►
From YouTube: CNCF Storage WG Meeting - 2019-04-24
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
A
A
A
A
B
More
outstanding
concerns,
I
think
I
was
mostly
just
confused
about
the
process
and
why
we
were
doing
this
so
to
summarize
I
think
one
was
around
I,
think
it
all.
Just
spurred
for
him.
I
saw
the
presentation.
I
saw
the
discussions
going
on
if
we're
going
to
be
in
ducting
EBS
open
EBS
into
this
an
CF,
and
my
first
question
was
why
there
are
lots
and
lots
of
file
and
block
storage
systems
out
there.
Why
are
we
picking
this
one?
What
what
is
special
about
it?
What
is
what
is
the
reason
behind
doing
this?
B
You
know,
be
very
to
have
very
high
bar
or
try
to
be
very
selective
in
terms
of
who
gets
in
or
who
doesn't,
and
the
other
important
thing
to
note
is
that
the
sandbox
is
explicitly
not
endorsed
by
the
CNCs,
so
that
kind
of
changes
things
the
induction
of
open
EBS
into
the
sandbox,
isn't
really
an
endorsement
by
the
CNC.
Yet
so
the
question
of,
why
are
we
picking
this
project?
It
is
a
little
bit
less
relevant.
A
Just
Lee,
just
added
a
little
bit
to
that
you
know
the
voice.
There
was
a
lot
of
perseverance
debate
around
what
the
criteria
are
for,
for
you
know
the
different
levels
within
the
C&C
of
projects
and
the
sandbox
included
around
around
last
year
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
you
know.
The
major
points
was
that
the
sandbox
was
about.
You
know
projects
attempting
to
build
the
community
as
opposed
to
the
CN
CF
endorsing
them.
As
you
mentioned,
and
there
was
there
was
a
little
bit
of
so
sort
of
I.
Guess.
A
B
That
makes
sense
to
me.
I,
fundamentally
still
think
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
strange
direction
to
go
in
because,
as
soon
as
you
have
you
know,
any
kind
of
benefit,
that's
being
given
by
the
CNC
F
to
a
project
to
a
certain
extent.
That
is
an
endorsement,
and
you
know
that
is,
and
we
should
have
I
think
a
higher
bar
to
provide
that
kind
of
endorsement.
B
C
Maybe
not
of
endorsement,
but
certainly
of
providing
aid
and
and
taking
under
their
wing
a
project,
and
you
know
we
need
to
to
be
aware
of
that,
and
although
the
you
know
having
a
low
bar
is
good,
there
still
needs
to
be
some
kind
of
bar
and-
and
we
probably
should
still
continue
to
have
some
discussion
on
what?
Where
does
that?
Where
is
the
level
of
that
bar
right
and
I?
Agree
also
with
the
validity
of
the
first
question,
which
is
why
this
project
I
have?
Is
there
a
need
ahead.
C
D
Actually
respond,
I
can
respond
to
that
set
of
questions
which,
which
I
wanted
to
do
anyway,
because
I
think
there
is
some
confusion
which
I
wanted
to
make
clear.
So
I
was
pretty
actively
it's
Quintin
speaking
by
the
way
formally
on
the
TRC
and
I
was
pretty
actively
involved
in
in
defining
these
tiers
and
having
this
conversation,
the
TRC
I
think
this
notion
that
we
need
to
kind
of
compare
all
of
the
alternatives
and
pick
the
best
one
is
is,
is
not
right.
D
So
there
is
no
such
requirement
and
there
is
actually
a
counter
requirement
to
the
TRC
that
we
do
not
pick
winners
that
actually
any
project
can
come
to
us.
We
have
a
set
of
criteria
or
I
need
to
fulfill,
and
if
they
fulfill
those
criteria,
then
they
get
to
live
in
CNCs
and
the
criteria
are
actually
fairly
simple
for
sandbox
they're.
Like
essentially
are
you
you
know
interesting
to
the
CN
CF
in
the
future.
At
some
point,
maybe
you
don't
have
to
have
any
code.
You
don't
have
to
have
anything.
D
You
just
have
to
have
a
plan
to
build
stuff
that
we
think
is
interesting
and
sort
of
cloud
native
ish
and
that's
by
design
very
low
barrier
to
entry,
etc.
Incubation
says
that
you
have
actual
momentum,
you
have
an
actual
thing
and
it's
actually
used
in
production
by
some
number
of
companies
and
graduation.
You
know
just
raises
that
bar
you
have
multiple
contributing
companies,
you
have
a
larger
number
of
production,
use
cases
etc,
and
no
we're
in
there
does.
D
It
say
that
you're
the
best
in
your
category
or
that
you
better
than
some
or
anything
like
that,
so
I
wanted
to
just
make
that
very
clear.
The
fact
that
open
EBS
is
in
the
CNC
F
I
mean
it
happens
to
be
in
sandbox,
oh,
so
it's
kind
of
even
less
relevant,
but
even
if
it
were
in
incubation
or
graduation
does
not
say
that
it
is
the
best
you
know,
distributed
block
store
out
there.
It
just
says
that
it
is
a
distributed
block
store.
D
C
That
that's
a
lot
more
clear
and
and
I
appreciate
you
sharing
that,
because
it
does
clear
things
up.
The
the
only
hesitation
that
I
would
still
be
left
is
making
sure,
or
you
know,
is
there.
Is
there
a
way
that
that
we
avoid
nepotism
in
the
process
of
bringing
projects
into
CF
so
that
it's
not
just
cozy
little
egg
makes.
C
D
D
C
D
I
mean
what
it
was
highlights.
Sorry
jinglun
one
make
one
last
comment,
so
what
it
does
I
like,
though,
is
that
you
know
the
logical
endpoint
of
that
is
we're.
Gonna
have
many.
You
know
at
least
several
of
you
know,
similar
or
his
day
to
use
the
word
but
competitive
projects
in
the
CNC
F,
and
we
already
have
that
in
you
know.
Various
spaces
services
are
one
example
where
we
have
several
and
it
is.
You
know
incumbent
on
the
CNC
F
to
make
it
clear.
D
You
know
what
what
the
similarities
and
differences
are
and
to
enable
users
to
be
able
to
choose
between
them,
and
so
so
we
yeah
we.
We
do
need
to
take
that
fairly
seriously,
whereas
if
we
only
decided
we
had
one
block
store,
then
you
know
that's
the
block
store
that
that
the
CN
CF
proposes,
because
it's
the
only
one
you
have
which
is
not
the
case.
D
Yes,
I
believe
there
are
some
some
of
them,
for
example,
I
mean
if
you
look
at
the
the
CN
CF
website
has
a
very
clear
definition
of
what
cloud
native
means,
and
we
kind
of
fundamentally
believe
that
cloud
native
architecture
is,
you
know,
compatible
with
the
CN
CF
s--
mission,
and
if
you
come
to
the
CN
say
with
a
project
that
is
fundamentally
not
of
that
nature,
it
will
be
rejected.
On
that
basis,
I
mean
to
user
sort
of
corny
example.
D
A
Today,
where
there
are
so
many
projects,
and
so
many
things
to
choose
from
and
that's
that
people
will
will
entrust
their
guidance
as
to
as
to
what's
on
the
landscape
and
what
things
are
are
used
for
purposes.
So
so
I
think.
That's
that's
something
we
need
to
be
aware
of
on
the
trailers
sort
of
any
of
you
solution,
other
than
increasing
awareness
of
different
options
and
landscape.
D
Yeah
I
agree
with
20
minutes.
In
now
we
got
a
few
other
things
sort
of
adequately
addressed
people's
questions.
There
I
think
that
was
a
useful
conversation
and
thanks
for
bringing
it
up
side
because
I
don't
just
to
be
clear.
Your
your
confusion
around
this
is
not
unique.
The
similar
question
comes
up.
You
know
fairly
often
and
and
I
think
it's
you
know.
The
ciencia
has
actually
failed
in
some
respects:
I'm,
not
making
it
clearer
and
when
the
people
looking
to
sold
yeah.
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
clarifying
that
it
does
explain
things
a
lot
and
what's
going
on
and
why
things
are
happening.
I
think
fundamentally,
I
still
disagree,
philosophically
with
that
direction,
I
think
we
should
be
the
CNC
F
should
cultivate
a
ecosystem
of
projects
that
are
more
complementary
to
each
other
and
be
more
selective,
but
I
can
also
understand
the
draw
of
making
the
ecosystem
more
open
and
naturally,
just
say:
hey,
there's
all
of
these
options
and
we'll
help
you
figure
out
which
one's
best.
So
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
clarify
that
sure.
D
I
can
respond
very
briefly
to
that,
because
that's
a
reasonable
point
of
view.
You
just
pointed
out
the
the
counter-argument
is
that
it's
not
usually
very
successful
to
try
and
pick
winners,
it's
much
better
for
the
winners
to
emerge
from
the
ecosystem
by
virtue
of
you
know,
ending
up
with
more
strong
contributions
and
and
lots
of
use.
D
D
Statistically,
most
people
are
wrong,
so
we
kind
of
avoid
making
that
link-
and
we
just
say,
they're
a
bunch
of
them
another
forum
where
a
community
will
decide
which
ones
to
use
and
which
ones
to
contribute
to
and
those
will
become
the
strongest
and
we
we
don't
even
try
to
predict
what
that
will
be.
Yeah.
B
No
I
completely
agree
with
that,
but
what
I,
if
I,
were
to
make
the
decisions
here?
What
I
would
do
is
say
that
for
in
order
to
get
into
the
CNC
f,
you
either
have
to
have
just
you
know,
pure
adoption,
where
you're
the
clear
winner
in
this
space.
So
that
makes
you
that
that
is
the
criteria
for
you
to
get
in,
or
there
is
a
strategic
kind
of
hole,
a
gap
where
it's
important
for
the
CNC.
You
have
to
have
a
project
in
a
space,
but
none
exists
or
there's
a
one.
B
That's
kind
of
fledgling
provides
support
for
that,
but
it
does
leave
gap
like
you
mentioned,
for
projects
that
are
brand
new
they're,
not
clearly
the
winner.
There's
a
competition
in
that
space.
Where
do
they
go
I
personally,
I,
don't
think
they
should
go
into
the
CNC
F
if
there's
something
under
the
Linux
Foundation
or
another
kind
of
some
sort
of
like.
If
we
could
shift
the
sandbox
somewhere
else,
remove
the
CN
CF
branding
from
it.
A
For
example,
I
mean
I,
think
there
is
value
in
that,
because,
because,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
in
the
sense,
EF
is
here
to
make
the
adoption
of
cognitive
technologies
more
successful
and
more
and
more
pervasive,
and
therefore
there
is
value
in
Mineola,
there
is
some
sort
of
sense
to
live
and
to
win
stack,
so
products
working
together
and
products
component
in
each
other
I
should
be
a
goal
that
we
leave.
You
know
attempts
to
move
the
needle
on
a
through
through
some
process
here,
yeah.
D
D
D
Otherwise
these
things
can
become
pretty
unwieldy
and
philosophical
and
whatever
what
I
tried
to
spell
out
is
what
we
considered
to
be
in
scope
and
out
of
scope,
as
perhaps
the
starting
point,
and
then
turn
that
into
a
you
know:
shortest
possible
mission
statement
and
then
just
be
clear
with
how
we
overlap
with
interface
with
and
otherwise
interact
with
related
groups,
and
then
the
basic
operating
model,
which
is
actually
covered
in
the
SIG's
proposal.
So
so
all
I
really
wanted
to
call
out
was
the
stuff
specific
to
our
sig
that
I
think
in
on
principle.
D
We
just
follow
the
standard
sync
operating
guidelines
and
pick
a
few
people
and
that's
about
it
and
yeah.
We
can
go
into
that
later.
So
maybe
talking
about
scope
would
be
useful,
so
we
considered
to
be
in
scope.
Any
storage
systems
and
approach
is
suitable
for
and
commonly
used
in
modern
cloud
native
environments.
There's
a
link
there
to
what
a
cloud
native
environment
is
as
defined
by
the
CNC
F.
D
Think
for
the
white
paper
we
actually
out
of
scoped
them
for
the
initial
for
the
initial
white
paper,
but
but
in
scope
them
in
general.
For
the
storage
working
group,
they
are
officially
in
scope
for
the
working
group
definition
as
defined
by
the
CNC
ftse,
so
we're
working
with
the
sig.
So
maybe
we
should
actually
yeah
I
mean
I
I
kind
of
made
a
point
of
trying
to
keep
the
in
scope.
Stuff
short
I
didn't
want
to.
D
You
know,
walk
stores
and
object
stores
and
this
kind
of
store
and
key
value
stores,
because,
as
we
go
into
some
length
to
explain
in
the
white
paper,
some
of
these
things
don't
necessarily
properly
define
something.
There
are
interfaces.
There
are
implementations,
there
are
properties
associated.
You
know
you
can
have
a
highly
durable
object,
store
or
a
totally,
not
durable,
object,
store
and
so
objects
store,
doesn't
necessarily
mean
what
you
think
it
means.
B
Okay,
is
there
gonna
be
like
a
sig
workloads
or
sig
apps
or
something
for
the
CNCs?
Yes,
absolutely
there
is
something
at
least
on
the
kubernetes
side.
Traditionally,
we've
said:
hey
databases
are
the
responsibility
of
say,
gaps,
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
want
to
make
the
same
distinction
here,
if
not
that's
okay,
but
maybe
it's
worth
being
clear
and
we
don't
have
to
explicitly
define
it
as
part
of
in
scope
or
out
of
scope.
I
was
kind
of
just
looking
at
the
examples
that
you
have
below.
B
D
To
the
actual
significance,
and
so
to
answer
your
one
question:
application
development,
operation
and
testing
is
is
a
sig
and
it
was
everything
to
do
with.
You
know,
pass
those
operators
anything
to
do
with
application,
development
etc
and
has
a
relatively
small
number
of
project
I.
Imagine
that
will
grow
and
in
particular,
this
kind
of
pipelines
and
workflows,
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff
is,
is
hotting
up
a
lot
storages
block
file,
object,
source
databases,
key
value
stores,
etc.
So
that's
you
know,
is
officially
delegated
to
us.
D
B
D
B
E
D
D
That
would
be
great
okey
dokey,
so
the
stuff
out
of
scope,
I
sort
of
somewhat
jokingly,
said
anything.
That's
not
in
scope
is
out
of
scope,
but
in
particular
I
think
we
don't
really.
You
know,
go
into
researching
non-volatile
memory
or
any
of
those
sort
of
underlying
hardware
devices
that
that
actually
store
the
stuff.
D
We
don't
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
that
other
than
to
the
extent
where
it
you
know,
has
fundamental
impact
on
some
of
the
cloud
native
specific
stuff
I
tried
to
make
that
as
short
and
understandable
as
possible,
and
hopefully
that
makes
sense.
We
don't
get
too
carried
away
with
all
the
indication,
authorization,
accounting,
auditing,
etc.
All
these
things
destroyed
systems,
but
there
is
another
sig
called
security
that
that
is
fully
occupied
with
worrying
about
such
things.
D
A
A
D
Didn't
want
to
go
quite
that
far
because
I,
don't
think
that's
true
I
think
it's
perfectly
reasonable
to
have
you
know
a
honking,
great
storage,
cabinets
or
several
of
them
in
your
private
cloud.
For
example,
I.
Don't
think
that
is
out
of
scope
but
figuring
out
how
a
spinning
disk
works
or
how
an
SSD
works.
You
spend
a
lot
of
time
doing
so.
C
D
D
Maybe
we
can
re
word
that
slightly
to
make
it
a
little
clearer,
I
think
the
distinction,
so
I
was
actually
referring
back
to
this
statement,
o
deities,
who,
where
these
differ
from
storage
systems
and
approaches
blah
blah
blah.
Now
you
know
hard
disks.
Yes,
it
is
nvme,
etc.
They
don't
look
any
different
in
cloud
data
centers
than
they
do
anywhere
else,
so
they're
relatively
less
interesting.
D
So
you
know
the
other
ones
are
all
basically
areas
that
are
already
adequately
covered
by
other
groupings
in
the
CNC,
a
family,
so
CNC.
If
security
is
one
example,
CSI
is
another
example
and
storage,
abstractions
and
API
is
for
container
orchestrators
fit
within
those
container
orchestrators,
so
kubernetes
always
sick,
obviously
worries
about
that
stuff.
So
we're
not
going
to
try
and
replace
or
duplicate
any
of
these
existing
functioning
groups
make
sense.
A
D
That's
a
good
question:
I,
definitely
think
they
do
redundancy,
so
disaster
recovery
actually
covers
much
more
than
storage.
It's
more
about
sort
of
our
availability
of
services
in
general,
as
it
pertains
you
know,
off-site
backups
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
I
think
that
is
in
scope.
I
mean
that's,
that's
explicitly
what
things
like
object
stores
typically
do
is
replicate
their
their
objects
to
multiple
physical
locations
etc.
So
to
that
extent,
yes
I
think
they
are
in
scope.
I.
A
Those
powerful
for
within
you
know
typical
technologies
that
the
values
in
storage
I
think
they
are
kind
of
gets
into
a
bit
of
a
gray
area,
especially
when
we're
talking
about
cloud
native
because
it's
it
totally
has
overlap.
So
it's
sort
of
Federation
and
multi
cloud
and
all
of
those
kind
of
areas.
D
Yeah
disaster
recovery
normally
covers
more
than
just
data
and
storage.
It's
usually
entire.
You
know
replicated
data
centers,
it's
a
good
question:
where
does
that
fit
in
the
in
this
current
cig,
landscape
and
and
I?
Don't
have
an
obvious
answer
to
that.
I
mean
is
this,
so
we
have,
we
have
a,
we
call
the
core
and
applied
architectures
one
of
the
cigs,
and
that
is
intended
to
cover
the
container
orchestrators
and
specialized
instantiations
of
them.
C
C
E
Had
to
cover
that
in
the
white
paper
and
recover
that
yeah
we
do,
you
know
we
talked
about
a
cabin
recovering
those
or
ena
by
papers
or
should
be
part
of
this.
You
know,
doesn't
you
think,
go
beyond
and
there
may
be.
Another
group
of
kin
take
a
look
as
well,
but
you
know
they
definitely
there'll
be
storage
area.
C
From
the
software
side,
is
there
a
distinction
made
about
how
we're
working
with
the
the
actual
storage
piece
if
we're
dealing?
If
we're
talking
about
software
applications
that
do
backups
and
and
that
sort
of
thing
are
this,
this
group
would
be
covering
just
a
function
of
putting
data
to
disk
right.
That's
not
within
our
scope
to
deal
with.
E
D
Group
from
this
yeah
I
was
gonna
suggest
a
similar
thing,
I
think
there's
an
overlap
between
application,
development
and
storage
there
and
I
think
we
need
to
just
sort
of
call
about,
and
I
can
add
it
here
to
be.
How
do
I
do
this
without
missing
of
your
comment?
I
think
we
can
do
that
here.
We
need
to
add
C,
really
messing.
This
up,
I
think
I
watched
your
comment.
There
shame
but
we'll
fix
it
up
afterwards.
I
think
we
need
to
add
here:
CN
CF,
apps.
C
Distributed
workloads
and
that
sort
of
thing
in
terms
of
for
how
a
backup
software
would
do
that
across
clusters
across
data
centers.
That
sort
of
thing
that
to
me
seems
like
more
of
a
you
know,
application
specific
thing,
whereas
the
the
storage
piece
of
it
writing
to
disk
would
be
where
I
feel
like
this
would
be
a
focus
for
us
right,
I.
D
Think
there
is
increasingly
an
overlap.
There
I
mean
I,
think
you
know
when
you
look
at
things
like
HDFS
and
I
do
and
and
SPARC
and
many
of
these
things,
the
the
line
between
the
storage
system
and
the
application
is
quite
blurry
in
some
cases
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
too
prescriptive
about
saying,
oh,
that
you
know
that
looks
too
much
like
an
application.
D
We
don't
want
to
talk
about
it,
but
my
pragmatic
approach
is
if
there
is
already
a
group
that
is
actively
discussing
this
stuff
or
has
a
strong
interest
in
in
taking,
then
we
should
be
comfortable
deferring
to
if
there
is
no
other
group
discussing.
You
know
how
applications
that
that
need
to
do
persistent
state
are
being
architecture
if
that's
not
being
covered
somewhere
else.
We
need
to
just
you
know,
talk
about
it
here
until
a
better
home
emerges
for
it.
A
Think
this
is
an
area
that
actually
deserves
some
work,
because
we
we're
kind
of
moving
right
in
in
northern
environments
an
application
was
kind
of
built
around
the
storage
environments
and
now
just
know
what
were
actually
seeing
is
a
more
compostable
declarative
kind
of
architecture
where
storage
works
for
the
application,
rather
than
the
application
being
builds
around.
The
storage
and
I
think
that
particular
use
case
is
is
really
really
important,
because
more
and
more
that's
actually
what's
driving
the
the
changes
towards
the
finest
active
storage.
D
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
Maybe
this
is
a
good
segue
into
our
mission
statement
here,
and
hopefully
this
will
address
some
of
these
things.
So
what
I
kind
of
proposed
is
our
mission
statement
is
enable
widespread
and
successful
storage
of
persistent
state
in
cloud
native
environments
through
the
following
approaches:
providing
valuable
objective
information
to
the
TSC
end-users
and
projects
regarding
areas
considered
in
scope,
collaborating
effectively
with
other
related
groups
and
that's
the
group's
ienumerator
below
and
and
I'm
sure.
D
A
D
Then
so
and
then
yeah
it
unless
there
are
more
discussions
about
the
mission
and
in
and
out
of
scope
and
the
other
related
groups,
I've
I've
kind
of
stuck
my
feelers
out
and
some
people
have
thrown
in
match
their
their
hat
into
the
ring
to
volunteer
as
various
roles.
These
are
the
ones
that
I
have
so
far.
This
is
not
intended
to
be
an
exhaustive
list,
and
if
anyone
else
is
interested,
please
do
put
your
hands
up.
D
Ultimately,
the
TRC
will
decide
who
these
people
are,
but
obviously,
if
we
can
come
forward
with
a
bunch
of
people
that
we
think
are
well
suited
to
the
job
and
who
are
happy
to
serve
in
these
roles,
it
makes
the
tier
C's
life
a
lot
easier.
So
these
are
the
currently
the
people
I've
spoken
to
so
zhang
is
is
officially
the
toc
liaison
and
I've
been
communicated
with
him
about
putting
this
carter
together
and
the
various
leads
Aleks
has
volunteered
to
be
a
cover
chair
and
I'm
happy
to
be
one
as
well.
D
D
So
if
you
know
anyone
else,
we
mentioned
tonight
whoa
somebody's
rearranging
their
house.
In
the
background
there
we
mentioned
that
it
would
be
beneficial
to
have
a
database
expert,
perhaps
as
one
of
the
tech
leads,
neither
of
which
side
or
shing
I
think
call
themselves
database
experts
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
either
of
you,
I've
actually
reached
out
to
some
of
the
the
people
from
rook
to
find
out,
if
they're
interested,
not
that
their
database
experts,
but
they
might
be
the
right
kind
of
people
and
I
agree.
B
C
D
C
D
Was
quite
a
lot
of
contention
in
the
CMC
f
at
the
time
of
the
test
coming
and
that
it's
basically
my
school
and
people
are
saying?
Well,
you
know
my
sequels,
not
sound
native
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
optics
here.
We
need
to
just
be
aware
of.
We
don't
want
a
bunch
of
my
simple
only
people
or
Postgres
people
to
be
the
only
people
representing
cloud
native
databases,
okay
and.
C
D
Yes,
I
think
you
actually
sent
me
an
email
and
got
buried
in
all
my
other
stuff.
You
did
the
right
thing:
I
just
need
to
go
and
dig
it
out
and
I
think
what
we
gonna
have
to
do
is
I.
Think
anyone
who
wants
to
put
their
hats
in
the
ring
here
should
just
put
you
know
the
end
of
the
day.
As
I
said,
the
TSE
is
gonna,
choose
these
people,
and
particularly,
if
there's
more
than
the
number
that
we
require,
there's
gonna,
be
some
kind
of
filtering
process.
D
So
I
would
suggest
that
everyone
put
a
very
brief
resume
together,
just
explaining
why
they
think
they
would
be
suited
to
whatever
position
they're
volunteering
to
fulfill,
to
enable
the
the
ciencia,
the
sorry,
the
TSE
to
to
sort
of
make
a
sensible
call
there
I.
Would
you
know
what
one
thing
I
think
that
is
a
bit
of
a
sore
point
in
general
across
many
ciencia
projects
and
the
TRC
and
CN
CF
in
general?
D
Is
you
know,
people
who
people
who
have
a
history
of
actually
delivering
stuff
are
very
strongly
favored,
it's
great
to
have
tons
of
historical
experience,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
you
don't
have
the
time,
availability
or
or
the
inclination
to
to
actually
deliver
the
stuff
that
needs
to
be
delivered,
you're
less
useful
than
the
people
who
actually
crank
out.
You
know
documents
code
evaluations.
D
Whatever
the
thing
is
that
we're
looking
for
and-
and
this
is
not
you
know
in
any
way,
pointing
fingers
at
anyone
in
particular,
but
just
highlight
those
in
your
in
your
biography
to
make
sure
that
people
are
aware
of.
You
know
the
stuff
that
you've
actually
delivered
in
the
recent
past,
particularly
if
it's
in
the
context
of
the
CN
CF
that'll
be
great
or
or
the
Linux
foundational
related
areas.