►
From YouTube: 2021-12-21 CNCF TAG Observability Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
B
To
meet
you
as
well
hi,
how
are
you
daniel?
Thank
you
for
taking
a
walk
at
the
mission
statement
and
in
the
in
the
talk.
A
B
Even
the
proximity
to
christmas,
we
might
actually
be
a
pretty
small
meeting
this
week,
we'll
see
hey,
there's
richie.
A
But
you're
also
henrik
you're,
also
representing
potato
head
head
today
or
good
question:
hey
richie,
hello,
hey
nice
to
meet
you
hi
scott.
B
Yeah,
this
might
be,
you
know,
given
the
proximity
it's
christmas
week,
a
lot
of
people
are
on
vacation
anyway,
so
this
might
be
a
pretty
quick
call,
but
we
do
have
it
recorded.
So
that's
good.
A
B
Cool
well,
I
guess
we
could
just
start
again.
I
I
haven't
heard
from
very
many
other
people
and
a
lot
of
people
that
normally
show
up
are
offline
entirely.
So
thanks
for
for
joining,
I
think
we
usually
take
a
minute
at
the
beginning
and
if
everyone's,
if
anyone's
never
been
here
before,
we
usually
let
them
say
hi,
I
don't
know,
if
that's
the
case
here
other
than
scott
and
henrik
have
you
been
here
before?
B
A
Sure
sure
so
I
my
name
is
henry
gregson.
I
am
the
cloud
a
native
advocate
working
at
dana
trace
and
my
yeah.
My
main
mission
and
my
my
main
topic
within
the
nitrates
is
observability
in
general
and
sres,
and
I
recently
decided
to
start
a
youtube
channel
end
of
july
of
this
year
to
deliver
tutorials
on
observability
in
general.
So
the
channel
is
called.
B
Oh
wonderful
feel
free
to
throw
a
link
into
the
into
the
docs.
I
I'd
love
to
check
it
out
sure
and
and
thanks
for
thanks
for
saying,
hi
so
kind
of
the
the
main
event
here
that
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
got
in
before
the
end
of
the
year
possible
was
to
have
scott
who's
joining
us
from
tag
app
deploy
and
the
get
ops
working
group
talk
a
little
bit
about
his
experience.
Forming
the
get
ops
working
group
and
open
get
ops.
B
As
you
all
know,
we're
engaged
in
doing
something
similar,
but
in
our
domain
called,
observe,
k8s.io.dev
and
we're
hoping
to
in
the
beginning
of
january,
send
a
formal
proposal
to
the
tlc,
so
they
can
vote
up
or
down
the
creation
of
the
working
group
and
so
right
now
we're
at
the
primordial
brainstorm
launch
what
it
is
phase.
So
it's
early
enough
that
we
haven't
gone
down
too
many
roads
yet
and
and
and
some
guidance
and
or
advice
would
be,
would
be
super
useful.
B
So
with
that
thanks
for
joining
and.
C
Yeah
yeah,
you
want
me
to
give
a
tiny
intro
to
myself:
okay,
great
how's,
my
how's,
my
my
internet
connection,.
C
Okay,
well,
we'll
do
the
best
that
we
can
I'm
working
off
of
a
hot
spot
because
of
connectivity
issues.
So
just
please
let
me
know
if
I
need
to
repeat
something
and
I'll
be
happy
to
do
that.
C
Yeah
yeah,
thanks
for
having
me
scott
rigby,
I
I
am
on
the
developer.
Experience
team
at
weaveworks
says
my
job
in
cncf
land.
I
co-maintain
a
couple
of
projects,
cncf
projects,
helm
and
flux
and
and
the
open
get
ops
project.
That's
in
sandbox,
that's
newer
and
I
think
that's
why
matt
wanted
me
to
come
and
chat
with
you
all
today,
because
we
had
gone
through
a
similar
process.
I'm
in
no
way
an
expert.
C
You
know
at
all,
but
I
but
I
I
have
gone
through
some
of
this
and
we
prepared
quite
a
lot
for
the
get
ops
working
group
and
and
the
opengl
apps
project
that
it
I
want
to
say
spawned.
C
But
in
any
case
that
is
meant
to
be
a
lasting
project
because,
as
you
all
know,
working
groups-
or
I
think
you
all
know
or
for
anyone,
that's
listening
to
this
recording
later
cncf
working
groups
are
part
of
technical
advisory
groups.
So
the
one
that
you
all
are
talking
about
now
is
part
of
the
observability
tag.
C
C
C
You
know
say
a
working
group
could
be
performed
to
create
a
white
paper.
A
working
group
could
be
formed
to
put
on
an
event
or
something
like
this.
The
githubs
working
group-
and
I
think
it
sounds
similar
to
the
observe
kate's
working
group
that
that
matt's
talking
about
isn't,
has
an
intention
to
do
to
have
more
lasting
artifacts
and
to
have
a
bit
of
a
to
need
a
little
bit
more
structure
than
just
perhaps
a
few
artifacts
that
could
be
housed
within
the
tag
itself.
C
So
that's
the
that's.
The
reason
that
we
set
out
to
create
a
project.
In
addition
to
the
working
group,
so
that
that
so
the
project
can
have
those
can
hold
those
lasting
documents,
programs
and
any
you
know,
code
for
interoperability
or
anything
like
that-
that
that
may
be
independent
of
specific
other
projects.
You
know
that
would
be
more
like
a
glue
or
or
something
that
would
be
project
neutral
or
vendor
neutral
yeah.
So
I
can
say
that
I
don't
have
a
formal
presentation
for
this.
C
I
meant
to
be
rather
informal,
but
I
do
have
various
things
to
share,
so
maybe
just
matt
and
others.
If
you
want
to
keep
me
honest
here
and
also
just
maybe
help
keep
me
focused
on
things
that
matter
to
you,
I
can
cry
more
and
less
in
areas
that
you
might
not
care
about.
B
Well,
we'll
do
I
think
what
you
said
is
absolutely
correct.
You
know
the
the
observe
we're
we're
just
now
forming
a
working
group
for
this
observe.
Okay,
it's
notion-
and
we
do
want
this-
to
live
on
well
past
the
the
scope
of
a
working
group,
because
they
are
time
boxed
and
really
for
it
to
be
a
thing
that
will
have
a
life
of
its
own
with
its
own
maintainers.
C
Did
other
people
did
you
want
other
people
to
introduce
themselves
first
before
we
dig
into
that
or
or
should
we
jump
in
or
how
would
you
like
to
do
that.
B
Well,
so
I
think
I
I
I
would
I
would
just
jump
in
you
know.
I
guess
maybe
you
could
talk
about
like
how
how
logistically,
within
the
framework
of
the
cncf
you
went
about
establishing
the
working
group
like
we
did
establish
a
working
group
sort
of
informally
to
make
a
white
paper
almost
a
year
ago,
but
we
just
sort
of
self-declared
that
there
was
a
working
group,
but
we
didn't
really
interact
with
the
toc
or
or
others
much
at
all.
B
For
this
effort,
I
think
we're
really
looking
to
actively
attract
contributors
both
to
the
tag
as
well
as
to
this.
This
working
group
and
as
such
will
be
a
little
bit
more
public,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
we're
doing
things
the
right
way
and
we
don't
find
out
oops
before
we
can
do
this.
B
We
have
to
do
that
and
you
know
so
maybe
you
could
walk
through
like
how
you
formed
the
working
group
and
how
that
working
group
went
about
in
terms
of
governance
and
in
terms
of
a
process
spawned
open,
get
ops
and
I'm
not
sure
if
everybody
on
the
call
is
already
familiar
with
those
two
things
or
not.
C
Oh,
maybe
yeah,
I
can
introduce
them
briefly
and
then
and
then
get
into
that,
and
I
can
also
also
cover
how
about
I'll
focus
things
on
things
specifically
that
I
wish
we
had
done
a
little
differently.
Yeah.
B
That
would
be
great
and
also
informal
is
probably
best.
You
know:
we've
had
very
few
formal
death
by
slides
other
modalities.
C
That's
great
okay,
cool
yeah,
and
we
can
always
do
that
sometime
if
we
want
to
but
yeah.
So,
first
of
all,
without
getting
into
the
the
topic
area
of
git
ops,
you
you
will
probably
have
heard
of
that,
and
you
might
all
know
what
that
is.
But
there
was
not
a.
It
happened
to
be
a
term
that
was
coined
by
alexis
richardson
to
alexis
richardson
who's,
the
ceo
of
weworks.
C
Most
of
you
might
know
that
or
you
might
not,
and
he's
been
very
involved
in
cncf
from
from
from
the
early
days
and
and
so
and
so
on.
I
don't
really
want
to
talk
too
much
about
him,
but
but
the
reason
I'm
mentioning
that
is
that
get
ups
as
a
term
was
initially
coined
outside
of
any
scope
of
a
foundation
or
or
or
an
open
project,
while
at
the
same
time
there
was
no
desire
or
even
well,
I
don't
know
or
a
possibility
of
well.
C
You
can
point
that
you
can't
because
of
get
trademark
rules,
you
can't
you
can't
trademark,
get
ops
and,
and
the
idea
was
that
it
really
should
be
open
anyway.
So
the
point
is
there:
there
were
different
definitions
that
came
in
short,
gitoff's
is
a
principle-led
set
of
methodologies
and
so
on,
but
because,
because
of
that,
the
only
principles
that
were
put
forward
were
principles
that
were
performed
either
by
weave
works
as
a
company,
a
single
company,
and
there
were
different
versions
of
that.
C
That
came
out
over
the
years
and
by
other
people
who
were
also
felt
some
ownership
of
this
space
and
and
wanted
to
define
their
their
own
way.
But
there
was
no
real
central
standard,
no
real
central
standard
for
for
what
the
principles
were
or
no
agreement
across
different
organizations.
So
that
was
the
first
task
of
the
working
group.
Is
we
wanted
to
have
a
working
group
that
that
said,
hey
from
cncf?
We
want
some
standards
we
want
to.
C
We
want
to
get
everybody
on
board
and
and
figure
out
how
to
get
on
the
same
page
so
that
that
was.
That
was
one
of
the
that
was
one
of
the
purposes
and
the
first
thing
was
alexis
and
other
cornelia
who
was
the
former
cto
of
weworks
and
others
yeah
rich.
Thank
you
exactly
yeah!
That's
it!
That's!
That's
the
exact
link,
correct
yeah
yeah
for
for
those
interested
in
the
logistics,
the
legalities
and
stuff.
That's
that's
exactly
the
link
to
get
to
so
yeah
a
few
folks.
A
Need
to
read
it
out,
no
one
can
see
what
I
type
in
recording.
So
what
I
just
typed
this
I
had
assumed
that
linux
foundation
holds
the
git
trademark,
but
it's
which
would
have
been
easy
for
cncf
to
to
figure
out,
but
it's
held
by
a
software
freedom
conservancy,
which
I
didn't
know
so
just
for
the
youtube
audience,
because
else
this
is
super
confusing
sorry
carry
on.
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you
richie
and
it's
richie
right
did.
I
say
that
correctly:
okay,
great
yeah.
I
I
forget
that
if
we're
not
using
zoom
cloud,
people
can't
see
the
chat,
yes,
so
speaking
of
which
is
a
minor
detail
for
our
public
zoom
calls
because
we're
using
zoom
now
for
the
working
group,
we
do
save
the
chats.
C
We
save
both
the
recording
and
the
chats
to
zoom
cloud,
and
then
we
make
sure
to
download
those
and
make
those
available
for
folks
after
the
fact
who
can
only
come
asynchronously.
So
just
a
tiny
detail.
I
didn't
want
to
forget,
because
you
just
mentioned
that
yeah
so
so
I'll.
Try
to
keep
that
in
mind
when
we
paste
when
we
paste
things.
C
So,
in
short,
the
process
was
talk
to
other
people
in
this
space
get
some
sort
of
a
meeting
of
minds
at
least
a
little
bit.
It
wasn't
super
official,
but
the
idea
was
hey.
Let's
try
to
make.
Let's
try
to
make
this
official
right.
C
Let's,
let's
see
if
we
can,
if
this
makes
sense
to
cnc,
let's
see
if
ultimately
the
technical
advisory
group
that
that
that
git
ops
was
part
of-
and
in
this
case
it
was
the
it
is-
the
app
delivery
tag
and
and
then
start
from
there.
So
this
the
you're
in
a
very
similar
place.
Now
you
know
this
is
the
this
is
the
observability
tag
and
you've
got
an
intention
to
do
this.
It
there's
a
discussion
between
people
who
were
involved
in
the
space.
C
What
we
did
was
really
right,
then,
without
getting
into
exactly
who
who
talked
to
who
it
was
more
like
contact
contacting
the
cncfs,
making
the
making
the
the
desire
to
have
this
working
group
officially
recognized
known
because
cncf
is
you,
can
you
can
make
working
groups?
That's
within
the
scope
of
your
tag.
You
don't
really
need
there's
no
official
form
that
I'm
aware
of
that
needs
to
be
filled
out
or
a
very
specific
process.
C
Yet
if
there
ever
will
be,
but
you
do
need
things
like
if
you
want
to
make
a
a
slack
channel
you
want
to.
If
you
want
a
mailing
list,
a
cncf
mailing
list,
and
so
on,
all
of
those
things
are
are
require
the
participation
or
the
the
support
of
the
foundation
of
the
foundation.
To
help
with
that,
it's
like
one
of
the
reasons
we're
part
of
the
foundation.
You
know
they
help
with
infrastructure.
So
they'll
help
with
all
of
that.
C
One
thing
that
was
well
I'll
just
say
in
terms
of
steps
just
to
stick
on
steps
for
a
moment:
you'll
the
observability.
Excuse
me,
the
observability
tag
has
a
charter.
Your
your
working
group
can
also
have
a
charter.
C
I
think
part
of
the
reason
some
of
the
steps
were
taken,
that
it
was
kind
of
so
so
much
effort
was
put
into
this
is
that
it
wasn't
exactly
clear
at
first
what
the
get
ops
this
getups
initiative
was
going
to
be
whether
it
was
going
to
be
a
working
group,
whether
it
was
going
to
be
a
cncf
sandbox
project,
to
start
whether
it
was
going
to
be
both.
So
in
fact,
there's
some
earlier
confusion.
C
If
you
ever
look
back
and
you're
wondering
what
was
this
guy
talking
about,
the
the
initial
name
for
the
sandbox
project
was
also
the
git
ops
working
group.
C
So
that
was
something
I
would
change,
or
that
is
something
I
would
advise
not
doing
you
know,
and
I'm
sure
you
probably
won't,
but
you
know
not
naming
the
working
group
the
same
as
as
a
project,
because
a
working
group
is
really
meant
to
be.
C
The
project
is
meant
to
be
independent
of
a
working
group
and
eventually
stand
on
its
own
so
and
the
working
group
might
do
more
than
one
it
might
be
a
one-to-many
relationship.
You
know
it
might
do
more
than
than
than
only
focus
on
this
project,
so
I
would
try
to
like
just
you
know.
What's
in
a
name,
I
would
just
try
to
think
about
that
not
too
hard,
but
that's
one
thing
I'd
avoid.
You
know.
Often
that's
putting
the
cart
before
the
horse.
C
Generally,
you
probably
do
your
work
as
a
working
group
work
on
your
work
on
what
your
work
products
are
going
to
be
so
when
they
in
the
get
up
working
group
charter,
I
can
link
to
it
in
just
a
few
moments,
but
there
is
a
series
of
of
of
you
know
it's
very
similar
to
your
tag.
Charter.
C
Right
like
it's
got,
you
know,
what's
what's
in
scope,
what's
out
of
scope,
what
the
goals
are,
what
your
alignment
is
with
that
with
that
tag
and
with
other
with
other
entities
within
cncf
and
outside
of
cncf,
even
if
you
know
not
even
a
full
plan
on
how
you
plan
to
bridge
all
that,
but
just
just
a
description
of
the
alignment.
C
Not
not
yet
so
so
so
that
that
is
it
is,
it
is
actually
sorry.
Yes,
it
is
ultimately
your
governance
document
for
you,
you
know
like
and.
C
Let
me
let
me
send
you
an
update
on
where
we're
at
that's
one
of
the
other
things
I
would
change
is
we
had
started
a
completely
separate,
org,
github
org
and
a
separate
github
repo
for
this,
the
reason
was,
it
was
bootstrapped
without
not
without
a
plan,
but
without
definite
knowledge
on
exactly
what
it
was
going
to
be,
and
it
all
happened
rather
quickly
because,
as
it
turns
out,
everyone
in
the
universe
is
interested
in
this
topic.
C
So
so
there
are
a
lot
of
organizations
to
collaborate
with
and
who
who
wanted
to
who
wanted
to
co-initiate
the
working
group
and
help
found
the
working
group.
So
you
might
find
the
same
thing
or
a
similar
thing
with
with
with
this.
C
You
know
there
are
a
lot
of
players
in
the
game
and
it
doesn't
mean
that
everybody
has
to
be
appeased
or
anything
like
that,
but
that,
if
there's
value
in
having,
if
you're,
if
you're,
working
toward
some
standardization
terminology
or
or
or
specs
or
anything
like
that,
getting
other
organizations
on
board
who
have
wide
usership
and
clout
could
really
could
really
help.
That's
that's
that's
what
we
did
so
there
was
to
the
the
founding
organizations-
and
I'm
gonna
try
to
remember
this
correctly.
C
But
if
I
skip
one
whoever's
watching
this
recording,
please
don't
kill
me.
So
basically,
it
was
amazon.
C
Microsoft
github,
who
I
know,
is
owned
by
microsoft,
but
is
but
was
still
seen
as
a
separate
entity
and
still
in
many
ways
operate
separately
code,
fresh
red
hat
and
weave
works.
I
believe
that's
that's
all
of
the
orgs
that
got
together
to
to
start
the
working
group,
and
you
could
do
something
similar
with
with
with
this
one
we
I
would
in
future.
I
would
not
suggest
making
your
own
get
work.
C
I
would
make
a
folder
inside
of
your
tag,
observability,
repo
and
and
and
matt
we're
in
the
process
of
moving
those
files
that
are
in
that
that
repo,
that
you
pointed
to
the
git
ups
dash
working
dash
group,
github
org
slash,
get
up
stash
working
dash
group
repo,
we're
in
the
process
of
finishing
moving
those
files
into
both
the
the
app
delivery
tag.
Repo
most
of
the
files
that
are
relevant,
I
believe,
are
already
there
and
that's
the
the
place.
C
Now,
where
that's
the
the
source
of
truth
for
that
at
this
point,
and
so
prs
were
redirecting
folks
there
and
we're
just
a
little
bit
behind
in
finishing
moving
it,
because
some
of
the
files
had
to
go
there
and
some
of
the
files
were
more
appropriate
to
the
project
to
the
sandbox
project,
and
so
those
got
moved
are
being
moved.
C
I
think
almost
fully
moved
now
to
dot
com,
slash,
open,
dash,
get
ops,
that's
the
name
right
now,
because
someone
name
spotted
opengitops
as
an
org.
While
we
were
in
the
process
of
naming
it.
So
I
did
it
so
we.
B
A
B
To
make
sure
it
had
its
own
its
own
stuff
and
in
talking
with
chris,
we
can
donate
all
of
that
stuff,
so
maybe
we'll
get
to
it
later
but
like
if
there's
some
process,
I'm
told
to
donate
things
and
then
they'll
reimburse
whoever
acquired
those
domains
etc.
B
Yes,
as
part
of
like
the
initial
launch
we
were,
we
would
expect,
I
think,
to
give
that
to
the
cncf
so
that
they
own
all
of
that,
but
but
we're
also
still
a
little
bit
unclear
on.
If
there's
anything,
we
need
to
do
around
trademarks
or
or
anything
like
that
for
the
base
name
other
than
just
the
domain
names.
C
There
are,
and
luckily
excuse
me,
I'm
sorry
luckily.
C
The
cncf
has
a
process
for
that.
That's
very
well
oiled.
Now,
basically,
they
will
work
with
you
to
open
up
an
issue
in
the
toc
repo
and
with
a
checklist
I'll
show
you
the
issue,
for
that.
First
is
one
of
the
new
places
files
actually
live
now
and
then
you're
archiving.
C
We
actually
had
to
move
it
a
few
times
and
and
for
the
sake
of
you,
know,
just
trying
to
be
good
citizens
of
of
of
git,
especially
given
the
namesake
of
this
group,
I
made
sure
to
to
move
all
the
commits
properly,
so
everyone's
contribution
still
carried
out
still
carried
over
to
the
new
places.
You
know
we
just
filtered
them
out.
I
get
filtered
to
the
correct
files
and
and
directories
and
so
on.
C
So
if
you
do
it
the
first
time,
you
won't
have
to
worry
about
that
kind
of
thing.
You
shouldn't
have
to
worry
about
that
kind
of
thing,
but
yeah
here
is
the.
C
Oh
great,
okay,
here
is
the
issue
for
open,
get-ups
and
you'll,
see
a
similar
issue
for
for
your
project
onboarding
when
you
for
observe
kate's,
even
if
the
name
changes
through
that
process
which
open
get
ups
did
in
our
case,
we
actually
had.
We
actually
went
through.
C
We
actually
went
through
the
process
of
creating
our
governance,
getting
pretty
formal
about
this,
having
a
very
good
meeting
cadence
and
making
an
outreach
and
making
sure
to
bring
folks
on
board
getting
as
many
people
involved
in
this
space
that
has
a
stake
in
this
subject
area
as
we
could,
including
folks
from
cd
foundation
and
and
whatever
else
you
know
outside
of
cncf
right
and
then
going
through,
because
we
had
that
governance
we
could
go
through.
C
It
was
actually
very
helpful
to
go
through
to
use
that
to
go
through
the
process
of
of
naming
the
project,
so
that's
all
been
done
transparently
through
github
issues
or
and
discussions,
and
I
think
the
main
goal
is
or
the
main
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
things
can
be
a
little
bit
messy?
You
know
you
don't
have
to
you:
don't
have
to
decide
in
perpetuity
what
your
processes
are
going
to
be
like
before
you
even
get
started.
C
C
I
would
suggest
starting
a
charter
not
making
a
governance
stock
as
you
as
you
can
see,
inside
of
or
not
yet
anyway,
as
you
can
see
inside
of
the
the
tag
app
delivery,
github
stash
wg
folder
that
I
linked
just
above
there's
no
governance
file
and
that's
because
that's
because
that
now
that
lives
in
the
open
get
ops
project.
C
Yeah
working
groups
have
a
charter
generally
or
or
some
something
like
that
they
can.
They
do
follow
the
tag
charter
right,
but
they
can
have
their
own
as
well
or
or
something
like
that.
In
order
to
say
this
is
how
the
working
group
operates
and
just
be
really
clear
about
how
how
people
can
get
involved.
C
You
know
what
that
what
that
process
is
like,
even
if
you
don't
know
exactly
what
the
roles
are
yet
you
can
just
say
we
have
an
interested
parties
document,
which
is
what
the
git
ops
working
group
did.
There
was
a
google
doc
that's
now
in
in
get.
B
Yeah,
that's
that's
the
process
we've
taken.
Also
thanks
for
the
feedback
around
there,
not
being
a
super
well-formed
process.
I
mean
that's
been
our
we've
kind
of
surmised
that
de
facto,
but
it's
nice
to
hear
someone
who's
done
this
before
say
yup.
You
can
just
do
it
make
sense,
that's
what
we've
done
and
we
have
taken
that
doc
to
markdown
approach.
Hey
henry
henrik.
B
Oh,
he
was
telling
me
goodbye.
Sorry,
I
thought
he
was
saying
I
wanna
yeah,
so
I
linked
it
in
the
notes
there,
but
we've
been
kind
of
partying
on
a
working
doc
same
thing
right
there,
but
we've
been
partying
on
on
a
working
doc.
That
was
like
your
idea
over
the
last
month
or
so
just
kind
of
low
and
slow.
Honestly,
you
know-
and
now
it's
gotten
to
the
point
where
we're
starting
to
get
a
little
bit
more
of
an
idea
in
critical
mass.
C
Awesome,
that's
great.
It
almost
looked
like
ritchie
wanted
to
say
something,
or
was
it
that
just
you
were
oh.
B
I'm
sorry
he
was
saying
that
he
has
family
stuff
and
he
he
was
only
able
to
be
here
for
the
first
half
hour,
but
he'll
watch
the
recording
later
samus
henry
okay
got
it
gotta,
get
it
okay,
yeah.
Do
these
I'll
get
we'll
I'll
post
this
to
youtube
and
everything.
So
the
folks
most
of
the
folks
actually
aren't
here
like
michael
hasselblast
and
ken
finnegan,
have
been
two
kind
of
repeat
offenders,
so
to
speak.
C
B
This
is
like
the
cncfs
thing,
so
this
goes
to
the
cloud
and
then
because
we're
not
on
we're
not
yet
on
the
community
platform,
I
think
that's
that's
lined
up
for
early
next
year,
as
well
with
a
logo
and
everything.
So
I
just
like
download
everything
and
then
upload
it
to
youtube
and.
B
That
anymore,
I'm
a
little
behind
on
some
of
the
past
the
past
meetings
as
well,
so.
C
Right
there
with
you,
yeah
right
there
with
you
yeah,
so
the
the
projects,
the
cncf
project,
that
I
work
on
or
or
help,
or
rather
co-maintain
different
parts
of
none
of
them
use
the
devi
platform.
Yet
none
of
them
use
community.cncf.io.
C
Yet
so
there
when,
when
we
were
looking
into
that
earlier
last
year,
it
was
not
clear
yet
whether
that
was
going
to
be
successful,
and
so
we
didn't
want
to
move
all
of
our.
B
B
Exactly
us
too,
like
I
went
up
to
a
couple
baby
things
and
it
was
full
of
like
how
does
this
work.
This
doesn't
work.
Why
doesn't
this
work
for
me
and
it
just
seemed
like
a
little
chaotic,
so
I
figured
we
would
give
it
a
quarter
or
two,
and
then
you
know
in
q1
of
early
next
year
we
would
get
on
it.
We
also
weirdly,
didn't
have
a
logo
and
that's
still
ongoing.
B
C
Oh
yeah
does
it
does
tag
anyway.
That's
something
I'm
not
really
even
aware
of.
Does
tag
app
delivery
even
have
one
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure,
but
in
any
case
yeah
that's
cool.
I
didn't
even
know
tags
had
logos.
B
It
was
part,
amy
said
as
part
of
the
whole
tag
logistics.
You
know
how
to
access
all
of
the
new
stuff
they
set
up
like
their
workflow
is
like
insert
logo
here
and
then
everything
falls
out,
and
so
we
like
had
a
logo
design
contest.
We
have
a
whole
bunch
of
suggestions
and
I
think
we're
we
had
a
third
round
back
and
forth.
The
cncf
has
some
artists
as
well
and
my
kids,
an
artist
if
you
know
anybody
else,
you
know
we're
still
in
the
take
suggestions.
B
But
again,
as
I
said
beforehand,
attendance
has
been
a
little
muted
in
q4.
You
know
between
all
of
the
conferences
and
all
the
holidays.
It's
expected.
C
Got
it
got
it
okay
and
that
that
was
something
I
wasn't
aware
of
so
today
I
learned
about
that
part
of
the
part
of
the
process
for
tags
yeah.
So
so,
basically,
we
had
some
a
bit
of
back
and
forth
because
of
that
switching
like
is
it
a
working
group?
Is
it
a
project?
Is
it
both?
Is
it
do
they
have
separate
names
and
so
on?
So
I
think
when
you
set
yours
up
the
things
that
cncf
will
help
with
are
a
you.
Won't
you
don't
need
a
a
mailing.
C
You
shouldn't
need
a
a
cncf
mailing
list
for
the
working
group
generally
just
use
the
tag,
yeah
the
tag
and
what
one
of
the
the
things
that
I
do,
or
that
we
do
and
said
that
we
were
going
to
do,
and
we
put
that
on.
Our
readme,
for
the
working
group
is
when
we
use
the
tag,
app
delivery,
mailing
list
for
working
group
related
things
we
just
prefix
it
with
brackets,
like
github
wg.
C
Just
the
same,
we
noticed
that
one
of
the
other
working
groups
did
that
on
the
mailing
list
and
we
were
just
like.
Let's
do
that
and
it
seems
to
be.
You
know
one
of
those
very
informal
things
that
you
can
do.
B
C
Well,
this
is
really
whatever's
been
most
beneficial
to
you.
There's
there's
a
few
other
things
that
I
might
yeah.
Why.
C
C
Okay,
cool,
okay,
yeah,
so
I
think
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
cover
is
is
really
just
some
of
some
of
the
logistics
about
how
sort
of
point
a
to
point
b
and
like
where,
at
least
in
my
experience,
putting
the
card
before
the
horse
made
extra
work.
C
So
you
could
switch
that
around.
You
know
for
your
your
case
and
some
of
the
tips,
some
of
the
things
that
we
did
for
specifically
for
our
governance.
That
I
think
was
very
helpful
and
not
just.
I
think
that
that
the
the
working
group
and
folks
from
the
cncf
and
other
people
have
thought
seems
seem
to
think
is
very
helpful,
because
I
know
that
they're
pointing
people
to
our
governance
as
a
good
example.
We
try
to.
We
try
to
make
it
that
way
and
that's.
C
I
don't
wanna
say
problems
it
just
it
just
caused
extra
work.
It
was
more
like
a
sketch
pad
in
a
way
or
a
place
to
put
things,
and
it
wasn't
clearly
delineated
what
which
should
be
which
and
that's
partly
because
they
have
the
same
name
at
first
and
so
on.
So
I
think
with
you
with
yours.
It
won't.
C
You
can
avoid
that
altogether
by
by
stating
very
clearly
that
the
working
group
has
a
set
of
goals
and-
or
you
could
even
say,
the
working
group
has
a
charter
just
to
really
clarify
what
it's
for.
What's
in
scope,
what's
out
of
scope,
how
to
get
involved,
who's
who's
part
of
it.
What
your
alignment
is
within
the
tag
and
with
other
tags
and
then.
C
Yeah
and
just
save
the
governance
doc
a
document
to
specify
governance,
save
that
until
the
working
group
is
actually
putting
together,
the
the
checklist
of
things
to
do
to
to
to
create
to
create
the
the
project.
So.
B
No,
I
guess
this
says
this.
Let's
get
into
that
question,
I
was
mentioning
so
once
we
create
this
this
project
and
it
has
its
own.
You
know
its
own
legs.
What's
the
relationship
between
that
and
the
cncf,
if
any
right,
like.
C
If
the
project
is
translated
into
yeah,
the
project
is
accepted
into
as
a
cnc
inbox
project.
Then
then,
the
relationship
is
like
any
other
cncf
sandbox
project
that
there
are
many
more
sandbox
projects
than
well.
I
guess
we'll
see,
but
the
idea
is
that
there
can
be
many
more
sandbox
projects
than
make
it
to
the
incubation
stage
right.
B
B
But
but
you
know
I
don't
know
if
you've
seen
the
dark,
but
but
the
basic
idea
was
we
went,
I
kind
of
went
through
our
charter
and
and
and
our
mission
statement
for
the
tag,
and
it's
in
that
the
bottom
of
that
dock,
and
I
just
bolded
all
the
things
that
I
thought
this
idea,
this
observates
site
and
and
project
could
help
further.
So
in
that
way,
it's
you
know
it
it's
something
that
is
within
the
umbrella.
B
Within
the
mandate
of
the
tag,
but
you
know
is,
I
think,
if
the
tag
launches
it
and
it
lives
by
itself
like
the
tag,
has
been
successful
in
its
mission
to
do
things
of
this
ilk
right
and
so
so
the
idea
is
like
you
know,
you
come
to
a
site,
observe
case
dot
io
the
dot
dev
would
might
be
in
parallel,
but
it's
specifically
aimed
at
developers.
The
io
is
aimed
at
whoever
right
and-
and
maybe
the
first
thing
you'll
see-
is
some
representation
of
you
visiting
the
web
server.
B
That's
serving
the
page
you
just
looked
at,
and
then
you
can
see
how
that
web
server
is
hosted,
atop,
kubernetes
and
then
kind
of
use
that,
as
a
doorway
in
to
see
what
else
is
hosted
like
here's,
some
machine
learning
workloads
here
so
database
workload.
Here's
you
know-
and
I
just
wanted
to
leave
it
at
that
and
see
what
other
people
kind
of
came
up
with.
You
know
whether
it's
ux
and
interesting,
ui,
stuff
or
a
site
that
is
a
normal
site.
But
if
you
come
in
with
ar
glasses,
maybe
more
happens
right.
B
B
You
know,
there's
a
huge
opportunity
to
to
innovate
here
and
make
it
attractive
for
others
to
come
in,
and
so
we
started
enumerating
a
set
of
other
other
workloads
other
than
the
web
server
serving
out,
observe
k8.o
right,
and
I
think
we
could
do
some
really
cool
ux
stuff,
but
I
didn't
want
to
be
too
authoritarian,
but
now
that
it's
been
a
couple
of
months
and
as
you
had
predicted,
you
know
we
made
a
doc
and,
like
you
know,
two
or
three
people
have
showed
up
to
join
me
in
this.
B
You
know
of
the
700
in
our
slack
channel
right
and
we've
started
to
flesh
out
what
it
might
look
like
now
that
I
see
that
it's
probably
going
to
be
a
pretty
small
set
until
it's
not
some
other
ideas
I
had
around
the
ux,
for
it
might
be
like
you
know,
there's
so
many
different
tools
in
many
cases
to
do
the
same,
functional
thing
and
that's
okay,
the
cncf
is
meant
to
foster
this
ecosystem,
but
perhaps
like
a
slide
up
from
the
bottom,
or
something
or
slide
up
out
to
the
right
side.
B
That
has
like
things
that
you
want
to
keep
track
of
so
like
as
you're
exploring
the
10
different
projects
and
the
five
different
ways.
You
know
that
you
can
look
at
and
you
can
observe
them
using
different,
tooling,
that's
part
of
the
cncf
umbrella.
Maybe
you
want
to
keep
like
bookmarks
and
you
have
like
a.
B
I
don't
know,
just
something
interactive
that
is
engaging,
I'm
not
a
front-end
person.
So
it's
okay,
like
a
plumber
trying
to
like
you
know,
give
advice
on
on
what
fixtures
would
look
best
in
a
room.
I
have
no
idea,
but
I
know
that
there
are
people
who
do
and
we
want
to
attract
those
people.
So.
C
That
makes
sense-
I
didn't
read
all
of
this
document
yet,
but
I
was
skimming
over
it
while,
while
I
was
also
listening
to
you
talking
like
80
percent,
let
my
attention
on
you
20.
C
B
Been
keeping
notes
in
the
same
thing,
but.
B
But
but
yeah
I
mean
again
like
we
saw
what
was
happening
with
the
good
ops
working
group
and
I
think
I
had
assumed
that
we
had
to
have
something
extremely
well
formed
before
we
could
take
it
to
the
toc
for
a
vote
so
that
they
knew
what
they
were
voting
on.
But
then
I've
had
other
people
kind
of
say.
All
you
need
is
an
idea
and
some
hope
you
know,
and
just
do
it
and
they'll
say
yes.
So
somewhere
between
those
is
is
the
truth.
B
C
Link,
you
just
give
me
one
second
here
there
we
go,
it
is
called
oh
wait.
No.
C
I
knew
where
to
find
it
when
it
was
under
cigs
I'll
have
to
look
I'll,
have
to
look
for,
but
there's
a
statement
that
describes
what
I
had
mentioned
about
the
short-lived
nature
of
working
groups
and
the
purpose
of
them
and
their
alignment
with
tags
that
they're
part
of
technical
advisory
groups
uniformly
stigs,
and
that
is,
as
far
as
I
know,
the
only
place
where,
where
the
requirements
are
actually
set
forth,
okay,
so
we
can
find
that
and
look
at
that,
but
I
I
do
think
that
you've
already
you
you
all-
have
already
done
the
work
to
create
what
you
would
need
for
a
charter.
B
You
were
going
to
do
what
you
had
suggested
like
like
at
some
point,
and
I
get
maybe
it's
now
based
on
this
feedback.
I
will
mark
downify
it.
You
know
and
put
it
into
our
repo.
But
what's
still
a
little
unclear
is,
if
you
look
at
the
definition
of
tags
in
the
toc
repo,
like
there's,
there's
an
implication
that
the
toc
approves
and-
and
you
know
agrees-
that
a
working
group
should
exist
and
agrees
on
what
the
outputs
are.
But
there's
no.
C
Just
proceeded
yeah,
yeah
yeah.
I
think
it's
a
good
faith
thing.
You
know
that
you're
that
were
you
know
that,
like
these
processes
are
getting
better
and
better
over
a
year,
I'll
tell
you
what
like,
when,
when
helm
broke
out
from
or
broke
into,
accept,
not
broke,
became
a
separate
project
outside
of
the
kubernetes.
B
Been
my
yeah,
and
so
so
we
actually
talked
about
this
last
time
we
met.
You
know
the
working
group
with
all
four
of
us
and
we
just
all
agreed
that
like
if
there
is
a
process,
is
there
if
there
is
a
formal
thing,
we
would
much
rather
engage
with
it
with
something
already
in
motion
so
that
it's
not
you
know,
because
otherwise
we're
aware
nothing
would
happen
till
the
summer
right.
We
would
just
like
dinner
and
dinner
and
dinner
so
yeah,
that's
what
we're
gonna
do.
So
you.
C
Know
one
thing:
one
thing
I'd
say
that
worked
well,
that
I
would
I
would
recommend
repeating,
is
you
know
you
don't
have
like
what
you're
doing
now
with
these
google
docs
is
a
good.
It's
a
good
thing.
There's
a
working!
You
have
a
working
doc.
I'd
say:
make
make
a
a
work
in
progress
charter.
A
B
A
little
later
on
this
week,
the
google
doc
was
nice,
though,
because
we
could
have
threaded
conversations
and
it's
sort
of
like
a
lower
barrier
to
entry
and
it's
not
on
everyone's
permanent
github
record
and
all
of
that
so
right.
C
I
tried
to
do
the
same
thing
when
it
came
to
governance,
so
I
reached
out
to
a
bunch
of
different
to
different
projects,
people
that
were
involved
in
projects
that
I
I
knew
and
I
or
that
I
didn't
know
yet
and
just
wanted
to
try
to
understand
what
worked,
what
didn't
etc.
So
I
think
you're
doing
I
just
from
my
point
of
view
you're
doing
a
good
thing
by
trying
to
be
very
interoperable
and
sorry
collaborative
and
have
some
cross-pollination
between
these
groups
and
tags
yeah.
It.
B
Occurs
to
me
too,
this
is
completely
random
and
off
topic
sort
of,
but
it
is
germane.
I
had
an
action
item
like
a
month
or
two
ago
to
go,
make
a
couple
issues
and
get
in
the
app
deploy
repo
to
suggest
one.
A
change
to
the
charter
to
say,
observability
and
app
deploy
are
related
observability
as
an
interested
in
party.
I
think
there's
that,
and
then
there
was
something
else
that
we've
actually
talked
about
weirdly
in
this
github's
working
group,
but
it's
not
specific
to
that.
B
Not
I'm
sorry,
the
observed
k8
working
group-
and
I
think,
there's
this
broad
agreement
that
if
we
had
something
like
open
metrics
for
deployments
or
stateful
changes
to
production
environments,
you
know
this
kind
of
that.
That's
an
open
standard,
particularly
as
get
ops
plus
full
automation.
You
know
get
ops
get
ups
particularly,
can
really
help
with
regulated
environments
and
compliance
and
whatnot.
B
So
I
think
there's
both
the
industry
need
for
it.
I
think
the
cncf
would
care
about
it
because
it
would
foster
an
ecosystem
of
interoperable
tools,
but
in
the
context
of
hey,
how
do
we
show
people
stuff?
You
know
one
of
the
things
we
came
across
is
like
well,
how
do
we
know
when
deployments
happen
and
what
what
they
were
and
and
and
so
you
know
there
were
some-
there
were
some
thought
that
we
should
make
like
an
api
like
an
actual
kubernetes
api,
or
something
like
that.
B
I
I
personally
think
that
just
a
data
format
like
you
know,
openmetrics
is
not
an
api.
It's
a
wired
format
that
just
says
it's
structured
like
this
and
apis
might
expose
it
or
not,
but
that
might
make
it
the
broadest
possible
thing
and
and
also
make
it
something
that
could
eventually
be
an
rfc
at.
C
That
makes
sense
well
when,
when
you
make
so,
I
would
say
when
you
make
if
you
want
to
look
at
and
if
you
want
to
look
at
the
getups
working
group
charter
for
inspiration,
the
one
that's
in
the
app
delivery
tag
at
that
link
below
or
that
link
up
above.
B
Right
so
that
was
all
going
to
a
question.
Is
the
genops
working
group
actually
engaged
in
having
that
as
a
work
stream,
or
is
it
more
about
what
are
the
principles
of
get
ops
and
you're
not
actually
trying
to
make
an
open
standard
come
out
of
that.
B
Oh,
you
know
what
the
recording
is
going
to
auto
stop
pretty
darn
soon
it's
like
a
the
cncf
schedules,
it
for
50
minutes
and
like
52
or
something
it
just
the
recording
drops.
So
maybe
we
should
call
it
here
and
I
can
follow
up
with
you
on
that
last
question
because
again
it's
not
really
germaine
to
this,
and
I
I
I
and
I.
C
I
would
say
I
would
say
like
in
a
two
second
version
is,
is
describe
the
word
products
that
that
are
required
for
this
group
that
you
really
think
are
very
important
and
any
other
ideas
on
top
of
that.
Don't
put
in
your
list
of
work
products
in
your
charter
make
that
something
that
you
can
divide
together
as
a
group
but
okay,
yeah,
okay,.
B
Well,
thank
you
again
before
we
drop
off,
maybe
we
can.
We
can
close
it
with
grace.
Thanks
for
having
this,
I
guess
what
turned
into
an
interview
versus
this
is
a
discussion
with
more
than
two
people,
but
again,
I
think
some
other
folks
said
that
they
were
going
to
look
at
the
recording.
So
thanks
again
for
for
your
for
your
guidance
and
and
whatnot.