►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2021-06-01
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2021-06-01
A
A
So
liz
we
have
a
full
group
today.
The
only
ones
who
didn't
make
it
across
the
line
and
that
they
might
drop
in
is
tag
observability,
but
everybody
else
has
got
something
to
say
this
morning.
So,
okay,
good.
B
B
A
B
A
We've
got
dave
on
the
line
dave.
I
wasn't
sure
if
you
wanted
to
be
able
to
add
to
the
agenda
today
where,
if
you
wanted
to
be
able
to
save
it,.
D
A
Oh
sorry,
oh
sorry,
dave
continue.
I've
got
somebody
else
like
the
aaron
is
signed
into
something
funny.
That
is
all.
A
B
E
That's
like
in
school,
with
my
first
name,
I
was
always
first
having
the
a's.
Well,
it
always
gets
me
the
first
row,
yeah
hello,
everyone,
the
update
for
tech,
app
delivery.
E
First
on
projects,
there
is
currently
two
projects
on
the
review.
One
is
cross
plane
for
incubation
and
the
other
one
that
was
submitted
was
dapper
by
microsoft.
Crossplane.
We
have
conducted
the
end
user
interviews
already.
The
due
diligence
so
far
is
already.
I
also
talked
to
harry
about
this.
We
still
feel
that
we
might
want
to
do
a
bit
more
end
user
interviews
to
see
a
bit
more
on
the
adoption
side
there.
But
overall,
the
rest
of
the
due
diligence
from
the
tag
side
is
fine.
Dapper.
E
They
just
submitted
two
days
ago,
so
honestly
didn't
get
that
time
to
look
into
the
due
diligence
document.
They
also
haven't
presented
yet
or
any
interviews
are
running
yet
so
on
presentations
we
had,
we
had
two
projects
presenting
one
was
conveyor
which
is
actually
a
collection
of
tools
for
migration
to
cloud
native
environments,
and
I
just
realized.
I
didn't
put
a
link
in
here
I'll
I'll
update
this
later
on.
It
was
an
interesting
project
at
the
very
beginning
when
we
started
with
sick
app
delivery.
E
We
always
had
this
migration
topic,
which
we
put
to
the
side
and
say
well,
it
is
kind
of
an
interesting
topic,
but
we
don't
want
to
make
it
front
and
center.
I
think
it's
still
an
interesting
collection
of
tools
that
they
have
with
conveyor
and
but
they
didn't
necessarily
want
to
apply.
It
was
just
a
presentation,
so
we
still
encourage
projects
also
to
present
to
the
wider
community
and
share
it,
even
if
they're
not
wanting
to
apply
just
these
other
attacks
do
as
well
lagoon
also
presented.
E
I
assume
that
they
want
to
go
for
sandbox
going
forward.
It's
a
delivery
platform.
It
comes
more
from
the
web
and
hosting
background,
mostly
focusing
on
web-based
environments
still
waiting
for
them.
What
they
want
to
do.
Next
again,
we
encourage
more
projects
in
the
delivery
space
to
also
actively
present
and
have
this
discussion
on
good
news
deliverables.
I
remember
this
when
we
talked
a
long
time
ago
about
what
our
operators
and
that
we
should
be
working
on
and
operate
the
white
paper.
E
So,
thanks
to
the
people
driving
the
operator
working
group,
the
white
paper
is
now
ready
for
a
public
review
with
contributions
from
a
lot
of
people.
There's
also
a
pr
available
for
comments
on
this
one.
This
was
really
a
long
time
in
the
making.
E
We
started
this
activity,
then
we
kind
of
got
stalled
where
people
got
sidetracked
and
then
thanks
to
people
who
took
took
it
on
again,
we
now
really
moved
forward
with
this.
One,
so
kill
obviously
feel
free
to
provide
more
review
on
the
white
paper.
E
Then
the
folks,
from
litmus
together
with
the
container,
a
container
chaos
project,
started
on
a
white
paper.
They
didn't
create
a
working
group
where
they
just
started
on
it
on
chaos,
engineering,
best
practices,
which
I
think
is
also
super
interesting
and
again
we
told
them
to
reach
out
to
to
other
people
as
well.
E
This
is
very
early
stage
work
there,
as
well
operator
by
paper,
I
think,
is
it
I
mean
we
have
thomas
and
the
other
folks
here
feel
free
to
have
a
look
at
it
and
we
should
share
it
with
the
wider
audience
for
a
review
on
the
working
groups.
The
plan
is
that
we
retire
retiro
dissolve
the
operator
working
group.
Once
the
white
paper
is
done,
the
goal
was
always
to
come
up
with
some
more
concise
definitions
of
what
operators
are
used
for
and
so
forth.
Once
the
white
paper
is
done.
E
That
was
small
as
the
mission
of
the
working
group.
So
once
this
is
done,
we
build
this
off
the
working
group,
so
it
should
be
a
couple
weeks
out.
Obviously
the
initial
orders
are
still
contributing
to
to
seek
f
delivery
here,
air
gap.
E
This
was
an
activity
we
started
also
a
long
time
ago
had
some
traction
in
the
beginning,
but
not
really
anymore,
so
people
are
not
actively
driving
this
forward,
so
I
also
would
retire
this
working
group
because
there's
simply
no
activity
right
now
application
enablement
working
group
there
is
a
draft
charter
for
a
proposed
new
working
group,
an
app
delivery.
E
We
are
still
struggling
a
bit
with
the
name
or,
and
so
the
idea
is
more
or
less
defining
requirements
for
environments.
Where
you
deploy
your
cloud
native
applications,
it's
still
early
in
an
early
draft
stage,
I'll
keep
you
updated
as
this
commences.
I
think
once
you
read
it
the
the
overall
idea,
what
they
want
to
achieve
is
where
to
clear
it
they're
still
struggling
a
bit
with
with
the
name
and
there's
also
really
some
good
use
cases
in
there.
E
E
E
I
sent
it
before,
but
it
kind
of
got
sidetracked,
obviously
to
the
tc
mailing
list,
the
current
code
chairs,
together
with
the
toc
list,
and
we
had
a
vote
because
two
of
the
when
one
of
the
coaches
brian,
is
stepping
down-
and
I
was
a
hero-
he's
transitioning
into
the
toc
to
have
a
vote
on
new
co-chairs
and
also
on
tech
leads.
So
this
is
shared
on
the
toc
mailing
list
as
well,
and
that's
it
from
c
gap.
Delivery
feel
free
to
ask
any
questions.
B
I
have
a
question.
I
just
opened
the
link
to
the
chaos
engineering
white
paper,
which
looks
like
it's
a
collaboration
between
some
folks
from
at
delivery
and
some
folks
from
I've
already
forgotten
what
the
other
group
was
networking,
okay,
cool,
and
I
wondered
if
there's
like
a
working
group
or
a
way
for
people,
if
they're,
specifically
interested
in
that
chaos,
engineering
white
paper,
how
they
can
find
out
how
it's
going
on
and
and
how
to
get
involved
in
that
work.
E
Yeah,
I
can't
talk
to
them,
so
I
was
pushing
them
actually
to
work
with
the
chaos,
the
networking
chaos
people
to
bring
them
together
because
they're
working
on
the
same
topic.
Also
it's
two
different
texts
that
are
working
on
this.
I
think
we
could
establish
a
working
group
and
let
me
connect
with
lee
on
this
one
because
he
keeps
driving
tag
network,
so
we
can
connect,
and
somebody
is
it's
a
good
idea.
E
I
think
it's
still
in
an
early
draft
stage,
I'll
give
you
an
update
next
week,
but
next
meet
next
time.
We
have
this
meeting.
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
perform
this
into
a
working
group
once
it
has
matured
a
bit
more
good
points.
Yeah.
A
A
B
All
right
so
next
up
who's
who's
up.
Next,
it
is
contributor
strategy.
F
Hello
josh,
so
first
and
big
news
is:
if
you
hadn't
noticed,
the
new
contributor
site
is
live,
so
you
go
to
contribute.cncf.io
and
that
has
the
new
design
by
carolyn
as
well
as
it
now
has
a
branching
structure
where
there's
a
link
off
to
maintainer
information,
as
well
as
information
about
how
to
contribute
to
projects
the,
and
so
please
explore
that.
We've
got
right
now,
there's
a
little
bit
of
material
there,
we're
going
to
have
more
as
stuff
gets
approved,.
F
For
the
maintainer
site,
with
lots
of
information
about
how
to
run
the
cncf
project
related
to
that
I
we've
nominated
carolyn
van
slick
as
the
first
tech
lead
for
contributor
strategy.
F
I
don't
know,
what's
required
to
get
that
finally
merged,
it's
got
enough
votes
the,
but
since
she's
going
to
continue
to
maintain
the
website
seemed
only
appropriate
for
anybody
who's
been
involved
with
contribute
strategy.
I
also
wanted
to
note
per
the
slide
there
that
we
changing
our
meeting
schedule
from
what
it
has
been.
F
I
and
a
bunch
of
the
meetings
are
changed
so
if
you
actually
wanted
to
come
to
those
take
a
note
of
the
new
schedule
which
is
already
up
on
the
cncf
community
calendar
for
subprojects
for
governance,
the
charter
document
advice
is
in
approval.
This
is
basically
for
projects
to
have
a
mission
scope
information
about
their
project.
Most
cnca
projects
do
have
this,
but
not
all
of
them.
Hence
deciding
that
it
was
worth
having
advice
there.
F
So
that's
just
waiting
for
our
second
approval
and
then
that'll
get
merged,
and
then
we
will
add
examples
to
the
templates
for
contributor
growth.
The
contributor
ladder
template
got
merged
feel
free
to
take
a
look
at
it.
Like
I
said,
this
template
was
meant
to
be
an
an
all-inclusive
sort
of
restaurant
menu
template
that
people
can
cut
the
pieces
out
of
that
apply
to
their
project.
F
I
know
from
here
with
the
recruiting.
Playbook
is
still
in
development,
which
is
something
that
a
lot
of
people
have
asked
us
for
in
terms
of
recruiting
contributors.
Also,
katherine
has
been
working
on.
F
I
she
has
been
using
this
new
generation
tools
called
community
crms,
and
so
it's
writing
that
up
as
a
tool
for
project
maintainers,
as
has
to
actually
have
a
software
tool
to
help
organize
their
project.
F
F
B
I
mean
so
many
reason
or
what's
the
process
for
merging
caroline
as
the
tech
lead
is
that
I
need
to
check
on
where.
A
We're
actually
at
as
far
as
like
the
vote
as
of
yeah,
we
can
take
this
one
offline.
I
will
do
a
like
a
vote
like
gather,
because
we've
got
a
lot
out
there
right
now
for
tech,
lead
votes,
so.
B
Okay,
we'll
we'll
leave
it
in
your
capable
hands,
but
I
think
just
from
a
very
casual
quick
look,
I
think
there's
lots
of
plus
ones
there.
So
there
are.
A
C
Right
here:
well,
just
let's
talk
about
projects
first
and
then
working
groups,
so
just
as
a
brief
recap
of
projects
that
were
recently
accepted,
so
submariner
kgb
and
emissary
ingress.
C
So
a
couple
of
sandboxes
and
an
incubation
there
are
a
few
projects
under
review.
Currently
so
linker
d
is
under
review
for
graduation
psyllium
is
under
review,
for
incubation
measuring
is
under
review
for
sandbox
service
mesh
performance
under
review
for
sandbox
and
yarp
is
under
review
for
sandbox,
so
so
there's
actually
a
lot
under
review
in
context
of
working
groups.
So
there's
there's
one
active
working
group
in
well.
C
There's
one
active
working
group
that
we're
able
to
keep
tabs
on
and
in
part,
because
this
working
group
often
presents
at
tag
network.
C
It's
the
service
mesh
working
group,
we've
spoken
of
some
of
its
initiatives
before,
since
last
we
met
there
was
an
update
given
well
on
this
project
called
get
nighthawk.
It's
a
relatively
small
project.
It's
intended
to
help
expose
envoys,
the
envoy
projects,
load,
generator
and
just
sort
of
create
distributions
of
it,
get
it
into
people's
hands.
Consider
that
it's
be
growing
in
popularity
and
has
a
number
of
on
explore
is
interesting
has
some
some
things
that
are
useful.
C
And
so
nighthawk
plays
a
role
in
that.
So
there's
been
there's
a
set
of
there's
one,
maybe
a
set
of
discussions
to
have
around
metrics
so
speaking
of
performance,
and
that
has
to
do
with
a
little
bit
related
to
the
review
of
service
mesh
performance
as
a
sandbox
potential
sandbox
project
and
how
smi
traffic
metrics
and
a
proposal
from
tom
k,
whose
last
name
I
don't
want
to
butcher
on
the
record.
C
But
tom
k
of
keda
who's,
you
know
has
suggested
a
time
or
two
to
have
a
discussion
around
well
metrics,
coming
from
kubernetes
ingress,
kubernetes
gateway
from
api
gateways
and
just
kubernetes
service
metrics
themselves,
so
kind
of
a
timely
discussion
or
topic
brought
up
by
him
as
it
interrelates
to
a
set
of
discussions
for
smi,
smp
and
mesheri
and
discussing
around
metrics
and
how
they're,
how
they're
tracked
so
so
noting
the
the
next
review
date
of
the
22nd.
C
I'm
hopeful
that
there
have
been
a
couple
of
maintainers
of
each
of
two
of
the
projects
that
are
under
review
that
have
been
out
either
on
parental
leave
or
covet
has
hit
close
to
home.
For
some,
and
so
that's
that's
stalled,
some
of
the
project
reviews,
but
hopefully
we'll
hopefully
hope
they'll
will
some
of
those
projects
will
have
concluded.
C
Just
as
we
look
forward
to
next
meeting
topic
for
tag
network,
we're
going
to
try
to
write
in
pen
yarp,
whom
we
just
missed
this
last
meeting
time
based
on
a
presentation
based
on
the
fact
that
the
agenda
was
was
full
but
but
sam
spencer
was
in
representing
yarp
and
was
in
attendance
last
time.
So.
B
B
And
if
you
have
views
on
whether
that's
a
good
idea,
bad
idea,
you
know
which
parts
of
that
makes
sense
or
don't
make
sense
and
do
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me
or
anybody
else
on
the
toc
or
lee,
or
anyone
who
is
kind
of
involved
in
those
projects,
because
yeah,
if
if
it
makes
sense
to
kind
of
the
idea
here,
is
really
that
as
the
cncf,
it
would
be
nice
if
we
had
a
pretty
aligned
view
on
what
service
mesh
means
and
does
and
how
you
measure
it.
B
So
so
that's
where
that
that
thinking
is
coming
from
right,
any
other
questions
for
lee
and
tag
network.
A
Ricardo
is
actually
out
today,
but
tag
runtime
is
here
so
they've
got
a
lot
going
on
with
project
presentation
in
the
communities,
I'm
working
on
some
mlaps
pieces
and
it
looks
like
they
are
doing
some
like
kind
of
pretty
heavy
agenda
items
here.
So
other
pieces
in
here
are
basically
like
they
have
a
community
space.
They
have
their
own
youtube,
channel
and
they're
looking
forward
to
collaborate
with
the
other
tags.
So
I
promised
him
I
would
be
his
reader
today.
A
Have
their
community
spaces
we're
just
slowly
rolling
them
out
and
they
get
a
space
to
be
able
to
do
either
meetups
or
just
like
other
kind
of
spaces
in
here
and
kind
of
an
experiment
right
now,
but
we'll
see
what
happens
with
them.
A
I
Hey
liz,
how
are
you
doing
yeah?
So
we
have
a
few
updates
main
main
one
is
sarah
and
I
are
rolling
out
as
co-chairs,
and
then
we
have
better
better
ones
in
better
version.
Brandon
and
auradhan
are
stepping
in
and
they've
been
doing.
Amazing
work,
as
you
can
see
here
and
they've,
been
pretty
involved
in,
like
cross
community
work
as
well,
not
just
within
cncf
outside
of
cncf
as
well.
I
So
the
entire
community
is
like
so
excited
about
their
stepping
up
to
be
a
co-chair,
and
so
are
we
and
it's
in
much
better
hands
as
we
roll
out,
and
that,
I
think,
is
our
term
comes
to
an
end
june
3rd.
So
this
is
right
on
time.
So
for
the
peop
for
those
of
you
that
haven't
noted
on
the
toc,
please
follow
up
and
then
get
the
voting
going.
I
It's
still
pending
pending
much
of
the
uz
votes
on
this.
So
that's
that's
about
that's
about
the
co-chair
nomination.
Memberships
have
gone
up
significantly
over
time.
It's
94
members
right
now
from
67
different
affiliations,
all
ranging
from
nist
to
federal
to
a
different
organization,
organizational
membership.
So
you
can
go.
Take
a
look
at
it
and
then
it's
pretty
impressive,
interesting
group
of
people.
That's
doing
amazing
work
there.
So
that's
that's
about
co-chair
nomination.
I
J
Jj,
so
some
quick,
general
updates
from
us,
we
have
worked
with
the
cncf
to
issue
a
press
release
concerning
the
supply
chain
security
paper
that
was
recently
released
by
the
group.
This
came
out
of
work
following
the
solarwinds
attack
and
has
been
continuing
evolving.
It
is
the
continued
evolution
of
the
work
that
we
have
done
in
the
supply
chain:
security
catalog
that
goes
through
and
enumerates
attacks
that
the
community
has
come
across
and
groups
them
by
type
of
attack
and
provides
remediations
as
we
see
them.
So
this
is
a
huge
effort.
J
B
All
right
great,
so
I
think
I
already
said
in
the
email
but
big
thanks
to
jj
and
sarah
for
everything
they've
done
with
the
group
that
is
currently
you
know
that
is
now
called
tag
security,
but
it's
originated
as
safe
several
years
ago
and
jj
and
sarah
were
part
of
the
original
team
who
kind
of
made
these
groups
that
are
now
called
tags
into
a
real
thing.
So
I
really
appreciate
their
work
on
that
and.
H
B
To
brandon
and
eradina
I
can
see
you're
on
the
call
so
a
little
bit
early
because
we,
you
know
the
vote's
still
in
process,
but
it's
great
to
see
your
jump
again.
K
Yes,
so
hi,
okay,.
H
K
We
have,
we
have
a
new
co-chair
nominee,
jing
who's,
currently,
a
tech
lead
with
the
sig,
and
we
have
nick
conley
who
we're
nominating
to
be
a
tech
lead
who
is
currently
a
member
and
contributing
to
to
the
tag.
Already
I'd.
I'd
like
to
point
out
we've,
I
just
recently
sort
of
maybe
an
hour
ago,
sent
the
email
I
had
to
the
talk
mailing
list.
So
we
can
sort
of
formalize
this
with
a
vote.
I
think
they
are
fairly
uncontroversial.
K
The
nursing
is
so
well
established
in
the
storage
space,
both
in
the
kubernetes
side
of
the
world
and
and
with
our
tag
and
and
again
nick
is,
is
you
know
very
an
established
technology.
Technologist
in
the
storage
space
has
been
working
with
us
on
on
some
of
the
performance
documents,
for
example,
for
for
almost
a
year
now,
and
this
kind
of
follows
on
from,
of
course,
aaron
moving
out
from
the
from
the
sig
into
the
into
the
toc.
K
So
so
xing
will
be
replacing
aaron's
air
and
seat,
and
then,
if
we
move
on
to
the
next
slide,
please
we
have
a
number
of
projects
which
are
going
through
review.
There
is
the
longhorn
project,
which
is
currently
sandbox.
Moving
into
incubation
saad
is
the
sponsor
for
this.
The
db
process
is
is
ongoing.
K
Luis
fabon,
one
of
our
attack
tech
leads
is,
is
is
running
the
process
there
we've
got
true
rfs,
which
again
is
currently
in
sandbox
and
moving
to
incubation
zhang
is
the
sponsor
and
the
dd
doc
has
been
drafted.
We're
meeting
next
to
review
that
document
open
ebs
is
currently
has
a
proposal
open.
K
We
have
the
the
we
have
an
outstanding
item
where
the
team
needed
to
provide
us
with
an
update
on
some
of
the
licensing
issues
that
that
we
were
discussing
previously,
that
just
reached
out
as
part
of
this
meeting
and
so
they're
ready
to
to
to
cover
the
the
topic
and
provide
an
update,
so
we'll
be
doing
that
either
this
week
or
next
and
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
content
that
we're
working
on
we've
had
extensive
discussions,
so
this
has
been.
We've
probably
had.
K
I
don't
know
something
like
10
meetings
on
this
already
covering
the
cloud
native
disaster
recovery
and
the
different
sort
of
options
and
patterns
and
architectures
that
apply
in
a
cloud
native
world
when
you're
considering
disaster
recovery,
especially
in
consideration
with
sort
of
moving
from
some
of
the
traditional
experiences
there,
and
we
have.
We
have
a
draft
which
has
now
undergone
many
iterations
which
which,
which
is
kind
of
coming
to
coming,
to
a
point
where
we're
we're
happy
with
it,
and
the
number
of
changes
is
reducing.
K
But
of
course
we
would
love.
You
know,
since
this
is
such
a
big
topic,
we'd
love,
we'd
love
any
feedback
from
from
any
of
the
tags
or
toc
at
this
point
on
the
on
the
document,
and
if,
if
anybody
is
interested
in
covering
this
we'll,
you
know
we're
covering
this
in
our
regular
tag.
K
Meetings
too,
the
performance
and
benchmarking
white
paper
has
sort
of
stalled
because
we've
been
focusing
on
the
the
projects
and
disaster
recovery
documents,
but
we're
hoping
to
to
get
to
finalize
that
shortly
and
then
recently
we
had
the
vinyard
project
successfully
move
into
sandbox,
which
is
which
is
an
interesting
project
to
to
accelerate
storage,
mostly
for
a
number
of
use.
Cases
like
like
etl
and
android
distributed
systems
in
kubernetes,
which
is
which
is
particularly
exciting.
I
think,
and
that's
our
update.
K
K
K
B
Okay,
dave
did
you
want
to
take
a
few
minutes.
D
Sure
yeah,
so
I
wanted
to
have.
D
It
has
been
having
multiple
organizations
as
maintainers
or
some
sort
of
kind
of
much
stronger
voice
than
just
committers,
and
I'm
curious
both
what
people
on
the
call
think
of
that
requirement
and
specifically
kind
of
what
the
spirit
of
it
is
and
why
we
have
it
rather
than
explicitly.
Just
like
is
the
number
of
organizations
here
greater
than
one
and
then
maybe
to
call
out
an
extremely
specific
reason.
Why
I
care
is
that
I
am
currently
sponsoring
the
graduation
process
for
linker
d
and
linker
d.
D
D
So
I'm
happy
to
hear
his
thoughts
as
well
as
kind
of
anyone
from
the
toc
or
anyone
else
on
the
call
that
has
opinions
on
what
the
spirit
of
that
requirement
is
or
if
they
have
specific
cons,
thoughts
on
link
or
d,
whether
it
should
or
should
not
like
pass
that
bar
with
its
current
setup.
B
I
want
to
just
add
a
little
bit
of
historical
color
to
you
know
this
isn't
the
first
time
we've
had
the
discussion
about
this.
I
think
the
last
time
this
came
up
in
in
in
significant
form.
It
was
around
the
idea
of
having
oh
man.
The
the
term
escapes
me
that
the.
B
Supervisory
committee
who
steering
committee
steering
committee-
that's
that's
the
word
I
was
thinking
of.
Thank
you
which
has
come
up.
You
know
from
a
few
different
projects,
the
thinking
being
it's
not
just
about
committing
to
code.
It's
about
ensuring
that
multiple
organizations
have
the
ability.
The
roadmap
isn't
just
defined
for
the
benefit
of
one
particular
organization,
but
that
you
know
a
community
project
should
be
have
some
influence
from
multiple
organizations.
B
F
For
the
question
of,
what's
the
spirit
of
this
requirement,
I
just
pasted
a
link
into
chat,
which
was
when
we
previously
discussed
this
and
and
narrowed
down.
Why
we
have
this
requirement?
What
the
reasons
behind
it
are.
F
F
The
I
for
linker
d
in
particular,
I
actually
had
the
impression
that
they
had
started
this
end
user
council
thing
with
the
idea
of
using
that
to
get
somebody
with
a
maintainer
equivalent
position
who
did
not
work
for
bland
the
yeah
that
was
going
rather
well.
Yeah.
L
F
Yeah,
so
I
guess
one
of
the
problems
that
we
had
with
the
steering
committee
concept
when
we
had
this
discussion
that
was
never
quite
resolved
was
the
question
of
what
prevents
having
a
titular
steering
committee
for
a
project
that's
diverse,
but
in
which
the
members
are
actually
not
in
any
way
involved
with
the
project.
That's
that's
always
the
kind
of
the
concern,
because
you
know,
would
always
be
possible
for
any
project
to
sort
of
appoint
a
group
of
random
people
who
aren't
really
involved
with
the
project.
F
L
Yeah
I
mean
I
can
only
speak
to
the
model
that
we
use
on
the
linker
d
steering
committee,
which
is
you
know,.
H
F
F
F
B
Yeah,
I
think,
the
last
time
we
talked
about
documenting
this,
we
were
the
toc
was
concerned
that
if
we
make
everything
too
prescriptive-
and
and
I
agree
that
as
documented
it
is
not-
I
don't
think
the
graduation
criteria
currently
reflects
my
perception
of
the
tocs
thinking
on
this.
But
I
don't
think
we
want
to
get
to
a
point
where
it's
like.
If
you
achieve
these
things,
you
know
you
will
definitely
have
passed
everything
that
the
that
the
toc
expect.
B
I
think
that
from
the
discussions
that
we
and
other
toc
people
do
speak
up,
I
think
that
the
broad
idea
of
steering
committees
and
the
way
that
linkedin
have
gone
about
it
is
it
you
know
seems
seems
to
be
meeting
with
approval.
I
would
say,
and
yeah
that
isn't
to
say,
we've
had
a
vote
in
it
or
anything.
B
I
would
just
say
that,
in
discussions
about
it,
it
feels
like
a
positive
way
to
ensure
that
projects
that
do
have
one
vendor,
who
is
sort
of
doing
the
bulk
of
the
work
on
the
project,
can
still
be
considered
to
be
community
projects
because
otherwise
they
shouldn't
be
in
the
cncf
in
the
first
place,
but-
and
I
think
linkedin
is
actually
doing
a
really
good
job
of
sort
of
setting
an
example
and
and
feeling
out
how
to
do
this
in
a
way
that
meets
what
they
need
for
the
project
meets
what
the
community
need
from
a
project
and
doesn't
require
kind
of
artificial
barriers
around
like
how
do
you
force
another
employer
to
pay
per
maintainer?
L
Oh,
thank
you.
I'm
glad
glad
that
comes
across
that
way.
So
beyond
the
you
know,
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
dave's
mouth
right
now,
but
you
know
one
of
the
things
we
have
been
struggling
with
a
bit
as
we
work
on
the
due
diligence.
Doc
is
less.
The
idea
of
like
okay
is
control
of
you
know.
Linkedin
is
lingerie
a
true
community
project,
but
it's
more
about
the
longevity
aspect.
L
So
you
know,
if
buoyant
disappears,
does
linker
d
continue
and
is
that
the
bar
that
we
need
to
meet
and
do
we
need
to
have
some
explanation
for
how
things
will
continue?
In
the
case
where
you
know
the
the
single
vendor
disappears,
so
what
does
disappear
even
mean?
Is
that
like
acquired
by
another
company,
or
is
that
like
running
and
running
out
of
money
and
like
just
disbanding
you
know
so?
Is
there?
Has
there
been
any
toc
thought
about
that
aspect
of
the
multi
vendor
maintainer
requirement.
B
What
what
does
that
mean?
You
know,
how
will
that
project
continue?
Will
there
be?
Will
it
put
at
risk
any
end
users
who
are
relying
on
that
project.
B
And
I
think
the
risk
of
that
happening
does
vary
somewhat
from
project
to
project
and
it
kind
of
you
know
a
project
that
comes
out
of
a
vendor
who
are
very
specifically
focused
on
one
project,
has
a
different,
let's
say:
risk
profile
to
a
project
that
comes
out
of
you
know
one
of
the
giant
cloud
vendors
who
have
100
different
projects
on
the
go
at
any
given
time.
So
I
think
there
might
be
ways
of
addressing
that
concern
without
it
necessarily
being
you
have
to
have
multiple,
you
know,
maintainers
at
any
given
time.
L
Yeah
I'll
just
say
selfishly,
as
you
know,
the
ceo
of
the
company
that
is
funding.
You
know
the
majority
of
language
development
right
now,
I'd
much
rather
say,
hey,
buoyant's,
doing
really
well
and,
like
we've
got
a
strong
economic,
you
know
kind
of
incentive
to
keep
lingerid
moving
than
to
have
to
argue
for
the
opposite
condition,
which
is
like
oh
everything's,
going
to
be
fine.
You
know
point
just
vanishes,
so
I
guess
I
just
don't.
L
D
D
Maybe
the
other
point-
and
this
is
one
I
forgot
to
bring
up
with
you-
will-
is
what,
if
an
other,
what,
if
other
vendors
come
in
to
the
linkard
space
and
start
growing
and
then
like
are
competing
with
buoyant,
and
now
we
have
this
funny
thing
where,
like
they're,
link
or
d
vendors,
but
boyan
owns
laker
d,
but
they're
competing
with
buoyant.
So
you
have
that
like.
L
Yeah,
so
that
actually
is
an
easy
one.
From
my
perspective,
I
would
love
to
have
other
vendors
involved
and
we've
always
been
welcoming
and
open
and
eager
to
make
that
happen.
But
this
gets
into
the
specifics
of
like
points
business
model
and
the
fact
that
we're
not
selling
linker
d,
you
know
we're
not
selling
like
lingerie
enterprise.
L
We
set
ourselves
up
kind
of
purposefully,
so
that
linker
d
is
supposed
to
be
a
community
project
and
we
would
like
to
have
other
people
involved,
but
you
know
I
don't
know
how
much
of
this
discussion
should
get
into
like
the
specifics
of
buoyancy
business
model.
I
guess
I'm
happy.
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
have
that
discussion.
Yeah.
F
I
think
it's
more
important
for
there
to
be
a
process
which,
which
there
is
with
linker
d,
by
which
someone
can
clearly
become
a
maintainer
who
doesn't
work
for
buoyant
the
I
mean.
F
That's
that's
because
like
when
we
had
this
discussion
about
what
are
the
reasons
behind
the
multi-org
requirement
right
top
priority
was
openness,
that
is,
the
project
must
be
open
to
contributions
and
potentially
maintainers
from
people
other
than
the
initial
sponsoring
company,
and
you
know,
and
the
one
about
continuity
was
kind
of
secondary
because,
let's
face
it,
we
have
a
bunch
of
existing
graduated
projects
where
they
do
have
maintainers
from
multiple
companies,
but
one
company
is
responsible
for
80
of
current
code
drafting
and
those
projects
would
be
in
serious
trouble
if
that
one
company
withdrew
their
technical
support.
F
So
that's
not
really
new
for
us,
but
there
needs
to
be
one
of
the
things
I
think
would
witness.
Here's
an
example
of
the
mizos
project
was
a
good
example
of
kind
of
a
failure
in
that
continuity
process
where,
when
the
contributors
from
a
single
organization
just
stopped
working
on
it,
there
was
no
process
to
advance
new
maintainers
who
worked
for
a
different
organization,
and
we
want
to
avoid
getting
into
that
particular
trap.
M
Yeah,
so
currently
the
way
we
do
businesses,
if
it
happens,
then
we
essentially
have
a
attic
process
to
mothball
the
project
right
and
so
essentially,
at
that
point,
any
of
the
end
user
community
folks
have
to
stop
using
the
project
and
switch
over
to
something
else.
M
So
so
that's
the
current
situation
right
so
can
we
make
that
situation
a
little
bit
better
and
that
could
be
like
having
some
kind
of
a
plan
that
can
be
executed
at
that
time
to
say
see,
these
are
the
other
options
that
you
can
switch
over
to
either
some
documentation.
Something
like
that.
So
basically,
we
have
to
come
up
with
an
answer
to
the
question
that
other
people
are
going
to
ask
us
like.
How
can
I
be
sure
that
linkadini
is
going
to
be
around
around
for
the
long
long
term?
M
For
me
right,
like
that's
a
question
that
is
going
to
come
from
the
end
user
community?
That's
definitely
what
we
should
answer
here.
The
other
aspect
to
this
also
is,
I
would
rather,
this
kind
of
a
discussion
is
an
exception
to
the
process,
rather
than
saying
that
you
know
yes,
this
is
a
model
that
we
want
to
espouse
as
okay
in
any
of
the
new
incoming
projects
can
adopt
this
by
default.
M
Right
like
if
we
end
up
going
that
route,
then
most
of
the
projects
won't
even
think
about,
like
all
the
things
that
they
can
possibly
do
to
get
other
people
to
join
their
project
and
do
good
work,
so
that
would
those
were
the
two
things
that
I
was
worried
about.
Video.
L
Okay,
so
then
you
know
dave,
maybe
you
you
and
I
you
know,
document
the
path
to
maintainership
and
linker
d
and
document.
The
examples
of
you
know:
non-void
maintainership
in
the
past,
which
we've
had
you
know
in
a
limited
way
and
then
is
there
anything
else
you
would
want
to
see
around
this
require-
and
I
guess
document
the
steering
kind
of
steering
committee
mechanics.
D
Yep,
I
think
that
sounds
good
to
me.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
other
people's
call
don't
have
additional
things
so
that
we
don't
do
that
and
then
find
out.
We
missed
a
couple
things,
so
I
guess
anybody
else
speak
now
or
I
don't
know
or
comment
later
in
the
due
diligence
talk
when
we
missed
something.
M
Yeah,
the
other
aspect
that
we
didn't
talk
about
dave
here
was
like
we
the
questions
that
we
were
trying
to
put
together
the
other
day.
We
said
both
founding
companies
and
founding
engineers.
So
I
don't
think
that's
a
problem
here,
but
for
linkedin
itself,
but
that
was
the
other
aspect
that
we
were
talking
about.
D
D
B
H
Shouldn't
that
be
in
the
governance
overview
for
each
of
the
product
projects,
though,
because
if
I
look
back
at
things
like
container
d
and
core
dns,
it
clearly
outlines
the
different
roles
and
how
to
contribute
and
establishes
the
neutrality
of
each
one
of
the
projects.
I
would
think
I
would
see
something
for
every
project
underneath
the
governance
that
should
cover
that
anyways.
H
Okay,
yeah,
I
I
was
just
it
seems
like
there
is
some
overlap
there
and
I'm
less
familiar
with
the
governance
already
established
for
linker
d,
but
I
would
think
as
part
of
graduation
we
we
would
reflect
back
on
that
anyways
to
make
sure
it's
part
of
the
complete
due
diligence.
So
thanks
josh
for
that
call
out
to
to
the
new
template.
B
So
that
sounds
as
though
there
might
be
some
additional
documentation
of
how
that
process
of
of
becoming
a
maintainer
has
worked
in
the
past
and
would
work
in
the
future.
That
template
might
be
a
useful
way
of
expressing
it.
A
Separately,
I
know
we've
got
matt
young
on
the
line.
We
skipped
observability,
so
anything
that
you'd
like
to
be
able
to
add
I'm
now
putting
them
on
the
spot.
N
Hi,
nothing
huge
to
add
the
slides
up
to
date,
we've
had
a
slow
few
weeks
coming
off
of
kubecon
and
a
lot
of
people
taking
pto.
So
it's
been
a
little
bit
quiet
for
the
last
few
weeks,
but
moving
forward
we're
going
to
be
engaging
with
the
platforms
that
have
been
set
up
around
youtube
and
the
community
site
as
well.
As
you
know,
launching
some
of
the
working
groups
that
we
have.
We
talked
about
two
meetings
ago
in
the
last
two
weeks.
N
We
also
had
pixie
labs
last
two
meetings.
Rather,
we
also
had
pixie
labs
and
a
pool
called
prom
dub
be
presented
to
the
sig
to
the
tag,
rather
so
we'll
hope
to
have
some
more
updates
next
week,
rather
than
next
year,
tlc
meeting.
N
Yes,
indeed,
it's
been
a
little
slow
again
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
the
folks
in
this
space
kind
of
I
think,
kind
of
enough
true
con
or
a
little
pride.
So
we
are
looking
for
both
new
tech
leads
as
well
as
a
third
chair.
So
if
anyone
has
folks
in
that
space
that
you
would
think
would
be
a
good
fit,
please
reach
out
to
either
our
liaisons
or
rich.
Here
myself.