
defend
it,
but
there's
a
lot
of
power
in
this
group
and
amongst
the
companies
represented
here
by
talking
about
what
and
how
git
ops
works
in
practice.
D
F
Hey,
I
wasn't
actually
sure
quite
how
to
do
it,
because
I
actually
volunteered
to
be
moderator,
but
I
came
late,
so
I
think
it's
is.
Did
someone
step
in
for
moderator.
While
I
was.
G
A
F
Okay,
great
quickly,
the
the
the
issue
is
kind
of
getting
conflated
a
little
bit.
So
I
I
created
this
separate
issue.
Oops.
Let
me
I
linked
it
in
the
dock,
but
just
a
moment
here,
issue
number
64,
but
here
it
is
I'll
place
it
in
the
zoom
link
for
easy
access.
F
I
don't
want
to
spiral
and
expand
this,
because
so
that's
why
I
made
it
separate,
but
I
know
we
had
discussed
this
in
a
former,
a
former
get
ops
working
group
meeting.
I
think
the
last
one
and
it
was
met
generally
with
unilateral
enthusiasm.
F
The
the
main.
The
main
thing
is
that
there
are
two
entities
really
and
they
have
a
relationship
currently
they're
named
the
same
thing,
because
we
just
kind
of
didn't
plow
ahead
that
went
ahead
and
applied
for
a
sandbox
project
and
it
was
accepted
and
it's
the
same
currently
the
same
name
as
the
working
group.
So
the
working
group
is
an
entity
that
is
separate,
they're
different
they're,
not
totally
separate.
The
same
people
are
working.
F
Essentially,
the
working
group
is
in
service
of
the
sandbox
project,
so
the
working
group
is
under
it's
a
it
is
defined
as
a
short-lived
working
group
under
cncf,
sig,
apps
delivery
and
the
sandbox
project
is
an
independent
project,
a
top-level
project
in
cncf,
currently
in
sandbox
state,
just
in
case
it's
unclear
to
anyone
on
the
call.
Maybe
it's
totally
100
clear,
but
the
reason
that
that
matters
they
could
have
the
same
name.
In
fact,
they
do
right
now,
there's
nothing
stopping
it.
F
The
reason
I
was
suggesting
renaming
it
is
so
that
we're
just
there's
more
clarity
which
we're
talking
about
when
we're
talking
about
each
and
so
far
it
seems
like
everybody's
on
board.
For
that
I
threw
out
the
name
get
ups
initiative,
not
because
I
think
it's
a
very
sexy
name
just
to
get
the
conversation
started.
F
I
don't
think
anybody's
really
super
excited
about
that
name,
but
we
don't
really
have
to
discuss
it
a
whole
lot
here,
but
I
think
that
some
of
the
points
that
were
brought
up
in
respect
to
that
when
it
came
up
with
came
up
in
the
logo.
F
Conversation
really
matter
so
one
is,
I
think
your
point,
I
think
is,
is
very
good
that
we
we,
I
mean
you
made
several
points,
but
one
that
I
think
is
really
good
is
that
we
ought
to
start
with
what
the
criteria
are
for
essentially
what
the
goals
of
that
project
are.
There
are
some
stated
goals.
Currently
it's
a
work
in
progress,
but
I
think
that
that's
correct
in
terms
of
who
should
defend
the
logo.
That's
really
not
us.
That's
cncf,
cncf
already.
G
F
Yep
yeah
and
I'm
working
with
paris
too,
on
very
on
some
of
the
badges
conversation
stuff,
which
is
kind
of
fun
and
interesting.
If
anybody
else
is
interested
in
getting
involved,
there
excuse
me,
but
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
separate
those
try
to
make
that
a
little
bit
clearer
and
why
that
proposal
is
out
there.
So
far,
people
have
given
different
ideas,
but
we've
got
that
open
discussion
so
that
we
can.
We
can
do
that
there
I
just
want
to
mention.
F
One
thing
is
that
I'm
pretty
sure
alexis
isn't
here
right:
yeah.
F
Yeah,
so
so
we
had
a
conversation
about
this
the
other
day
and
also
with
and
cornelia,
and
I
did
too
about
about.
One
of
his
suggestions
was
very
similar
to
what
said
is
that
we
should
start.
If
I,
if
I
understood
what
you
said
correctly,
there
is
that
we
should
make
a
list
of
things
that
might
live
on
and
that's
what
should
be
in
the
project.
So
that's
the
manifesto
for
for
lack
of
another
principles.
F
Let's
just
say
this
any
specification
that
might
come
out
of
this,
like
a
testing
compatibility
kit,
similar
to
to
to
java's
thing,
you
know
whatever
it
is.
You
know
again
just
ideas
whatever
that
happens
to
be
conformance
and
certification
stuff
like
that,
and
so
that
can
be
within
the
scope
of
the
project.
That's
a
long-lived
thing
and
the
working
group's
goal
is
to
help
all
of
us
and
everyone
involved
in
the
working
group.
F
The
goal
of
this
is
to
help
ensure
that
we
help
to
set
that
project
up
for
success,
and
the
working
group
will
not
stay
around
forever,
but
members
of
the
working
group
could
continue
to
be
members
of
the
project.
So
I
hope
that's
clear
and
working
groups
do
not
need
a
logo,
but
the
reason
I
suggested
in
that
logo
conversation
that
we
keep
the
working
group
and
not
as
and
the
project
as
separate
versions
is
because
it
just
might
be
fun.
But
there's
no
other
reason
for
the
working
group
to
have
a
logo.
F
D
Few,
a
few
people
with
their
hands
up,
henrik,
I
think,
had
his
first
and
then
tony
after
henrique
and
then
looks
like
you
have
your
hand
up
after
after
tony.
A
And
as
a
as
a
point
of
chairing
the
meeting,
I'm
going
to
interject
and
say
I'd
like
to
call
time
on
the
logo
conversation
in
about
two
minutes,
because
we
do
have
a
pretty
full
agenda
and
thank
you
for
pointing
it
out,
I'm
I
hope
I'm
not
butchering
your
name
but
engine
that
that
we
have
other
very
important
things
to
talk
about
today.
And
so,
let's,
let's
do
a
couple
more
minutes
on
this
topic
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
topic.
J
Thanks
I'll
be
quick,
I
just
want
to
comment
on
on
the
logo
thing.
I
think
we're
slightly
conflating
two
different
things:
there's
one
about
the
logo
and
how
we
defend
the
logo,
which
is
going
to
be
really
hard
unless
it's
it's
trademarked
and
then
the
the
other
part
of
that
is
is
the
compatibility,
compliance
thing
which
is
easier
to
defend,
and
there
are
many
examples
on
how
we
can
set
up
some
comp
if
we
do
get
to
the
compliance
suite.
What
is
needed
to
be
allowed
to
show
that
badger
compliance?
E
Just
maybe
the
last
thing
is:
is
it
possible
to
make
a
not
a
logo,
but
the
name?
I
think
the
name
should
be
decided
first
and
then
the
logo
is
that
is
it
possible
to
have
to
put
a
time
frame
on
this
like
a
because
my
impression
was
after
last
last
meeting
that
the
naming
has
been
decided?
I
mean
it
was
under
oppression.
That
initiative
is
the
suffix,
but
apparently
it's
not
right.
So
maybe
we
can
write
the
definition
and
and
time
box
it
in
the
issue
or
in
the
discussion.
A
Yeah
I
like
that
suggestion
of
let's
settle
on
the
name.
Then
we
settle
on
the
logo
and
we
time
box
both
so
that
the
conversation
doesn't
go
on
forever.
What
I've
seen
in
the
past
for
logos
is
that
there's
some
period
where
people
are
posing
suggestions
and
then
all
the
suggestions
are
put
on
one
page
and
everybody
gets
to
vote
in
in
the
github
issue.
A
A
Okay,
then,
moving
on
to
the
next
thing
on
our
agenda,
scott,
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
to
you
as
a
discussion
about
the
the
getups
principles.
F
F
Oh,
let
me
put
my
hand
down
here
yeah,
so
so,
basically
that
had
been
on
hold
for
just
a
little
while
not
out
of
lack
of
interest
or
fizzling
out
or
anything
like
that,
but
they're.
You
know
primarily
brees
and
I
were
collaborating
on
that.
As
a
starting
point
for
the
group
we
started
in
a
a
markdown,
a
collaborative
markdown
editor.
F
I
don't
know
if
any
of
you
how
many
of
you
have
used
hack,
md,
dot,
io,
probably
most
of
you,
but
if
you
haven't
that's
where
we
started,
it
moved
it
to
a
pr
on
breeze's
branch,
and
then
I
think
you
know
people
who
were
on
in
the
past
meetings.
Remember
this.
We
decided
at
a
certain
point
that
that
should
that
should
be
fine
going
public.
F
There
was
a
little
misunderstanding
there,
but
then
you
know
bruce
did
open
that
publicly
or
a
little
more
publicly,
let's
say
more
discoverably
in
in
this
repo
and
since
then,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
and
a
bunch
of
the
discussion
points
are
hey.
This
thread
is
getting
pretty
long.
Should
we
split
it
up
or
should
we
do
something
different?
Should
we
have
public
working
sessions
etc?
I
have.
F
F
You
know
yeah
not
really
self-resolving.
It
took
a
whole
team
of
people
to
do
it,
but
but
yeah
that
was
that
was
fun,
but
the
the
idea
is
that
we
have
a
co-working
session
that
can
be
more
real-time,
so
there
can
be.
There
can
be
progress
by
people
who
are
interested.
It
doesn't
exclude
folks
who
cannot
make
that
co-working
session.
F
We
could
have
more
than
more
than
one,
but
I
suggest
we
don't
really
for
now
for
the
first
version
that
we
have
a
milestone
to
set
a
pre-release
version.
That's
that's
added
and
it's
explicitly
work
in
progress
still
that
can
be
iterated
upon,
but
it
can't
just
simply
be
merged,
as
is
and
then
iterated
upon
and
further
pr's
60.
Something
comments
is
not
even
close
to
a
maximum
or
unheard
of
for
important
pull
requests.
They
often
get
into
the
hundreds.
F
So
this
is
not
unusual
for
those
kind
of
feeling
antsy
about
using
this
in
github
github
is
not
great
for
real-time
discussions.
It
is
great
for
async,
so
the
idea
is,
we
have
a
real-time
one.
We
move
this
back
to
heckmd.
We
those
who
want
to
comment
there
can
comment
there
that
will
be
saved
for
posterity
too.
We
can
link
back
to
it
in
the
pr
the
goal
of
that
will
be
to
move
the
changes
that
are
agreed
upon
back
into
the
pr
with
proper
comments
and
proper
co-authorship
added
in
those
commits.
C
So
I
I
have
my
I
have
my
hand
raised
forever,
not
that
I
have
an
objection.
I
just
have
a
question:
how
does
it
work
going
the
other
direction
right
so
like?
If
someone
makes
a
comment
in
this
pr
or
they
do
something
in
this
pr?
How
does
it
make
it
way
back
to
the
hack,
md.
F
Well,
what
we
would
do
is
we
we
would
for
for
the
short-lived
co-working
session,
which
could
be
for
an
hour
could
be,
for
I
don't
know
two
hours
or
something
like
this.
I
don't
really
know
yet,
but
just
just
an
idea
that
we
would,
we
would
essentially
take
what's
in
the
pr
or
the
comments
in
the
pr,
and
that
will
be
the
starting
point,
any
further
comments
that
might
go
into
that
pr
during
that
co-working
session.
We
can
discuss
them,
but
but
but
nothing
else
will
be
merged
into
that
pr.
F
No,
no
code
suggestions
will
be
merged
back
until
after
the
co-working
session,
because
otherwise
it'll
just
be
kind
of
what's
the
source
of
truth.
Here,
we're
essentially
temporarily
switching
we're
putting
the
source
of
truth,
which
is
the
pr
on
pause,
having
a
breakout
room
kind
of
you
know
as
if
we
were
all
in
the
same
room
with
paper,
and
then
we
come
it's
just.
We
could
do
it
in
a
google
doc,
but
it's
just
not
it's
pretty
inferior
to
something
that
focuses
on
markdown
if
that's
the
end
goal.
So
that's.
C
H
On
this
topic
yeah,
I
think
I
originally
requested
the
online.
Let's
work
together
on
this,
just
my
real
problem.
My
main
problem
was,
I
just
couldn't
follow
what
is
kind
of
latest,
and
what
am
I
supposed
to
be
responding
to
in
the
github
issue
and
that's
why
I
actually
stopped
looking
at
it
and
stopped
responding
to
it.
H
A
I'm
going
to
call
on
myself
with
my
hand.
I
just
want
a
plus
one.
What
said
around
one
of
the
the
struggles
that
I
was
having
with
the
discussion
in
the
git
issue
is
that
I
have
a
very,
very
difficult
time
from
a
visual
perspective
being
able
to
see
the
context
of
the
entire
document
with
the
discussion
you
know
stuck
in
between
in
the
in
the
in
the
way
that
it's
done
in
the
get
op
style.
A
And
so
while
I
like
the
suggestion
of
moving
over
to
hackmd
for
a
working
session,
and
that
makes
sense,
there's
also
just
this
visual
element,
I'm
having
a
very,
very
difficult
time.
Parsing
that
and
seeing
that
context-
and
I
don't
know
whether
we
have
something
that
can
solve
that
problem
or
whether
I
just
have
to
get
with
the
program
and
learn
how
to
to
parse
that
myself.
K
Better
hi,
so
I
I
agree
with
everyone.
So
I
think
that
we
should
have
a
breakout
session
and
I
think
we
should
go
in
in
iterations,
but
I
think
those
iterations
should
be
small
rather
than
large.
K
So
I
rather
focus
on
very
high
level
concepts
and
principles
that
everybody
agrees
upon
things
that
everybody
has
consensus
on
you're
going
through
0.1,
and
then
you
iterate
on
each
one
of
those
principles
and
you
you
refine
it
over
time,
asynchronously
principle
by
principle,
because
I
think
what
we're
doing
now
is
we're
trying
to
refine
low-level
details
of
of
principles,
and
I
think
that
that's
kind
of
perhaps
where
we're
getting.
K
F
Yeah,
I
I
agree
with
what
was
just
said
with
with
one
ex,
with
one
exception,
I
don't
believe
we
should
publish.
I
don't
believe
we
should
commit
these
to
the
main
branch.
If
it's
just
a
single
principle,
I
do
not
think
that
that's,
I
think
it's
better
to
wait
until
we
have
something
that
we
want
to
publish,
it
doesn't
mean
it
has
to
be
perfect,
but
at
least
at
the
at
least
at
the
high
level.
F
As
you
said,
they
should
be
what
we
want
to
say,
even
if
it's
a
pre-release
of
of
what
you
know
and-
and
if
that
means
that
this
is
something
we
talked
about
yesterday.
I
talked
about
cornelia
yesterday,
but
if
that
means
that
there
are
that
there
are
controversial
or
items
that
remain
controversial
within
this
pull
request,
we
could
omit
that
we
could
certainly
omit
those
in
with
the
goal
of
a
0.1.0,
absolutely
and
and
if
there
are
lots
of
nitpicking
things
just
exclude
that
for
now
we
can.
F
We
can
always
open
this
a
separate.
You
know,
move
those
commits
to
a
separate
pr.
You
know
pare
it
down
a
bit,
make
sure
that
we
are
publishing
only
what
we
agree
upon
and
then
iterate
further.
If
that
solves
some
of
the
concerns
that
have
come
up
comment
in
the
thread,
I
would
love.
F
F
Oh,
I'm
sorry,
since
no
one's
started
again
yet-
and
I
haven't
put
my
hand
down
yet
someone
else
had
mentioned
asked
about
milestones
and
things
like
this
and
and
how
we're
going
to
work
forward.
My
my
suggestion
was,
I
I'm
planning
to
open
a
project,
a
github
project
in
the
the
get
get
ops
working
group,
repo
that
focuses
on
the
principles
themselves,
so
we
can
add
note
cards
there
we
can.
F
E
Upon
tony
I'm
just
wondering
I
mean
this
is
a
working
group
right.
The
git
repo
is
called
working
group.
Why
are
we
afraid
of
putting
it
on
the
main
branch
or
whatever
master,
because
it's
it's
a
working
thing?
It's
called
one
0.1.
E
E
A
A
I
would
like
to
understand
what
has
been
agreed
to
by
the
working
group
and
what
is
still
being
discussed.
Both
are
completely
transparent,
but
it
would
be
valuable,
I
think,
to
have
a
very
simple
place
to
go
to
and
say,
and
we
could
use
releases.
A
We
could
use
the
release
mechanism
to
to
indicate
this
is
what
we've
agreed
on
or
we
could
use
a
branching
mechanism,
but
I
I
think
I
would
suggest
that
it
would
be
very
valuable
to
have
a
a
very
clear
way
for
visitors
to
understand.
This
is
what
the
working
group
has
agreed
to,
and
this
is
what
is
still
work
in
progress,
and
so,
whatever
mechanism
we
use,
I
think
that
we
need
to
have.
A
E
But
isn't
this
called
pull
request?
I
mean
that's
what
we're
talking
about.
Sorry,
sorry,
I
didn't
raise
my
hand.
Sorry,
yes,
okay,
go
ahead.
Okay,
then
make
a
quick
isn't
it
called.
I
mean
we
are
here
on
githubs
right,
isn't
it
called
clear
that
what's
not
merged
into
some
main
branch
is
not
consensus
and
if
it's
in
the
main
branch,
it's
like
the
current
state,
so
it's
I
mean
we
should
lift
get
if
we
call
ourselves
kidops
working
group
right,
but
yeah
yeah.
C
Sorry
I
was
trying
to
find
the
mute
button.
It
never
moves,
but
I
always
try
to
find
it.
I
just
want
to
plus
one
where
cornelius
said
right
there.
C
I
think
there's
value
in
showing
the
what
what
we've
agreed
on
and
versus
what
we're
still
discussing,
and
I
think
we're
saying
the
same,
we're
all
saying
the
same
thing
so,
but
but
I
think
that
what
what
still
what
still
is
kind
of
like
in
the
errors
being
discussed
should
be
tracked
on
a
different
either
a
different
branch
or
as
a
pr
or
or
something.
However,
we
do
it.
I
do
see
the
value
in
in
in
showing
what
has
been
agreed
upon
already.
C
A
Okay,
so
do
we
need
to
do
anything
else
with
respect
to?
Perhaps
we
use
the
slack
channel
to
try
to
schedule
a
synchronous
working
session
on
this?
Is
that
the
way
we
want
to
proceed
on
that,
I
think
I
heard
generally
generally
people
nodding
that
yeah
having
some
synchronous
collaboration
would
be
good,
go
ahead.
A
F
Yeah,
so
I
was
just
going
to
take
on
that
task
of
of
coordinating
folks,
asynchronously
and
yeah
slack
there's
also
it's
already
proposed.
It's
already
suggested
in
this
comment
on
the
github
issue,
so
people
are
not
excluded
from
replying
there,
but
I
I
I
would
think
slack
is
probably
the
the
best
way.
Okay,
yeah
either
either
way,
either
way.
Once
we
get
some
ideas
of
some
times
that
would
work
generally
time
zoney
for
most
people,
then
we
can
throw
out
some
ideas
and
not
make
it
a
super
lengthy
process.
F
But
just
as
long
as
it's
it's
good
for
most
people,
then
we
can
get
there.
K
Yeah,
so
I
I
think
we
should
set
up
like
a
regular
schedule
session
for
this
until
we
call
the
principles
done
because
I
think
it
will.
I
think
the
synchronous
communication
will
help
a
lot
in
working
out
those
finer
details,
so
I
think
it
would
help.
Maybe
once
for
two
weeks
you
set
up
an
hour
or
45
minutes
or
whatever
it
is
and
have
that
on
everybody's
diaries
and
have
a
regular
breakout
session
and
then
close
that
breakout
session.
Then
we
hit
1.0.
A
K
One
and
then
doodle
works
quite
well
for
for
for
voting
on
meeting
times.
A
Word
all
right,
I'm
going
to
step
up
as
chair
for
this
particular
meeting
and
say
last
call
for
any
discussions.
I
think
we've
we've
made
some
decisions
in
terms
of
how
we
progress.
I
don't
think
that
we,
I
think,
we've
all.
I
don't
think
there
were
any
objections
to.
We
need
to
have
some
mechanism
to
differentiate
between
what
we've
agreed
upon
and
what
we
is
still
work
in
progress.
A
I
will
suggest
that
the
team
that
gets
together
just
make
the
decision
on
whether
we
use
prs
for
the
work
in
progress
and
or
branches,
or
let
them
work
out
that
just
so
long
as
it's
very
clear
to
visitors
that
there's
a
difference
between
what's
been
agreed
to
and
what
is
still
work
in
progress,
and
I
think
that
we
also
decided
that
we
are
going
to
have
some
synchronous
meeting
times.
So
those
are
some
decisions
we
made.
If
there's
any
objections,
please
speak
up.
Otherwise,
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
topic
on
the
agenda.
A
Okay,
excellent,
so
the
next
topic
on
the
agenda
is
something
that
I
put
just
a
quick
note
out
in
the
slack
channel
on.
If
you
haven't
seen
it
I'll
just
quickly
summarize
here
we
at
weave
works,
but
this
is
not
a
weave
works
event.
We
just
at
the
very
last
minute
two
days
left
said:
hey:
how
about
would
it
make
sense
to
do
a
get
ops
con,
and
so
I
sent
out
a
note
to
the
slack
channel
and
said
what
do
you?
A
What
do
you
all
think
I
thought
it
was
pretty
exciting,
and
so
I
think
jet
there
was
no.
There
were
no
objections
that
there
were
quite
a
number
of
people
who
said:
oh
what
a
great
idea.
So
it's
a
zero
day
event
right
before
kubecon
and
there
was
a
you
know,
there
was
a
fee
that
needed
to
be
paid,
and
then
there
are
all
of
the
logistics
around
producing
the
events
streaming
the
event
and
so
on.
A
After
we
sent
out
that
note
christian
spoke
up
and
said,
red
hat
would
love
to
co-sponsor.
So
it's
just
a
sponsorship.
It
is
not
that
we
are
putting
on
the
events.
It's
a
sponsorship,
and
so,
for
example,
red
hat
has
kindly
stepped
up
to
to
doing
all
of
the
production
for
us
so
arranging
the
streaming
channels
and
all
of
those
mechanics,
christians
and
all
of
our
industry
colleague,
chris
short,
who
does
a
lot
of
this
stuff,
has
kindly
agreed
to
help
us
produce
this.
So
that's
really
fantastic.
A
What
I
want
to
suggest
here
is
that
there
were
a
number
of
people
who
responded
in
the
slack
channel.
I
will
go
ahead
and
create
an
issue
in
github
for
this,
so
that
we
can
have
a
place
to
record
things
there
as
well,
but
there
were
a
number
of
people
who
spoke
up
in
the
slack
channel
who
said
yep.
I
would
love
to
help
in
any
way
I
can
so.
A
So,
from
my
perspective,
that
means
that
they
are
issuing
the
call
for
papers,
because
this
is
not
just
the
get
ops
working
group
presenting
this
is
a
community
event,
there's
a
call
for
papers
that
they
commit
to
reviewing
those
papers
forming
a
schedule
and
then
again
we
can
depend
on
chris
short
and
the
red
hat
team
for
production,
and
then
we
any
any
organization
that
wants
to
get
in
on
the
marketing
around
this
and
so
on.
That's
something
else
that
that
the
group
would
need
to
coordinate.
A
So
how
does
social
media
happen
against
this?
And
what
are
you
know,
those
types
of
things?
So
that's
my
suggestion.
We
have
just
a
few
minutes
where
we
can
have
live
discussion
around
this,
but
from
a
process
perspective.
I
think
that's.
What
I
would
propose
is:
let's
move,
create
a
github
issue
and
we'll
continue
working
on
that.
There.
A
L
H
Do
you
need
anything
at
the
current
stage?
Oh,
it's.
Essentially
everything
already
covered
and
we
just
need
to
find
people
who
want
to
put
in
the
work
to
get
things
done.
L
A
And-
and
I
do
believe
that
it's
it's
it's
quite
urgent,
because
the
event
is
only
two
months
away
by
getting
there
was
a
deadline,
and
by
getting
in
on
that
deadline,
it
will
now
show
up
in
the
registration.
So
you
know
if
you've
registered
for
kubecon.
There
is
a
page
where
it
comes
to
the
day,
zero
events
and
it
should
be
showing
up
there.
A
I
haven't
looked
since
then,
but
it
should
be
showing
up
there
now,
because
again
we
made
it
in
just
under
the
wire
to
get
listed
on
that
page,
so
people
can
start
to
register
for
it,
but
in
order
to
promote
registration
having
a
bit
more
of
a
you
know,
get
ops
working
group
endorsed
description
of
what
it
is
that
we're
gonna
do
so
that
would
be
like
the
first
high
level
thing
is
like:
let's
describe
what
this
is
going
to
be,
and
then
the
sooner
that
we
can
get
the
call
for
papers
out
the
better.
A
So
there
is
some
urgency
because
we're
less
than
two
months
away
from
the
event.
But
yes,
it's
all
the
work
of
putting
on
this
event.
B
So,
just
just
a
quick
question,
but
on
the
previous
meeting
we
organized
the
website
committee
as
well
and
I'm
guessing.
It
would
be
relevant
to
have
some
sort
of
online
presence
available
by
the
zero
day
event.
And
I
don't
think,
we've
gotten
much
of
that
started
so
kind
of
just
bringing
this
to
the
surface,
because
I
think
this
also
becomes
relevant.
A
B
Have
an
issue-
or
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
less
last
that
we
spoke
about
this.
It
was
on
the
on
the
get
ups
working
group
general
channel,
and
it
was
mentioned
just
as
the
principles
has
a
slack
channel,
that
one
would
be
open
for
the
website
working
group,
but
I
think
that's
kind
of
where
it
where
it
ended.
I
don't
think
at
least
from
my
perspective
and
I'm
one
of
the
people
in
the
in
that
committee.
I
I
haven't
seen
other
activity
going
on.
A
B
I
think
I
think
that's
all
that's
needed
some
sort
of
like
ownership
and
and
coordination,
and
I
think
who
was
it
that
was
kind
of
like
leading
that
effort,
the
guy
from
code
fresh.
What's
his
name,
I
forgot.
B
Dan
yeah,
so
I
was
kind
of
like
I
guess
kind
of
I'm
gonna-
say
waiting
for
it
for
kind
of
some
some
path
from
band,
but
I
I'm
pretty
sure
we
have
a
slack
channel.
We
can
self-organize.
After
all,
the
principles
committee
has
been
pretty
much
like
very,
very
autonomous
right.
We
just
had
a
place
to
communicate.
I
think
that's
that
might
be
okay,.
A
B
A
I'll
I'll
be
happy
to
take
the
action
item
to
work
with
amy
to
get
that
slack
channel
set
up
and
then
I'll
I'll
send
a
note
out
to
the
broad
slack
channel.
Okay
of
its
existence,
jeff.
M
Yeah,
plus
one
on
that
too,
I
know
that
dan
was
gonna,
be
running
that
we
we
talked
about
potential
domains
to
use
as
well.
So
I'm
not
sure
where
any
of
that
list,
so
I
couldn't
take
my
hand
in
fast
enough,
leonardo.
I
think
said
that
perfectly.
A
K
So
I
created
the
unsolved
issue,
but
I
think
we,
it
can
probably
be
discussed
as
part
of
a
round
two
principles,
discussion
or
something
like.
A
D
I
think
next
meeting
we
should,
I
think,
we're
making
it
a
thing
that
it's
the
second
thursday
in
the
month
at
exactly
this
time,
which
would
be
1800
gmt.
D
So
that
would
put
us
at
the
next
meeting
at
april,
8th
if
that
works
for
everybody.
A
H
D
H
D
A
M
To
I'd,
say
third
week
of
third
week,
then,
because,
with
the
first
two
weeks
being
holidays
and
potential
kids
being
off,
it'll
be
tough
for
everybody
to
join.
C
I
I
only
I
raised
my
hand
to
pick
up
for
this
topic,
so
is
there
a
link
to
an
ics
that
we
can
subscribe
to?
That's
a
great.
A
If
you
go
to
the
cncf
calendar,
it
is
in
the
cncf
calendar
and
there
are
links.
I
did
not
look
for
an
ics.
I
looked
for
add
to
google
calendar,
which
does
is
a
link
that
does
exist.
The
other
may
exist
as
well.
I'm
not
sure.
C
G
A
A
Okay,
so
daniel
you're
gonna,
are
you
gonna,
take
the
action
item
to
get
that
broadcast
or
possibly
changed?
I
don't
know
how
whether
we
can
change
that
on
the
cncf
calendar.
I
would
hope
so.
We
can
change
one
thing,
but
you
want
to
circle
backwards.
I'll.
D
A
Okay,
we
are
exactly
at
the
top
of
the
hour,
so
I
want
to
respect
everybody
everybody's
time.
Thank
you,
a
very,
very
productive
meeting
today
and
lots
of
work
to
continue
on
after
this.
So
thanks
all.