►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless Working Group 2020-04-09
Description
CNCF Serverless Working Group 2020-04-09
A
D
A
B
D
E
A
C
C
C
A
A
Hasn't
brought
to
me
for
one
I
did
I
did
think
it's
interesting
that
they
require
a
password
now.
Just
for
you
know,
the
free
tier.
A
Me
too,
no
that's
a
good
point,
though.
Maybe
I'll
try
to
remember
before
next
week
all
to
try
it
like
on
a
Wednesday
or
something
to
make
sure
a
password
doesn't
automatically
pop
up
cuz
I
favorite.
F
A
Don't
have
one
and
I'm
not
a
host,
so
let's
see
the
ping
I
guess:
Amy,
hey
ginger,.
A
A
E
A
H
A
H
A
A
A
D
A
A
E
A
A
All
right
moving
forward,
then
so
mark
and
I
presented
the
Sigma
proposal
to
the
TOC
this
week.
I
believe
is
on
Tuesday
and
not
unexpected.
They
had
a
lot
of
questions
about
our
relationship
with
some
other
SIG's
in
particular.
I
believe
this
time
more,
the
focus
was
on
say,
gap,
delivery,
then
sig
run
time,
and
so
what
we
decided
to
do
is
to
try
to
set
up
a
meeting,
hopefully
for
tomorrow,
if
we
can
get
everybody
on
board
to
have
a
discussion
with
the
sig
app
delivery.
A
Folks,
we
see
if
we
can
crisp
up
the
the
separation
between
the
two
SIG's
I.
Don't
I,
don't
think
we're
gonna
have
a
problem.
I
think
it's
just
finding
the
right
wording
more
than
anything
else,
because
I
do
think.
Most
people
agree
that
we
probably
need
some
sort
of
sig
to
handle
when
I
would
sort
of
call
these
oddball
projects
like
cloud
events
and
things
like
that
that
don't
really
fit
into
an
existing
sig.
A
But
maybe
service
is
the
right
word
or
just
needs
from
the
right
wording
or
something
I
don't
know
but
anyway.
Well,
we'll
keep
you
guys
up
to
date.
In
terms
of
how
that
goes,
if
it
requires
any
significant
changes
to
the
to
the
Charter
will
raise
it
up,
so
you
guys
can
take
a
look
at
it
to
make
sure
you
guys
are
still
okay
with
it.
But
aside
from
that,
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
unexpected
in
terms
of
the
questions
we
got
mark
anything
you
want
to
add
to
that.
B
A
A
Okay,
not
hearing
any
moving
on
I,
don't
see
anybody
from
this
workflow
subgroup
of
status.
There
I,
don't
I,
do
kind
of
watch
their
pr's
and
stuff
I
have
no
saying
too
exciting
go
flying
by
where
they
mentioning
so
we
can
probably
move
forward.
Then
all
right
into
the
PRS
for
our
stuff
clarifications.
A
G
A
A
G
A
A
F
A
Now
I
know
you
made
a
couple
of
it:
it's
last
night
just
to
address
the
comments
in
there
and
I.
Don't
think
anything
was
significant,
so
I
don't
feel
uncomfortable
asking
for
equal
to
prove
the
PR.
The
one
thing
I
did
want
to
draw
people's
attention
to
was
this.
This
sentence
at
the
very
end
right
here
and
I'll,
give
you
me
expand,
as
you
see
the
whole
paragraph,
just
this
to
be
clear
sentence.
A
A
A
G
Yeah,
so
if
you're
interested
in
the
HP
multi
parkinson
Mulder,
there
is
a
bigger
world
of
texture
to
it.
So
I
merged
the
two
ideas
of
having
multi-part
structured,
a
multi-part
binary
in
a
single
multi-part
envelope
and
I
also
created
an
experimental
instrumentation
explaining
how
it
works
and
I
would
fit
inside
that.
A
None,
okay,
the
meat,
the
meat
go
ahead
and
raise
one
I
believe
it
might
have
been
Mike
last
week.
Raise
this
or
maybe
was
Ryan
I
think
was
Mike,
though,
was
asking
about
the
relationship
of
this
versus
http/2
I,
think
and
why
we're
not
just
using
that
or
something
along
those
lines.
So
I
have
it
right,
Mike.
A
A
Okay,
if
not,
then
please
take
a
look
at
when
you
get
a
chance
and
any
vote
on
next
week.
If
there
are
no
questions
or
comments
on
it
or
concerns
all
right,
Thank,
You,
Francisco,
so
I
don't
have
a
whole
lot
left
on
the
agenda
that
graph
QL
I.
Don't
then
notice
Mike?
Were
there
any
comments
left
on
this
one?
Since
last
week,
like.
A
How
would
you
guys
like
to
proceed
on
this
and
I?
Don't
think
we
had
unanimous
agreement
last
week
on
which
way
to
go
it?
Does
this,
it's
not
a
need
to
sit
there
for
little
RF
people
to
think
about
it
more.
Do
we
need
to
take
some
action
to
force
a
decision
like,
for
example,
you
know,
PR
is
always
good
for
forcing
decisions.
I
wouldn't
want
to
make
someone
open
do
a
PR.
If
we
know
it's
going
to
get
rejected.
C
What
we
want
like
they,
unfortunately
John
was
also
not
your
ideas.
Person
who
suggested
this
in
the
first
place.
I
would
be
good,
pointing
finger.
I
love
it
as
an
advocate
for
it
yeah
I,
don't
think
it
matters
much
either
way.
I,
don't
think
that
from
an
implementation
standpoint,
one
one
is
harder
than
the
other
from
a
consumption
standpoint,
I
think
graph
QL
is
actually
nice
for
to
consume
in
terms
of
like
the
way
provides
field
masking
and
things
like
that,
so
you
can.
I
A
C
A
Any
objection,
then,
to
sort
of
putting
this
one
hold
until
at
least
get
the
shape
of
the
data
model
right
and
son
all
right.
Okay,
thanks
Mike,
don't
text
for
anybody
else.
We
should
make
it
so
alright.
In
that
case
last
item
on
the
agenda,
Mike
you're
up
again,
I'm
gonna
just
bring
us
quickly
up
to
speed
on
this.
Where
this
one
is.
C
C
I
C
So
this
is,
this
is
a
difference
between
producer
and
providers.
So
I
was
using
in
the
very
first
draft
I
was
using
producer
throughout,
but
since
that
actually
has
a
well-defined
definition
in
the
cloud
event
spec,
it
couldn't
be
repurposed.
So
that's
where
the
the
concept
of
provider
comes
from.
If
you
go
back
to
the.
C
You
know
the
the
word
the
the
Google
Doc,
where
we
were
originally
talking
about
this.
This
alludes
to
that
concept
of
discovery
funnel
that
I
had
had
talked
about
we're
thinking
about
how
a
like
a
UX
would
look
around
this
of
having
like
a
giant
list
of
the
event
types
available
in
the
system.
Isn't
probably
super
useful,
but
as
a
consumer
of
events
being
able
to
select
in
by
by
essentially
product
name
is
where
the
the
concept
of
provider
comes
from.
A
Name
that
isn't
so
close
to
each
other
yeah
died
honestly
that
that
think,
that's
nothing
to
trip
me
up
the
most
just
the
the
they
both
start
with
PE
are
great.
Our
PR
Oh
actually
and
just
I
just
get
mixing
the
two
of
my
head
as
I
was
reading
it
and
I'm,
obviously
not
smart
enough
to
keep
separate
I.
I
A
A
C
A
A
A
Excellent
normal
yep
excellent
all
right.
This
is
this:
your
first
time
on,
oh
no
I
have
attended
I
think
three
weeks
ago.
Okay,
okay,
do
me
a
favor
just
in
case
I,
don't
have
it
if
you
want
to
be
associated
with
the
company.
Can
you
just
either
add
your
company
name
to
the
end
of
your
name
here
or
in
the
zoom
chat
and
I'll
pick
it
up:
Thank
You
Kathy,
yes,
hey
Kathy,
Tonko!
Yes,.