►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless WG Meeting - 2018-01-18
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.
E
C
A
A
C
E
E
D
A
G
A
A
K
A
H
E
A
And
William
yep
I'm
here,
alright
cool,
okay,
let's
circle
back
around
later
to
catch
it
up
any
late,
comers
or
just
a
not
yourself
later
during
the
call.
Well,
it's
going
to
get
started.
What
it's
been
all
time,
don't
roll
call
I
mean
so
the
scroll
the
screen
here.
So
there's
the
agenda?
Well,
yeah!
That's
a
big
one!
Okay,
so
is
this
a
gender
look?
Okay
to
people
is
there
anything
people
would
like
to
add
or
modify.
C
A
We
do
have
a
document
near
the
top
of
our
agenda,
whereas
it's
good
to
do
this
future
work
item
like
for
additional
things
that
we
may
want
to
look
at
in
the
future,
so
feel
free
to
add
additional
things
into
that
document.
If
you
wish-
and
we
will
talk
about
which
things
we
want
to
work
on,
as
things
are
added
to
that
document,
in
fact,
I
actually
forgot
to
checked
it
recently.
Yes,
as
right
now,
we
actually
only
have
the
event
format.
C
That
was
pretty
good
duck.
You
know
the
only
other
thing
I'd
add
is
after
the
working
and
the
white
paper
was
finished.
It
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
general
interest
within
this
working
group
in
coming
up
with
some
common
specifications
for
surveillance
concepts,
and
we've
discussed
this
a
lot
in
the
past
and
I
think
that
that
seems
like
there's.
That's
where
the
most
interest
is
within
this
group
right
now,
and
we
just
started
with
it
a
common
way
of
describing
events
as
like
the
first
thing
to
focus
on
on
that
broader
normalization
or
topic.
C
A
Married
I
know
any
would
ask,
is
that
you
do
if
you
would
want
to
adjust
those.
Please
add
them
to
this
tool
list
here.
That's
where
we're
sort
of
keeping
the
backlog
of
things
we
want.
If
you
want
to
compose
or
obviously
just
add,
two
lists
to
the
agenda
and
there
we
go
future
calls
well,
okay,
moving
forward,
then
a
I
Kathy.
Are
you
on
the
call
or
someone
from
Iowa
on
the
call.
A
J
J
C
A
little
bit
of
looking
around
and
for
those
who
are
new
to
this
conversation,
the
this
common
way
of
describing
events
or
a
common
event
format
was
previously
titled
open
events.
In
our
last
conversation,
we
were
entertaining
a
new
title
to
help
make
it
more
more
interesting
and
that
new
title
was
potentially
cloud
events
and
we
agreed
to
go
and
do
a
bit
of
research
to
make
sure
that
that
name
isn't
taken
up
by
any
prior
IP
or
associated
strongly
with
anything
else.
C
I
also
looked
around
briefly,
and
the
only
thing
I
noticed
was
that,
when
you
type
in
cloud
events,
you'd
get
there's
a
lot
of
search
results
related
to
basically
events,
conferences,
meetups
pertaining
to
the
subject
or
the
category
of
cloud,
and
we
will
be
going
up
against
that.
But
I
don't
think
that's
a
big
deal
at
all.
G
I
I'm
just
curious
how
you
like
I've,
when
I
started
getting
involved
in
the
in
a
event-driven
server-side
event-driven
programming,
space
I
did
trying
to
do
a
bunch
of
searches,
and
it
was
very
interesting
to
read
about
all
the
conference's
that
are
doing
odd
stuff.
But
it
was
very
hard
to
find
the
information
about
who
was
doing
this
workaround
server-side
events.
And
so
how
do
you
think
that
this
could
be
mitigated
such
that
you
know
like
systems
that
there
could
people
would
easily
discover
this.
A
I
A
We
kind
of
kind
of
delve
into
it
a
little
just
because
I
was
going
through.
The
a
is
from
previous
call.
I
just
want
to
see
if
Kathy
was
on
to
talk
about
it,
I
mean
granted
it's
coming
up
very
soon,
but
let
me
just
quickly
jump
over
the
white
paper
status.
Now
I'll
get
back
to
this
okay,
so
just
the
finger
would
have
to
stay
on
the
white
paper
status.
A
I
did
lock
down
the
document
of
with
accession
for
the
Linux
Foundation
editors,
who
want
to
do
one
last
final
pass
through
it,
for
hopefully
just
minor
typographical
changes,
but
otherwise
the
document
is
done.
Hopefully
they'll
finish,
that's
within
the
next
day
or
so,
and
then
they'll
ship
it
off
to
whatever
group
they
have
to
make
this
into
a
formal
publication
and
clean
it
up
for
PDF,
printing
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
all
right.
I
Well,
so
the
question
is
really
about
like
if
somebody
hears
like
oh
wow,
this
is
exciting
happening
around
continents
and
they,
you
know,
I
apologize
for
the
Google
search
on
behalf
of
my
company,
but
like
is
that
do
people
have
like
you
know?
How
would
we
mitigate
the
confusion
around
conferences
or
in-person
events
versus
application-layer,
five
native
server-side
events.
C
Yeah,
that's
a
that's
a
good
question
I,
you
know.
Hopefully
this
turns
into
a
thing
that
has
strong
traction
and
we
can
really
show
up
in
there
in
the
initial
search
results
and
people
could
find
us
easily.
You
know,
we've
discussed,
you
know
making
promotional
material
around
this.
We
already
have
a
website
up
for
open
events,
but
we
could
change
that
to
be
cloud
events,
and
it
should
be
like
the
single
source
of
truth
that
will
hopefully
rank
highly
in
those
search
results.
The
github
repo
as
well.
C
A
I
J
C
A
C
J
C
C
A
G
Think
my
only
ask
from
last
time
was:
it
would
ideally
have
the
same
name
for
the
website
URL,
as
well
as
for
the
github
repo.
Ideally-
and
that's
probably,
you
know,
that's
in
part,
what's
causing
us
to
question
this
today-
is
it
today,
it's
opening
events
that
I
have
open
events
for
the
github
repos
already
taken.
A
And,
and
so
silly
I
actually
share
your
concern,
that's
one
of
the
reasons
who
I'm
leaning
more
towards
cloud
events,
because
we
can
be
consistent
over
there
I
think.
If
we
go
with
open
event
thing,
there
are
some
people
who
would
like
to
have
the
spec
still
be
called
open.
Events
and
I
think
that
confusion
is
gonna
lead
to
some
problems
for
us.
H
G
You
know
right
I
think
they
could
go
eat,
that's
a
good
point.
It
probably
could
go
either
way
either.
It
can
feel
like
it's
of
the
same
genre
of
effort
or
it
could
be
computed
between
the
two
and
I'll.
Add
that
there
is
another
turn
around
open
and
metrics,
which
we
briefly
discussed
on
this
call
before,
which
is
a
distinct
effort,
but
falls
into
that
same
genre
of
open
something.
C
So
just
reiterating
that
point,
as
we
two
factor
in
as
we
as
we
vote
on
this
and
and
real
quick
Sarah
asks
a
question
on
the
Google
Doc.
Who
is
we
because
we
wrote
like
we
said
we
have
cloud
events
that
I
up
at
events
org
and
since
we
have
Kris
on
the
call
right
now,
I'd
actually
like
to
ask
Kris
this
question.
You
know
where
it
looks
like
we're
incubating
this,
this
effort
inside
the
CN
CF
or
just
doing
it
with
clothes
yep
from
the
CN
CF.
We
have
these
assets
where.
J
Do
these
go
so
you
know
my
my
assumption
is
this
would
be
done
under
the
auspices
of
the
working
group
with
the
intention
of
bringing
it
to
the
TOC
to
make
a
formal
project
proposal,
since
it's
under
the
operation
of
the
working
group,
I'm
fine
having
the
CN
CF
hold
the
assets,
including
the
github
domain
and
so
on
in
the
short
term.
So
hopefully
that
answers
your
question.
J
A
C
A
And
before
I
forget,
because
I
will
forget
if
I
don't
say
now
Sarah.
Thank
you
very
much
for
taking
notes.
I
appreciate
that
okay,
so
moving
forward,
since
we
don't
have
a
formal
governance
process
in
place
for
voting
and
stuff
like
that,
let
me
ask
this
question:
does
anybody
have
any
objection
to
going
with
cloud
events,
because,
based
on
what
I'm
hearing
so
far,
I
do
think
there
is
a
slight
preference
for
cloud
events.
I
So
that's
my
preference
I
do
think
that
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
address
this
alternative
use
case
concern
because
I
think
that
I'm
definitely
seeing
that
there's
people
have
like
on
trend
news
cases
from
my
perspective
that
doesn't
present
a
problem
with
hilum
cloud
events.
Like
you
know,
JavaScript
was
not
actually
related
to
Java
at
all.
I
Yeah
aim
to
be
falling
things
because
Java
was
a
cool
new
language
in
the
90s,
and
you
know
a
bunch
of
us
thought
that
was
pretty
weird,
but
you
know
whatever
it
didn't
actually
present
a
problem,
so
so
I
think
that
cloud
conveys
like
a
future
forward-looking
and
a.
If
you
use
these
cloud
events
you
might
be
on
prem,
but
then
you
could
later
connect
to
the
cloud
and
like
personally,
I
think
that
is
a
plus,
not
less.
Okay,.
A
J
G
Open
events
or
me
that
long
is
war,
inclusive
I
haven't
heard
what
I've
heard
some
some
things
taking
away
detracting
from
crowd
events,
I,
haven't
heard
anything
detracting
from
opening
venting.
The
open
events
has
whatever
momentum.
This
effort
has
today
is
attributed
to
opening
events
and
not
not
something
and
not
cloud
events.
How
much
momentum
that
is!
Is
the
question,
but
so
are
there
any
one
of
the
attractions
from
the
opening
I
think.
I
Some
time
and
again
just
you
know,
this
is
just
my
personal
opinion
like
I.
Don't
think
it
says
anything,
it's
just
an
open
events
could
be
used
in
a
proprietary
situation.
It's
just
a
spin,
it's
a
specification
for
for
interoperability
and,
and
so
like,
there's
been
already
confusion
between
all
the
different
things
that
call
messages,
events
and
I
think
coming
up
with
a
different
name.
It
you
know
like
I,
don't
know
it
also
is
meaningless.
K
C
I'm,
leaning
towards
the
cloud
events
I
think
it's
feels
a
little
bit
more
specific,
which
will
actually
be
helpful.
I
left
a
story
of
cloud
offense,
you
know
coming
out
of
the
CN,
CF
I,
think
that's
that's
nice,
otherwise,
I
think
it's
just
traction.
That's
gonna
make
all
the
difference.
I
mean
when
you
think
of
the
word
The
Beatles.
You
know
what
comes
to
mind.
It's
not
not
really
an
insect.
It's
mostly
the
band.
A
A
B
The
issue
that
we
were
curious
about
after
reading
this
was
that
there's
we
didn't
want
to
have
any
one
company
having
a
lot
of
people,
show
up
just
for
the
voting
and
then
be
able
to
to
rigged
the
voting,
and
so
we
decided
that
we
wanted
to
have
one
vote
per
company
and
then
have
a
way
to
be
able
to
track
that
in
the
spreadsheet.
In
order
to
say
alright,
who
can
actually
vote
on
these
things?
And
how
do
we
keep
track
of
you
know?
Who's
been
actually
attending
and
participating
in
the
open
eventing.
B
So
the
thought
here
is
that
again
one
vote
per
company.
We
will
allow
the
the
company
to
assign
a
primary
voter
and
then
a
you
know,
because
people
need
to
take
a
break
or
have
other
meetings.
We
would
allow
them
to
have
a
secondary
representative
and/or
if
they
couldn't
make
it
for
any
of
the
voting
that
was
occurring.
So
that
was
the
question
at
hand
for
last
time
and
we
proposed
some
some
additional
wording
into
the
voting
structure
of
the
spec
or
of
the
governance.
A
And
so
I
think
the
idea
here
is
for
companies,
you
have
a
primary
than
an
alternate.
It
has
to
be
designated
based
in
advance
and
then
either
one
of
those
two
people
are
having
their
presence
on
the
three
out
of
four
calls
gives
that
company
voting
rights
with
the
primary
person
getting
obviously
the
you
know
they
were
the
right
to
vote,
and
there
they're
not
there
than
the
alternate
steps
up
to
it.
I
I
I
mean
I
think
that
generally
is
a
good
idea.
I
think
we
also
wanna
like
I,
would
like
to
see-
and
we
talked
about
a
while
ago,
when
you're
working
on
like
wanting
to
have-
or
maybe
it
was
any
service
working
group
conversation
I
wanted
to
have
people
who
are
using
the
events
right,
like
the
the
application
developers
represented
or
people
who
were
like
the
ecosystem
right.
I
So
a
lot
of
the
you
know,
the
interest
around
creating
specifications
and
creating
interoffice
is
to
create
an
ecosystem
of
tools
as
well
as
fostering
you
know,
accelerating
the
adoption
of
these
cognitive
technology,
so
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
include
those
folks.
Yet
we
also
don't
invite
a
lot
of
looking
rooms
who
are
not
actually
doing
any
more
work
with
these
technologies,
yet
want
to
talk
a
lot
so
so
so
I,
don't
know
how
to
balance
that.
But
it
would
be
great
to
have
some
kind
of
like
that.
B
D
B
Don't
believe
that
we
were
trying
to
prohibit
people
from
from
participating
based
off
of
this,
but
when
we
were
wanting
to
make
decisions
in
voting.
But
that's
that's
what
we
were
focused
on
with
respect
to
only
having
one
vote
per
company,
but
in
terms
of
participating
in
the
calls
or
anything
else.
We
want
that
to
be
wide
open.
I
B
H
I
A
I
A
You
can
so
so
I
think
what
you're
asking
for
is
interesting.
It's
going
to
be
a
challenge,
though,
to
axe.
We
put
that
into
very
formalized
language,
though,
if,
if
you
want
to
take
the
action
item
to
come
up
with
some
language
to
to
augment
this
proposal,
I
think
that'd
be
great,
but
I
think
what
you're
asking
for
is
is
a
really
difficult
thing.
I
think.
A
A
Like
I
said,
I'm
hoping
we
don't
really
take
votes
very
often.
However,
if
we
do
decide
to
go
with
a
down
the
path
of
allowing
people
to
vote,
and
it
is
based
upon
intense
meetings,
then
people
need
to
understand
that
as
soon
as
possible,
because
the
current
thing
that
we're
shooting
for
is
three
out
of
the
last
four
meetings,
which
means
people
need
to
know
whether
they
have
to
show
up
otherwise
ignores
voting
rights
right.
K
Think
I
think
that
one
thing
is
having
a
document
I
mean.
If
there
is
any
move
towards
the
governance
model,
it
should
be
written
down
someplace.
So
when
people
come,
they
know,
you
know
what
they're
getting
out
of
the
meeting
and
what
they
need
you
to
have
their
vote
count
or
whatever
so
I
know
that
you
Doug
you've
taken
a
lot
on
yourself
where
you're
moving
in
that
direction
to
create
a
document
government's
document.
Well,.
A
That's
what
this
is.
It
is
a
governance
document,
basically
in
fact
before
you
said
Matt,
so
that
people
understand
the
rules
and
hopefully
we
never
have
to.
You
know
get
that
formalized
but
ifs.
If
you
know
things
get
contentious,
you
have
to
have
the
rules
that
everybody
understands
that
going
into
it
all.
I
Right
yeah,
like
yeah,
coming
up
on
this
meeting,
I
wasn't
I,
didn't
know
where
to
find
the
agenda
and,
like
you
know
it
was
it
was
it's
not
very
discoverable
at
the
moment,
so
I
think
having
stuff
written
that
is
great
and
then
likewise,
if
we're
gonna
like
make
up
you
know
so
yeah
I
mean.
Does
everybody
feel
like
at
this
meeting
like
we're
well
representative
or
whatever?
We
think
this
working
group
is
enough
that
we
would
should
accept
a
job
governance
model.
I.
I
L
Yes,
I
was
just
gonna,
make
a
comment
that
we
have
been
discussing.
This
I
think
for
the
last
two
or
three
meetings
at
least
the
overall
idea
of
the
governance
and-
and
this
particular
four
request-
I
think
it's
been
there
for
a
while
as
well
I
think
that's
pretty
much.
What
you're
saying
that
attendance
is
I,
think
required
to
evaluate
this
and
and
and
that's
why
I
think
listen
life
from
my
perspective
is
it's
good
and
if
we
need
to
change
it's
fine,
but
just
submit
the
PR
and
change
it
right
later.
K
A
The
I,
so
my
understanding
is
that
this
governance
is
just
governs
our
work
on
this
particular
specification.
If
people
propose
additional
work
items
like
additional
specs
or
libraries,
or
tools
that
aren't
technically
under
the
scope
of
the
spec,
then
there
are
going
to
have
their
own
governance
model.
I
I
I
B
A
Readiness
as
I
say
for
everything
we
ever
possibly
produce
on
this
workgroup.
Here's
the
here's,
the
working
model,
we're
gonna,
alright,
here's
the
good
respond,
we're
gonna
have
that,
maybe
what
we
end
up
with,
but
we
haven't
talked
about
that
up
until
now.
Oh
so
now
the
discussion
has
been
for
the
work
and
the
specification
does
this
governess
model
fit
and
we
want
to
broaden
the
scope.
Then
I'd
rather
address
that
as
a
separate
issue
with
a
separate
discussion.
K
K
A
K
Guess
what
why
is
the
problem
saying
that
that's
the
governance
model
work
group?
Why
is
it
have
to
be
associated
with
just
a
single
spec
and
be
done
with
it?
I
mean
if
everyone's
in
agreeance
want
to
make
it
the
general
and
then
we're
good
from
the
other
side.
If,
if
there's
specific
things
about
this
spec
or
a
certain
scope,
then
they
have
to
limit
the
the
general
governance
model
based
upon
that
work
out
for
I
know.
Why
not?
Why
not
bite
the
bullet
now
so.
A
G
G
Do
this
to
accept
a
governance
model
for
yeah
I
guess
I
would
refer
to
this
as
a
sub
tract
right.
Now
it's
a
single
track
that
we
have
to
try
that
out
and
there's
nothing
preventing
us
from
sitting.
This
works
augmenting.
It
is
need,
be
over
time
and
just
reusing
that
model
elsewhere,
I'd
like
to
to
make
a
decision.
Now,
it's
a
bigger
one
for
the
entire
workgroup
to
test
it
out
on
cloud
events
is
a
smaller
risk
and.
A
K
C
Don't
have
a
super
strong
preference,
I
I
feel
like
we
can
update
this
as
we
move
along
and
face
face
new
problems,
I,
definitely
empathize
with
some
points
that
Sarah
raised.
You
know
we
have
open
events
that
I,
oh
there's
a
newsletter
on
there
and
this
you
know
well
over
under
people
who've
signed
up
and
they're
coming
from
so
many
different
walks
of
life
or
industries.
There's
you
know
this
events.
C
Topic
is
broader
than
serverless
and
we're
gonna
get
a
lot
of
different
types
of
people
in
here
that
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're
inclusive
of
all
those
types
of
people,
because
this
has
broad
ability
to
appeal
to
a
lot
of
use
cases,
but
also
we
have
you
know
we
hone
in
on
the
people
who
are
focused
on
this
full-time.
So
just
you
know
anything,
that's
inclusive
that
can
bring
a
lot
of
people
under
this
tent,
but
help
us
operate
efficiently.
Sounds
great
to
me
other
than
that
you
know.
C
A
A
How
do
people
feel
about
it?
Do
we
want
to
move
forward
as
is
and
look
to
possibly
merge
it
with
the
is
up
with
the
understanding
that
people
can
submit
PRS
to
augment
it
later,
because
I
think
it
was
one
you
mentioned
earlier.
We,
this
has
been
discussed
several
weeks
now
and
we
kind
of
it'd
be
nice.
If
we
get
this
behind
us.
A
M
A
H
A
H
A
A
I
mean
obviously,
we
could
take
additional
three
hours
later
to
tweak
the
wording
if
it
is
unclear.
I
think
at
this
point
is
more
about
getting
the
the
general
agreement
in
place
or
they
high-level
concept
in
place.
We
get
wordsmith
later.
If
we
need
to
okay,
so
ask
again:
is
there
any
objection
to
adopting
this.
C
G
A
A
H
A
I-I've
heard
I
think
if
I
remember
correctly
in
other
standards
bodies,
I've
heard
of
people
for
only
asking
I
can't
wear
the
Reg
word
is
to
go
on
the
hey.
It
is
for
something.
A
A
C
This
you
know
we
we've
been
discussing
laying
out
a
roadmap
for
this
effort
and
it's
a
very
simple
roadmap
right
now.
I
did
an
initial
draft
before
the
last
meeting.
I
did
some
very
small
revisions
before
this
meeting
and
those
revisions
were
really
just
to
kind
of
move
a
bit
faster,
because
I
think
we
could,
given
all
the
people
who
are
involved
in
this
effort,
do
more
things
concurrently.
C
But
essentially,
if
we're
going
to
go
through
it,
real
quick
in
January
we're,
you
know,
establishing
governance,
contributing
guidelines
and
initial
stakeholders,
we're
also
drafting
you,
know,
educational
materials
and
how
to
become
a
stakeholder,
how
to
become
involved
and
educational
materials
on
use
cases
and
hopefully
using
those
use
cases
to
help
hone
in
our
focus
on
on
what
the
scope
is.
The
initial
scope
for
this
effort
we're
iterating
on
the
first
version
of
the
specification.
C
We
could
finalize
an
initial
version
by
the
end
of
February
that
allows
us
to
really
kind
of
go
full
steam
ahead
in
March
on
authoring
libraries
and
supporting
tools
to
actually
enable
people
to
get
hands-on
with
the
specification
and
start
using
it
in
their
applications
and
give
us
feedback
and
all
that
so
in
March.
Hopefully,
we
could
be
drafting
documentation
and
user
guides
as
well
and
start.
C
You
know,
building
out
promotional
materials
for
the
effort
websites,
you
know,
logos
anything
April
continuing
to
collaborate
on
libraries
and
supporting
tools
to
use
to
use
a
specification
continue
to
build
our
promotional
materials
and
in
May.
This
is
kind
of
the
the
big
event
that
is
driving
a
lot
of
this,
and
that
is
cloud
native.
Con
Europe
happens
in
the
beginning
of
May,
and
it
would
be
great
if
you
know
we
could
announce
this
and
talk
about
it
at
length
that
cloud
native
con
Europe
talked
about
our
progress.
You
know
who
knows.
C
Maybe
we
can
even
get
this
thing
accepted
into
the
CN
CF
before
that,
so
but
that's
it
and
at
a
very
high
level.
We
continue
to
work
on
this
and
refine
this
roadmap.
Honestly
I
think
we
can
move
a
bit
faster
than
then
what
this
lists,
but
anyway,
this
is
just
a
start
at
the
roadmap.
Let
us
know
if
anyone
has
any
thoughts
or
feedback.
F
Believe
this
roadmap
so
I
put
on
the
agenda.
Sorry
I've
got
a
lightning
talk
on
what
we're
doing
here
in
the
CNC
f
working
group
at
servos,
coffin,
February,
so
I
can
add
a
bullet
here.
If
we
want
to
announce
anything
specific
besides,
just
invite
you
to
people
to
participate,
I,
don't
often,
if
there's
anything
suggest
me.
C
C
You
know,
I
think
one
of
my
biggest
focuses
personally
or
something
I
think
it's
usually
important
is
just
building
traction
around
this
effort
and
if
you're
gonna
be
able
to
talk
about
this,
then
let's
make
sure
that
everything
is
very
clear
on
kind
of
like
what
the
story
is
behind
this,
how
you
could
become
involved
and
where
you
go
to
look
and
actually
be
involved.
So
you
know
I'd,
say
that's
kind
of
first
priority,
I
think
other
than
that.
You
know
I.
Think
we'll.
A
Rather
than
having
people
submit
pull
requests
later
on
it
for
every
single
conference
that
comes
up
I'm
wondering
whether
obviously
putting
the
ones
that
are
specific
to
the
CNC
effort
kind
of
important,
so
I
thought
those
door
okay
being
in
here,
but
I'm
wondering
whether
we
should
just
create
a
wiki
page.
That
way,
you
don't
do
the
PR
process
to
list
out
all
the
possible
events
that
we
should
be
talking
about
this
out
just
to
speed
things
along.
A
F
A
C
A
Overall
Austin
I,
like
the
the
way
you've
put
in
here.
My
only
request
before
you
look
at
merging
the
PR
is
that
you
address
the
comments
that
are
in
there.
I
get
a
lot
of
antsy
about
PRS,
getting
orders
without
with
comments
that
have
yet
to
be
even
commented
on.
Even
if
it's
I,
don't
like
your
comment,
go
away.
A
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
it's
just
I,
just
I
just
go
in
easy
about
nature
comments.
D
A
And
that's
that
so
that's
the
pattern
I'm
trying
to
go
to
is
to
try
to
put
PRS
on
our
agenda
that
seem
to
have
general
consensus
all
comments.
A
bit
addressed
and
I
feel
like
the
right
emerge,
because
I
don't
want
to
do
too
much
discussion
in
this
cause.
We
can
avoid
it
and
that
you'll
do
offline
discussions
because
I
think
that's
more
productive.
A
A
H
A
People
a
chance
to
look
this
over,
but
it
seemed
fairly
straightforward,
so
we
might
be
able
to
close
out
this
one
today.
C
Oh
yes,
I
just
added
a
comment,
real
quick
kind
of
related
to
that
the
last
agenda
item.
You
know
a
few
stakeholders
before
joining
the
service
working
group
put
together
the
first
version
of
the
of
the
specification
that's
currently
in
the
repo
whoa.
When
we
had
those
meetings
to
talk
about
that,
we
never
got
into
names.
C
A
That's
a
good
point
and
I'd
like
to
like
the
Brian
a
little
wider
and
say
that
my
opinion,
technically,
the
entire
spec
is
open
for
a
PR.
So
anything
you
you
want
to
see
change
go
ahead
and
try
to
PR
it,
and
then
we
can
discuss
it.
Yep
all
right,
Thank,
You,
Austin,
four
minutes
left
Austin
you!
Maybe
you
could
just
quickly
introduce
this
one
I,
don't
think
we're
gonna
have
time
to
approve
it
because
it
just
was
added
a
few
hours
ago.
Well,
you
could
quickly
talk
to
it
sure.
Yes,.
C
So
part
of
this
is
this
effort
to
kind
of
build
traction
and
make
sure
everyone
everyone
understands
what
we're
doing,
and
why
is
listing
out
some
clear
use
cases
as
to
what
you
can
do
with
this
I've
started
drafting
up
a
series
of
use
cases.
This
isn't
finished
by
any
means,
but
it's
a
start.
So
if
anyone
has
any
comments,
thoughts,
please
add
them
into
this
PR.
C
Initially
I
did
try
to
fogive
inthis
as
the
serverless
working
group
and
also
given
the
fact
that
events
is
broader
than
its
serverless
I
did
try
and
shape
the
initial
use
cases
around
and
a
more
serverless
serve
less
use
cases.
So
there's
that's
something
that
I
kept
in
mind
when
I
started.
Drafting
these
out
so
there's
stuff
in
there
about
enabling
or
making
service
architecture
is
easier
to
create
making
functions
as
a
service
more
portable.
C
A
C
H
A
A
A
C
And
Doug,
one
quick
comment
on
this:
I
think
that
some
of
some
other
people
who
were
involved
initially
with
this
effort
got
a
bit
confused
by
the
meeting.
Cadence
of
this
call
so
I
understand
we're
trying
to
you
know,
track
attendance
right
now,
but
I
think
we
haven't
set
up.
We
haven't
communicated
fairly
like
how
how
these
meetings
operate.
Early
I
haven't
some
of
the
initial
stakeholders.
C
I
just
want
to
call
that
out
as
we
as
we
start
doing
this
so,
for
example,
Sarah
over
at
Google's
super
excited
to
have
her
continued
support
and
involvement
in
this
effort
at
Google
was
one
of
the
first
companies
to
really
instigate
this
whole
effort.
It
was
under
Sarah's
leadership
and
her
team,
and
you
know
this
is
even
though
this
is
the
first
service
working
group,
meaning
it
that
she's
attended.
You
know
her
team
was
heavily
involved
in
the
early
days.
Same
goes
with
Microsoft
and
even
Amazon
I.
Don't
think.