►
From YouTube: GitOps Working Group - April 15, 2021
Description
Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hxifmCdOV5_FbKloDJRWZQHq0ge-trXJKF-BgV4wHVk/edit#heading=h.zekmcm7llerh. For more info see https://github.com/gitops-working-group/gitops-working-group
A
A
A
A
E
A
A
E
A
D
D
F
F
I
just
think
the
link
was
wrong
and
I
do
not
want
to
jump
the
agenda,
but
the
one
thing
that
I
have
to
offer
at
the
top
level,
because
I'm
working
on
the
principles
committee
and
some
other
places,
I'm
finding
that
the
meeting
cadence
and
the
scheduling
is
a
little
chaotic
and
for
anybody
with
a
lot
of
meetings
like
me,
it's
really
difficult
to
stay.
On
top
of
it.
A
B
Yeah
I
there
there
is
a
there's,
an
issue
on
git
that
I
opened.
I
think
specifically
about
meeting
times
that
as
well,
so
I'll
I'll
drum
up
the
link
and
I'll
put
it
in
the
in
the
google
doc
as
well.
So
we
can
track
it
there
as
well,
but
yeah.
Well,
you
know
again,
we
we're
probably
jumping
all
over
the
place,
so
I'll
just
wait
a
little
bit
until
we
get
that
down
to
the
agenda.
A
A
E
I'd
love
to
just
pop
along
to
this
group
occasionally
and
just
make
actors
that
bridge
to
cdf
and
cornelia,
invited
me
along
as
well
to
to
speak
at
get
ops
con.
So
we're
happy
to
take
any
input
from
this
group
on
anything
particular
they'd
like
to
see
but
yeah.
I
can
talk
about
cdf
and
the
activities
in
that
space
and
potentially
how
we
we
can
kind
of
view
it
evolving.
E
E
So
as
a
result
as
we're
planning
cdcon,
which
is
our
annual
conference-
and
this
will
be
the
second
one
we
have
running
in
june-
we
put
out
a
specific
track
as
git
ops
and
cloud
native
cd.
So
we
asked
people
to
put
in
submissions
and
that
track
was
just
overwhelmed
with
a
ton
of
submissions
on
github's
topics
so
much
so
that
we
said.
E
Actually
maybe
it
makes
sense
to
spin
this
out
into
a
separate,
dedicated
track
branded
with
github,
so
folks
can
find
it
more
easily,
and
then
we
also
reached
out
to
cncf
priyanka
and
chris
and
said
what
what
do
you
think
about
joining
in
on
this?
So
we
can
host
it
together.
So,
just
to
try
to
avoid
confusion
about
you
know:
what's
involvement
so
that
led
to
get
up
summit
and
I'm
going
to
drop
the
link
in
here.
E
E
So
if
this
group
would
like
some
time
at
the
main
cd
conference
to
host
a
birds
of
a
feather
session,
I
would
love
to
offer
you
space
to
have
a
30
year,
40
minute,
open
discussion.
It
tends
to
have
a
lot
of
newbies
just
coming
along
and
saying
what's
going
on,
but
it's
a
great
way
to
kind
of
onboard
new
people
and
get
them
just
grow.
Awareness
of
the
group
so
yeah
I'd
love
to
extend
that
invitation.
A
E
E
There's
folks
like
from
cncf
like
the
captain
folks
who
are
heavily
involved
and
yeah
we're
looking
to
see
if
we
can
drive
towards
a
further
kind
of
a
minimum
set
of
standardized
events,
which
I
think
could
be
super
interesting
and
one
of
the
things
we're
really
trying
to
get
everybody
aligned
on,
because
it
just
opens
up
a
lot
of
possibilities
and
then
other
things
as
well.
That's
coming
up
related
in
the
interpretability
spaces,
a
lot
of
discussion
around
s-bomb
or
software
bill
of
materials
and
again
just
the
interoperability
aspects
of
it.
E
A
Awesome
I
just
want
to
raise
my
hand
for
myself
for
a
second
and
just
thank
you
tracy
as
well.
I
I
personally
am
very
excited
to
that.
We
that
you
are
able
to
join
us
so
that
we
can
have
some
public
bridging
of
these
communities.
I
I
realize,
as
you
said,
there
has
been
some
behind
the
scenes,
bridging
which
is
not
very
nice,
but
it's
nice
to
be
able
to
do
it
so
that
anyone
can
access.
So
I
I
really
appreciate-
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
that.
E
A
Great
yeah
and
vice
versa,
cool
okay.
So
then
we
can
always
circle
back
to
that
if
something
comes
back
up,
but
I
think
the
next
item
on
the
list
that
that
jesse
added
well,
I
know
you-
you
had
just
mentioned
it,
but
do
we
want
to
circle
back
on
this
to
the
recurring
meetings
and
just
kind
of
touch
touch
on
this
for
a
bit
or
do
we
feel
like
we've
kind
of
covered
it
at
the.
A
A
I
agree:
I've
been
wanting
to
propose
that
we
have
a
set
day
in
time.
We
we
have
at
least
for
these
working
group
meetings.
We
we
do
announcement
in
advance
enough,
so
that
and
they
and
they
have
been
on
a
regular
cadence,
with
the
exception
of
with
the
exception
of
today
that
was
moved
to
today,
so
that
that's
fairly
regular,
the
chaotic
feeling.
I
think
that
jesse
mentioned
is,
I
can
say,
I
agree,
but
it's
not.
I
don't
think
it's
due
to
a
lack
of
organization.
A
I
think
it's
due
to
the
interested
parties
that
want
to
be
involved
in
the
various
things
that
are
happening,
which
some
of
these
things
that
are
happening
are
happening
quicker
and
and
less
expectedly
than
we
thought
they
would
have
been
already
ad
hoc
forming
into
some
groups
to
help
take
care
of
them.
So,
for
example,
the
git
ops
con
was
not
planned
long
in
advance.
It
was
not.
It
was
an
opportunistic
thing,
so
I
I
mean
that
positively.
A
You
know
so
so,
based
because
of
that,
and
given
the
schedules
of
the
folks
involved,
we've
made
a
doodle
calendar
to
try
to
get
the
right.
The
right
time-
and
I
think
that
we
have
pretty
close
to
settled
on
we've-
settled
on
a
good
small
short
range
of
time
slots
and
I
think
we're
getting
closer
to
being
able
to
pick
a
consistent
day.
A
Wouldn't
you
say
dan
and
christian
at
least
that's
what
my
impression
from
our
last
get
ops
con
meeting
get
up
working
group
meeting
we
at
least
I
know
it's
my
task
to
make
a
doodle
poll
given
three
time
slots
over
four
days
and
we'll
see
and
I'm
hoping
that
we
can.
We
can
say
great,
let's
just
continue
to
pick
this,
but
it
is
a
very
short
run
thing.
So
so
that
may
not
last.
A
The
the
only
other
meeting
that
has
been
interjected
in
here
is
the
principal
sync
meetings
that
was
proposed
and
so
far
everyone
seems
to
feel
that
that's
a
very
important
thing
to
do
and
to
keep
participation
open
and
high.
That
has
been
a
a
a
unique
doodle
poll,
every
availability
poll
every
single
week.
So
for
me
it
feels
a
bit
much
to
manage,
but
it's
I
understand
for
other
people.
It
would
be
nice
to
have
a
single
date.
A
B
Yeah
I'll
I'll
take
the
floor,
real
quick
only
because
I
had
my
hand
raised
and
also
because
it'll
be
short,
so
my
only
thing
is
that
I
think
the
ad
hoc
stuff
is
fine,
especially
it's
just
growing
pains
right
as
we're
trying
to
grow
the
group
and
again,
like
you,
know,
scott
being
in
the
get
ups
con
committee
thing.
A
lot
of
this
was
opportunistic,
so
we
just
kind
of
had
to
get
things
quick.
I
I
do
think,
though,
going
back
to
my
issue
on
on
github.
B
Is
that
I
think
if
we
have
a
calendar
even
like,
if
I
can't
make
every
meeting
that's
still
at
least
a
public
place
where
people
can
go
and
say:
oh
hey,
you
know
the
cfp.
People
are
meeting
this
day
and
I
can
make
it
and
I
want
to
be
part
of
that,
and
at
least
you
know
when
the
changes
happen.
I
can
subscribe
into
the
to
that
individual
calendar
and
if
changes
happen,
that
it'll
change
automatically
and
then
I
could
be
like.
B
Oh,
I
can't
make
it
or
oh,
I
can't
make
it.
I
think
it
goes
back
to
that
original
issues.
Like
you
know,
well,
we
should
have
a
central
calendar
that
we
can
as
a
working
group
subscribe
to
so,
and
I
think
that'll
at
least
alleviate
a
lot
of
the
the
the
issues
and
kind
of
the
whole
kind
of
the
craziness.
That
kind
of
that
it
kind
of
feels
like
right
now
so.
D
So
I
I
think
that
what
what
that
chaotic
feeling
in
part
probably
comes
from
the
fact
that
we
have
these
subcommittees,
we
have
a
committee,
that's
focused
on
putting
together
the
principles
and
I
think,
whoever
we
appoint
to
run
the
committee,
and
I
actually
don't
remember
who
we
put
in
charge
of
that
committee.
I
know
that
I'm
I'm
supposed
to
be
running
the
website
committee.
I
haven't
done
very
much
on
it
yet
so
the
website
committee
is
very,
not
chaotic,
not
catec
at
all.
D
D
But
I
think
just
in
order
of
operations
like
we
probably
need
to
make
decision.
What's
our
regular
cadence
going
to
be
and
then
make
sure
that
we
have
it
publicized
in
one
calendar
that
we
pick
and
then
make
sure
that
we
have
a
proper
zoom
link?
And
I
know
scott
you've
been
actually
trying
to
get
us
to
move
to
the
new
calendar.
I
don't
know
what
the
blocker
is.
Do
we
need
to
do?
We
need
like
weigh-in,
because
several
people
gave
thumbs
up
or
are
we
just
good
to
go
to
go
and
do
it.
A
D
No,
I
I
think
I
don't
think
for
something
like
that.
Like
moving
the
calendar,
I
would
let's
just
shoot
ahead
and
someone
can
can
get
it
go,
go
throw
stuff
in
the
way.
If
you
don't
want
us
to
do
it,
but
let's
just
do
it
and
then
do
we
have
an
official
cncf
zoom
link
that
we
should
be
using
instead
of
another
one.
A
Well,
yes,
so
so
the
account
this
this
is
through
the
cncf
github's
working
group,
zoom
account,
and
I
have
that
I
have
that
set
up
right
now
inside
of
our
keybase
account
to
share
and
I'll
I'll
I'll
connect.
Folks
with
it.
The
other
thing
is
there
there's
just
a
couple
of
I
mean
again
very
preliminary
things
like
how
do
we
securely
share
things,
so
that
is
one
way
that
we
have
provisionally
there's
also
another
issue.
A
To
I
mean
some
of
this
is
so
detailed
and
almost
to
the
point
of
being
potentially
nauseating
for
everyone
interested
in
get
up.
Some
of
this
is
just
about
setting
up
the
basic
organizational
stuff.
So
so
getting
you
know
an
open
source.
One
password
account
is
is
on
the
agenda.
I
just
wanted
to
wait
until
we
have
the
cncf
a
change
that
officially
changed
the
name
of
the
of
the
sandbox
project
first,
and
that
was
the
only.
That
was
the
only
reason.
D
With
the
amount
of
minutiae
should
we
divert
this
to
just
like
a
subcommittee
thing
and
just
be
like
you
know
what
the
main
the
the
co-chairs
we
can
just
go
and
take
all
this
minutia
and
just
work
it
out
between
the
three
of
us
and
just
get
it
all
done
and
we'll
get
the
calendars
updated
and
I
don't
think
anybody's
gonna
get
mad
at
us,
because
we
moved
the
calendar
and
set
up
a
process.
You
know,
I
don't
think
we
have
to
spend
a
ton
of
time
on
it
with
a
larger
group.
A
D
F
Yeah
I
mean
I
I
just
wanted
to
address
the
original
thing
that
I
brought
up,
clarify
that
chaotic
didn't
mean
negative,
I'm
not
throwing
shade
it's
just
hard
to
stay.
On
top
of
it.
We've
had
like
four
of
these
top-level
working
group
meetings.
I've
missed
two
one
was
the
wrong
link
and
the
meeting
was
canceled
and
today
I
almost
missed,
because
the
link
was
wrong.
So
I
had
a
pr
in
the
old
repo
that
got
mixed.
F
That
was
just
literally
like
we
meet
once
a
month
on
wednes
on
thursdays
at
this
zoom
channel
at
the
zoom
link
like
just
we
could
just
change
it
to
that.
I
I
don't
think
we
have
to
over
rotate
on
the
minutia,
and
I
totally
agree
with
the
the
committee
meetings
are
separate,
but
I
feel
like
this
working
group
can
set
some
some
guidelines
for
committees.
F
I
just
I
think,
the
I
think
the
committees
are
of
this
group,
so
I
don't
think
it's
entirely
out
of
scope
how
they
meet
when
they
meet
and
frankly,
I've
got
a
little
frustration
there
in
that,
like
I've
missed
half
those
two
and
the
ones
I
miss
there
seems
to
be
somebody
that
misses
the
ones
that
I
attend.
That
has
opposite
opinions,
so
we're
ping-ponging
on
a
couple
of
things
and
it's
why
don't
know
so,
I'm
just
sort
of
like
and
but
I
get
it
this
is.
F
This
is
sort
of
the
ad
hoc
beats
in
action
like
just
make
it
happen,
I'm
totally
down
with
that,
just
maybe
more
on
more
on
slack
and
more
because
the
other
thing
here
is
that
in
these
meetings
everything
happens
and
then
it's
for
reference
and
in
committee
meetings
we've
adopted
that
too.
So
it's
like
we
lock
docs.
You
can't
do
anything
out
of
a
meeting,
so
it's
it.
I
think
I
think
the
initial
my
initial,
like
scope
of
of
bringing
this
up
was
just
to
say.
F
A
A
A
You
know,
I
think
many
of
us,
like
people
involved
in
the
kubernetes
community,
can
can
have
been
involved
in
pull
requests
where
they
can
go
on
for
a
very
long
time.
The
the
point
is
to
make
pro
the
point
is
to
make
progress,
so
we
we
decided,
I
proposed,
having
live
sync
sessions
just
to
help
that
along
not
to
lock
anyone
out
participating
the
the
document
that's
being
used
during
the
sync
sessions
is
locked
in
between
the
sync
session.
So
that's
that
it
doesn't.
A
You
know
no
one
should
be
excluded
because
they
can't
make
a
date,
and
that's
why
we
have
the
open
doodle
poll.
I
think
I
just
want
to
address.
One
thing
is
that
we
have,
in
the
last
two
meetings
been
somewhat
somewhat
locked
on
on
a
specific
topic
and
we
had
not
formalized
any
way
of
making
decisions
during
this.
A
It
was
just
somewhat
informal
so
because
of
that,
it's
not
that
I
I
don't
think
any
of
us
could
anticipate
that
that
could
happen,
but
I
didn't
necessarily
think
we
needed
to
do
it.
That
quickly
sounds
like
we
do
so
dan
and
leonardo,
and
I
met
about
this
right
after
the
meeting
and
I'm
just
giving
a
quick
update,
and
this
issue
was
created
as
a
wait
as
a
place
to
discuss
the
one
issue
publicly
as
opposed
to
using
live
meeting.
A
You
know
an
hour
continual
over
and
over
for
for
an
unknown
period
of
time.
To
do
that.
So
we
all
agree
that
dissenting
opinions
are
important
and
general
consensus
is
important.
Everyone's
opinion
matters.
At
the
same
time,
we
do
have
goals
that
we
want
to
reach
and
we
need
to
make
sure
to
have
ways
of
moving
forward.
A
I
think
it
says
it
all
right
there,
but
I
want
to
highlight
this
part
that
asks
folks
to
give
their
viewpoints
in
as
succinct
away
as
possible
and
hopefully
that,
hopefully
that
will
help
and
we
we
can
make
sure
that
we
don't
accidentally
get
into
bike
shedding
there.
So
the
only
other
update
I
have-
and
I'm
sorry
if
this
is
going
a
bit
too
long
is
that
is
that
we
do
not
have
a
deadline
for
this.
A
A
F
I
I
love
that
we
we
dropped
the
time.
I
think
it's
really
great
and
and
the
context
for
that
is
basically
we
need
to
work
it
until
it's
done
not
work
it
until
a
date.
Right.
That's
great,
I'm
curious
to
know
at
like
within
this
working
group,
how
we
view
this
particular
pr
so
like.
As
you
said,
we
had
discussed
this
around
number
three
and
specifically
the
term
continuous.
F
It
went
through
two
principles
meetings
and
it
seemed
like
we
had
made
progress,
and
then
we
reverted
that
progress
based
on
people
being
able
to
attend.
I
think
relatedly.
I
just
want
to
make
one
observation:
if
someone
has
a
typical
meeting
load
of
four
to
eight
meetings
a
day,
a
doodle
poll
doesn't
help
because
what
happens
is
it
comes
in
and
you
can
say:
oh,
I
could
make
these
times
and
then
the
next
week
those
might
change,
because
you're
not
blocked
anything
off.
F
I'm
speaking
personally,
I
can't
block
off
eight
things
and
hope
that
one
lands,
so
it
doesn't
super
work,
but
that's
kind
of
part
of
the
problem.
So
I'm
wondering
with
this
pr
will
this
land
as
advice
to
the
principles,
not
committee
or
whatever
the
pseudo
committee
I
mean:
will
this
land
as
like?
Okay,
whoever
shows
up
here
we're
going
to
look
at
this
we're
going
to
take
all
of
the
plus
ones
and
the
thumbs
and
say
this
is
what
we're
doing.
F
F
F
At
least
my
personal
experience
has
been
the
longer
you
draw
out
on
terminology,
the
more
it
becomes
about
the
terminology
and
the
more
everybody
surprised
your
bike
shedding
continuous
is
important.
This
is
an
important
one.
This
is
not
bike
shedding.
However,
I
just
I
do
wanna.
I
I
think
wanna
use
the
context
of
this
larger
scope
group
to
say
what's
the
plan
here-
and
I
think
I
know,
but.
C
Okay,
cool
breeze
yeah
for
the
continuous
things.
Sorry,
I
kind
of
lost
the
original
point.
I
think
you
made
it
before
I
did
jesse,
but
the
continuous
thing
I
think,
we've
already
moved
it
out
right,
so
we
can
move
on
with
the
with
the
actual
work
of
principle
four
and
do
the
continuous
things
offline
in
the
discussion
and
then
the
working
group.
The
committee
for
the
principals
can
pick
that
up
and
integrate
it
in
a
future
meeting.
So
we've
kind
of
moved
that
offline
so
that
we
can
progress.
C
So
we
should
hopefully
see
more
progress.
Point
number
one
point
number:
two.
The
reason
we
do
a
doodle
po
every
week
is
is
because
we
have
a
lot
of
people
in
very
different
time
zones
and
it's
quite
hard
to
find
one
regular
slot
that
accommodates
for
everybody.
So
if
we
pick
a
meeting
slot,
that's
the
same
every
every
week
or
whatever
we
risk
having
people
completely
excluded.
I
think
that
was
the
original
one.
So
I
don't
know
how
to
resolve
that
and
the
third
one
is.
C
C
F
Sense
can
I
can
I
ask
for
clarification,
urban.
Actually,
I
feel
like
a
rebuttal,
actually
a
little
bit
like
a
friendly
one,
so
just
to
the
to
the
meeting
thing,
I
don't
want
to
get
pedantic
about
this,
but
I
will
say
that
like
next
week,
if
you
throw
a
doodle
poll
out-
and
I
have
to
pick
times
right
now-
I
have
tons
of
space
in
my
calendar
that
will
fill
up.
So
I
I
don't
mean
that
we
should
be
exclusive
right.
F
C
F
But
that's
what
I'm
saying
like
I
missed
one
this
past
one
that
I
would
not
have
missed,
because
I
would
have
blocked
it
in
my
calendar,
other
people
that
would
miss
the
you
know
what
I'm
saying
like
everybody
might
be
in
that
boat.
So
that's
one
and
I
guess
we
can
just
put
that
to
rest
and
let
the
co-chairs
figure
it
out.
Are
you
saying
that
that
number
three
is
now
resolved?
C
E
C
F
C
D
We
want
to
hear
that
we
want
to
document
it
and,
let's
put
it
into
a
discussion
place
where
they
can
advocate
for
it,
and
people
can
can
jump
in
and
help
out
and
maybe
they
can
gain
momentum
there,
and
then
people
will
say:
oh
yeah,
this
all
makes
sense.
But
in
the
meantime
it's
like
well,
your
objection
is
important.
It's
valid,
let's
document
it
and
it's
a
caveat
that
we
can
we
can
address.
D
A
Yeah,
I
was
just
gonna
call
them
basically,
zoom
lists
the
people
in
order,
and
I
I
I'm
not
always
quick
on
the
draw
to
get
the
right
person,
I'm
sorry
about
that
I'll
do
better,
but
yeah.
So
I
raised
my
hand
just
just
to
add
a
quick
note
to
direct
folks
to
my
alternative
proposal,
meeting
proposal
in
the
chat.
So
we
can.
A
We
can
async
this
if
we
want
to,
but
that's
something
that's
been
helpful
in
other
other
projects,
and
maybe
we
should
just
go
ahead
and
move
to
like
an
early
in
a
late
meeting
and
call
it
a
day,
but
but
I'm
just
gonna
throw
that
out
there,
and
I
put
it
in
the
meeting
notes.
So
if
anyone
has
objections
or
they
like
it,
then
maybe
thumbs
up
or
whatever
in
and
and
we'll
take
that
into
consideration
as
we
move
forward
into
next
week.
C
Yeah,
the
really
quick,
I
think
also
one
of
the
issue-
is
some
of
the
points
we're
making
in
that
working
group
in
that
committee
are
actually
quite
subtle
and
complex
and
just
a
quick
voice.
Conversation
might
not
get
to
the
root
of
them.
So
moving
that
to
a
written
discussion
might
actually
be
helpful
in
clarifying
exactly
what
people
mean.
Having
definitions
and
having
much
more
clarity,
I
think
there's
a
there's,
a
genuine
objection
and
getting
to
the
bottom
of
it
isn't
going
to
happen
in
by
voice.
A
A
A
A
Okay,
only
other
the
next
generation
agenda
item
is
really
quick
is
just
that.
Please
see
the
the
the
the
teams
and
project
boards
under
the
get-offs
working
group.
I'm
sorry,
you
can't
actually
see
the
teams,
but
you
can
unless
you're
part
of
the
organization
because
github,
but
we
can
document
those-
and
we
probably
should
quickly
in
fact
I'll
make
an
agenda
item
for
myself
to
do
that
unless
someone
else
wants
to
take
it.
B
Yeah,
let
me
find
that
mute
button,
so
I'll
I'll
take
this
so
that
way,
scott
can
take
a
little
break
there,
so
so
update
on
the
getupscon
eu
2021,
our
cfs,
our
cfps,
are
still
open
open
until
tomorrow
we
got
an
update
today
that
we
have
20
20
talk
submitted,
so
that's
that's
pretty
good.
It
essentially
doubled
overnight.
So
I
think
it
hap
the
same
thing
that
always
happens
with
every
cfp
is
all
of
them
come
at
the
end.
B
So
we
we're
closing
that
and
the
committee
will
be
voting
on
talks
and
finalizing
the
agenda
for
get
ops
con
eu
in
the
document
there
we
are
tracking
everything
via
projects.
Probably
I
need
to
update
that
sometime
today
of
what's
of
what's
been
going
on
there,
and
so
I
think
that's
it
for
the
update,
there's
no
other
new
things
that
that
came
out
of
that
we
put
in
the.
B
B
A
A
A
Probably
the
one
thing
I
just
want
to
mention
is
that
the
open,
git
ops
logo
is
probably
the
only
one
that
cncf
will
want
inside
of
the
the
top
level
artwork
repo,
because
that's
the
sandbox
project,
most
working
groups,
don't
have
their
own
logos,
we're
kind
of
like
we're
we're
kind
of
cool.
In
that
way,
I
guess,
but
I
don't
think
cncf
needs
that
in
their
artworks
directory,
but
we
can
always
ask
chris
so,
okay,
the
only
other
note
is
that
I
wanted
to
let
people
I
just
want
to.
A
Let
people
know
that
we
can
actually
answer
discussions
now
or
sorry.
Ansel
answer
proposal
type
discussions
within
within
github
discussions.
I
just
edited
that
so
that
we
can,
because
I
think
it
was
getting
a
little
confusing
for
folks
when
you
couldn't
get
an
actual
answer.
I
noticed
that
on
several
discussions,
three
or
four
of
us
tried
to
try
to
give
like
an
actual
answer
at
different
points.
Just
because
people
kept
asking
questions
so
we
can
mark
them
as
such,
and
I
did
on
a
few.
A
A
What
else
there's
only
one
other
topic
that
I
had
I'm
sure
we
probably
have
other
things
that
we
want
to
discuss,
but
but
but
when
I
mentioned
that
there
was
a
pr
for
for
for
up,
simplifying
and
updating
the
governance
that
is
linked
here,
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
post
it
also
in
in
zoom
but
oops.
Well
anyway.
I
guess
I
won't
do
that
right
now,
but
but
yeah.
A
So
so
please
check
that
out
if
you're
interested
there's
a
few
different
things
that
are
relevant
so,
for
example,
I
think
chris
this
would
be
relevant
to
you.
I
would
really
very
much
like
your
input
on
this
sorry.
Chris
sanders
I
mean
and
others
whom
this
this
affects.
It's.
Basically,
if
you
look
at
the
the
main
thing,
is
this
I'll
I'll
I'll
share
my
screen?
Very
briefly.
If
that's
okay,
okay.
A
All
right,
so,
if
we
look
at
at
our
timeline,
can
everyone
see
read
the
text?
Okay.
If
we
look
at
our
timeline
right
now,
so
so
the
initial
group
was
formed,
I
don't
want
to
give
a
whole
history,
but
basically,
last
year,
right
last
november,
the
the
initial
formation
of
the
group
was
was
intended
to
happen
in
q4
of
2020,
which
did
happen.
There
was
an
initial
get
ups
working
group
charter.
That's
a
google
doc!
That
was
not
really
didn't,
go
anywhere
beyond
that.
A
A
There
we
go.
The
pull
request
is
linked
here
and-
and
I
would
just
encourage
folks
to
to
take
a
look
at
this,
primarily
what
it
does
is
it
it
updates.
What
we
did
have
as
a
bootstrapping
process
that
was
a
little
bit
confusing,
because
the
get
ops
working
group
intended
to
have
a
sandbox
project,
but
during
the
during
the
the
review,
the
cncf,
the
toc
review,
it
was
mentioned
that
hey,
this
isn't
really
a
wonderful
name
for
it,
and
everyone
said
yes,
that's
true.
A
I
would
love
if
those
folks,
for
example,
including
eucharist,
could
continue
to
to
help
with
that
kind
of
thing,
but
we
need
to
to
figure
out
kind
of
how
that
fits
within
our
the
governance
structure
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
this
actually
works
as
a
real
working
group.
So
this
is
a
proposal
for
that.
There
may
be
a
couple
of
other
things
that
we
want
to
add,
but
that's
it
that's.
I
just
wanted
to
introduce
you
to
it
and
please
take
a
look.
A
A
D
What
was
your
so
that
was
that
the
main
reason
that
you
were
thinking
of
just
like
the
maintainers
were
the
people
that
basically
bootstrapped,
because
I'm
also
thinking
about
like
merging
future
pull
requests
in
here
and
and
like
right
now
it
requires
maintainers
to
do
it.
So
what's
the?
What
would
the
alternative
process
be?.
A
Yeah,
well,
you
can
have
maintainers
per
per
repo
if
you
want
that.
Generally
generally,
chairs
are
part
of
a
are
unless
it's
a
highly
complex
structure,
generally
chairs
or
whether
you
have
an
oversight
committee
or
a
or
whatever,
are
also
maintainers,
and
they
just
have
an
additional
role
of
helping
to
say,
moderate
meetings
and
the
other,
the
other
things
that
are
on
the
the
other
responsibilities
that
are
on
that
list,
and
that's
really
it
so.
I
might.
D
I
can
follow
up
with
you
offline,
I
I'm
getting
my
head
around
it
and
thinking
about
it,
because
I
also
think
that,
like
the
maintainers
that
we
do
have
people
from
amazon
people
from
github
those
things
really
I
mean
for
better
for
worse.
It
actually
adds
a
lot
of
credibility
to
the
project.
So
I
don't
know
I'll
I'll
discuss
with
you
offline
and
we
keep
talking
about
it
and
will
the
maintainers
basically
will
have
to
vote
and
agree
to
the
pr.
So
we'll
have
to
figure
that
out
and
this.
A
Is
precisely
why
why
I
met
why
I
mentioned
it
in
this
in
this
meeting
and
we'll
also
be
publicizing,
you
know
it's
a
rather
you
know
any
any.
Any
pull
request
to
governance
requires
folks
that
are
existing
on
the
governance
to
be
involved.
Basically,
it's
an
invitation
to
say:
hey.
Do
we
want
to
add
an
additional
level
of
folks?
Do
we
want
to
just
broaden
the
maintainer
list,
or
how
do
we
want
to
do
this
so.
G
One
thought
I
have
scott
listening
into
that
conversation
yesterday
is
that
it
seems
like
they're.
You
need
to
be
able
to
move
forward
like
this
is
my
first
foray
with
open
source.
Okay,
so
having
consensus
is
awesome,
but
also
you
need
to
move
forward,
and
so
there
needs
to
be
some
way
to
sort
of
not
table
but
like
put
on
the
side
screen.
These
issues
that
you
know
one
or
a
very
few
people
have
and
somehow
move
forward
with
the
dock
that
most
people
agree
with.
G
So
we
can
actually
get
to
the
important
things
you
know
the
terminology,
for
that
is
really
not
why
the
group
was
formed
right.
It's
so
that
we
can
come
up
with
these
reference
architectures
that
cust,
that
you
know
all
kinds
of
people
can
refer
to.
So
I
think
that's.
The
main
main
thing
I'm
really
curious
about
is
how
do
you
finally
get
to
say?
Okay,
we're
stopping
discussion,
here's
what
it's
going
to
look
like!
We
will,
you
know,
register
the
disagreement
and
is
there
a
way
to
say
here's,
the
official
doc?
G
A
That
I
can
actually
answer
that
quickly.
There
is
officially
a
process
for
it
right
now
in
the
governance
doc.
The
the
reason
that
it
seems
a
little
bit
confusing
is
the
governance
dock
was
initially
it
was
a
placeholder.
It
was
copied
from
the
flux
governance
document,
which
I
helped
to
author,
that
was
appropriate
to
that
project
because
it
not
only
represented
how
the
project
was
work
functioning
and
the
processes
that
it
required,
but
also
what
the
main,
what
the
those
existing
maintainers
wanted
and
made
sure
that
that
was
balanced
with
what
was
fair.
A
What
that
did
was
it
gave
a
process
that
was
a
little
bit
complex,
that
we
don't
really
need
for
this
working
group.
So
that
was
why
there
was
the
recommendation
that
I
made
the
recommendation
to
simplify
it,
and
so
far
everyone
has
said.
Yes,
we
totally
agree.
We
might
kind
of
revise
with
that,
based
on
yeah,
based
on
how
some
of
those
discussions
went.
G
G
Also
on
those
long
like
bruce,
did
a
great
job
with
that
doc,
but
it's
so
long.
There's
lots
of
details
like
breaking
it
into
chunks,
so
we
can
have
little
check
boxes.
Do
we
agree
with
this
chunk
check
all
done,
move
on
to
the
next
one
check?
Oh
no
red
mark
here
we're
going
to
look
at
this
one
more
so.
C
A
D
No
feel
feel
free
to
add
them.
I
got
to
jump
off,
but
I
I
volunteered
for
moderation
next
time.
Thank
you.
Scott
you've
done
95
of
the
work
so
far,
so
really
appreciate
it
I'll
try
to
step
up
and
help.
My
role
has
changed
now,
so
I
have
more
time
to
focus
on
this.
So
looking
forward
to
it
thanks,
we
all
tag
team
at
different
times.