►
From YouTube: Public Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) Meeting – Moderated by Liz Rice, Aqua Security
Description
Join us for Kubernetes Forums Seoul, Sydney, Bengaluru and Delhi - learn more at kubecon.io
Don't miss KubeCon + CloudNativeCon 2020 events in Amsterdam March 30 - April 2, Shanghai July 28-30 and Boston November 17-20! Learn more at kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy, and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects
Public Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) Meeting – Moderated by Liz Rice, Aqua Security
The Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) provides technical leadership to the cloud-native community. The CNCF will host a public TOC meeting, inviting the community to discuss the project roadmap for 2018, the upcoming TOC Election Schedule for 2018, along with holding an open Q&A for the community with TOC members.
To Learn More: https://sched.co/GuSD
A
Let's
do
this
right,
so
this
is
the
technical
oversight
committee
panel
discussion,
I'm
gonna,
ask
a
few
questions.
Hopefully
you'll
all
ask
a
few
questions
as
well:
we'll
try
and
make
it
pretty
interactive
can
I
get
all
the
panelists
are
just
kind
of
really
really
very
briefly
say
who
you
are
please
start
up
one
end:
have
you
got
microphones.
A
C
Ben
Heineman
I'm,
one
of
the
co-founders
of
a
company
called
Mesa
sphere
and
the
chief
product
officer
there,
and
for
that
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
at
Twitter,
helping
to
build
out
their
large,
very
large
private
cloud
container
orchestration
system
and
before
that,
I
was
at
Berkeley.
Where
I
created
a
technology
called
mesos.
C
D
H
F
Alexis
Richardson
I'm,
the
co-founder
of
weave,
works
a
container
in
Kappa
daddy's
company.
We
also
do
something
called
get
up
stir.
You
might
have
heard
been
talking
about
at
length
before
that.
I
was
a
pivotal
where
I
rang
the
spring
and
vFabric
teams.
Creditors
like
spring
boot
and
spring
cloud
as
a
p.m.
and
previously
VMware
rabbitmq
Redis
I've
had
my
evil
hands
in
many
open
source
projects.
Awesome.
A
B
So
I
get
this
question
a
lot
from
projects
that
are
interested
in
becoming
part
of
the
CN
CF.
The
usual
process
is
that
either
someone
on
the
TOC
or
in
the
in
the
community
identifies
a
project
as
being
potentially
interesting
where
the
project
reaches
out
to
us.
Now
that
CN
CF
is
much
more
rightly
known.
The
latter
is
a
very
common
case
and
we
discuss
what
the
place
it
might
where
my
fit
in
the
cloud
made
a
ecosystem.
B
If
someone
from
the
TOC
is
interested,
we
usually
invite
the
project
to
present,
although
that
project
is
changing
a
little
bit
with
the
introduction
of
the
sandbox.
We're
a
project
just
needs
to
find
two
sponsors
on
the
TOC.
So
if
someone
comes
to
me
with
the
project,
for
example
and
I,
think
some
other
member,
the
TOC
might
be
interested
I'll
forward
it
to
them
and
say:
hey
here's
an
interesting
project
that
I
think
you
might
be
interested
in
and
if
they
are
interested,
then
we
can
make
that
connection.
B
If
the
project
seeks
to
enter
at
the
incubation
level,
then
there
is
a
presentation
to
the
TOC
during
one
of
our
bi-weekly
meetings.
If
the
TOC
is
interested
in
moving
forward
at
that
point
or
ask
them
to
draft
a
proposal
and
a
TOC
sponsor
will
iterate
with
them
on
the
proposal
and
then
there's
a
vote,
and
six
members
need
to
approve
the
project
in
order
for
it
to
get
in.
B
B
G
In
addition
to
Brian
senses,
anything
I
would
counsel
projects
to
really
ask
the
question
of
the
project.
Why
do
you
want
it?
Why
the
CNC
f?
Why
is
it
important
to
your
project?
What
do
you
hope
to
get
out
of
being
at
the
CN
CF?
What
do
you
hope
to
bring
to
the
CNC
f,
so
I
think
that
when
we,
if
there's
an
idea
that
like
well
I
I
want
to
be
in
the
CNC
F,
because
I
want
to
get
my
projects
in
momentum,
that's
probably
the
wrong
reason
to
be
in
the
CNC
f.
G
G
I
think
I
already
grocery
batteries
and
I
think
a
good
reason
is
you
know:
we've
got
a
lot
of
momentum
for
this
project
and
it's
across
a
couple.
Different
companies
now
and
my
boss
is
kind
of
on
me
to
understand.
Why
are
we
not
getting
this
into
a
foundation
and
I
want
to
have
some
broader
foundation
resources?
That's
a
that's
a
great
reason:
I
mean
we
a.
A
I
A
E
Answer
that
one
I
think
we
explicitly
do
not
want
to
be
a
one
solution
shop
for
any
given
problem,
and
we
strongly
actually
encourage
there
to
be
multiple
options
available,
and
we
believe
that
you
know
over
time.
The
market
will
either
pick
one
of
them
or
pick
multiple
of
them
for
different
reasons
in
different
use,
cases
and
I
think
that's
that's
a
model
that
we
strongly
support.
What
was
the
other
question
again
remind
me?
What's.
E
Missing,
that's
a
very
good
question,
so
I
have
a
personal
opinion
on
it
which
which
I
haven't
actually
discussed
broadly
in
the
TOC,
but
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
that
we're
missing
is
a
is
a
kind
of
a
coherent
framework
for
general
distributed
applications.
So
we've
got
all
these
pieces
and
some
people
use
some
of
them
and
some
people
use
others
and
all
of
them
have
you
know
different
ways
of
interacting
with
them.
E
Some
of
them
use
REST
API,
as
some
of
them
use,
G
RPC,
some
of
them
use
whatever,
but
from
a
programmers
point
of
view
and
and
in
general
it's
it's
reasonably
easy
to
to
orchestrate
applications
that
have
already
been
written.
So
we
know
how
to
you
know,
manage
containers
and
hook
them
together
with
meshes
and
things
like
this.
But
writing
the
applications
inside
the
containers
is
actually
still
remarkably
difficult.
E
In
my
opinion
and
I've
got
a
you
know,
one
sort
of
data
point
which
is
I
used
to
run
the
asari
teams
at
at
Google
running
all
the
ad
systems.
Now
solving
ads
is
actually
not
a
fundamentally
terribly
difficult
thing.
You
know
you
send
some
data
to
the
web
server
and
you
get
some
ads
back
that
are
contextualized
for
you,
but
the
number
of
engineers
and
I
don't
if
I
can
sort
of
make
it
public,
but
it's
many
thousands
of
the
best
engineers
in
the
world
writing
what
is
essentially
a
reasonably
straightforward
application.
E
That
seems
like
wrong
to
me.
That
seems
like
it
should
be
easier
and
there
many
other
examples
of
systems
where
there
are
many
thousands
of
engineers
writing
something
that
is
fundamentally
reasonably
straightforward.
If
you
have
the
right
primitives
available
for
distributed
systems,
which
I
don't
think
we
we
have
and
they're
just
kind
of
difficult
to
piece
together
any.
G
Got
a
couple
of
no
one
else
is
gonna,
go
I,
think
getting
more
stateful
kind
of
technologies.
We've
got
a
couple
of
I'm,
particular
databases.
We've
got
a
couple
of
databases
that
are
that
that
are
in
the
pipeline
or
things
that
the
cockroach
TB
and
that
foundation
DB
is
here
they
had
it.
They
had
a
pre
de
event.
We,
the
the
pink
cap
folks
and
TI,
KB
and
and
they're
there
that
there's
some
interesting
stuff
out
there.
G
I
would
like
to
see
us
get
one
of
those
kind
of
across
the
finish
line
as
a
real
or
ideally
multiple
of
those,
and
then
I'd
like
to
also
see
some
complementary
projects
to
some
of
our
existing
projects.
Prometheus
is
great,
but
Prometheus.
Part
of
the
power
of
Prometheus
is
that
it
allows
a
lot
of
different
kind
of
technologies
to
back
it
and
I'd
like
to
see
us
pull
some
of
those
technologies.
I
love,
boobers,
m3,
I.
Think
it's
really
interesting
and
I'd
like
to
see
the
some
missing
pieces
there.
So
there's.
F
Also
different
kinds
of
projects
from
different
parts
of
the
world-
hello,
different
projects
from
different
parts
of
the
world,
I
think
is
important.
I
was
very
excited
by
all
of
the
TI
KB
stuff
because
it's
built
in
China
I've
never
seen
a
project
of
that
I'm
fishing
from
from
there
before
and
I.
Think
we
want
to
see
more
of
that.
We'd
also
like
to
see
more.
E
I
think
the
answer
to
that
might
I
mean
there
are
a
couple
of
dimensions.
One
is
you
know
how
many
projects
can
we
meaningfully
manage?
If
we,
you
know
if
the
CNC
F
has
500
projects
like
how
do
we
actually
add
value
to
500
projects
and
how
we
tooled
up
to
do
that
which
we
could
do,
we
could
scale?
The
other
question,
is
you
know
to
what
extent
is
it
a?
Is
it
a
complete
solution?
E
I
think
to
me
the
answer
lies
in
if
I'm,
an
application,
developer
and
I'm
building
a
large
distributed
application
and
I
can
build
it
using
only
CN,
CF
components
and
it
works.
Well
then,
the
CNC
F
has
succeeded
if
I
either
you
know,
look
at
all
the
CNC,
F
bits
and
and
I
don't
have
stuff
I
need
I
have
to
build
it
myself,
we're
going
shop
for
it
somewhere
else.
Then
I
think
the
CNC
F
isn't
not
yet
succeeded.
I.
B
Was
mentioned
earlier,
a
project,
an
open-source,
not
all
open-source
projects
have
to
be
in
the
scenes
you
have
to
be
successful.
There
are
examples
of
other
useful
open-source
projects,
like
spark
is
just
one
example
that
users
find
useful,
so
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
necessarily
build
competing
solutions
just
because
they're,
not
in
scene
CF,
but
I
do
agree
that
out
and
open
source
in
general.
There
needs
to
be
a
complete
solution
and
I
totally
agree
8
that
500
projects
it's
hard
for
me
to
see
how
that
would
be
manageable.
B
You
know,
sort
of
desirable
alternatives
that
are
actively
maintained
and
our
Best
of
Breed
kind
of
projects.
So
one
thing
we've
started
talking
about
as
we
grow
is
actively
curating
our
portfolio
of
projects.
You
know
some
projects
aren't
going
that
the
direction
we
think
is
still
useful
for
users,
making
sure
that
we
communicate
that
to
users.
G
To
wait
when
you're
asking
you
know
how
many
projects
is
too
many
projects
is
a
great
question
of
how
much
software
is
too
much.
Software
and
and
I
think
that
that's
the
problem
that
we
are
all
grappling
with
I
mean
it's
a
great
problem
to
have
in
that
there
is
much
more
opportunity,
much
more
heterogeneity,
much
more
choice
than
there
was
a
decade
ago,
two
decades
ago,
we're
a
long
way
from
a
lamp
stack
where
effectively,
all
those
choices
are
I've
been
made
for
you
and
there's.
There
are
a
lot
of
options
out
there.
G
I
think
that
optionality
is
great.
I
think
that
we
we
need
to
continue
to
expand
as
long
as
that
software
ecosystem
is
expanding,
I
think
that
we
should,
because
we
need
to
recognize
that
practitioners
are
overwhelmed
and
part
of
the
service
that
we
can
provide
is
providing
some
some
clarity
and
some
elevation
for
some
of
these
projects,
so
that
practitioners
can
be
can
can
get
some
guidance
on
the
different
choices
that
have
made
the
different
values
that
have
these
different
communities.
Okay,.
J
G
Is
an
excellent
question,
I
think
you're
and
get
a
lot
of
different
answers
to
that.
I
will
tell
you
that
I
I
will
one
kind
of
cautionary
note
that
I
would
sound.
Is
it's
tempting
to
look
at
kind
of
github
traffic
as
a
metric
of
health
and
the
danger
with
that
is
that
doesn't
allow
software
to
get
correct
and
mature?
And
you
will
see
software
for
which
the
commit
traffic
goes
way
down
because
it
works
I
mean,
like
god,
forbid
it
like
it
actually
like
fulfills
its
function
and
works
like
well
you're,
very
unhealthy.
G
It's
like
actually
I,
think
I
think
I'm
post-pubescent.
Actually,
so
we
need
to
be.
We
have
to
balance
a
bunch
of
these
things
and
there's
actually
a
great
dashboard
that
that
christen
and
Cove
put
together.
That's
interesting
because
it
looks
at
a
bunch
of
different
metrics
doesn't
try
to
pretend
there's
one
metric
I.
F
Think
another
thing
is
to
ask
individual
members
of
the
community
for
just
a
few
questions.
Like
you
know,
do
you
think
you
all
agree
about
where
this
project
will
be
in
a
year's
time?
And
if
you
have
a
healthy
project,
you'll
use
to
get
the
same
answer.
If
you
have
an
unhealthy
project,
you'll
find
that
people
don't
actually
agree
on
things
like
that,
and
then
you
need
to
dig
a
bit
more
deep.
Another.
K
To
but
I
mean
we
have
a
public
dashboard
that
we
posted
the
TOC
list.
Recently,
that's
a
bit
of
an
experiment.
You
know
each
metric,
you
take
it
with
a
grain
of
salt.
You
know,
you
know
the
fact
that
they're
part
like
Brian,
said
if
the
project
hasn't
released
in
six
months.
Maybe
it's
pretty
damn
stable
and
mature,
or
maybe
it's
dying.
So
who
knows
why.
J
K
C
Reports
on
the
Apache
foundation:
are
there
they're
pretty
they're
not
to
the
depth?
That's
you
know
someone
sitting
down
and
actually
having
a
conversation
about
whether
or
not
you
know
the
project
is
really
healthy.
A
lot
of
it
is
collecting
a
lot
of
these
metrics.
So
all
that
stuff
should
be
automated
and
there's
some
metrics
that
that
are
very
useful,
though
that
you
can
still
look
at
you
know
someone
opens
up
PR
and
it
doesn't
get
touched
her
over
the
long
time.
C
Someone
opens
up
an
issue
and
there's
no
comment
on
the
issue,
so
there
are
those
kind
of
things
so
that
you
can
look
out
to
give
you
some
insight,
but
I
think
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
also
a
conversation
with
the
community.
It's
a
conversation
with
the
users,
not
just
the
contributors,
but
also
the
users
to
understand
whether
or
not
they
feel
like
they're
getting
what
they
want
out
of
the
project
and
maybe
they're
not,
and
we
need
to
change
the
maintainer
x'.
C
C
K
K
J
E
Is
just
not
sufficient
to
actually
do
justice
to
both
of
those
areas
and
I
think
what
we're
working
on
at
the
moment
is
a
way
of
broadening
the
base
of
people
who
can
make
meaningful
contributions
there.
So
the
current
model
model
it's
not
finalized
yet.
But
the
proposed
model
that
we're
busy
fleshing
out
in
the
next
few
weeks
is
to
have
you
know
something
similar
to
the
kubernetes
SIG's,
where
we
actually
have
groups
of
specialized
people
who
might
specialize
in
you
know:
storage,
networking,
observability
monitoring,
application,
development,
etc.
G
So
we're
really
looking
for
to
tap
the
community's
expertise,
as
we
scale
out
the
special
interest
groups
and
hope
to
work
off
some
of
the
backlog.
That
way.
I
think
so.
I
think
that
we
want
to
I'm
gonna.
Look
the
other.
My
thought
you
see,
members
give
their
opinion.
My
personal
opinion
that
is
I
would
want
to
defer
that
to
the
actual
SIG's,
to
figure
out.
What
is
the
right
approach?
G
L
L
That's
trying
to
get
started
and
I'm
very
interested
to
see
how
security
concerns
can
be
better
managed
by
this
group
and
really
be
a
factor
in
all
of
the
projects,
not
just
the
projects
that
are
directly
related
to
security
considerations
that
you
have
as
you're
building
applications,
but
also
what
work
we
can
do
as
a
group
to
help
all
of
the
CN
CF
projects,
have
better
security
practices
and
and
be
more
able
to
work
together.
So
I'm
curious
to
hear
what
you
would
say
about
that
yeah.
E
A
L
Not
at
all
suggesting
that
the
safe
working
group
are
a
security,
sig
becomes
an
authority
that
you
know
has
the
authority
to
govern
what
anybody
is
doing
and
in
fact
what
we've
been
talking
about
most
recently
lately
is
a
lot
about
gathering
data
so
that
we
have
some
clarity
into
how
people
are.
Actually
you
know
what
security
practices
look
like
in
real
life
right
now
and
providing
that
to
the
group
so
I
like.
G
Yep,
thank
you
very
much.
I
think
that
one
of
the
artifacts
that
may
come
out
of
that
work
is
perhaps
questions
that
should
be
asked
of
every
project
and
then
that's
something
that
can
be
brought
up
to
the
TOC
and
then
rebroadcast
stood
out
to
to
irse.
So
these
are
the
the
list
of
concerns
that
we're
going
to
ask
of
every
project,
and
thank
you
very
much
to
echo
Alexis's
appreciation.
G
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
effort,
because
I
know
we're
all
engaged
in
volunteer
activity
ultimately,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
your
work
because
it
is
you're
ultimately
helping
to
serve
our
domain
by
doing
that,
and-
and
thank
you
especially
for
trying
to
focus
beyond
just
you
know
some
specific
projects
about
how.
But
how
can
we
take
these
principles
or
values
and
apply
them
to
many
different
CNCs
projects?.
B
B
M
F
M
A
K
I
mean
so
we're
currently
going
through
a
TOC
election
process,
and
we
tried
really
hard
to
kind
of
reach
out
to
our
wider
community,
ensure
that
we
would
have
a
more
diverse
pool
of
candidates
so
for
the
governing
board
seats.
There's
six
of
them
and
I
think
we
have
about
15%
are,
you
know
essentially
does
not
look
like
the
current
TFC
up
there
of
that.
So
we
try
to
make
sure
at
least
serves
as
a
more
pool
of
folks
there,
but
we'll
see
how
the
election
turns
out.
I
mean
election.
E
C
M
E
To
add
to
that
that
I
personally
feel
very
passionately
about
diversity
in
general
and
I.
Don't
think
one
should
confuse
the
general
term
diversity
with
gender
diversity
or
racial
diversity,
or
anything
else,
I
think
that
diversity
is
extremely
important,
and
that
goes
across
many
facets.
You
know,
are
you
primarily
from
a
large
or
set
of
large
companies
that
you've
worked
for
you,
a
start-up
person?
What
country
do
you
come
from,
you
know?
Are
you
more
familiar
with
what
how
things
work
in
Asia,
or
are
you
more
familiar
with
how
they
work
in
Europe?
E
F
F
So
it's
gonna
take
time
to
solve
this
problem,
but
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
talking
about
today
may
help
a
bit,
which
is,
if
we
have
true
SIG's,
which
are
open
to
the
community
and
not
elected
for
abide
by
a
Board
of
sponsors
that
creates
a
new
path
for
people
to
come
in
towards
the
TOC.
Okay,
so
I
would
encourage
anybody
who
wishes
to
follow
that
path.
To
do
so,
please.
I
J
C
E
Yeah,
maybe
just
to
add
to
that
movement
necessarily
very
good
with
the
communication,
but
working
groups
are
usually
finite
period
of
time
entities
who
get
together
to
produce
a
particular
thing.
So
in
some
cases,
been
a
white
paper.
We
want
to
understand
service
so
that
we
can
actually,
you
know,
send
as
terminology
and
talk
about
service
as
a
you
know,
reasonably
well
under
think
understood
thing
in
the
CN
CF.
E
We've
now
done
that
we
either
reconstitute
for
like
the
next
revision
of
that
paper
or
broader
project,
but
it's
not
a
long-term
ongoing
thing
that
that
is
responsible
for
the
you
know:
lifespan
of
projects
over
many
years.
So
that's
the
working
group.
A
working
group
is
something
that
is
constituted
that
exists
as
long
as
there
are.
You
know,
projects
that
they
need
to
manage
on
an
ongoing
basis,
and
so
it's
a
different.
It's
it's
a
different.
The
intention
is
different,
not
just
the
main.
N
So
you
know
with
the
elections
coming
up
and
a
new
board
memories
and
most
of
you
been
serving
for
awhile
nominated
up
for
a
spot
as
well,
but
I
was
kind
of
wondering
like
what-
and
you
know
what
over
your
past
three
years
of
looking
back
at
your
serving
what
are
the
things
that
you
guys
have
learned.
You
know
mistakes,
maybe
a
mistake
that
you've
made
or
things
that
they
could
kind
of
pass
along
to
maybe
future
toc
members
that
you
know
to
avoid
those.
Those
pitfalls
are
those
great
learnings
to
think
about.
G
B
Yeah
right,
so
we've
tried
actually
to
document
some
of
the
things
we
wanted
to
pass
on.
So
as
we've
learned
how
what
we're
looking
for
in
projects,
you
know
we
actually
entertain
presentations
from
quite
a
few
projects
before
we
really
started
accepting
a
lot
more
projects,
as
we
were
figuring
out
what
we
were
looking
for,
then,
as
we
did,
that
we
developed
the
graduation
criteria
and
the
principles
of
the
TSC,
the
due
diligence
guidelines,
the
we
updated
the
definition
of
cloud
native
to
broaden
it
beyond
just
kubernetes.
B
B
You
know
you
know
into
in
terms
of
mistakes.
I
think
I
think
there
are
some
may
be
opportunities
missed.
Some
projects
really
wanted
to
get
into
a
foundation
really
quickly.
I
actually
I'm,
not
sure
that
was
a
mistake
to
pass
those
up,
as
we
weren't
really
sure,
but
you
know
certainly
we
create.
We
also
created
the
sandbox
to
try
to
provide
an
outlet
for
those
kinds
of
early
stage.
Products
that
were,
we
were
willing
to.
B
G
I'd
say
I
mean
it
I
think
we've
made
a
lot
of
mistakes
and
I
it's
hard
to
know
that
it's
hard
to
second-guess
ourselves
and
some
of
those,
because
I
think
that
what
we
have
all
been
trying
to
do
is
try
to
take
some
of
the
the
enormous
momentum
behind
these
technologies
and
channel
it
in
a
way
that
assures
there.
The
long-term
health
and
viability
I
think
that
we
are
all
trying
to
serve
the
the
industry
in
our
fellow
practitioner.
G
I
do
think
it's
very
important
to
kind
of
have
that
constituency
in
mind
and
the
the
things
that
I
was
speaking
personally.
That
I
have
done
that
I'm,
most
proud
of,
as
in
terms
of
my
time
on
the
TOC
is
being
able
to
attack
some
things
that
no
one
else
would
have
attacked.
You
know
you
see
two
technologies
having
a
Twitter
spat.
Maybe
you
can
come
in
and
say:
hey
can
we
like?
G
Maybe
we
can
get
the
parties
together
and
figure
out
what's
going
on
and
actually
adjudicate
this
and
resolve
it
that
no
one
else
is
necessarily
going
to
do
that,
and
and
that's
an
example
of
where
we
can
use
some
of
the
faith
that
that
the
that
the
governing
board
has
put
in
us
and
put
that
to
good
work
in
solving
a
common
problem
that
someone
isn't
necessarily
going
to
address.
So.
F
I
want
to
say
one
thing
about
this:
I
think
that
I'm
a
fairly
obvious
truth,
but
for
me
the
most
important
thing
about
TOC
members
is,
and
future
ones
is
to
have
integrity
with
respect
to
what
the
overall
CN
CF
mission
is,
and
integrity
is
lost
instantly.
So
you've
got
to
remember
that
and
that's
the
biggest
mistakes
I
think.
H
The
mic
but
I
think
in
terms
of
this
question,
I
think
it's
a
great
question,
but
the
number
one
thing
that
I
learned
this
last
we
used
was
when
you
have
a
group
of
individuals
with
a
lot
of
different
backgrounds,
a
lot
of
different
companies.
They
come
from
whether
it's
as
electives
like
to
tell
us
whether
you
have
grown
up
a
startup
type
of
company
right.
It's
important
that
you,
you
really
focus
on.
H
What's
the
mission
you're
trying
to
accomplish
in
in
the
community
right,
it's
very
easy
for
one
individual
or
two
individuals
to
try
to
do
the
foundation
one
way
or
the
other,
and
this
hope
we
did
a
great
job
of
staying,
cohesive
and
staying
on
point
with
and
I.
Think
quite
a
big
mistake
that
I
made
was
was
not
realizing
the
time
commitment
needed
to
really
work
with
the
project,
so
I
I
actually
curved
out
time
in
my
calendar
every
week
that
is
sacred
to
CN
CF
activity
that
was
doe.