►
From YouTube: CNCF SIG Observability 2020-04-28
Description
CNCF SIG Observability 2020-04-28
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
Okay,
well,
while
we're
waiting
for
the
last
few
to
join,
I
would
like
to
say:
welcome
everyone
to
our
first
actual
cig,
observability
reading,
as
a
sake
as
a
newly-formed
sake.
This
is
a
CN
CF
event
and
the
Code
of
Conduct
applies,
so
everyone
be
yourselves
and
I'm
sure
we'll
be
great
Amy.
Let
me
know
in
the
future,
if
there's
an
actual
script
I'm
supposed
to
read
there
nope.
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
B
D
C
This
point
logging
space,
where
I
was
at
a
sort
of
called
omniscient.
We
helped
service
and
now
working
on
open
symmetry
for
metrics
traces,
and
we
just
recently
started
a
log
sake,
so
logging
coming
up
as
well
to
really
make
it
easy
to
get
literature
data
out
for
both
applications
as
well
as
kind
of
an
agent
and
collector,
and
super
excited
to
be
here
today.
C
A
E
G
A
G
A
A
L
M
M
O
A
3
2
1
10,
okay
cool,
so
we
have
again.
This
is
our
very
first
time
meeting
as
a
sig,
so
I'm
sure
we'll
have
bumps
and
starts.
We
have
more
potential
work
streams
and
things
to
do
than
is
even
able
to
be
talked
about
in
one
quick
meeting,
so
I'm
very
excited
by
that,
as
well
as
excited
that
we've
got
a
sizable
turnout
and
a
lot
of
interest
from
both
open
source
and
Industry
participants.
A
Does
anyone
see
anything
on
the
agenda
that
we
think
should
be
there?
That's
not,
or
is
there
any
kind
of
hot
things
and
feel
free
to
just
write
stuff
into
the
agenda
again
this
is
meeting
number
one.
The
process
is
emerging
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
too
prescriptive
about
what
we
do
or
don't
talk
about
for
this.
This
first
meeting.
I
There
is
nothing
so
there
is
the
AOB
at
the
end
and
I
left
in
some
some
time
on
purpose,
but
I
think
we're
quicker
with
the
janitorial
and
stuff
anyway,
quick
update
on
current
EOC
status.
We
send
email
to
the
TOC
list
on
both
getting
the
third
chair,
approved,
Steve
Flanders,
who
was
also
Nicole,
I,
think
yep.
B
I
I
I
Overview
over
initial
work
packages,
we
have
identified
two
work
packages.
For
now
one
is
cortex
incubation
and
one
is
thermal
incubation.
Of
course
those
are
kind
of
currently
in
a
in
a
place
to
be
to
be
evaluated
cortex
in
particular
they
they
did
all
the
steps
which
need
to
be
done
for
review.
If
people
are
in
this
document,
if
you
click
the
get
update,
I
can
also
screen
share
if
you
prefer,
but
you
can
just
click
that
github
link.
I
There
is
a
well
a
process
which
partic
copied
and
basically
the
sake
needs
to
make
a
recommendation,
and
then
the
TOC
will
be
reviewing
that
recommendation
and
decide
on
if
they
want
to.
If
they
want
to
proceed
with
incubation
for
that
project,
yes
or
no,
and
then
there
is
more
or
less
to
diligence,
that's
not
clearly
defined.
Who
will
be
doing
it?
I
suspect
that
part
of
this
will
be
falling
back
on
us
and
part
of
it
will
not
be,
and
then
basically
that's
the
way
so
I
know.
I
G
Thanks
for
gee
so
so
essentially
were
pretty
close
with
the
cortex
team
right.
So
we
were
talking
about
this
kind
of
creation
process
for
both
danos
and
cortex,
because,
like
a
pretty
similar
and
essentially
what
we
need
to
do
as
a
as
a
sake
of
severability
is
we
need
to
provide
some
kind
of
recommendation
based
on
graduation
criteria
from
sandbox
to
incubation
right
and
there
was
no
clear
form
and
like
template
for
such
such
thing.
G
But
our
idea
is
to
create
something
that
will
kind
of
fit
into
the
due
diligence
document
template
and
this
template
is
like
well-written,
and
there
was
like
formal
kind
of
template
for
that.
So
this
actually
answers.
You
know
those
great
criteria,
graduation
criterias,
but
also
it
will
be
just
easier
for
TOC
to
create
like
official.
Do
you
do
two
things?
We
hope
so
right,
so
I
think
that
good
idea
to
just
focus
on
the
on
the
document
for
cortex
first
and
then
maybe
for
tano's.
G
We
thought
about
sharing
those
kind
of
because
the
project
is
super
super
similar
but
like
after
some
discussion,
it's
not
clean
knots,
not
doable,
because
the
questions
are
really
personal.
Your
project,
let's
say
like
what
customers
you
have
what's
your
usage:
what's
your
kind
of
commuters
kind
of
bangs
looks
like
so,
ideally
it
will
be
kind
of
similar,
but
again
we
need
proper
document
for
each
project.
G
J
D
A
I
I
think
the
interviews
yeah.
On
the
other
hand,
we
should
be
mindful
of
the
meeting
time
which
we
have
and
try
to
do
actual
work
also
outside
of
just
meeting
so
so
writing
things
down
both
questions
and
answers
and
assessments
and
everything
under
the
week,
in
my
opinion,
is
even
more
important
than
having
a
interactive
Q&A.
On
the
other
hand,
having
the
Q&A
sounds
really.
We
should
probably
schedule
this
for
next.
B
Fall
so
putting
links
over
into
the
chat
as
well
linking
over
to
both
the
graduation
criteria,
which
I
know
there
was
a
question
about,
as
well
as
the
due
diligence
and
the
last
link
is
the
flow
chart
for
how
this
actually
works.
So
this
is
part
of
both
the
sit
group,
well,
this
being
able
to
get
a
TOC
sponsor.
I
I
I
I
I
G
From
my
side,
let's
say
we
have
this
evaluation
dog.
Let's
say
we
gathered
all
the
input
from
from
the
cortex
team.
How
we
agree
as
a
kind
of
observability
SiC
group
that
our
I
don't
review
is,
is
correct
or
not?
Is
the
voice
of
the
seek
not
only
I,
don't
know
maintain
yours
and
me
or
say
that
call.
I
For
consensus,
I
strongly
believe
we
should
be
following
ITF
rules
on
how
to
how
to
attain
rough
consensus.
Of
course,
that's
that's
been
shown
to
work
reliably
in
in
pretty
much
all
situations
and,
if
the
sake
as
a
whole
finds
rough
consensus.
That
is
something
to
take
and
print
it.
You
see,
but
that's
not
the
chair
describing
or
prescribing
for
the
whole
group
how
we
should
be
doing
it.
That
is
an
opinion
which
is
open
for
debate,
so
anyone
who
has
different
opinion
Maoist
time
to
voice
it.
A
I
I
Also,
the
kind
of
implies
that
the
attendee
list
should
be
should
be
complete
course.
Obviously,
the
people
who
are
on
this
call
have
now
agreed
on
whatever
there
is
consensus
on
or
we
know
if
there
is
no
consensus
like
if
there
is
someone
who
strongly
disagrees,
we
just
write
below
it.
The
person
XY
things
we
should
be
doing
deathmatch
in
person
instead,
and
we
just
note
this
down
to
to
give
the
dissenting
voice
and
actual
voice
and
not
just
ignore
it
and
and
minutes
of
meeting
that
that
dissenting
voice
away.
D
As
far
as
the
seek
structure
we
supposed
to
have
chairs
and
tech
leads
right,
III,
don't
remember
the
Charter.
Exactly
does
Charter
give
any
specific
rights
to
just
members
who
are
not
chairs
or
tech
needs,
because
if
not,
then
the
other
option
to
solve
in
this
is
simply
a
vote
from
the
tech
lid
on
the
email
thread.
This
is
how
he
or
she
votes,
and
so
we
could
do
the
same
thing,
and
so
yes,
the
it
is
still
like
consensus
because
of
someone
objects
and
people
need
to
I.
I
My
opinion,
the
role
of
chair,
is
very
much
one
of
facilitating
and
and
finding
consensus
and
feeling
possible
consensus.
If
there
are
disagreements,
it's
very
much,
not
overriding.
The
group
also
I
would
prefer
not
to
have
votes
on
things
where
we
don't
need
to
have
votes
on
course,
a
there
are
harder
to
override
or
to
adapt
later
when,
when
the
effects
emerge
or
something
and
also
they're,
just
more
hostile
overall
it,
the
the
atmosphere
of
the
group
tends
to
be
better
if
we
are
doing
consensus
based
decision
making,
as
opposed
to
vote
based
decision
making.
I
That
being
said,
for
example,
we
can,
if
need
be,
introduced,
a
mechanism
where
we
vote
on
something,
for
example,
having
a
recommendation
to
the
TOC,
but
I
would
prefer
not
to.
We
can
also
have
a
system
there
met
and
me
on
potentially
Steve
or
hopefully,
Steve
will
approach,
TOC
and
say
this
is
an
actual
decision
by
the
chairs,
but
again
at
least
personally
I
wouldn't
prefer
to
do
it.
This
way,
I
would
much
prefer
to
actually
work
based
on
rough
consensus
as
per
your
ITF.
But
again,
this
is
not
me,
as
the
chair
saying.
I
A
Yeah,
we
don't
have
Amy
here
to
really
give
the
official
voice
of
the
TLC,
but
I
am
hopeful
and
I'm
optimistic
that,
in
particular
for
things
like
due
diligence,
evaluations
of
projects
that
want
to
graduate
from
sandbox
to
incubation
that
we
do
this.
You
know
sort
of
together
with
a
consensus
based
approach,
and
you
know
I
think
if
we
have
like
a
lot
of
division
around
just
the
fundamentals
of
our
requirements
being
met
or
is
a
projects
table
or
meeting
meeting
the
criteria
to
move
from
one
phase
to
another
that
these
aren't
controversial?
A
And
you
know
I
don't
want
to
spend
too
much
time
being
with
to
just
upfront
if
we
can
just
work
together
in
an
open
way
where
we're
inclusive
and
we're
and
we're
being
careful
to
over,
communicate
and
welcome.
You
know
various
viewpoints
and
and
out
of
that
plurality
of
views
and
experiences.
You
know
we
can
have
a
true
consensus
from
the
sig
I.
A
Think
that
also
it's
my
understanding
that,
as
a
sig
were
free
to
make
our
own
rules
that
work
best
for
us
and
the
the
role
of
a
chair
is
prescribed
by
the
TOC,
is
really,
as
Richard
said,
to
facilitate
not
dictate.
You
know
we're
really
here
to
to
foster
a
community
and
let
that
community
self
govern
and
self
organize.
A
I
Just
as
an
update
in
between
Amy
asked
me
to
suggest
user
interviews
to
TOC
next
week,
which
I
already
put
as
a
to
do
for
myself
and
I,
already
asked
her
if
it's
fine
to
run
on
consensus,
she's
fairly,
posing
in
a
different
meaning,
but
we'll
get
back
to
us.
Hopefully,
within
that
meeting
within
this
call,
I
mean
I.
I
Not
100%
clear
either,
but
at
least
part
of
the
responsibility
and
part
of
the
role
is
to
to
basically
be
our
our
interface
towards
TLC,
which
obviously
is
also
in
part
being
overlapped
by
our
simply
being
part
of
the
TOC
calls
and
being
able
to
talk
for
ourselves.
I
would
say
that
person
is
most
likely
the
default
sponsor
for
anything
where
we
say
something
we
should
go
for
intubation.
Something
should
go
for
for
actual
graduation
I.
A
A
A
A
You
know
to
to
secure
his
involvement
as
our
as
our
liaison
he's
an
advocate
for
this
sig
at
the
TOC,
so
he's
in
you
know
if
we
need
something
that
we're
not
getting
if
we
need
either
funding
or
logistical
support
or
if
we're
orchestrating
things
like
TOC
votes
on.
You
know
once
some
of
these
due
diligence,
things
are
done
or
if
we're
making
other
recommendations.
A
He
really
is
the
our
advocate
and
our
proxy
in
that
voting
capacity
at
the
TOC
so
and
again,
I'm
sure,
I'm
butchering
and
I'm
sure.
This
is
not
a
complete
definition,
but
as
I
understand
it,
that's
roughly
his
role.
His
role,
however,
is
not
to
be
I
mean
he
I
welcome
his
involvement.
I
hope
he
joins
us
in
some
of
these
things.
I
think
he
has
good
perspective,
but
he
really
is
there
to
advocate
for
us
not
to
do
things
necessarily
with
us,
at
least
as
prescribed
by
that
role.
If
that
makes
sense,.
I
I
Looking
at
Prometheus,
that's
pretty
much
everything
based
on
consensus
as
far
as
we
can
possibly
make
it.
For
all
these
reasons,
so
yeah
I
would
say
we
are
completely
free
to
define
whatever
we
want
to
do
with
the
explicit
recommendation
to
be
as
lightweight
as
we
can
possibly
be
so
I
would
say
it's
well
within
our
rights
and
also
the
intention
of
in
cf4
this
sick
to
be
consensus-based.
I
Can
stand
as
it
is
that
we
follow
ITF
concerns
with
rules
and
if
it
turns
out
that
we
can't
we'll
just
change
it
like
if
we,
if
we,
if
we
tend
up
or
if
you're,
not
fighting
all
the
time,
we
will
have
a
world
based
system
anyway
course
that
won't
be
the
only
thing
which
should
get
it
on
it,
get
us
out
of
that
home,
but
until
that
time,
and
that
time
is
hopefully
never.
Let's
do
it
lightweight
and
consensus
based.
I
I
Okay,
we
diverged
massively
from
from
cortex
the
only
open
question
which
I
still
have
is:
should
we
have
a
rolling
document
for
questions
updates
whatever
regarding
the
actual
evaluation
of
of
a
thing
and
that's,
let's
cost
us
wider
than
just
coordinates.
Should
we
have
one
single
document
where
we
collate
everything
which
is
related
to
review
of
that
thing,
or
should
we
be
doing
this
in
github
issues,
or
should
we
be
doing
this
in
in
our
normal
meeting?
Notes,
I
wouldn't
suggest
you
do
that,
but
just
to
have
the
option.
G
I
More
like
ongoing
stuff
so
and
I'm
somewhat
worried
or
questions
being
overlapped
or
dropped.
If
they're
asked
on
slack
or
on
IRC
or
on
the
mailing
list
or
in
the
call
or
meeting
a
person
once
we
are
able
to
do
this
in
two
years
time
or
whatever,
and
basically
having
one
project
or
one
review
or
one
workflow
specific
default
document.
D
I
Yeah,
that's
actually
a
good
point.
I
think
that
part.
That
document
should
then
become
part
of
the
permanent
record
and
I
think
if
we
do
a
PDF
export
off
the
document,
and
we
can
also
export
all
comments
which
will
basically
allow
us
to
to
snap
shut
the
whole
discussion
and
then
just
make
that
part
of
the
git
repository
and
be
done
with
it,
which
I
mean
also
link
back
to
the
document.
I
L
A
A
D
I
I
would
also
tend
towards
the
same.
Of
course
it
lowers
the
power
of
entry
to
newcomers,
and
that
is
something
we
should
actively
strive
for.
In
my
opinion,
at
least
I.
Don't
really
believe
in
solving
technical
problems.
Sorry,
social
problems
with
technical
solutions.
Unless
it's
really
about
looking
out
so
I
mean
we
have
Morgan
here.
We
can
just
ask
him
to
deliver
until
next
in
users.
B
B
N
I
A
N
K
Says
for
the
public
we
had
this
for
the
public
prometheus
ecosystem
core
recently
were
exactly
by
the
time
quarantine
started,
troit
bye-bye
people
joining
zoom
cause,
and
then
we
had
to
revert
the
the
public
dock
and
restrict
it,
and
it
also
worked
without
any
problems.
So
I
wouldn't
worry
too
much.
Well,.
A
I
can't
remember,
we
actually
just
talked
about
it,
but
I
would
assume
that,
after
we've
kind
of
reached
consensus
in
that
sort
of
document-
and
there
is
a
forum-
a
more
formal
marked
down
in
a
PR
so
that
github
becomes-
and
this
thing
observe
a
really
repo-
becomes
the
ultimate
source
of
truth.
Yeah.
I
We
can
we
can
easily
copy
that
stuff
over.
That's
not
something
which
we
do
have
done
previously,
but
it
makes
sense
in
this
case.
Of
course,
this
is
more
rolling
yeah,
but
yeah.
That's
that's
actually
a
good
point.
We
can
even
maybe
have
a
consensus
not
empty
where
we
just
track
consensus
items
back
to
where
it
was
made.
So
you
have
a
short
overview
with
also
various
sources.
It
should
actually
be
quite
lightweight
to
do
on
the
side.
Yeah
I,
like
so
I'm
marking
this
in
the
document.
I
hope
everyone
is
in
the
document.
I
I
So
should
is
there
anything
more
for
cortex
I?
Think
not,
of
course,
we
spent
ages
on
cortex,
okay,
that's
cool
yeah
well,
and
by
and
large
it
is
from
my
perspective,
having
this
kind
of
ambling
thing
where
we
sometimes
switch
focus
and
just
talk
about
more
stuff.
As
long
as
we
get
done
is
totally
fun.
G
A
This
one
I
actually
wanted
to
throw
a
question
out.
I
mean
to
all
of
you.
Thanos
and
cortex
in
many
cases
have
contributors
that
talked
quite
a
lot.
There's
some
code-sharing
going
on,
which
is
healthy
between
the
two
projects.
So
do
we
want
to
treat
the
due
diligence
for
cortex
and
Thanos
together
holistically,
or
do
we
want
to
make
them
separate,
potentially
parallel
work
streams?
I
could
see
both
being
valid.
What
do
you
all
think.
I
From
I
think,
there's
two
possible
answers,
one,
especially
at
the
beginning.
We
shouldn't
be
overloading
the
sick
with
too
much
work,
because
we
don't
know
how
much
work
we
actually
get
done.
So
we
should
be
more
optimizing
towards
getting
stuff
done
and
not
opening
new
new
new
stuff.
On
the
other
hand,
especially
with
cortex
and
Thanos,
it
probably
makes
sense
to
treat
them
more
or
less.
I
I
A
Did
and
I
just
realized,
I
haven't
mic
muted
by
people,
so
I
mean
typing
sorry
yeah,
one
of
the
things
we
talked
about
32
Charter
was
just
having
an
initial
graphic
or
something
that's
just
a
subset
of
the
overall
CN
CF
roadmap
for
C&C
have
projects
related
to
observability,
particularly
since
there's
a
lot
of
different
projects
in
overlap.
There
are
other
SIG's,
so
this
is
sort
of
a
initial
site
content
to
provide
a
lexicon,
and/or,
a
pictorial,
viewing
of
all
the
CN
CF
projects
related
to
observability.
A
Like
I
mean,
perhaps
we
like,
we
I
would
propose.
We
just
create
some
github
issues
for
these,
and
people
that
are
interested
in
working
on
them
can
start
and
can
self-organize.
We
can
use
the
signature
of
ability,
channel
I,
don't
know
if
we're
going
to
lose
him
we're
almost
out
of
time
here.
That
was
one
idea.
Most
of
the
stuff
there
I
put
Steve
Flanders
when
I
talked
to
him
a
week
or
so
ago,
had
a
cool
idea
as
well.
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
want
to
speak
for
you,
Steve
yeah,.
C
I
can
tuck
it
real
quick.
So
basically,
the
idea
is
to
kind
of
show
off
some
of
the
observability
projects
in
a
more
concise
way,
where
you
can
kind
of
get
a
feel
for.
What's
out
there
what's
available,
how
you
can
stitch
things
together,
how
you
can
like
get
started
versus
like
get
to
a
production
environment
I
think
it's
a
good
way
for
different
project
teams
to
even
collaborate
with
one
another,
and
it
also
gives
an
opportunity
for
everyone's
kind
of
opinions
and
thoughts
to
be
shared.
I
C
So
maybe
it
focuses
on
a
subset
of
observability,
or
maybe
it
so
focuses
on
like
stitching
things
together
so
kind
of
open-ended
to
start
right,
I'm
kind
of
curious
with
the
community
of
the
whole
thinks
what
would
be
possible,
but
just
bringing
some
of
this
material
together.
I'm
starting
to
show
off
some
of
these
projects,
I
think
would
be
extremely
valuable.
The.
I
The
one
coin
I
agree,
I
think
it's
a
good
idea,
the
one
concern
which
I
have
recently
in
kubernetes.
There
was
a
thing:
it
was
more
or
less
like
advertising
content
on
official
channel
which
led
to
some
fallout.
So
we
should
have
some
some
standard,
maybe
some
some
written
down
standard
of
fair,
many
more
foot,
what
technical
level
of
proficiency
you
need
to
actually
get
into
this
distribution
course.
If
it's
going
to
be
abused
as
a
sales
channel
or
as
a
marketing
channel,
we
will
all
have
a
bad
time.
C
Ahead
and
try
it
yep,
no
I,
agree.
I,
definitely
see
some
sort
like
contributing
guidelines
here
of
what
the
expectations
are.
This
is
not
meant
to
be
a
sales
thing.
It's
the
goal
is
to
promote
and
show
off
the
observability
products
in
CN
CF
and
how
you
can
get
them
together,
but
I
totally
agree.
There
needs
to
be
some
guidelines
in
place.
K
So
I
definitely
see
that
and
I
think
I,
don't
know
like
I
guess
we
could
have
something
where
people
kind
of
like
can
propose
blog
posts
or
whatever
resources
they
have,
and
then
at
least
like
some
some
people,
how
many
the
these
are
I,
don't
know,
but
like
someone
from
from
the
six
should
look
at
them
and
at
least
like
say
like
hey
this,
this
seems
somewhat
reasonable.
Worse,
we've
seen
things
they
were
just
bluntly
wrong,
sadly,
which
is
something
that
we
shouldn't
promote
right,
like
otherwise
I'm
super
happy
like
like
promoting
all
things.
A
A
The
third
one
is
really
every
statement,
the
first
one,
so
the
last
thing
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
at
least
threw
out
there
to
think
about.
For
next
time
is
in
our
Charter.
We
had
called
a
lot
of
stuff.
You've
already
talked
about,
I,
think
webinars
and
presentations
is
actually
a
little
bit
even
more
well-formed
than
what
Steve
was
just
talking
about
I'm.
If
I
understand
these
are
these
are
directly
from
the
project
contributors
or
the
project's
themselves.
A
To
actually
do
a
more
deep
dive,
webinar,
so
perhaps
generating
a
backlog
of
those
is
something
that
we
could
do
initially
and
then
I
was
curious.
If
there
were
any
folks
on
the
call
today,
we
can
talk
in
the
stock
channel
as
well
between
now
and
the
next
meeting,
but
working
groups
or
something
we
can
opt
to
form.
We
don't
have
to
and
I
put
a
link
to
the
charter
and
in
the
Charter,
there's
a
link
to
the
TLC's
definition
of
a
working
group.
A
I'm,
sorry,
in
the
interest
of
time,
I
just
skipped
along
to
the
third
bullet
there.
So
as
I
say,
we
can
opt
to
form
working
groups.
If
that
is
like,
if
there's
some,
where
you're
meant
to
be
time,
bounded
they're
meant
to
be
like
here
like,
for
example,
we
could,
as
a
sake
just
say,
hey.
We
should
have
an
observability
roadmap
and
someone
passionate
about
can
like
make
a
cool
graphic
and
submit
it
as
a
peer
and
we
can
be
done
or
if
we
wanted
to
make
a
more
in-depth
longer
report.
A
That
says
here
is
the
current
state
and
we
should
probably
do
this
at
some
point:
here's
a
current
state
of
all
the
projects
and
then
what
we
expect
to
come
and
like
when
they
might
want
to
graduate
to
the
next
phase
and
it's
much
more
in-depth.
You
know,
accounting
that
might
be
something
that
a
working
group
does
and
they
you
know
they
form
for
a
month
or
two
or
whatever.
A
It
is
in
some
time
bounded
way
within
with
the
measurable
outcome,
and
then
they
can
go
have
their
own
meetings,
and
you
know
they're
they're
part
of
this
thing
and
then
that
working
group
can
then
bring
it
back
to
the
ultimate
to
the
larger
body.
I,
don't
know
if
we
have
enough
people,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
if
anybody
had
come
today
and
said,
I
want
to
go
start
a
working
group
because
I
know
what
they
are
and
I
think
we
should
do
it.
I
Gut
feeling
to
be
honest
and
somewhat
worried
of
starting
all
the
things
at
once,
I
would
much
prefer
to
see
outcomes
like
that
at
the
time
boundedness
and
the
measurable
outcome
I
like
very
much
I'm,
not
convinced
we
are
at
a
stage
as
a
newly
formed
group,
where
we
can
already
start
splitting
out
without
basically
relying
on
this
kind
of
cadence
and
and
synchronization
mechanism
of
the
call
of
the
channel.
But
that's
not
me
saying
no.
We
shouldn't
I'm
just
worried
about
in.
A
This
day,
one
I
concur
and
again
to
be
clear,
I'm
not
proposing
that
we
form
working
groups
now
but
again,
I
want
to
make
sure
if
somebody
showed
up
to
our
very
first
meeting
and
that's
what
they
really
wanted
to
go
do
after
reading
our
Charter
that
we
we
let
them
have
a
voice.
It
sounds
like
sounds
like
that's
not
the
case,
so.