►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting - 2018-02-06
Description
Join us for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon in Barcelona May 20 - 23, Shanghai June 24 - 26, and San Diego November 18 - 21! Learn more at https://kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects.
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
D
D
F
Okay,
let
me
go
ahead
and
kick
off.
The
meeting.
Folks
should
have
the
slides
open
for
February
six
I,
just
pasted
them
into
the
window,
and
at
our
could
you
please
share
your
screen
so
that
folks
can
see
the
slides
if
they,
if
they
want
to
I'm.
Just
gonna,
make
one
request
here
at
the
beginning
of
our
call,
which
is
well
first
of
all,
just
a
reminder
that
everything
CN
CF
related
operates
under
a
code
of
conduct,
but
just
more
generally
I
won't
be
shocked.
F
If
some
conversation
here
gets
a
little
heated,
I
would
request
upfront
that
everybody
just
interact
in
a
respectful
and
obsess
collegial
way
and
I
will
say
that
one
of
the
advantages
of
CN
CF
is
that
we're
only
two
years
old
and
so
a
lot
of
our
structure
and
organization
such
was
put
together
as
a
best
guess
as
to
what
would
work
well,
but
absolutely
none
of
it
is
set
in
stone.
Everything
about
CN
CF
can
be
changed
essentially
with
either
six
votes
out
of
the
nine
of
the
TOC
or
for
a
smaller
subset
of
things.
F
A
majority
of
the
governing
board.
So
with
that
I
will
hand
it
over
to
Alexis,
if
you
don't
mind
leading
the
leading
today,.
A
F
C
F
We
definitely
don't
Bryant,
the
TC
gets
to
choose
how
to
do
it.
The
governing
board
there's
a
whole
like
very
detailed
process
on
on
that's
written
out
in
the
Charter,
but
CNCs
staff
is
very
happy
to
run
an
election
for
you.
We
would
just
do
it
via
sieve,
which
is
how
we
do
all
of
our
elections
and
people
use
the
Rankin
Dorset
voting,
but
I
actually
wasn't
here.
For
the
previous
time.
Maybe
Alexis
can
say
how
you
guys
picked
elects
how
you
pick
Brian
and
Solomon.
A
C
Sorry
Chris
can
remind
us,
went
using
easy
from
from
what
I
recall
there
was.
There
were
emails
with
BIOS
sent,
and
you
know
the
elections.
I
didn't
talk
to
the
TOC
one
time
and
then
there
were
elections.
I
didn't
participate
in
that,
obviously,
but
there
there
was
at
least
I.
Think
like
a
roster
of
candidates
or
something
I.
Don't
I
don't
know
if
we
need
an
excessive
number
of
candidates
for
this
collection,
but
it'd
probably
be
useful
to
decide
for
this
and
for
future
elections.
Okay,.
F
Well,
I
think
the
key
thing
Brian
is
is
I'm,
not
sure
that
Solomon
is
gonna,
rename
innate
himself
to
run
again,
and
so,
if
he
doesn't,
then
I
presume
the
TOC
would
like
folks
to
put
their
names
forward.
But
just
to
be
clear
that
I
mean
the
to
see,
could
also
ask
people
to
put
their
names
forward.
Is.
H
F
F
C
F
A
A
I
think
it
probably
is,
but
I
think
we
need
to
make
its
lowest
state
as
much
much
clearer
than
than
we've
got
as
far
as
saying
last
last
time.
So
this
is
what
I
want
to
discuss
today
and
already
I
think
on
the
public
list.
Camille
suggested,
for
example,
that
we
adopt
some
of
the
methodology
of
Apache
with
their
incubation
status,
for
these
very
young
projects.
I
think
also.
We
need
to
come
up
with
some
much
clearer
guidelines
for
the
marketing
team
in
terms
of
what
the
TOC
feel
is
the
status
of
an
inception
project.
A
Some,
what
goes
into
that
press
release
or
important
considerations?
You
know
we
don't
I,
think
that
somebody
need
please
stop
typing
or
go
on
mute,
whoever
that
is
if
there
is
a
press
release.
You
know
that
should
message
the
correct
status
of
the
project
and
it
should
describe
the
project
very
carefully.
Otherwise,
we
have
a
danger
of
over
humming
and
the
subsequent
costs
of
that
which
have
already
been
felt
by
many
people
and
there's
been
actually
quite
a
lot
of
upset,
which
is
not
great,
so
I'm,
not
quite
sure,
exactly
yeah.
A
A
So
my
first
question
for
the
TOC
is:
if
we
start
graduating
projects,
do
we
still
need
inception,
because
at
that
point,
incubation
will
be
clearly
demarcated
from
inception
as
a
sort
of
starting
point
for
certain
types
of
projects
that
already
have
recently
significant
numbers
of
users-
and
you
know
github
stars
or
whatever
you
care
about
following.
Does
anyone
have
any
strong
thoughts
on
this
that
we
should
listen
to?
First.
C
Well,
this
is
Brian
I.
Think
inception
does
could
potentially
fill
a
valuable
place
which,
for
these
early-stage
projects
that
do
want
a
neutral
home
for
collaboration
amongst
many
companies.
The
incubation
bar
requires
production
usage
and,
as
we've
seen
in
some
other
cases,
you
know
projects
at
the
very
early
stage.
Mari
I
may
that
I
choose
another
foundation
or
you
know
even
worse.
They
may
not
actually
get
enough
traction
I
mean
if
they
are
track
getting
a
lot
of
participation.
A
B
B
Is
it
peers
to
be,
and,
and
Brian
are
one
of
you
who
works
for
one
of
these
companies
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
you
know
there
are
companies
like
maybe
like
a
Google
and
Microsoft
or
IBM
or
whatever,
that
don't
feel
comfortable
having
developers
working
on
open
source
projects
in
a
collaborative
fashion
that
aren't
in
some
kind
of
foundation,
but
that
that
is
an
impression
that
I've
gotten
the
concern
that
I
have.
So
if
that
is
a
legitimate
thing,
that's
happening,
I
would
like
for
us
to
be
able
to.
B
B
You
know
thousand
pound
gorilla
companies
that
are
in
since
yes,
partly
because
they
actually
need
that
foundation,
protection
to
collaborate
at
all-
and
you
know-
and
it
sort
of
starts
to
seem
like
everything
legit
is
coming
out
of
us.
Even
at
these,
like
very,
very
you
know,
small
stages,
and
it
is,
it
does
make
me
worried
right.
It
makes
me
worried.
B
It
makes
me
understand
why
people
want
to
get
in
as
early
as
possible,
but
I
think
a
lot
of
the
things
that
we've
you
know
had
up
for
vote
to
join
inception
are
like
sketches
of
an
idea.
It
feels
like,
and
maybe
not
quite
like
a
real
thing.
Yet
not
you
know,
I
think
Cordy,
Anna,
Sandlin,
cardi
and
rook
frankly
are
all
good
projects
and
I
voted
for
them,
and
you
know,
but
but
I.
This
is
my
concern.
Is
that
we've
created
an
impossible
situation
for
ourselves,
because
we
kind
of
need
this
to
help.
B
I
Agree
with
what
you
just
said
and
I
think
like
I
mean
now
that
I
work
for
a
big
company,
it's
different
but
also
like
I,
saw
the
world
from
know.
Like
you
know,
the
big
people
are
trying
to
crush
us
kind
of
way,
and
that
is
like
a
legitimate
concern,
I
believe
for
startups
and
stuff,
but
I
think
that
right
now,
what's
happening
is
it's
being
gamed
like
people
are
like
gaming,
this
system
so
that
they
can
get
in
and
then
get
be
like
vetted
miss
of
the
CNCs
yeah.
B
So
I'm
not
I'm,
not
sure
how
we
I'm
not
sure
how
we
have
a
have
a
have
an
area
unless
we
are
really
very
much
like
there
is
no.
You
know
there
is
no
sponsorship.
There
is
no
advocacy,
there
is
no
press
releases.
This
is
a
you
know.
This
is
kind
of
a
place
where
we
want
to
let
people
safely
collaborate
and
therefore
we
have
this
kind
of
sandbox
inception
place,
but
that's
all
you
get
from
it.
It's
kind
of
this
safe.
You
know
whatever
trademark
popular
I,
don't
know.
G
E
E
A
G
J
A
It's
very
quickly
just
one
of
his
response
to
to
Quentin.
We
do
already
have
the
concept
of
pruning
projects,
even
from
incubation,
although
that
is
more
extreme
and
I.
It's
been
made
the
point
of
it
made
that
had
already
done
so
perhaps
some
of
the
misunderstanding
around
the
inception
share
would
be
less,
but
I
do
believe
that
we
should
be
more
proactive
about
bringing
projects,
maybe
do
so
more
frequently
and
make
it
a
lot
clearer
and
that's
happening
so
I
agree.
B
B
You
know
it's
it's
hard
to
reject
a
thing
that
isn't
completely
abandoned,
so
I
I
am
NOT.
I,
don't
have
a
ton
of
faith
that
we
would
that
we
would
frankly
exactly
it
would
even
be
like
I
think
we
weren't
spend
most
of
our
time
on
worrying
about
pruning
projects
out
like
I
I'm,
actually
a
much
more
in
favor
of
letting
a
lot
more
stuff
in
and
saying,
look
we're
gonna!
Let
a
lot
more
stuff
in
and
we're
gonna
make
it
much
less
of
a
voting
process,
much
less
of
a
public.
B
Do
you
want
to
put
some
stuff
in
a
sandbox,
and
you
know
whatever
then
great
go
for
it.
You
know
will
provide
some
some
of
support,
but
perhaps
not
that
much
support.
I
actually
think.
That's
a
better
I
think
that's
a
better
path
forward
for
us.
Then
then,
pretending
like
we're
going
to
do
a
thing
which
I
just
think
is
unlikely
for
us
to
do
based
on
everything,
I
know
about
way
people
act,
which
is
that
we
would
kick
a
lot
of
projects
out
so.
D
B
D
C
K
So
one
does
that
sound
alike
from
core
DNS.
So
as
a
maintainer
of
an
inception
level,
project
I
mean
one
thing
about
broadening
that
there
are
it's
not
just
marketing
that
licencias
provides
so
like
one
of
the
things
we
we
use
pretty
extensively
as
we
have
access
to
the
packet
dot
IO
for
that's
where
we
run
our
CI
and
things
like
that
and
that's
all
funded
by
the
CNC
F.
And
how
would
those
sort
of
resources
be
shared
and
maybe
that's
more
a
question
for
Dan.
K
F
Good
question,
and
just
by
the
way
it's
actually
packet
is
contributing
those
resources,
so
we're
not
we're
not
paying
for
them.
So
we're
very
appreciative
that,
and
that
program
actually
right
now,
which
we
call
the
community
infrastructure
lab,
is
available
to
any
open
source
project
that
goes
and
request
it.
The
it's
on
our
homepage,
community,
community
infrastructure,
lab
and
so
as
of
right
now,
there's
plenty
of
server
resources
available
for
dozens
of
new
projects
to
come
in
and
use
it.
F
The
idea
has
always
been
that
we
would
prioritize
the
graduated
and
then
the
incubating
and
then
projects
and
then,
but
but
as
of
right
now,
there's
no
scarcity
but,
and
the
other
piece
I'll
just
add,
is
I.
Think
what
we're
talking
about,
or
possibly
talking
about
is
explicit
is
saying
that
all
CNC
of
services
would
be
available
to
the
sandbox
layer,
but
not
the
marketing
ones,
and
we
would
really
need
to
be
more
specific
about
that.
F
I
mean
we
presume
we
would
want
to
have
a
sandbox
page
on
the
webpage,
which
would
not
be
on
the
home
page,
where
we
would
list
those
those
logos
and
and
describe
the
projects
and
such
and
then
we
would
need
to
talk
about
whether
we
would
be
giving
those
companies
the
chance,
like
kubernetes
SIG's
right
now,
can
have
a
session
at
Kubek
on
whether
those
sandbox
projects
can
all
those
pieces
would
need
to.
We
would
need
to
shakeout
right.
A
F
E
C
I
think
part
of
the
endorsement
concern
does
come
form
from
things
like
CNCs
press
releases
and
interviews
when
the
project
is
inducted
the
putting
putting
the
projects
on
stage
at
cube
con.
You
know
I
think
if
we
just
cut
that
down
and
just
say,
look
they're,
not
on
CN
CF
dot.
Oh,
we
have
a
github
page
somewhere
that
links
all
the
orgs
for
all
the
sandbox
projects.
C
They
have
a
lighter-weight
process
in
a
lower
bar
for
projects
to
get
in
there's
some
amount
of
letting
to
make
sure
it
sort
of
fits
with
the
right
direction,
but
they
have
to
you
know
if
they
want
to
become
actual
go
into
incubation,
they
have
to
go
through
the
regular
proposal
and
diligence
process.
I
think
that
seems
worth
a
try.
I,
don't
know
that's
who?
F
Would
be
really
hesitant
to
say
no,
that
everyone's
allowed
in
I
mean
there's
77
million
repos
on
github
yeah.
In
reality,
it
does
take
staff
time
just
to
respond
to
Service,
Desk
requests
and
just
simple
small
things,
and
so
a
alternative
proposal
to
three
sponsors
on
the
TOC
would
be
one
sponsor
on
the
TOC
and
I.
J
Yeah
I
think
this
there's
a
very
important
aspect
here,
that
we
must
never
look,
which
is
the
branding
side
of
it,
and
that
kind
of
goes
both
ways.
So
whether
we
call
these
sandbox
or
inception
projects,
they
still
in
some
way
associated
with
CN
CF
and
the
CN
CF
has
a
brand
to
to
kind
of
uphold,
and
so
we
do.
We
absolutely
need
to
have
some
bar,
otherwise
that
brand
will
I'm
be
come
with
us.
It
is
not
at
the
moment.
E
L
So
I
on
a
from
an
implementation
point
of
view.
If
we're
going
to
drop
all
marketing
and
I
think
it
might
be
wise
for
us
to
first
list
exactly
what
we
define
as
marketing,
because
there
could
be
some
things
in
there
which
had
just
just
sort
of
essential
to
the
functioning
and
making
sure
that
people
are
aware
of
the
activities
we're
doing
with
these
projects
that
other
people
in
the
TOC
may
see
as
marketing.
L
A
Okay,
so
I
think
I
want
to
thank
everybody
for
their
contributions
today.
Dan,
would
you
mind
finding
somebody
in
your
team
to
take
notes
in
the
chat
window
and
turn
them
into
a
Google
Doc
or
something
on
github
in
the
form
of
a
proposal
for
a
sandboxed
here
to
replace
inception.
F
Yeah
that
sounds
fine,
so
I
will
take
responsibility
for
that
proposal
along
with
Chris
when
he
gets
off
at
the
air
and
will
definitely
have
you
know
some
brackets
or
areas
to
discuss,
but
I
think
from
here.
We
can
take
it
to
a
Google
Doc
and
the
mailing
list
and
check
in
again
at
our
next
meeting.
Thank.
A
You
so
there's
another
topic
on
this
slide
which
we
haven't
covered
and
want
to
cover
today,
which
is
the
concept
of
more
mature
or
stable
or
slower
moving
projects.
This
came
up
in
Austin
during
the
TOC
meeting.
There
was
a
discussion
about
projects
like
EDD,
which
are
separate
projects
which
are
used
within
Cuba
Nettie's
and
other
larger
projects
and
I'm,
not
not
necessarily
evolving
new
features
very
quickly,
nor
being
treated
as
kind
of
project
sort
of
products
on
their
own
trajectory
to
a
long-term
standalone
success.
Please
can
you
go
back
from
this
slide.
A
Thank
you
back
to
the
e.
Yes
one
thank
you
project
tearing
things,
and
you
know
I
think
that.
So
this
is
a
good
idea
that
we
could
label
projects
as
being
slower.
Moving
Camille
I
think
you
were
potentially
willing
to
I.
Don't
know
act
as
a
sponsor
for
this
idea
as
well.
There
is,
there
is
a
sketch
of
how
it
might
work
below
the
fold
in
the
slides,
I
think
it's
essentially
just
a
label
on
a
project
but
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
the
right
thing.
What
are
people's
thoughts
on
this.
B
B
It
should
not
be
expected
to
be
feature
churning
machines
that
you
know,
for
whatever
reason
they
are
at
a
point
of
stability
or
they
are
just
sensitive
enough
that
they
don't
change
that
quickly,
and
you
know
they
don't
necessarily
have
a
humongous
group
of
active
contributors,
but
we
want
to
provide
them
a
stable
home
and
support
and
I
think
you
know,
I.
Don't
think
this
should
be
a
totally
common
thing
for
us
to
have,
but
I
would
you
know
I
would
hate
to
orphan
critical
pieces
of
infrastructure
because
you
know
they
don't
meet.
B
I
forget
why
exactly
we
we
we
got
to
that.
Obviously,
I
wasn't
looking
at
it.
When
we
had
the
discussion.
Brian
and
I
were
discussing
it.
So
maybe
he
remembers
some
more
details.
It
I
feel
like
it
was
partially
partially
some
of
the
concern,
which
is
the
the
relative
few
committers.
There
are
on
the
project,
yeah.
C
We
have
language
in
the
principles
document
about
what
kinds
of
projects
we're
looking
for
in
terms
of
high
velocity,
growing,
etc
and
sed
didn't
seem
to
match
the
spirit
of
of
that,
at
least
like
in
terms
of
a
dot
user
adoption.
Just
just
as
one
example.
I,
don't
know
that
it
needs
to
necessarily
a
goal
to
get
zillions
of
more
direct
users
of
at
CDs,
since
it
is
a
critical
component
to
to
kubernetes
into
other
current
sets
of
users
and
yeah.
C
The
the
small
number
of
maintainer
x'
was
a
concern,
although
we
are
trying
to
address
that
of
course,
but
you
know
it
doesn't
need
to
necessarily
grow
the
dozens
or
hundreds
of
contributors
in
the
same
way
that
kubernetes
has
tried
to
do.
You
need
high
quality
contributors
who
actually
deeply
understand
distributed
systems
so
does
feel
like
it
is
kind
of
a
different
point
in
the
spectrum
in
terms
of
what
the
projects
needs
are
and
its
trajectory
in
terms
of
where
it
needs
to
go.
F
Obviously
we're
open
to
revising
any
of
the
guidelines,
but
I
I'm,
not
it
seems
like
this
is
already
taken
into
account
when
the
TFC
evaluates
a
project,
that
the
sed
being
the
exact
example
of
something
that
nobody
wants
to
have
tons
of
features,
attitude
and
and
presumably
container
D
as
well.
There'd,
be
some
aspiration
that
it'll
reach
stability
and
then
slow
down
dramatically,
and
that
new
development
would
would
take
place
at
other
layers.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
actually
going
to
suggest
that
we
stop
the
discussion
for
today
on
this.
Let
people
go
and
think
about.
It
will
renew
it
another
day
if
you
could
ask
Chris
to
make
sure
that
that
happens.
Let's
move
on
to
the
other
topics
for
the
day,
so
you
can
wrap
very
quickly.
This
is
just
a
reminder
on
project
health,
Chris
and
I
are
trying
to
gather
some
TOC
contributors
to
help
us
do:
project
health
checks
and
other
reviews.
Please
email,
press
and
me
if
you
want
to
be
one
of
those
people.
A
C
90%
of
it,
sounded
like
what
is
cloud
native
and
they
were
trying
to
define
that
and
I
went
back
to
look
at
the
definition
in
the
Charter
and
it
seemed
very
kubernetes
specific.
It
talked
about
containers,
dynamic
scheduling
and
micro
services,
which
seemed
particularly
I'm
helpful
for
evaluating
other
projects,
especially
if
we
want
to
do
things
like
lower
the
bar
for
inception,
we're
still
going
to
need
sort
of
a
rubric
for
deciding
what
cloud
native
you
know
whether
our
project
fits
with
the
cloud
native
mission
or
not.
C
The
diligence
guidelines
that
we
came
up
with
didn't
really
cover
this
in
depth
either
so
I
have
what's
shown
here.
Are
the
points
from
the
second
draft.
There
there's
a
third
draft
now,
but
the
things
to
just
in
garrison
for
helping
and
propose
most
of
these
points,
but
trying
to
come
up
with
attributes,
for
that
would
be
engineered
into
a
system
in
order
for
it
to
sort
of
qualify.
As
cloud
native
coming
out
of
the
discussion,
there
also
means
about.
C
Well,
maybe
we
still
need
some
examples
like
we
can
use
containers
and
micro
services
as
examples
of
things
that
would
be
considered
cloud
native
or
other
sorts
of
approaches
like
declarative,
api's
or
other
specific
technologies
would
be
useful
to
help
clarify
it's
hard
to
get
a
really
clear,
accurate,
precise
definition.
That's
also
concise,
so
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
balance
it
a
little
bit
with.
C
So
as
far
as
where
to
go
next
with
this,
there
is
a
document
which
I
can
paste
into
the
chat
in
just
a
second,
and
there
is
an
email
thread
so
either
a
comment
on
the
document
or
reply
in
the
email
thread
and
we'll
try
to
come
to
agreement
on
something
concise
and
then
maybe
we
can
start
working
on
the
longer
form
with
additional
details.
There
I
my
understanding
that
there
are
a
number
of
charter
updates,
potentially
that
we
may
want
to
make.
F
Hey
Brian,
this
is
all
I'm,
very
supportive
of
it,
and
we're
ready
to
immediately
change
the
CN
CF
marketing
in
terms
of
you
know,
what's
on
the
home
page
and
their
slide
decks
and
such,
but
all
things
being
equal
I,
would
think,
encourage
the
TOC
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
GB
to
just
eliminate
Appendix
A
I
mean
the
context
here
is
that
a
very
small
group
of
people
wrote
and
X
in
mid-2015
when
they
were
trying
to
kick
this
off.
F
When
cloud
native
didn't
have
a
clear
understanding-
and
you
know,
things
were
just
way
way
bigger
than
they
were
today
and
so
I'm,
just
not
sure
that
we
want
to
have
a
complicated
bureaucratic
process
for
amending
that
in
the
future.
It
seems
like
it
might
be
easier
to
just
eliminate
it
from
the
Charter
and
then
the
TOC
can
have
a
document
which
you
know
maybe
try
and
update
once
a
year
or
something
where
it
lays
out.
What
what
you
currently
believe
a
cloud
native
represents
I
like.
A
F
C
And
so
the
election
details
were
clarified.
I
still
think
that
the
language
in
the
Charter
is
fairly
confusing.
I,
don't
know
if
we
want
to
bother
updating
that
or
also
just
remove
that
to
a
separate
document
or
leave
it,
as
is
I
would
have
to
read
the
Charter
again
to
point
out
specific
things
that
could
be
changed,
but
it
is
I,
don't
know,
maybe
the
documents
of
historical
interest,
but
it's
like
as
a
whole
I
find
the
document.
So
it's
somewhat
confusing
so.
F
I
do
as
well
Brian
it
and
I
want
to
make
the
claim
that
I
did
not
write
the
Charter
and
have
no
allegiance
to
it.
But
if
the
election
was
a
specific
example,
we're
trying
to
pull
all
the
information
from
the
Charter
to
create
that
election
document
was
tedious
and
confusing,
but
I
believe
treating
those
specific
dates
in
the
schedule,
and
everything
is
completely
consistent
with
the
Charter
and
that
by
getting
both
the
TOC
and
the
governing
board
to
sign
off
on
it
to
agree
that
this
was
the
path
forward.
F
C
F
In
embed
stand
easy
I
mean
that
we
can
just
change
that
going
forward,
and
so
we
already
have
the
QC
principles
document
which
we
went
through
this
process
on.
So
we
can
start
highlighting
that
and
then
whatever
we
call
this
new
doc
of
the
cloud
native
definition
or
cloud
native
principles.
Something
like
that
great.
So.
A
That's
a
great
strategy.
We
can
take
bits
out
of
the
Charter,
replace
them
and
better
stuff
in
chunks
over
time,
and
this
will
be
the
next
piece
so
in
terms
of
next
steps
on
this
document,
knowing
that
Brian
often
volunteers
for
things
while
being
very
busy,
would
it
be
possible
for
a
TOC
contributor,
perhaps
some
way,
justin
has
been
down
this
path
before
to
volunteer
to
own
or
co-own.
The
delivery
of
a
document.
B
Just
really
don't
want
this
document
to
be
designed
by
committee.
That
is
my
my
concern
with
this
is
that
it
is
starting
it's
starting
down
the
path
of
design
by
committee
where,
where
it
you
know
that
my
I
I
will
be
opinionated
on
this
one,
because
I
think
I
think
you
know
we
were
we
were.
We
were
inching
down
that
path.
B
What
cloud
native
kind
of
needs
to
look
like,
and
we
aren't
evaluating
projects
that
are
application
layer
projects
always
right,
we're
valuing
a
lot
of
infrastructure,
which
is
why
it
doesn't
always
fit
perfectly
for
us,
but
I,
just
I
do
I
do
hope.
We
can
we
can,
you
know
not
not
make
everything
good
about
software
engineering
credited
to
cloud
native
in
our
in
our
definition,
so
I'm
I
will
be,
it
will
be
involved.
What
do
you
want
me
or
not,
I
suppose
this.
C
A
Think
that's
a
plan,
so
if
anyone
else
is
a
really
really
burning
desire
to
be
part
of
that
small
group,
please
say
so
to
the
small
group
offline,
but
we'll
proceed
with
that
and
Dan.
Could
you
ask
Chris
to
table
a
recall
of
the
Green
for
sale
months
time
when
they've
had
a
chance
to
form
an
opinion.
F
C
A
That
to
Camille's
point
about
being
actionable,
it
will
be
lovely
to
see
something
where,
in
addition
to
a
set
of
properties
of
cloud
native
acidities,
there
was
a
statement
along
the
lines
of
typically.
These
are
achieved
by
you
know:
containers,
micro-services
or
something
like
that,
because
I
think
I.