►
From YouTube: WG Platforms - Project Meeting
Description
TAG web site: https://tag-app-delivery.cncf.io/
TAG Slack channel: https://cloud-native.slack.com/archives/CL3SL0CP5
TAG git repo: https://github.com/cncf/tag-app-delivery
TAG meeting notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OykvqvhSG4AxEdmDMXilrupsX2n1qCSJUWwTc3I7AOs/edit
A
Cloud
there
it
goes
yeah
I
was
going
through
the
issues
in
in
the
tag
repo
this
morning,
trying
to
clean
up
a
little
filter
things
down.
So
if
you
saw
a
lot
of
messages
come
through,
they
also
would
be
going
through
the
docks
that
doc
that
you
wrote
Abby
we'll
talk
about
now.
A
Oh,
and
did
you
all
see,
kcp
propose
themselves
to
sandbox.
A
A
A
Sorry,
you're
unmute,
but
kcp
is
a
project
that
its
goal
is
to
separate
the
Pod
scheduling,
aspect,
I,
guess
of
kubernetes,
and
you
know
the
actual
running
workloads
from
the
apis
and
that's
one
way
to
describe
it.
At
least.
In
other
words,
you
know
it
can
provide
a
way
to
define
all
kinds
of
apis
that
then
get
delegated
to
other
clusters
to
actually
run
the
pods
behind
them
and
I'm
not
doing
a
good
job.
I
don't
feel
like,
but
it's
a
kubernetes
focused
only
on
providing
crds
and
not
running
pods.
A
D
A
A
When
I
look
it
up,
oh
yeah,
because
it
was
a
red
hat
project,
but
it's
now
well
the
the
leader
for
it
Stefan,
who
proposed
it
this
morning,
is
now
with
outbound
cross-plane.
So
it's
a
good
fit
for
a
cross
plane
because
yeah
from
hiding
these
apis
at
scale,
not
how
do
they
leverage
them
in
many
clusters.
C
That's
one
of
the
big
takeaways
right
now
is
being
able
it's
it's
a
single
cluster
solution
and,
and
the
reality
is
if
people
are
going
to
building
infrastructure
via
kubernetes
crds,
they're,
probably
multi-cluster,
they're,
probably
sort
of
bought
into
that
sort
of
environment.
So
I
think
it's
a
really
good
pickup
for
them
for
sure.
A
A
C
Is
running
in
one
place
like
how
do
people
make
requests
to
it
and
there's
lots
of
secure
ways
to
do
that
using
git,
Ops
and
other
things,
but
being
able
to
make
a
a
user
request
to
any
cluster
and
having
that
be
triggering
something
in
a
secure,
lockdown
platform.
Cluster
is
a
really
good
pattern.
I
just
think
it's
a
good
pattern.
It's
it's
nice
to
see
that
it's
continuing
to
have
legs
and
and
hopefully
get
into
sandbox,
so
yeah.
A
Okay,
so
yeah,
let's,
let's
I,
think
we've
got
our
Quorum
for
today.
Let's
go
ahead
and
get
started.
Let
me
post
in
the
notes
for
people
that
want
to
follow
along.
These
are
running
notes.
We
usually
start
by
asking
folks
new
folks,
if
you're,
if
you're
open
to
it,
just
introduce
to
yourself
and
tell
us,
you
know
if
you
want,
if
you're
willing,
to
tell
us
why
you're
joining
and
what
you
specialize.
So
we
can
delegate
to
you
a
little
person,
I,
think
and
kind
of
asking
youth.
B
Yes,
I
think
I
joined
a
week
ago,
and
that
was
the
first
time
but
I'm
here
again
today,
yeah
so
I'm
a
technical
program
manager
at
datadog
on
one
of
their
internal
app
platform,
teams
and
yeah
just
excited
to
to
be
learning
more
about
this
group
I
got
in
and
I
read,
yeah
some
of
the
working
docs
and
and
things
so
yeah.
That's
me:
cool.
A
C
Do
you
want
to
give
me
some
sort
of
a
time
box
to
play
in
because
at
least
a
a
soft
time
box
that
I
don't
completely
take
over
the
meeting
and
then
I
can
see
where
we
can
get
to
look
at
Colin
Collins
like
oh
she'll?
Do
it
too
don't.
A
A
Maybe
we
just
kind
of
touch
on
that
as
we
go
like
maybe
a
half
hour,
I
would
even
say
like
we
could
spend
on
this.
C
Yeah
and
that'll
be
a
soft,
we'll
see
where
it
goes
and
all
that
stuff,
but
I
just
wanted
to
have
some
sense
of
it's
like
we
had
10
minutes
or
30
minutes.
So
that's
really
helpful.
Yes,
so
really
quick,
one-liner
maturity
model
is
in
a
state
where
it
should
be
considered
a
complete
work
in
progress.
It
is
going
to
start
to
narrow
in
to
deliverable
by
September,
by
kind
of
early
September.
C
That's
where
we
should
start
to
feel
like
it's
getting
close
and
we're
looking
for
more
refinements
than
overhauls,
but
we're
sort
of
at
the
stage
right
now,
where
like
please
think
big
and
don't
hesitate
to
say
something,
because
if
you
hesitate
now
and
then
it
comes
out
in
like
October,
which
is
fine
if
something
new
comes
in
October,
but
ideally
it's
something
new
and
not
something.
You
were
thinking
about
for
a
long
time
and
worried
to
say
so
yeah.
So
that's
the
state
we're
in
there
are
lots
of
really
good
discussions.
C
I've
been
a
little
bit
delinquent
on
getting
back
to
some
people
and
getting
things
in
there.
So
I
apologize,
I'll,
try
and
catch
up
on
those,
but
I've
called
out
here
four
bullets
under
possible
things.
We
want
to
discuss
I
before
jumping
into
any
of
those.
C
Those
are
things
that
I've
noticed
that
I
think
are
a
little
bit
higher
level
and
maybe
be
interesting
to
have
a
conversation
about
and
like
kind
of
a
high
bandwidth
way
here
on
the
call,
but
those
are
things
I
called
out
so
before
I
go
into
any
of
those
topics.
I
want
to
pause
for
a
minute
and
say
I
think
all
of
you
have
been
through
that
paper
at
least
once
if
you
do
not
see
something
that
you
think
would
be
really
valuable
to
have
a
high
bandwidth
conversation
about
on
this
list.
C
It
is
my
my
missing
of
it.
It
is
not
that
it
is
not
important.
Please
add
it
to
this
list
and
we'll
make
sure
we
we
cover
those
things
so
I'm
gonna
shut
up
for
30
seconds,
see
if
anyone
wants
to
add
anything
and
if
something
comes
up
as
we're
talking,
of
course
at
it,
then
as
well,
but
might
as
well
try
and
get
the
topics
up
front.
If
we
can.
C
All
right
cool,
so
I'm
gonna
start
going
as
I
say.
If
something
comes
up
that
you
that
strikes
you
please,
please
add,
as
you
go,
the
things
I
think
are
the
most
interesting
to
talk
about
in
high
bandwidth.
Right
now
are
basically
the
the
table,
so
the
table
and
the
paragraphs
are
supposed
to
match.
If
you
notice
that
there's
like
a
word
in
the
table,
that's
getting
comments
and
it's
not
getting
commented
down
below
it
will
match.
C
In
the
end,
the
table
is
just
for
visual,
quick
Learners
and
the
the
everything
else
is
for
the
detail
of
people
who
want
to
dive
into
it.
So
don't
stress
about
that.
That's
a
mistake
if
they're
not
matching
and
they
will
they
will
match
at
the
end,
when
I
say
the
most
interesting
thing
is
a
table,
I
mean
the
things
across
the
top
and
the
things
down
the
side,
so
the
middle
of
the
table.
We
obviously
need
to
get
agreement
on,
but
the
way
we're
thinking
about
what
is
levels.
C
One
two
three
and
four
is
interesting,
and
what
things
are
we
giving
the
kind
of
hierarchy
or
the
importance
of
being
on
the
table
is
really
important,
so
I
think
those
are
the
top
two
top
two
topics
I
want
to
touch
on
and
then,
if
we
have
the
time,
I
want
to
jump
into
there's
a
few
questions
about
like
existing
ones
on
the
table.
It's
not
that
they
shouldn't
be
on
the
table,
maybe
they're
misworded,
and
maybe
we
can
have
more
clarification
and
we'll
get
into
those.
C
Does
it
feel
like
more
a
fine-grained
conversation,
so
I'll
propose
that
we
start
with
the
structure
of
the
table,
which
is
the
four
columns
we
have
gone
with.
A
just
numbering
system
previously,
like
the
the
first
draft,
is
numbering
system
one
through
four.
This
is
different
than
the
cloud
maturity
model,
Cloud
native
maturity
model,
which
has
gone
with
a
naming
convention.
They
have
gone
with,
so
they
also
have
leveled
numbers,
but
they
have
build
operate,
scale,
improve
and
optimize
as
the
names
associated
with
those
numbers.
You
can
click
on
the
link
there.
C
If
you
want
to
look
at
the
comment
that
I
add
that
to
so
questions
that
have
been
so
one
thing
is
that
right
now-
and
this
is
all
changeable
in
the
model
structure-
we
have
a
sentence
that
says
this
model
is
not
meant
to
classify
a
team
as
holy
level,
one
or
level.
Four.
Each
aspect
is
independently
evaluated,
evaluated
with
the
levels
provided
merely
presenting
similar
degrees
of
maturity,
improvements
for
each
aspect,
but
do
not
have
any
correlation
across
the
aspects.
C
Yes,
it's
a
great
Point
I
think
it's
that
one
should.
D
C
So
yes,
so
the
thing
I
want
to
talk
about
is
level
one.
Two
three
and
four,
which
is
discussed
in
a
comment.
That's
gonna
be
hard
to
find
now
because
of
the
things
the
structure,
the
levels
it's
this
one
here
that
we
have
four
levels
right
now,
instead
of
five
open
to
opening
up
a
fifth
open
to
going
down
to
a
third
to
down
to
only
three
and
we
haven't
added
names
to
them
previously.
C
I
have
since
learned
that
that
is
not
their
intention
and
that
they're
going
to
try
and
clarify
that
so
I
think
that's
really
good,
because
now
we
have
a
similarity
with
the
cloud
native
maturity
model
that
neither
of
us
want
people
saying
we.
We
are
level
one
it's
more
like
this
aspect
is
level
one,
so
that's
cool.
So
now
it's
a
matter
of
like
do.
We
like.
Does
the
platform
working
group
want
to
adopt
this
sort
of
naming
convention,
whether
it
be
the
exact
same
names
as
the
cloud
native
maturity
model
or
our
own
names?
C
F
Just
to
share
some
some
color
or
for
hopefully
help
somebody
with
some
insight,
so
I'm
doing
a
lot
of
work
right
now
with
mapping
folks
and
like
vendor
solutions
back
to
like
the
cncf
like
the
or
the
sorry,
the
the
cloud
native
maturity
model
and
it's
been
really
challenging
to
have
to
bounce
between
the
different
levels
and
then
go
find
the
section
because
I'm
finding
there
are
particular
questions
on
a
mapping
platform
functionality
back
to
how
does
it?
F
How
does
development
of
this
aspect
assist
your
Cloud
native
maturity
is
kind
of
the
approach
that
I'm
taking
and
it's
been
really
challenging
to
map
like
if
I'm
focused
on
how
a
particular
element
is
enabling
process
and
process
is
kind
of
buried,
not
to
switch
the
page
to
go
change
and
view
the
process
on
each
page,
so
I
actually
flipped
it
and
just
built
internal
notes
to
to
say
like
these
are
all
the
stages
for
process.
F
These
are
all
the
stages
for
people,
and
it
was
really
really
really
really
helpful
and
I'm
thinking
about
I
like
your
table
here,
because
they
don't
really
have
a
table
and
the
table
is
really
helpful.
F
But
just
that's
just
an
anecdote
of
like
how
I'm
kind
of
using
the
model
the
maturity
model
and
we
talk
about
assessing
vendor
Solutions
and
helping
them
understand
how
to
map
back
to
the
the
model
and
I
think
your
table
is
really
good
here.
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
follow
the
same
naming
convention,
but
it
would
be
helpful
to
be
able
to
tie
certain
aspects
back
to
from
the
platform
maturity
model
back
to
certain
aspects
in
the
cloud
native
maturity
model.
Maybe.
B
C
Yeah
just
sent
over
this
world
that
was
lovely
I
just
sent
over
the
link
I
I
switched
tabs
to,
which
is
the
majority
model,
to
give
that,
because
that
is
another
thing
that
we
differ
from
that
on
and
I,
but
I
guess
maybe
tend
to
agree
with
you
that
I
think
the
reason
they
need
an
extra
level
of
organization
is
such
a
big
subject
versus.
We
are
a
much
narrower
subject.
So,
with
this
big
cloud
native
subject,
they
have
sort
of
three
levels
of
organization:
they
have
the
category,
so
people
process
policy
and
Technology.
C
They
have
the
level
build,
operate,
scale,
improve
and
optimize
and
then
within
each
of
those
they
have
the
things
that
you
would
maybe
find
in
the
middle
of
our
table.
So
like
organizational
change
and
developer
agility
and
CI,
CD
and
and
maybe
activities
you
might
be
doing
so,
there
is.
There
is
a
lot
going
on
in
the
way
that
they
are
mapping
things
across.
But
it's
also
I'm
not
envious
of
trying
to
organize
that
level
of
stuff
and
we're
in
a
much
kind
of
narrower
space.
A
C
Is
correct,
yeah,
so,
like
one-off,
you
know
funding
one
off.
You
can
see
here
yeah
so
like
and
right,
and
you
know
another
thing
once
we
get
comfortable
with
the
high
level
Concepts,
we
might
want
to
have
a
conversation
of
like
if
this
is
the
right
level
of
detail
for
the
detailed
section,
but
I
don't
want
to
dive
into
that
question
until
we're
comfortable
that
the
titles
are
correct,
because
if
people
go
and
spend
a
lot
of
time,
writing
better
details
and
then
we
change
the
wording
or
we
change
the
levels
or
whatever.
C
That
would
be
quite
frustrating
for
someone.
So,
but
yes,
so
is
that
that
is
that
map
see
your
mental
model?
Josh
like
this
table,
should
should
fold,
should
roll
down
into
these
details.
A
C
And
that's
so
maybe
what
I'm
hearing
from
you
Colin
is
like
and
Josh
is
that
when
we
go
to
put
this
on
the
website,
we
see
a
world
where
it's
actually
a
graphic.
People
can
click
through
and
we
maybe
have
a
one-page
option.
So
you
can
use
like
control
F,
but
we
also
maybe
have
a
more
navigatable
option
that
lets
people
like
click
on
a
box
and
and
like
you
can
imagine,
like
you,
click
on
mandatory
and
then
below.
It
is
the
details
about
mandatory.
A
C
A
I
have
one
other
question
on
the
on
the
naming
like
to
be
the
Devil's
Advocate.
Let's
say
we
gave
them
concrete
names
so
right
now,
I
guess
it's
kind
of
a
scale
like
one
to
five,
but
like
so
everything
would
shift
left.
If
there's
only
three
in
a
given
category,
would
we
ever
skip
a
level
like
if
we
name
them
optimize?
Maybe
you
would.
A
There
would
be
no
like
interim
stage
for
a
given
line
just
saying
like
if
we
gave
them
names
they
might
not
all
and
like
three
on
a
scale
of
one
to
five
might
not.
There
still
might
only
be
three
steps
not
describing
that
clearly,
no.
C
C
There
are
only
three
levels
of
this
and
you've
made
a
fourth
and
you're
stretching,
and
you
should
just
be
okay
with
the
idea
that
one
of
these
only
has
three
and
like
we
I
guess
there
was
like
a
slight
like
misalignment
on
how
far
we
were
stretching.
So
we
ended
up
leaving
the
fourth,
but
that
concept
of
should
everything
be
square
or
can
we
have
different
levels?
And
if
we
do,
how
do
we
do
that?
Do
we
shift
them
in
some
way?
C
Do
we
name
them
so
then
it
makes
sense,
which
one
has
the
Gap,
like
100,
have
heard
that
before
it
absolutely
makes
sense
and
I
think
should
be
challenged.
So
is
it
so
I
guess
what
would
drive
that
question,
in
my
mind,
is
if
we
feel
like
in
any
of
these
before
levels
doesn't
make
sense,
or
we
feel
like
a
fifth
level,
would
make
sense
or
something
that
would
actually
Force
us
to.
Like
then,
challenge
like
that.
F
Was
one
that
was
one
thing
that
I
had?
That
was
a
question
I
posed
to
the
to
the
cartographers
folks,
like
last
week
was.
F
Is
there
a
level
zero
to
this,
because
there
isn't,
because
they
have
this-
they
have
a
home
page
where
they
essentially
is
the
kind
of
the
level
zero.
It's
like
the
intro
to
this
stuff,
but
I'm
thinking
about
your
problem.
F
It's
like
I
I
could
see
where,
like
I
don't
know,
maybe
maybe
at
a
certain
maturity
level
for
user
experience
that
doesn't
get
introduced
until
stage
two
and
isn't
necessarily
there
for
the
first
stage,
but
I
would
probably
I
don't
think
I
would
leave
anything
out
at
level
four,
but
I
might
skip
level
one.
D
F
Mentally
I,
if
I'm,
because
I'm
always
going
to
try
to
reach
like
level
four
for
a
platform,
I
think
it's
okay.
For
one
of
these
categories
to
be
missing
at
like
level,
zero
or
level,
one.
C
Yeah
and
I
think
so
I
hear
that
I
think
that
what
you'll
notice
in
the
current
level,
one-
and
this
is
just
for
like
comparison
and
those
in
the
current
level.
One
is
a
lot
of
these
are
bad,
and
so
it's
sort
of
like
like
they
actively,
would
be
detracting
from
a
sustainable
scalable
platform
and
I.
C
Think
that
was
one
of
the
pros
of
of
using
a
maturity
model,
because
you
could
call
out
the
things
that
are
less
less
effective
right
because
often
you're
talking
aspirationally
what
is
effective
but
you're,
never
explicitly
saying-
and
this
is
what's
not
effective
and
you
don't
want
to
like
scold
people.
This
isn't
about
taking
the
ruler
out
on
people's
Knuckles
it.
C
Yeah
I
was
having
conversations
with
people
where
I
was
like.
You
have
a
CI
CD
pipeline
like
no,
we
don't
and
I
was
like
you
do.
It
might
be
you
walking
over
to
someone's
desk
and
asking
them
to
SCP
a
file,
but
that's
your
CI
CD
pipeline
like
and
and
that's
what
I
think
we're
we're
currently
trying
to
treat
level
one,
as
is
like
everyone
has
a
platform.
C
A
A
D
F
C
Their
names
is
they.
You
can't
take
them
offensively,
sorry
to
like,
throw
that
out
there
on
that,
but,
like
I
definitely
heard
other
people
talk
about
things
like
that,
would
talk
about
the
maturity
of
someone
and
I
think
we
are
pushing
the
we
are
pushing
on
people
to
be
like.
This
is
not
good
like
if
you're
level,
one
like
there
are
things
that
you
can
improve,
but
I
want
it
to
be
very
uplifting
in
the
set.
C
I
would
like
for
us
to
see
it
being
uplifting
in
the
sense
that
people
feel
like,
and
there
is
somewhere
for
me
to
go
and
I'm
a
respected
technologist
who
is
in
on
a
road
to
Improvement,
not
like
I'm
in
some
way
being,
you
know
disowned
for
for
the
fact
that
this
is
the
state
we're
in
and
so
I
agree.
Colin
I
I
quite
like
that.
C
For
that
reason,
though,
whether
or
not
those
exact
words
fit
for
us
I'm,
not
sure
but
I
I
like
that
way
of
feeling
about
them
like
when
I
read
them,
I'm
not
offended
by
them.
If
I'm
in
build
stage,
that's
okay
and.
F
D
F
Know
like
there's
some
some
extra
clarification
in
there
and
to
your
point
earlier
like
do
we
need
to
fill
out
all
five
stages?
I?
Maybe
you
don't
so
maybe
it's
effective
to
have
parity
with
the
stages,
but
then
you
know
either
shift
things
or
stretch
things
I,
guess
I!
Guess
we
don't
want
to
stretch,
but
we
could
shift
but.
A
A
B
A
F
You
know,
if
is
are
is
cartographers
with
the
version
three
or
the
do.
You
know
if
they're
thinking
about
you
kind
of
alluded
to
earlier?
Are
they
thinking
about
changing
the
name
of
their
levels
at
all,
I'm.
C
Just
gonna
check
did
Simon
end
up
being
with
pop
on.
He
hasn't
popped
on
the
call.
So
I
don't
know.
I
just
know
it's
on
their
minds,
so
I'm
going
to
talk
to
Simon
I
think
what
they're
going
to
do-
and
maybe
it
makes
sense
for
ours
as
well-
is
they're,
basically
starting
from
the
Excel
spreadsheet
and
then
working
their
way
back
up
again
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
we
take
this
this
table
out
of
here
link
to
a
Google
Slides
like
sheet
instead
and
make
it
a
bit
more
editable.
In
that
way.
C
I
have
pros
and
cons
on
that,
because
I
find
that
adding
comments
to
Google
Sheets
isn't
as
easy
as
adding
comments
to
Google
Docs,
but
I
also
feel
like
if
we
want
to
add
more
rows
or
more
columns
or
whatever
it
might
feel
more
approachable.
So
basically
I
want
I
I
because
we
also
we
haven't
gotten
to
yet,
but
we
have
a
few
other
ideas
for
other
things.
Other
rows
we
want
to
add
and
I
want
to
make
sure
those
feel
open
and
available
as
well
and
not
like.
C
Oh,
we
have
to
fit
within
this
six.
Like
I
think
we
right
now,
my
current
gut
feel
is
we
don't
want
to
get
up
quite
as
high
numbered
as
as
the
quantity
of
maturity
model.
Again,
our
scope
is
just
a
lot
smaller,
but
at
the
same
time
that
doesn't
mean
six
is
the
right
answer
like
10
might
be
the
right
answer
like
you
know,
so,
there's
some
there's
some
number
that
makes
somewhat
more
sense
than
than
other
numbers,
but
like
it's
definitely
flexible,
so
I
just
want
to
check.
E
C
E
So,
okay,
a
question
so
yeah
I've
been
kind
of
taking
the
notes.
I
think
it's
been
good
dialogue.
It's
been
a
bit
confusing
to
sort
of
track,
so
I'm
going
to
try
to
summarize
it.
So
it
sounds
like
the
problem
that
we're
trying
to
crack
here
is:
we've
got
different
rows
and
like
the
different
categories
right.
E
So
we
have
these
different
categories,
whether
it's
funding,
adoption
user
experience
and
then
we've
got
these
levels
which
are
kind
of
like
stages
in
a
sense
that
show
like
that
are
also
classified
in
themselves
of
like
if
you're
at
level
one
and
you
are
focusing
on
your
organizational
structure,
your
Dev
and
Ops
right.
E
There
may
just
be
three
classifications
that
make
sense,
and
the
fourth
may
be
redundant,
so
we're
looking
at
the
cloud
native
model
or
the
maturity
model
and
something
that
they
do
well
is
that
they've
got
like
a
broad
classification
for
each
level
and
that's
why
I'm
getting
confused.
E
They
also
seem
to
be
kind
of
doing
something
similar
where
they're,
not
necessarily
like
putting
like
we've,
got
very
succinct,
like
label
on
these
on
offers,
but
theirs
has
more
of
like
a
description
for
each
when
they
kind
of
go
out
down
to
the
base
level,
and
so
that's
what
I'm,
trying
to
kind
of
figure
out
like
through
all
of
like
this
dialogue
is
like
are:
are
we
thinking
about
mixing
the
short
description
and
just
keeping
it
like
longer
like
they
are
in
their
model,
am
I
missing,
something
there
and
I
also
a
little
unclear
with
how
they're
trying
to
improve
like
their
model
that
that
kind
of
went
over
my
head
as
well
so
yeah.
C
So
that
second
one
I
definitely
wanna
I
I
was
like
Simon.
We
literally
just
conjured
you
up,
because
we
had
a
question
not
two
minutes
ago.
So
it's
perfect
not
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
so
I'll
answer
first
the
other
side
and
then
we'll
ask
but
the
yes.
So
the
question
of
like
is
basically
should
we
be
putting
a
categorization
on
each
of
these
levels
so
level
one
is
crawl
level,
two
is
walk
and
level
three
is
run
and
so
on
or
build
operate
scale
improve
you
know.
C
Whatever
the
words
are,
those
are
our
options
at
this
stage.
Do
we
want
to
do
that
or
do
we
just
keep
it
as
one
through
four
the
whether
or
not
we
keep
the
kind
of
intersection
of
an
aspect
with
a
level
as
a
succinct
word
or
as
a
description
I
think
we
didn't
my
my
understandings.
We
didn't
touch
heavily
on
that,
but
my
current
understanding
is
we'd
want
to
stay
with
a
hard-hitting
single
word
as
much
as
possible,
with
the
description
as
a
a
dive
in
deeper
thing,
but
I,
don't
I.
A
One
thing
I
want
to
I
want
to
add
with
us.
So
sorry,
I
think
we're
talking
about
three
things
in
this
table.
Talking
about
the
column
headings,
we're
talking
about
the
row
headings
and
then
what
Abby
just
said
we're
talking
about
what
the
the
one
bullet
and
then
the
detail
that
goes
in.
Take
that
first
part
of
the
conversation
we
all
kind
of
said
that
we
want
to
have
labels
to
kind
of
Define
that
scale
at
the
top
I.
Think
now
Abby.
Should
we
go
into
the
aspects
the
rows
so
I
have
something
absolutely.
C
And
I
know
the
time's
running
out,
but
Simon.
If
you,
you
have
a
kind
of
short
summary
of
what
it
is
that
you're
most
looking
to
switch
around
or
or
deep
dive
into
as
you
go
into
the
new
version
of
the
cloud
data
majority
model
so
like.
If
you
have
learnings
we're
taking
those
on
board
from
our
V
V1
rather
than
having
to
go
through
the
cycle
that
you
all
have
gone
through.
D
Yeah,
so
they,
the
key
challenge,
is
so
when
this
model,
when
the
cloud
native
maturity
model
was
developed,
there
was
a
relatively
small
group
of
contributors
who
got
together
and
developed
a
lot
of
the
content
based
on
experience
within
the
cncf
and
also
for
the
wider
Cloud
native
Community.
Now
the
the
main
undertaking
we
are
doing
now
is
the
model
itself
was
too
big.
Almost
it
covers
too
greater
scope
for
a
relatively
small
group
to
sort
of
top
down
dictate
exactly
what
Canon
should
should
be
in
there.
D
So
the
process
that
we've
just
started
undertaking
is
actually
to
do
much
more
Deep
dive
into
material
across
the
cncf
and
then
further
address
shortcomings
within
the
content
of
the
of
the
model.
So
the
process
that
we're
undertaking
is
slightly
perhaps
slightly
different
to
the
process.
That's
been
been
adopted
here
so
so,
as
an
example,
we've
got
a
series
that
we've
there's
all
of
the
white
papers
that
have
been
produced
throughout
the
various
tags.
C
D
Projects
within
the
cncf,
and
so
we're
we're
doing
reviews
of
that
at
the
moment
now,
yeah
so
I
think
that's
I
mean
my
assessment
would
be
because
this
model,
the
the
cloud
native
security
model,
is
I,
think
we've
talked
about,
is
sort
of
positioned
higher
within
a
technical
organization,
more
at
a
CIO
type
level,
and-
and
so
it's
scope
is
much
broader.
D
One
of
the
perhaps
things
that
is
really
beneficial
to
this
group
is
that
the
scope
is
it's
perhaps
further
down
the
technical
stack
or
down
the
organization,
and
so
it's
scope
is
slightly
more
refined
and
that
really
works
to
to
your
benefit,
so
I
think
that
there
so
the
short
answer
to
be
succinct.
D
The
shortcoming
we're
trying
to
address
is
one
that
I
think
you
are
less
subject
to.
If
that
makes
sense,
does
that
help.
F
C
D
C
You
may
not
have
the
answer
to
yet,
but
is
do
you?
Do
you
see
a
challenge
right
now
with
the
way
you've
named
the
maturity
levels,
in
the
sense
that
you've
named
that
currently
the
naming
convention
is
build,
operate
scale,
improve
and
optimize?
Is
that
has
that
proven
to
be
useful,
detrimental
anything.
D
D
Yeah
Bev,
so
definitely
the
first
three
I
think
have
worked
well,
so
so
Builders
non-prod
operate
as
your
very
first
production
applications
getting
into
the
operations
side.
Scale
obvious
where
there's
more
ambiguity
is
but
around
sort
of
improve
and
optimizing
what
they
really
mean.
So
the
first
three
I
think
have
really
worked
well.
D
Four
and
five
may
be
up
for
revision.
At
this
point,
we
we
don't
know
we
will
see
as
we
we
revise
in
general.
It
has
been
helpful
to
have
those
getting
those
names.
Right
has
been
helpful,
so
we've
found
having
that
single
word
so
for
a
stage,
yeah
has
been
been
good,
circularly
build
operating
scale,
yeah.
C
Yeah
I
think,
as
you
describe
what
those
words
mean:
I
worry
that
they
maybe
wouldn't
mean
the
same
thing.
If
we
were
to
reuse
them
in
our
world,
I
I'm
seeing
Kristen
go
yeah,
that's
not
quite
the
same,
and
so
precisely
that
may
be
a
reason
for
us
to
to
do
as
you're
suggesting
kind
of
go
to
the
drawing
board
and
say
what
is
the
one
word
that
we
would.
We
would
feel
like
would
work
for
us
for
this,
for
this
maturity
model
and.
F
C
D
D
D
You
get
this
the
platform
maturity
model
in
any
way
in
order
to
fit
into
the
cloud
native
one,
particularly
with
your
headings,
because
their
value
needs
to
bring
through
exactly
what
you
want
to
say.
Yeah
cool.
D
C
B
Yeah
I,
don't
know
I'm
struggling
to
think
of
like
the
words
that
would
be
good
for
each
level
here
and
I
had
kind
of
another
idea
was
like
What
if
we
kind
of
had
and
I
do,
think
one
two
three
four
right,
those
like
mean
something
to
to
people
who
are
gonna
see
those
numbers.
What
if
we
yeah
did
something
a
little
simpler
like
just
you
know,
an
arrow
to
the
right
or
something
that
sort
of
shows
like
here's,
the
you
know
kind
of
better
yeah
direction
direction
you
may
want
to
be
headed
in
yeah.
B
F
Yeah
I
mean,
as
I've
been
thinking
about
it.
I
almost
think
that
the
ones
that
you
have
here,
like
with
the
mandatory
reactive,
scheduled
and
stuff,
like
that,
that's
almost
like
a
head
or
three
versus
a
head
or
two
in
my
like
it
sounds
like
it's
like
describing
what
another
name
of
the
stage
is,
but
the
stage
still
kind
of
like
stage
one
still
has
a
a
name
to
it
like
the
build
and
then
under
the
build.
This
is
like
reactive.
You
know
it's
it's
like
describing
what
this,
what
backlog
means
right?
It's
yeah.
C
So
you're
saying
so,
if
I
hear
you
correctly,
you're
saying
keeping
this
sort
of
one-liner
one
word
or
in
the
box
is
helpful,
but
that
could
be
independent
of
naming
the
Box
naming
the
entire
category
as
something
yeah.
Okay,
yeah
cool
and
sorry
Kirsten
I
said
your
name
wrong.
I
apologize,
but
the
I
appreciate
what
you
say
there
like
whether
or
not
we
name
it
like
or
numbers
mean
something
to
people.
People
are
used
to
seeing
that.
C
So,
if
we
it,
there
is
a
world
where
we
debate
and
we
identify
and
we
we
trial
a
few
different
options
for
naming.
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
keeping
his
numbers
may
be
a
better
option
than
putting
in
confusing
words.
So
we
should
be
open
to
keeping
it
as
numbers.
Basically
is
what
I'm
hearing
you
say
even.
D
And
yeah
so
I
go
on
Simon.
Sorry,
it's
one
mate!
One
suggestion
is
that
you
may
find
that
it
emerges
later
that
maybe
right
now,
sticking
with
one
two
three
four
is
the
most
crucial
and
important
point.
You
may
find
that
you
know
over
another
month,
two
months,
three
months,
four
months
of
iteration,
a
clear
name,
Will
emerge.
C
Well,
person,
yeah,
yeah
I
think
that's
probably
part
of
why
it's
currently
numbered
is
that
a
clear
name
didn't
emerge
and
it
was
easier
leaving
it
that
way.
So
Josh
we're
just
over
the
30
minute.
C
Mark
I
realized
that
we
talked
all
of
me
about
columns
and
not
rows,
but
I
wonder
if
if
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
bring
a
single
topic
like
this
to
each
of
the
working
groups,
that
don't
have
other
big
topics
like
a
Sandbox
project
coming
or
something,
and
so
maybe
in
two
weeks
would
be
a
good
time
to
talk
about
the
rose
and
say
look:
we've
talked
about
the
columns.
C
A
Do
you
wanna
you
wanna
call
up
yeah.
We
could
explicitly
call
on
people
to
review
the
the
rows.
I
I
think
like
took
another
time
now.
Let's
see
so,
I
definitely
want
to
talk
about
those.
What
else
is
on
our
agenda
today?
The
website
restructure,
which
ends
up
yeah
like
it's,
that's
pretty.
You
could
open
that
if
you
want
I've
been
editing
it
in
the
background,
while
we
were
talking,
but
it's
pretty
much
like
how
we
oh
open
the
dock,
the
one
that
at
the
very
bottom
she
put
in
Leanne,
put
in.
A
It's
yeah,
so
that's
but
like
I,
don't
know
that
we
have
so
much
to
discuss
there.
I
think
that,
basically
this
says
the
maturity
model.
You
know
slots
in
under
platform
somewhere
and
I
brought
up.
You
know
the
other
things
we're
pursuing,
which
is
prototypes
and
and
I'm
pursuing
the
capabilities,
but
I.
D
C
A
A
Yeah,
okay,
one
other
thing
on
the
agenda
for
today,
which
we
should
just
mention:
I,
guess
yeah.
So
how
about
we
do
this?
Let's
mention
the
last
two
things
so
people
know
and
then
let's
go
back
and
use
the
last
10
minutes
to
discuss
the
aspects.
A
Okay,
well,
you
would
share
a
great
that
website.
Restructure
was
one
of
them.
Basically,
people
that
you
know
if
you
have
opinions
chime
in
on
the
issue.
Look
at
the
look
at
the
doc,
the
doc's
open
for
editing
like
everything
else
and
common
things.
So
you
know
that's
it's
more
I!
Guess
that's
kind
of
post
this
work,
you
know!
That's
where
we'll
put
it
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
discuss
that
further.
Now,.
F
A
F
A
Okay,
so
Colin
you're
kind
of
saying
there
are
two
aspects:
okay,
sorry,
so
I
guess
there
is
something
to
discuss
here.
There's
one
aspect
is
the
overall
like
funnel.
You
know,
experience
with
the
website
like
make
sure
that
the
the
side,
nav
works
and
those
kinds
of
things
I
know
that
there's
pending
issues
for
all
those
and
then
there's
also.
How
do
we
structure
the
platform
section,
but
it's.
F
You
know
and
just
getting
a
better
understanding
of
what
they're
looking
for
and
if
they're
you
know,
there's
a
there's
a
lot
of
interest
in
demand
over
the
platform's
maturity
model
and
stuff
right
now
too,
and
so
what
I
was
thinking
is
like
it's
almost
to
me.
It's
almost
like
it's.
It's
there's
not
really
a
problem,
the
site
as
it
is
today,
but
as
more
artifacts
get
introduced,
then
it's
going
to
kind
of
flesh
out
it's
going
to
highlight
the
need
to
be
able
to
get
into
some
of
those
certain
areas.
C
And
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
were
talking
that
I've
I've
written
here
is
like
one
of
the
suggestions
from
Taylor
Who's,
like
the
ecosystems
person
at
cncf,
was
to
like
try
and
use
this
website
to
generate
interest
in
engaging
in
the
working
groups
and
in
the
projects
we're
doing
so.
I've
made
the
kind
of
small
comment
of
like
you
put
a
little
pill
or
like
a
pointer
like
come
help
here,
but
also
that
involves
listening
to
be
able
to
put
work
in
progress
onto
the
site.
So
how
do
we?
C
How
do
we
add
that
to
an
ad
bar?
How
do
we
give
that
a
top
level
awareness
that
people
can
see
that
something
is
in
work
in
the
works
and
so
yeah
to
all
that?
Calling
yes.
A
Yeah,
okay,
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
I.
Think
it's
good
feedback
I
mean
if
people
really
some
of
those
issues.
You
could
just
pick
up
if
you
really
feel
like
it,
like
I
mean
even
like
I've,
been
trying
to
tag
the
GitHub
issues
that
are
relevant
to
each
group
so
like
even
just
like
that,
we
could
read
those
in
from
the
rest
API
if
we
wanted
or
or
just
put
in
an
iframe
with
a
filtered
view.
Things
like
that.
I
don't
know,
others
are
very
random.
A
But
if
you
have
ideas
like
please
put
about
a
more
structured
effort,
is
that's
reasonable
but
I.
C
A
Okay,
so
the
last
thing
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
today
is
we
want
to
make
sure
in
our
in
the
tag
the
repo
and
in
the
stock
channels
and
in
the
discussion
lists
and
in
the
papers
that
we
are
governing
a
little
bit.
What
content
comes
in
I
was
talking
with
Abby
about
this
the
other
day.
So
our
idea
was
to
craft
a
coat
of
kind
of
that
kind
of
Builds
on
the
cncf's
existing
one
which
which
talks
about
you
know
how
we
should
talk
to
each
other
and
things
like
that.
A
A
I
I
wanted
to
not
lose
the
issue
because
Abby
and
I
were
discussing,
but
it's.
This
is
another
thing
like
if
somebody
wants
to
write
up
a
page
that
that
nicely
describes
this
and
put
up
a
PR
like
you
know,
there'll,
be
comments
and
and
debate
I'm
sure,
because
that's
how
it
goes,
but
but
we
can
just
go
ahead
and
get
it
in
just
saying
like
it
doesn't
have
to
have
a
ton
of
process.
It
just
I
just
wanted
to
bring
it
up
that
we're
thinking
about
this.
A
C
C
Yes,
there's
some
suggestions
specifically
for
funding
and
backlog.
I
think
have
some
suggestions
but
as
I
say,
there's
also
some
suggestions
down
below
for
something
around
platform:
capability
coverage
and
platform,
documentation
as
well.
So
I
don't
know
if
Josh.
If
you
want
to
chat
a
bit
about
those
or
I,
think
those
were.
A
A
Are
you
developing
your
platform
as
a
product
things
like
what
is
the
user
experience
like
on
your
platform,
documentation,
yeah,
I'm,
looking
at
those
exactly
I'm
kind
of
trying
to
map
these,
and
if
things
are
I
feel
like
you
know,
some
of
these
might
highlight
things
that
are
missing
here
like
well
I,
don't
know,
maybe
back
like
I,
don't
know
backlog
which,
in
one
of
the
comments,
I
kind
of
said
that
to
me
is
upcoming.
Feature
planning
like
how
are
you
Gathering
feedback
about
what
you
have
now
and
and
filling
out
your
backlog?
A
C
I
think
just
to
call
out
this
this
horizontal
this.
This
aspect
was
at
one
point
called
platform
as
a
product
with
level
four
being
platform
as
a
product
and
that
felt
absurd.
So
that
was
part
of
why
this
is
a
very
hard
word
to
use
and
I.
Quite
like
some
of
these
ideas
around
like
user
feedback
or
product
roadmap.
C
Road
map
in
itself
again
is
a
way,
is
an
implementation
option,
and
so
that
like
and
so
is
backlog,
but
it's
sort
of
like
so
that's
the
that's.
The
trick
right
now,
I
think
is
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
not
take
a
word
from
a
maturity
level
and
create
the
category
called
it
right
and
so
I
think
user
feedback
I
think
could
be
like
could
be
the
winner,
because
it's
about
taking
in
that
user
feedback
and
what.
A
About
the
product
mindset
like
how,
but
do
you
have
a
product
mindset?
Do
you
see
this
as
a
product
or
or
not
like,
so
one
would
be?
No,
it's
not
a
product,
you
know
I'm,
just
I,
don't
know.
Yeah
I
hear
user
feedback,
but
I'm
like
maybe
there
is
like,
like
that,
would
tie
it
into
platform
as
a
product.
A
little.
F
F
Using
your
plan
like
there's
a
little
more
clear
understanding
of
the
who
and
I'm
almost
going
back
to
like,
in
my
mind,
I'm
mapping
back
to
like
who's
going
to
participate
in
this
platform
process
like
who
is
the
platform
benefiting
and
then
how
does
that
map
to
like
their
maturity?
And
just
for
this
one?
How
are
requests
and
requirements
identified
and
prioritized?
F
That's
focused
on
kind
of
the.
What
which
is
the
requests
and
requirements?
It
doesn't
necessarily
say
the
who
I'm
not
saying
we
need
to
change
it
to
say
the
who
to
match
some
of
the
other
ones,
but
I'm.
Just
thinking
about
that.
As
a
like,
an
understanding
who
this
benefits
I
think
would
help
me
also
find
each
row
I,
don't
know
if
what
I
said
just
just
said.
F
It
to
be
at
stage
for
a
platforms
product
in
this
particular
case
is
almost
just
how
my
brain
is
trying
to
match
it
back.
E
It
reminds
me
a
lot
of
how
the
maturity
model
kind
of
has
that
people
section
like
it's
very
clear
how
that
level.
What's
going
on
with
those
specific
people?
How
does
that
affect
the
people
like?
What
are
those
changes?
Kind
of
modify.
F
D
C
Yeah
and
I
think
you
know
you
can
imagine
a
rewording
of
the
cross-functional
one
around
like
how
do
specialists
enable
success
for
their
business
area
or
like
they're
they're,
like
specialist
area
through
the
platform
or
via
the
platform
or
whatever,
like
never
ask
me
to
write
something:
that's
comprehensible
on
the
fly,
but
you
can
definitely
see
how
that
switches
from
the
business
requirements
being
the
the
kind
of
subject
of
that
sentence
to
the
people
or
departments
who,
like
would
benefit
from
influencing
those
business
requirements
via
the
platform
and
and
following
that,
like.
F
Yeah,
it's
almost
like
this
row
is
describing
it's
like
you're,
it's
it's
not
quite
velocity,
but
it's
like
your
ability
to
implement
the
platform
or,
like
your
your
reactive
and
you're
figuring
out
what
platform
like
needs
to
be
in
place.
You're,
trying
to
figure
out
your
platform
strategy
and
you've
got
things
coming
from
all
sides
versus
like
the
platform
team,
is
making
informed
decisions
and
is
like
implementing
new
features
proactively
to
drive
the
platform
forward
or
like
to
that.
That's
interesting.
C
A
A
F
So
it's
like
business
requirement
is
going,
so
how
does
each
business
requirement
yeah?
That's
where
the
the
people
thing
comes
back
like
for
the
funding
side
for
level,
one
there's
going
to
be:
maybe
some
Thin,
Ops
folks
and
so
I
might
have
a
particular
specific
case
that
is
going
to
say,
like
at
level.
I
I
mean
I
like
the
way
it
is
already
really
it's
like
at
level
one.
If
I'm
talking
about
implementing
a
platform,
someone's
gonna
need
to
know
how
much
it's
going
to
cost
and
so
you've
got
kind
of
like
a
one-off
budget.
F
But
if
you're
at
level,
four,
the
people
who
are
making
it
spending
decisions
and
the
fin
Ops
folks
or
whoever
else
is
involved,
is
looking
at
this
as
just
a
standard
part
of
the
p
l
and
that's
also
because
you've
implemented,
you
know
a
a
platform,
that's
Central
to
your
organization,
which
means
you're
also
serving
that
as
platform
as
a
product.
At
that
point,
which
is
like
down
at
level
four
or
sorry
row
four.
F
So
it's
just
interesting
about
surround
like
the
who
who's
performing
or
who
cares
about
a
particular
row?
And,
what's
that
function,
and
just
getting
back
to
level
four,
you
can
almost
I'm
almost
using
that
as
the
barometer
of
like
how
important
is
the
how
Central
is
the
platform.
More
important
is
the
platform
to
your
organization,
and
it's
like
well.
I've
just
got
some
people
that
are
figuring
out
how
to
consolidate
some
process
so
you're
being
like
reactive
and
you're,
responding
to
requests
of
like
I
need
a
repo
I
need
a
I
need
a
template.
F
I
need
something
else
versus
you've
got
now
a
platform
team
or
a
center
of
excellence
type
team.
That's
you
know
saying
we're
going
to
implement
these
new
features
so
that
we
have
Consolidated
backup
across
all
of
our
stuff
and
we're
delivering
some
things
down.
And
you
know
it's
I,
don't
know
if
I'm
thinking
we're
all
going
to
use
the
tool
differently.
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
are
looking
at
it.
That
way,
but
that's
kind
of
one
of
the
ways
that
I
kind
of
see
some
of
this
mapping
back.
C
C
So,
like
does
so
like?
Sometimes
the
adoption,
for
example?
Sometimes
it
starts
top
down
and
starts
mandatory
and
it
starts
by
someone
going.
You
shall
use
this
thing,
but
sometimes
it
actually
starts
as
internal
and
it's
like
build
it
and
they
will
come
like
we
kind
of
Grassroots
built
up,
I,
think
the
logic
behind
start.
C
So
I
want
to
go
back
down
quickly
to
your
point,
Josh
around,
like
capability
coverage
and
platform
documentation.
So.
C
Capability
coverage
is
that,
like
what
you're
saying
is,
is
it
wouldn't
be
these
attributes?
What
you're
talking
about
is
like
coverage
of
these
areas,
so
the
fact
that.
C
A
C
I
do
see
a
linear
path
on
is
like
providing.
If
you
watched,
Gregor
hopes
talk
about
like
fruit,
salad
versus
fruit,
bowls
a
world
where
the
first
thing
you
do
is
you
offer
like
patchy
levels
of
access
to
things?
Then
you
offer
like
the
ability
to
like
really
low
level
resources
that
may
not
be
super
user
friendly,
but
like
they're
at
least
all
automated
they're,
at
least
all
via
an
API
Etc.
Then
you
start
create
like
elevating.
C
That
conversation
is
something
that's
more
bespoke
and
user
friendly
and
and
higher
level
abstractions
and
and
that
being
the
conversation
about
your
capabilities.
Is
that
like
it's?
Yes,
it's
about
breadth
of
access
to
the
capabilities,
but
it's
also
about
that,
like
interaction
with
the
capabilities
being
tailored
to
what
the
users
need
from
the
platform
versus
to
what
you
as
a
platform
team,
can
most
easily
support,
which
are
often
two
different.
A
You
know,
but
but
I
like
what
you're
saying
that
that
Orient
more
on
the
nature
of
how
the
capabilities
are
gotten,
maybe
there's.
Maybe
there
is
a
little
bit
like
you
get
a
VM
and
a
volume
is
your
first
stage
and
later
stages
to
get
databases
accused,
but
yeah
I
definitely
want
to
think
about
that
and
capability
coverage
maybe
doesn't
belong
here
much
at
all,
but
one
thing
I
was
a
little,
not
sure
on
with
that
last
point
is
the
the
last
aspect.
A
The
last
row
yeah
is:
are
you
talking
about
how
individual
capabilities
would
mature
I?
Guess
what
I
think?
What
threw
me
off
is
that
last
row
that
you
could
have
let's
say
10
or
15
capabilities
in
your
platform
and
that
rope
would
probably
apply
individually
to
each
one
yeah.
C
Yeah
I
think
there's
two
really
big,
maybe
hidden
grenades
in
this
row,
so
I
think
you
just
spot
on
identified.
One
of
them,
which
is
like
this
row,
is
a
bit
unique
in
in
that,
like
so
all
of
the
rows
can
be
potentially
applied
to
more
than
one
team
at
your
organization,
so
you
might
have
more
than
one
platform
team
at
your
organization
or
more
than
one
platform
offering,
and
these
this
table
can
be
applied
to
each
offering
individually
right
or
to
your
organization
as
a
whole.
C
This
row,
though,
could
be
that
you
do
a
really
good
job
of
enabling
Security
in
a
really
terrible
job
of
enabling
fin
Ops,
and
so
you
might
be
level
one
fin,
Ops
and
level
four
security
or
whatever
right
and
that's
a
bit
of
a
unique
thing.
So
that's
I
think
grenade
number
one
just
to
be
really
forward
about
grenade
number.
Two
make
sure
that
we're
all
thinking
about
the
challenges
here
grenade
number
two.
Is
that
how
and
it's
come
up
a
little
bit
in
the
comments
here
is
like?
C
Is
this
now
us
Outsourcing
things
again,
so
how
when
we
say
that
a
cross-functional
representation,
so
the
ability
to
like
secure
by
default?
This
thing
right,
one
of
our
aspects
of
a
platform
is
that
now
a
saying
software
doesn't
have
to
care
about
security
anymore
or
someone
else
is
going
to
some
other
specialist
is
going
to
come
in
and
do
it
for
me,
the
platform
team
is
now
in
charge
of
it
and
I
think
what
we're
what
what
these
current
four
levels
are.
C
Trying
to
call
out
is
experience
of
the
the
the
original
authors
and
original
reviewers,
which
is
that
usually
this
is
something
that
has
to
get
managed
outside
the
platform.
To
start
with,
then
the
platform
will
start
enabling
via
tools,
but
those
tools
will
often
be
still
very
rough
around
the
edges,
like
you
have
to
use
the
tools,
but
you
have
access
like
you
have
a
sneak
account,
go
have
fun
with
security
and
it's
like,
but
it's
not
really
built.
C
Somewhere
else
go
go
go
and
you
know
that
the
firewall
opening
pull
request
needs
to
be
approved
by
someone
on
the
security
team
right
but,
like
you
don't
have
like
so,
but
it's
not
really
handheld
yet
or
it's
not
really
bespoke
yet,
then
what
we
see
is
it.
It
does
often
get
owned
by
platform.
Teams
like
the
platform
team
that
is
in
charge
of
like
someone
from
security
gets
mad
that
someone
from
an
app
team
was
able
to
do
a
thing.
C
They
should
have
done
and
hey
platform
team
fix
that
and
then-
and
that
is
not
a
good
situation
to
be
in
so
this
is
maybe
one
of
the
weakest
level
threes.
If
we're
looking
at
like
a
level
of
maturity
of
equivalents
across
these
and
then
and
then
what
we
want
to
say
is
hey
security
team.
If
you're
upset
that
that
application
team
was
able
to
do
that
thing
that
is
not
secure
by
default,
you
should
be
able
to
provide
the
capabilities
via
the
platform
for
that
not
to
happen.
So
there
should
be.
C
We
should
be
as
a
platform
team
providing
tooling
not
only
to
the
app
teams
to
create
their
environments
and
to
deploy
their
apps
and
blah.
We
should
also
be
creating
tools
to
enable
the
Specialists
to
hook
into
what
those
app
teams
are
doing
so
that
they
are
able
to
standardize
and
alert
on
and
validate
the
a
compliance
with
their
requirements
right,
whether
that
be
compliance
or
something
else,
and
that's
what
this
specialist
driven
is
really
focused
on
is,
like
probably
I,
think
Rick
Rick's
summary
of
it
is
about
right.
C
It's
like
it's
about,
meaning
that
it's
not
about
the
app
teams
needing
to
learn
everything,
because
we
can't
hire
enough
Specialists
for
that.
It's
not
about
the
platform
teaming
to
learn
everything,
because
that
ain't
their
specialty.
It's
about
the
platform
team,
enabling
the
actual
Specialists
to
get
those
things
in
the
hands
of
the
app
teams,
and
we
can
I
think
that
needs
better
wording.
But
those
are
the
two
grenades
in
this
row
that
are
not
maybe
obvious.
On
first
read
so.
A
A
I
just
want
to
mention
that
we
probably
should
wrap
it
up
and
continue
the
conversation
on
there,
so
yeah
Colin
I
saw
you
wanted
to
say
something.
Oh.
F
F
The
security
team
had
read-only
access
to
their
kubernetes
infrastructure,
but
then
had
admin
access
to
the
security
tool
which
enabled
them
to
do
Cloud
native
security
and
not
have
to
bug
the
platform
team
like
it
was,
but
within
guardrails,
and
that
to
me
was
like
exactly
what
this
is
trying
to
accomplish
and-
and
that
was
correct.
Last
thing,
I
was
going
to
say
because
we're
out
of
time
anyway,
I
want
to
get
I.
F
Think
it'd
be
fun
to
do
an
exercise
on
some
of
this
too
and
Abby
I'm
doing
I.
Think
I,
don't
know
if
I
sent
you
guys
you
and
Josh
to
abstracts,
but
the
talk
that
Simon
and
I
submitted
together,
which
is
kind
of
like
marrying
the
two
models,
but
it's
from
a
kind
of
a
almost
I,
don't
know
like.
Let's,
let's
look
at
a
vendor
product,
almost
kind
of
approach
like
so.
Let's
talk
about
the
the
consumers,
but
that's
the
exercise.
F
I'm
going
through
right
now
is
like
okay,
I'm
I'm,
taking
a
vendor
platform
and
I'm,
comparing
it
to
these
models
and
I'm
trying
to
say
okay.
How
is
this
platform
implementation
that
this
customer
has
that
I
can
or
this
vendor
has
that
I
can
self-host?
How
does
that
get
me
to
the
different
stages
like
to
what
level
does
that
get
me,
and
how
does
it
help
my
maturity
and
it's
been
an
awesome
exercise
and.
F
D
F
D
A
F
Abby's
very
close
to
it,
yeah.
C
But
I
think
what
I
think
that
that's
actually
definitely
one
of
my
hopes
and
dreams
for
this
is
that
we
stop
allowing
platform
engineering
to
be
owned
by
marketing
and
allow
for
there
to
be
a
vocabulary
of
language
that
can
ask
questions
that
that
then
will
Elevate
all
vendors
to
be
able
to
answer
the
same
questions
and
allow
you
then
to
evaluate
based
on
your
needs
and
I.
Think
I've
said
this.
C
I
I,
don't
know
if
I
said
this
in
this
group,
but
I
see
it
similar
to
what
happened
with
observability
marketing
took
over
for
ages,
and
then
there
started
to
become
a
vocabulary
of
like
non-pre-aggregated
data
arbitrarily
wide
events
like
there
started
to
be
these
things:
that
attributes
of
observability
that
you
could
start
to
ask
vendors
about
and
vendors
than
what
we
saw
was
that
some
met
and
some
didn't
meet.
But
now
most
are
meeting
because
it's
like
they've
had
to
evolve
to
be
able
to
to
to
match
those
aspects,
because
that.
A
C
Like
concretely
gives
value
to
the
end
user,
and
so
the
whole
industry
has
improved
because
of
it,
which
I
think
is
great,
so
let's
take
the
conversation
away
from
marketing
away
from
any
one
vendor
and
put
it
towards.
How
do
you
get
the
benefits
that
we
have
put
into
this
white
paper?
How
do
we
make
sure
that
vendors
are
asked
the
questions
that
will
force
the
conversation
on?
Can
your
users
get
these
benefits
and
that's
what
I
think
we
want
to
do
so?
C
C
Cool
well,
thank
you
for
for
doing
so
much
work
on
this
today.
It
sounds
like
we
should
carve
out
some
time
calling
I,
don't
know
how
soon
you
want
to
do
that.
So
we
can
take
that
to
chat,
and
then
we
can
figure
out
Josh
if
there's
time
to
do
this
in
another
working
group
to.
A
Try
yeah:
we
should
bring
up
the
aspects
again
in
the
next
meeting.
That
seems
like
pretty
key,
but
yeah
we'll
keep
iterating
for
the
next
couple
weeks.