►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless WG Meeting - 2018-04-12
Description
Join us for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon in Barcelona May 20 - 23, Shanghai June 24 - 26, and San Diego November 18 - 21! Learn more at https://kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects.
C
D
E
F
C
Need
to
figure
out
how
to
build
houses
around
this
Travis
Bill
thing
on
my
own
machine.
Actually,
you
just
run
make
oh.
E
C
E
C
C
E
Can
you
do
me
a
favor?
Can
you
in
the
attendee
list
or
I'm
sorry
in
the
agenda
doc,
which
I'll
paste
into
the
chat
right
now
in
case
you
don't?
Have
it
thanks,
I
put
your
name
in
there,
but
Dad
your
company
name
just
so
we
can
keep
track
of
you.
Oh
hi,
Louie
Louie,
you
there,
oh
hello,
alright
and
Rachel.
Are
you
there.
E
D
E
B
E
The
me
there.
I
H
E
B
D
J
D
E
D
B
J
A
D
C
K
E
I
guess
they
they
haven't,
registered
the
microphone
yet,
but
software's
kind
of
weird,
okay.
Well
he's
gonna
list
we'll
get
a
star
for
your
firm
later.
They
probably
haven't
dialed
in
yet,
which
is
fine.
Oh
man,
microphone
that
could
be
it.
Okay,
we
had
another
damn
show
up.
Is
that
Dan
of
roast
Nova
burger?
M
E
E
N
D
K
E
J
Real
click
on
one
of
my
a
eyes
in
there
below
the
ones
that
you
just
crossed
out
right
away
for
companies
indicate
what
they're
comfortable
with
people
saying
about
their
participation,
the
working
group.
How
about
we
just
ask,
as
we
are
close
to
cloud
native
Khan
in
early
May,
you
know
the
meeting
right
before
that.
Maybe
we
could
just
ask
them
on
the
call
and
see
if
they'd
like
to
at
least
be
in
the
presentation
I'm
gonna
give
about
this
at
cloud
native
car.
H
K
E
So
you
still
can't
excuse
their.
You
saw
any
I
from
that.
You
can't
get
rid
of
it.
Yet
that's
good!
Yes,
all
right
excellent
that
you
guys
are
much
moving
on.
Then,
let's
talk
a
little
more
about
coop
con.
So
just
a
reminder.
We
do
have
two
meetings.
We
have
BOF
and
the
official
face-to-face
meeting
with
time's
here
listed
in
the
agenda.
I
do
have
a
doc
for
a
list
of
post
topics.
I'd
take
a
look
at
it
recently,
but
I
assume.
As
we
get
closer
to
the
date.
E
I
I
I
O
I
P
I
K
As
I
just
wanted
to
clarify,
we
are
aligning
on.
You
know
some
example
formats
that
we're
gonna
try
to
have
a
couple
of
different
providers
say
like
no
file
like
image.
Upload
is
this.
You
know,
object
created,
you
know
or
Matt
that
I
haven't
proposed
yet,
but
I
was
gonna
sort
of
align
what
Google
does
and
what
Microsoft
does
and
propose
something,
and
then
the
actual
setup
of
how
the
source
and
destination
or
thermal
whatever
I
want.
The
provide
producer
and
consumer
are
connected
where
it
like
is
outside
of
the
scope
of
the
demo.
K
Will
that
might
require
some
things
that
are
different
or
it
will
require
some
things
that
are
different?
What
I'm
going
to
try
to
align
on
that
right?
People
want
to
hook
these
things
up.
They're
gonna
have
to
do
things
that
are
specific
to
the
different
people,
doing
the
demo
and
we're
just
gonna.
You
know,
do
two
Z
needed
to
get
the
demo,
but
the
main
thing
is
to
show
look,
we're
all
using
the
same
format
and
that's
a
huge
step
for
e
and
that
there
are
some.
You
know:
combinations
of
providers
that
work
together.
E
Alright,
any
other
questions
or
comments
on
that
all
right,
so
just
reminder
next
Monday
7
a.m.
Pacific
is
the
next
phone
call
for
that.
Alright.
So
let's
talk
about
PRS
first
one
now,
that's
when
I
was
technically
open
last
night,
but
only
because
it's
a
duplicate
of
one
that
Austin
could
not
quite
get
the
DCO
sign
on,
so
just
create
a
new
issue
for
it
or
in
the
VR
for
it.
So
Austin
want
to
quickly
talk
this
one.
J
Yes,
this
is
a
pretty
simple
update
to
roadmap,
specifically
the
0.1
milestone,
which
is
what
we
want
to
announce
that
cloud
native
con.
This
adds
in
a
few
things
that
Clemens
has
been
working
on
specifically
including
kind
of
a
spec
for
mapping
the
cloud
events
to
HTTP,
as
well
as
some
spec.
That
shows
how
to
how
to
format
cloud
events
as
JSON
and
also
defining
a
type
system
for
about
a
minute
values.
J
C
I
want
what
I
would
like
is
to
have
a
label
on
the
core
spec
first
and
then
so
so
I
would
really
prefer
if
we
would
go
and
and
get
to
a
very
quick
resolution
perfectly,
preferably
preferably
even
today.
But
you
know
likely
next
week,
we're
gonna,
say:
hey
we're
going
to
tag
the
core
spec
with
zero
point.
One
though
we
have
a
baseline,
because
I
think
the
the
I'm
pretty
comfortable,
obviously
with
the
HTTP
into
Jason
status.
C
But
I,
don't
think
that
has
seen
a
lot
of
review
and
so
I
would
prefer
us
doing
a
basically
locking
down
the
0.14,
the
core
spec
I'm,
indifferent
from
there
and
we're
gonna
do
0.2,
etc.
But
if
you
put
a
tag
on
it,
put
a
label
on
it
and
then
do
the
HTTP
and
Jason
mapping
subsequently,
because
we're
gonna
do
some
major
Op
work
and
that
interrupts
work,
we'll
shape
these
initial
drafts,
and
so
I
would
proper
rather
want
to
have
those
in
the
0.2
phase.
E
C
K
C
We
know
it's
gonna
change
exactly
so
that's
my
point.
My
point
is
to
do
the
transport
mappings
I
need
to
have
a
stable
reference
point
and
not
something
that
that
Canon
that
moves
around
and
eventually
there
will
all
stop
into
one
under
one
under
one
roof,
but
I
think
I
want
to
I
want
to
have
the
course
back,
walk
and
then
will
the
course
will
move
smaller.
Hopefully,
then,
all
the
other
stuff,
even
for
that
for.
E
C
J
Your
thoughts
on
that
sounds
good
to
me.
My
interest
was
in
making
the
deliverables
explicit,
so
they
were
all
kind
of
working
towards
getting
these
things
done.
I
love
the
idea
of
tagging.
The
initial
speck
is
0.1
and
movie
these
20.2,
so
I'll
move
the
second,
the
third
to
the
0-2
and
keep
the
first
fourth
and
0.1.
Okay,.
I
H
K
K
K
E
K
A
K
E
Okay,
anything
else
on
this
PR,
so
Austin
you
have
some
AI
to
do
some
twiddling
right,
yep,
okay,
cool!
Thank
you
much
this
one.
We
briefly
talked
about
last
speaker,
but
is
let's
go
looking
through?
This
is
about
removing
the
additional
topics
and
questions
section
from
the
spec
which
are
basically
list
of
to
dues.
E
K
E
C
Yeah
I
talked
to
dog
about
this
I,
like
this
came
out
of
my
my
HTTP
actually
out
of
the
drapes.
Nothing
because
I
would
have
to
have
so
I
rate
a
road
rule
for
how
to
go
and
do
the
mapping
to
Jason
and
I
found
that
little
weird
so
I
and
this
this
it
gets.
It
just
gets
difficult
in
all
kinds
of
language
bindings.
If
you
have
the
dash
in
there.
So
it's
easier
to
go
and
just
make
the
naming
convention
difference
rather
than
doing
special
mapping
for
all
kinds
of
different
languages.
Yeah.
K
At
least
from
my
perspective,
like
I'm,
not
I'm
a
little
agnostic
on
exactly
what
it
is,
whether
it's
camel
case
or
underbars
or
whatever,
but
but
we
certainly
have
impact
consistency.
There
so
appreciate
ya.
C
I'm,
just
I
went
back,
but
what
can
all
case
for
the?
What
I
find
the
majority
of
of
easy
little
close
by
language,
bindings,
Java
and
and
nodejs,
etc,
and
go
and
and
c-sharp
before,
C
sharp?
We
would
probably
wanted
to
have
a
different
but
I'm
being
ahead
of
ahead
of
myself
and
I'm
bound
to
the
majority,
all
right.
L
L
K
Things
like
version
right,
like
some
things,
require
prepending,
so
I
think
if
you
have
specific
examples
of
ones
where
you're
like
it's
clear
without
the
event
prefix,
we
could
look
at
those
independently
as
separate
for
yours,
yeah,
not
in
the
context
of
the
other
attributes,
in
order
to
say
for
sure.
Alright.
C
Fine,
if
we
keep
if
we
remove
or
if
we
eliminate
any
potential
for
confusion
like
so,
we
could
keep.
We
could
keep
cloud
events
version
as
it
is
and
then
just
make
version
for
the
event
per
se
or
a
type
version
for
the
event
per
se,
not
necessarily
opposed
to
it.
Let's,
let's,
let's
look
at
it,
you.
I
E
E
C
C
Since,
since
we
just
pushed
that
out
into
0.2,
I
would
probably
not
want
to
I
think
I
want
would
want
the
interrupts
group
so
that
subgroup
of
folks
who
show
up
for
the
interrupts
meetings
to
take
a
good,
deep,
look
at
it
and
see
how
realistic
they
think.
This
is
for
implementation.
I
think
I
made
a
an
OK
effort
to
not
invent
anything
new,
but
rather
lean
on
the
existing
artifacts
that
we
have
in
HTTP
and
any
Jason,
and
you
know,
do
do
just
more
or
less
a
straight
mapping.
C
C
What
I'm
doing
with
the
HTTP
transport
mapping
is
a
mapping
and
cloud
event
onto
the
HTTP
message
per
se,
so
this
works
for
a
request
as
well
as
for
as
for
a
response,
because
I
anticipate
that
people
will
go
and
want
to
build
systems
where
you
can
go
and
solicit
a
a
cloud
event
from
another
system,
which
means
you
can
do
a
get
pick
it
up
on
what
so
an
event
has
been.
It
has
been
delivered
to
someone
like
you're
an
HTP
base.
C
He
wants
to
go
on
that
dimension
and
also
snap
to
the
HTTP
message
in
clear
way
as
a
response
so
from
in
the
in
the
Maine
Pyaar
that
you
you've
just
been
referencing
earlier.
That
is
that
message.
Mapping
like
how
does
that
generally
work,
this
one
here
is
again:
is
it
effectively
formalization
of
webhooks
per
se?
This
will
work
for
cloud
events,
which
means
and
composes
with
the
the
transport
mapping
than
proposing,
but
this
also
works
for
the
generic
case.
C
C
But
the
point
of
it
is
that,
if
you
have
a
system
that
pushes
to
a
third
party
websites,
then
it's
actually
fairly
easy
to
go
and
take
that
system
and
make
that
a
distributed.
Denial-Of-Service
machine-
if
you
just
read
drinks,
is
registering
someone
else's
website,
and
so
this
here
is
defective,
protecting
in
a
way
that
the
the
target
website
or
the
target
web
service
must
those
pushes
to
happen,
and
that's
what
I'm
adding
in
here.
L
E
C
Well,
show
through
it
before
you,
so
this
one
is
was
motivated
by
my
by
the
adjacent
type
mapping,
because
I
need
to
have
a
way
to
map
typed
and
defines
the
types
that
we're
using
right.
Now
we
have
a
string,
we
have
a
binary,
we
have
a
map
we
have
so
these
are
all
listed
from
the
the
the
attributes
section.
We
have
an
object.
The
object
is
something
that
I'm
introducing
here,
because
we
have
for
the
data
section.
C
We
have
a
arbitrary
content,
I
think
what
it
said:
I'm
just
making
this
end
an
object
and
that's
an
effectively
very
insight
which
can
be
other
string
or
binary
or
not,
and
then
your
I
becomes
a
its
own
type.
We
are
actually
using
that
already
has
its
own
type
and
I'm
just
clarifying
that
it
is
a
spring
string
expression
as
defined
in
RFC
3986,
and
then
time
stamp
is
also.
We
are
using
that
already
and
I'm.
C
Just
lifting
that
up
and
saying
say
it's
a
string
as
precious
as
defined
in
RFC
3339
I'm,
clarifying
that
we're
not
defining
the
America
logical
types
here,
even
though
we
would
be,
we
could
be
tempted
to
I
think
it's
fine
to
not
have
them
unless
we
have
a
really
hard
need
for
them
and
then
I
have
the
and
basically
making
the
clarification
down
for
the
object
type.
So
I'm
not
inventing
anything
I'm,
just
basically
just
clarifying
what
or
using
already.
D
C
C
K
C
K
In
common
parlance
object
as
a
hash
as
a
map
right,
like
it
objects
in
JavaScript
to
have
properties,
they
aren't
exactly
what
is
defined
here.
I
understand
the
need
for
a
definition,
and
so
in
general.
I
think
that
this
is
a
great
direction
for
the
PR,
but
I
think
exactly.
It's
I
think
that
it
would
be
great
to
have
more
review
on
it
before
finalizing
it,
and
you
know
where
this
is
sort
of
a
point
anyhow,
so
I
think
leaving
it
open
for
a
little
more
time
for
comment.
K
R
I
one
of
my
concerns
and
I
apologize,
I
didn't
click
Submit.
It
seems
to
my
comments.
I
know
I'm
going
to
run
into
problems
with
a
PR,
that's
already
out,
with
map
being
explicitly
defined
as
a
map
of
from
key
to
it
effectively
anything
because,
for
example,
labels
was
typically
a
map.
That's
only
a
key
value
pair.
The
values
must
all
be
strings,
so
I
don't
know,
I
mean
this
can
be
a
follow
up
if
necessary,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
be
able
to
to
get
an
arrow
or
type
of
the
map.
C
E
C
E
E
H
K
Give
it
a
little
time
I,
don't
think
we're
changing
the
actual.
This
is
a
semantic
representation
about
something
we
all
agree
on,
so
it
shouldn't
actually
change
any
implementation
and,
having
a
little
more
time
for
people
to
name
things
like
some
brainstorm
good
names
for
things.
So
this
doesn't
add
confusion
which
could
potentially
slow
down
everything
you
know
I
think
would
be,
but.
E
So
so
what
if
we
do
that?
What
if
some
point
forward
is
okay
with
the
general
direction,
just
some
minor
changes
in
particular
map
and
object.
People
may
want
to
suggest
alternatives.
How
about
we?
We
push
to
get
those
alternatives
proposed
by
say,
like
Tuesday,
with
the
assumption
that
Clemons
will
be
able
to
finalize
it
Tuesday
evening,
Wednesday
kind
of
thing
and
then
score
vote
next,
Thursday
correct,
that's
not
period
already
yeah.
We
should
vote
next
or
Thursday
on
that.
That's
the
key
issue.
Yes,
what
do
you
next
Thursday?
Any.
E
K
C
E
C
R
I
I
have
a
change
that
I
did
not
push
because
it's,
but
I
can
immediately
push
if
we
want
to
take
the
feedback.
That's
open
there.
That's
one
yep,
so
I
can
push
that
exact
wording.
If
you
like
I,
just
want
to
make
sure
I.
Did
it
clearly
with
everyone
consents
here,
instead
of
just
trying
to
slip
it
under
the
radar
yeah.
E
R
So,
basically,
as
I've
drilled
in
a
number
of
times,
a
document
creative
that
means
very
different
things.
Whether
it
is
you
know,
a
Microsoft
Word
document
create
or
a
document
create
and
so
for
systems
that
might
want
to
aggregate
or
group
by
event
type.
It
would
dramatically
help
people
to
be
able
to
actually
have
a
semantic
namespace.
R
Similarly,
you
might
have
software
that
wants
to
be
in
compatibility
mode
with
another
software
and
so
being
able
to
say
that
I'm
subscribing
in
cloud
storage,
using
the
Amazon,
semantics
and
I
want
to
say
AWS
object.create,
and
so
that
was
the
intent
is
to
say
that
we
recommend
either
as
a
should,
a
suggestion
that
it
should
be
using
a
reverse
DNS
style.
Namespace
I
chose
reverse
DNS,
because
it
tends
to
group
things
hierarchically,
very
well
for
listing
and
just
as
an
FYI,
both
Microsoft
and
Google
owned
the
Microsoft
and
Google
TLDs
respectively.
R
R
So
Doug
had
brought
up
a
very
good
point
that
I'm
that
trying
to
be
very
clear
about
the
software
compatibility
mode
that
basically
we're
not
saying
it's
disallowed
that
somebody
else
implements
another
software
vendors
contract
it,
but
that
com
github
they
own
the
right
to
define
what
these
event
types
mean.
So
if
Google
Cloud
Storage
ever
implemented,
Amazon's
names
based
stuff
and
there
were
incompatibility,
it's
a
bug
with
Google,
not
with
Amazon.
E
E
C
K
I
mean
anybody
can
make
up
I
think
the
key
thing
is
that
people
can
diverge
in
the
spec,
like
anybody
can
write
any
code,
they
want
right,
but
we
need
to
define
a
specification
that
allows
for
it
to
be
clear
what
the
heck
this
thing
is
and
by
not
having
any
scoping
of
the
name
spacing
of
men.
That's
not
anybody
can
make
up
a
domain
and
scope
it
themselves
right.
K
C
C
E
C
Cool
procuring
government
yeah
those
things
are
super
expensive.
So
it's
it's
good
for
us
in
turn
from
all
the
big
companies,
but
then
you
know
for
all
the
small
cool
companies
it's
it
were
basically
forcing
them
this.
This
will
force
them
into
something
that's
aligned
necessarily
with
their
domain
name
as
a
should
clause.
So
that's
also
about
a
little
hesitant
because
I
know
how.
E
E
Right
so
I
apologize
I
should
have
done
it
before,
but
this
has
been
a
really
busy
week
for
me,
I
haven't
got
the
list
of
PRS
no
to
remember,
which
ones
are
actually
tagged
with
zero
point.
One
I
think
we
actually
may
have
hit
them
all
I'm,
not
high
percent
sure,
but
I
suspect
Rachel's
might
be
the
next
one
that
would
come
closest
to
it.
If
it's
not
officially
tagged
one
point:
oh
I'm,
sorry.
H
K
E
I
E
I
I
A
K
E
C
Well,
in
the
main,
in
the
main
spec,
we
have
headers,
but
they
are
like
were
say,
we're
relying
on
magic
usage
scenarios
etc,
and
it
would
be
really
good
if
the
over,
if
our,
if
our
top
level
sections
and
you
had
numbers
in
them
because
they
make
that
makes
them
easier
to
to
refer
to
from
the
other
little
specs.
Yeah.
H
E
Alright,
so
back
to
this
PR,
any
objection
to
the
state
of
direction.
So
this
just
be
clear:
Rachel
I
believe
you're
going
to
instead
of
using
numbers,
you're
gonna
use
letters
and
then
you're
gonna
add
a
sentence
and
making
sure
that
the
nuke,
the
ordering
of
the
letters,
does
not
imply
priority
or
something
like
that.
Right.
Yeah.
H
E
E
E
Major
one:
okay,
that's
a
good
one!
Thank
you
make
it
for
that
one.
Do
we
see
it
first
one?
So
we
are
a
little
inconsistent
in
the
spec
right
now,
sometimes
we
say
cloud
events,
as
one
word
and
I
was
time
to
say
cloud
events
with
a
space
between
the
two
I
was
just
saying
me
to
think
what
we
should
take
one
and
stick
with
it
and
I
believe
Chris
said
we
basically
are
trademarking
cloud
events
without
a
space
and
I
think
with
Sarah
and
who
else
here
mark
both
said
+1.
C
K
E
I
E
All
right
any
objections
to
edit
down
this
direction
and
as
and
with
basic,
approving
it
I
crazy,
okay,
again
I,
don't
like
Nestle
approving
Pierre,
we
have
them
so
I
will
create
a
PR
or
I'm.
Sorry.
If
we
agreed
to
what
I'm
about
to
say
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
create
a
PR,
it
will
sit
there
for
a
couple
days
to
make
sure
everybody's
okay
with
it
and
do
anything
really
stupid.
But
it's
not
going
to
wait
until
next
Thursday
before
it
gets
approved.
It
says
yeah.
E
E
E
A
R
This
is
just
you
know:
URI
is
a
very
broad
spec,
there's
a
lot
of
strings
that
can
be
considered
your
eyes
and
for
purposes
that
are,
unfortunately,
I
think
more
clear
in
future
milestones
where
we
might
want
to
set
up
the
relationship
between
software
to
say,
software
a
should
some
event
from
software.
A
should
be
sent
to
suffer,
be
it's
very
helpful
to
actually
have
a
an
authority
component,
not
just
a
path
component
to
the
URI
and
because
I
you
know,
I
I
decided
to
scholars
should
not
a
must
to
avoid
some
controversy
there,
but.
R
C
Okay,
so
I
made
a
comment
on
this
one,
with
a
reference
to
the
actually
arise,
spec
in
the
or
I
suspect,
there's
and
as
I
say
in
the
extensive
discussion
about
the
fact
that
your
eyes
are
not
necessarily
system
assets
which
means
they're,
not
necessarily
Network,
addresses
and
I.
Can
I
can
tell
you
that,
in
our
case,
in
our
usage
scenarios
of
how
we're
going
to
use
cloud
events,
it
will
practically
never
be
Network
addresses.
R
C
B
R
C
Sorry,
ok,
yeah
I,
just
Oh,
so
the
be
your
eye.
Your
eyes
specification
is
pretty
clear
about
absolute
and
relative.
Your
eyes
and
I
think
they're
both
permissive
permissible
here
and
then
there's
a
bunch
of
your
eyes,
type
types
which
are
interesting
here,
including
your
ends,
which
simply
do
not
have
authority
name.
So
there's
I
think
you're
looking
at
this
as
a
URL
and
not
as
a
URI,
and
you
can
for
your
implementation,
look
at
it
as
their
your
URL,
but
I
don't
think
we
will
like
from
a
microsoft
perspective.
We
will
not.
C
C
That's
me
no
aunty,
and
that's
not
my
reading
of
your
ride,
because
the
scheme
that
you
can
use
an
authority
in
the
context
of
the
scheme,
but
you
can't
make
your
relative
a
relative.
Your
I
reference
without
a
scheme
is
doesn't
include
an
authority
component.
You
can,
you
can
probably
go
to
make
one,
but
that
is
then
not
an
authority,
but
that's
your
first
part.
That's
the
first
segment
of
your,
your
of
your
URLs
of
your
I
yeah.
N
K
C
K
C
K
I'm
familiar
with
URI,
spec
and
I'm.
Sorry
I
did
not
catch
this
nuance
in
the
reading
of
the
cloud
event
spec
because
we,
our
our
internal
resources,
can
be
accessed
through
multiple
girl
schemes
in
multiple
ways,
and
so
that
we'll
have
to
think
about
how
to
map
that
horse
URLs.
But
that's
not
ideal
because,
of
course
your
r-spec
is
very,
very
flexible.
You
can
put
anything
in
there
and
then
do
string
parsing
right.
So
it's
possible
horse
well,.
K
And
as
I
said,
this
is
not
hard.
It
is
just
something
that
we'd
like
to
a
bunch
of
different
ways
that
different
providers
can
do
it
and
we're
not
going
to
block
it
if
it's
inconvenient
for
Google,
particularly
right.
We
can
read
code
here
too,
and
we
use
the
libraries
too,
and
we
just
I,
think
you
know
I
think
we
should
hold
on
this
PR
and
we
should
give
it
some
thought
about
how
it
works
in
different
spirits.
N
Well,
it
Chloe
finest
best
practice
is
to
keep
so
when
you're,
identifying
the
event
or
a
source
or
any
part
of
an
event
scheme
is
required.
That
identifies
how
to
interpret
the
rest
of
the
string
and
the
rest
of
the
string
and
typically
in
our
cases,
will
be
a
hash
or
something
a
unique
identifier.
Uid.
You
need
nothing
else
in
between
the
event
in
most
cases
and
that's
what
will
produce
yeah
all.
E
Right
so
I'm
not
I'm,
not
hearing,
Gavin,
say
consensus
yet
and
I'll
go
back
to
think
about
it.
So
obviously
good
to
have
the
initial
conversation
here,
I
think
that
clarified
something
it's
the
only
haven't
you
going
four
minutes
left
and
I,
don't
think
we
have
time
to
really
talk
about
anything
other
than
I
would
like
people
to
take
a
look
at
this
list
of
issues
that
I
think
we
can
now
close
or
maybe
mark
once
he
finishes
a
stuff
on
the
website.
Maybe
this
week
we
should
go
to
close
that
one.
E
K
E
Familiar
with
it
from
the
Carbonaro
because
I
believe
they
use
it
and
I
can
understand,
they
may
need
that
because
they
have
a
very
large
structure
with
lots
of
different
owners
for
different
sections.
The
project
I,
my
initial
gut
reaction
is
I.
Don't
think
our
project
is
big
enough
to
warrant
that
little
red
okay.