►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2021-07-20
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2021-07-20
A
A
B
A
A
C
B
A
D
B
Maybe
we
can
get
started
so
welcome
everyone,
normal
things,
normal
behavior
and
yeah.
So,
as
amy
mentioned,
we'll
probably
have
time
for
some
open
floor,
but
we
thought
we
could
have
a
look
at
the
current
set
of
projects
that
are
applying
for
graduation
and
incubation
and
just
try
and
get
a
read
and
discuss.
Maybe
some
feedback
for
those
projects,
and
I
don't
know
if
we
have
this
on
the
slides,
but
I'm
sure
a
lot
of
people
will
be
aware.
B
You
know
we.
We
know
we're
going
to
struggle
to
vote
in
favor
of
graduation
because
of
concern
xyz.
So
that
proposal
is
out
there.
We
haven't
had
a
vote
on
it
yet,
but
there's
no
reason
why
we
couldn't
start
having
those
kind
of
discussions
you
know
now,
anyway,
the
the
process
is
about
kind
of
formalizing,
something
that
we
we
believe
we
should
be
doing
anyway.
Amy
has
posted
that
pr.
Thank
you
amy
all
right,
so
I
guess
the
projects
that
we
have
on
deck
for
graduation.
I
think
nats
has
been
there
for
a
long
time.
B
B
For
both
incubation
and
graduation,
we
do
need
a
sponsor
to
step
forward
if
it's
going
to
if
the
process
is
going
to
go
ahead.
So
if
there
is
an
absence
of
toc
sponsor
that
basically
says
the
the
project
is
not
going
to
get
through
that
next
stage,
but
we
think
it
would
be
helpful
if
we
can
articulate
feedback
to
the
projects
about.
B
B
I
think
if
there
is
yeah,
I
think
the
way
that
we
described
it
in
that
pr
it
doesn't
affect
what
we
would
do
with
tags
at
all.
This
is
supposed
to
be
more
of
a
shortcut
process
to
say
you
know
if
there's
some,
if
the
toc,
if
there's
someone
who's,
really
keen
to
sponsor
a
project,
they
can
step
forward
earlier
in
the
process
and
make
themselves
known
earlier
and
equally.
If
there
are
people
who
have
serious
reservations,
we
can
make
that
known
earlier
in
the
process.
B
Those
reservations
might
turn
out
to
be
unfounded
or
wrong.
You
know,
but
that
could
be
input
into
what
the
what
the,
what
we
ask
the
tags
to
look
into,
or
you
know
if
we,
if
we
were
to
say
you
know
particular
project,
we
don't
believe,
is
ready
for
graduation.
That
project
would
be
able
to
come
back
quickly
and
say
actually
we'd
like
to
discuss
this,
because
we
think
you're
wrong
for,
for
whatever
reasons
that
seems,
you
know,
I
think,
that's
better
than
our
current
limbo
situation,
but
I
don't
think
it
actually
changes.
E
I
yeah,
I
just
wondered
if
the
tags,
if
they
had
serious
reservations
like
I
don't
know
that
every
toc
we've
had
has
fully
represented
the
spectrum
of
technology.
That
is
the
umbrella
right
of
the
cncf,
and
so
I
just
wondered
if,
if
we
also
have
that
kind
of
gut
check
with
the
tags,
if
they
had
like
there
are
more
boots
on
the
ground,
understand,
maybe
some
of
the
interactions
that
they
would
be
able
to
at
that
point
if
they
had
serious,
I
guess
I'm
more
in
that.
B
Definitely
yeah
yeah
yeah.
I
I
think
this
this
early
stage
isn't
supposed
to
be
about
like
making
a
like
it's
not
about
deciding
whether
things
go
into
graduation
or
incubation,
it's
more
about
deciding.
Okay.
How
are
we
going
to
go
through
this
process?
Are
there
some
immediate
things
we
want
to
get
investigated
or
get
dealt
with?
B
E
Right,
I
was
just
honestly
thinking
of
like
open
ebs
as
an
example
like
maybe
that
was
well
known
in
the
what
would
have
been
the
sixth
then
in
the
tax
now,
and
not
necessarily
to
the
toc,
unless
they've
been
brought
up
through
that
process.
So
I
just
wondered
if
we
wanted
to
formalize
that
you
know.
B
B
B
Change
all
right,
so
this
was
admittedly
quite
a
late-breaking
choice
to
to
discuss
these
on
the
agenda
today
so
appreciate
this
is.
We
haven't
had
a
lot
of
chance
to
to
go
and
research
the
projects,
but
let's
air
the
things
that
we
know
and
and
see
where
that
takes
us.
So
nets
have
been
applying
for
graduation
for
a
very
long
time
and
we
have
historically
had
concerns
about
the
the
kind
of
vendor
independence
of
nats.
B
F
Yeah
hi:
this
is
ginger
collison,
hi,
ginger,
hi
team,
that's
nadia,
hi!
You
know,
we've
been
watching
the
changes
in
the
toc
and
you
know
the
different
criteria
and
changes
to
graduation
requirements.
We
had
discussed
putting
in
a
steering
governing
committee
kind
of
thing
and
at
the
time
we
were
doing
this
and
the
level
of
effort
it
was
going
to
take
more
discussions
around
the
contributor
strategy
group
and
with
the
toc
was
that
that
may
or
may
not
help
us
with
graduation.
F
So
we
kind
of
put
a
pause
on
it
to
see
where
the
toc
was
going
to
land
and
their
graduation
requirements
before
we
move
forward.
So
that's
kind
of
where
we
are
now
with
linker
d
going
through
with
graduation
for
us
at
nats,
it's
a
little
disappointing
frankly,
just
because
we
tried
and
actually
our
diversity
or
contributorship
or
whatever,
in
my
opinion,
was
greater
than
linkard
d's
and
it
didn't
seem.
Excuse
me
that
linker
d
went
through
the
same
rigorous
due
diligence
that
the
nats
team
had
to
go
through.
B
B
I
think
linkadee
have
actually
there's
a
lot
in
common
between
those
two
projects
that
there's
you
know,
there's
a
single
company
and
that
for
which
many
of
the
maintainers
work-
and
I
I
think
actually
william,
articulated
very
very
well
that
you
know
the
challenge
that
if
they
have
a
really
good
contributor
to
the
project,
they
want
to
hire
that
person
and
and
that's
good
for
their
business.
So
I
think
the
fact
that
you
know
they
came
up
with
the
steering
committee
model.
B
They
worked
pretty
hard
to
try
and
make
sure
that
that
steering
command
steering
committee
had
you
know,
teeth
within
the
governance
process.
They
put
the
steering
in
committee
in
place
a
few
months.
You
know
before
they
came
back
and
reapplied
for
graduation
so
that
we
could
see
that
it
had
it.
You
know
it
wasn't
just
a
sort
of
passing
fad
that
they
had
actually
put
that
in
place.
So
I
think
that
could
be
a
good
model
for
a
steering
committee
for
other
projects
in
a
similar.
F
B
F
B
B
B
I
think
we
we
always
ended
up
in
a
situation
where
we
didn't
want
to
say
a
steering
committee
is
like
the
solution
we
want,
because
we
would
prefer
projects
to
have
contributors
from
multiple
organizations.
We
think
that's
the
better
solution
in
many
cases,
but
we
have
this
situation
where
there
are
projects
that
have
you
know,
a
very
close
relationship
with
juan
vender.
H
B
B
But
if
there
are
good
reasons
why
that
is
the
case
for
a
project,
you
know
we
should
be
open.
To
kind
of.
I
think
the
steering
committee
model
is
a
creative
solution
to
you
know
addressing
very
much
the
first
of
those
two
points
that
josh
mentioned,
that
the
one
about
ensuring
that
the
project
is
open
to
contributions
and
that
the
roadmap
isn't
entirely
steered
for
the
benefit
of
one
company.
I
It
doesn't
have
much
say
over
the
technical
aspects,
like
the
kubernetes
steering
committee.
Does
so
it's
it's
a
different
type
of
steering
committee.
So
so
we're
also
not
necessarily
specifying
what
type
of
steering
committee
we're
talking
about.
So
I
think
there
are
multiple
types
depending
on
the
project.
G
Yeah,
I
think
it
also
depends
on
the
founding
organization.
Maybe
the
the
founding
organization.
Is
this
really
stable
company
too
so
I
mean?
Would
they
need
a
steering
committee?
I
mean
if,
in
the
case
of
kubernetes
you
know
it's
google
right
so,
but
google,
I'm
sorry
like
kubernetes,
has
a
lot
of
you
know
different
organizations
contributing
right.
So
that's
not
a
good
example.
B
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think
the
kubernetes
is
a
really
interesting
sort
of
mental
experiment
that
you
know
it.
Obviously
it
had
its
roots
in
google
and
google
are
still
a
huge
contributor
to
the
project,
but
if
google
were
to,
I
don't
know,
just
suddenly
decide
that
it
was
not
doing
anything
in
the
world
of
kubernetes.
B
The
project
would
have
you
know
some
serious
gaps
to
fill,
but
I
think
it
would
still
carry
on.
I
think
that's
the
yeah.
That's
the
the
sort
of
the
level
of
de-risking
that
we're
that
we
would
like
to
see,
and
I
think
it
is
harder
for
a
project
to
demonstrate
that
if
it
doesn't
have
contributors
from
or
maintainers
from
from
lots
of
different
organizations-
and
we
do
have
projects
with
like
a
pretty
low
bus
factor
as
well,
where
you
know
there
would
be
a
serious
risk
to
the
project.
B
If
a
particular,
you
know
particular
individual
yeah
that
that
have
yeah,
but
hopefully
none
of
the
graduation
projects
would
just
not
survive
yeah.
I
think
we
we
want
to
be
in
a
position
where
the
graduation
projects
can
pick
themselves
up
dust
themselves
off
after
a
catastrophic
disaster
like
that.
B
C
C
So
you
know
it's
it's
kind
of
hard
to
say
that,
like
in
your
example
of
kubernetes,
if
google
were
to
just
decide
we're
not
going
to
do
grpc
anymore,
you
know
there's
still
companies
that
would
keep
the
the
project
was
still
going.
Keep
going.
I
mean
people
are
using
this
in
in
production,
so
it's
just
kind
of
this
weirdness
of
trying
to
solve,
for
whatever
the
particular
maintainer
requirement
was
and
not
really
finding
a
way
that
would
really
change.
You
know.
C
It's
our
it's
our
opinion
that
we
do
have
the
maintainer
diversity
and
you
know,
I
think,
also
one
of
the
things
to
consider
when
we
talk
about
steering
committees
and-
and
everything
else
is
like
what
is
the
problem-
we're
actually
trying
to
solve?
There's
you
know,
maintainer
diversity
is
one
thing.
I
think
we
all
are
feeling
that
especially
post
pandemic.
A
lot
of
projects.
Are
you
know
seeing
that
there's
also
the
you
know
when
you
talk
about
the
longevity
issue,.
C
You
know
there's
two
things,
one:
it's
open
source,
so
it's
always
if
the
maintainer
steps
down,
hopefully
someone
else
will
pick
it
up
and
run
with
it,
and
that's
also.
I
think
why
we
donate
to
cncf
is
so
that
there
is
that
community
of
people
that
care
about
a
project
and
would
let
it
go.
I
mean
you
know,
keep
it
going.
I
think
that's
kind
of
the
advantage
of
doing
that.
So
that's
kind
of
my
thoughts,
but
from
grpc's
perspective
we
are
very
much
you
know
engaged
with
the
community.
C
We
have
a
well-documented
process
for
putting
in
a
new
feature
request.
We
hold
ourselves
to
it
just
as
much
as
everyone
else,
and
I
said
you
know,
we've
got
great.
Maintainer
microsoft
in
particular,
has
just
done
a
fantastic
job,
supporting
their
net
implementation,
so
we
certainly
work
with
others
and
we
are
very
much
used
in
production.
So.
B
C
F
Yeah
yeah
nats
has
the
same
issue
with
regard
because
we
are
an
entire.
You
know
oregon
github
and
we
have
you
know:
30-some
clients
that
you
know,
complement
the
nat
server
and
are
required
for
the
nat
server
to
work
in
production
and
all,
and
we
have
contributors
from
individuals
to
different
companies
that
contribute
to
all
those
different
clients,
as
well
as
connectors
that
are
not
in
our
necessarily
our
github
organization.
But
they
are,
you
know,
all
over
the
community.
So.
C
Yeah,
I
think
that's
one
part
like
you
know
with
obviously
nats
went
for
graduation
before
grpc
did,
but
we
both
kind
of
hit
the
same
spot
in
the
process
where
we
are
different
than
you
know,
a
traditional
project,
since
we
are
kind
of
that
library
structure
and
that's
where
we
both
hit
that
same
kind
of
pain.
Point
of
no!
If
you
look
at
the
core
repo
you
know
there,
there
is
largely
google
maintained,
of
course,
we're
running
it
ourselves
in
production.
C
B
B
D
B
C
Yeah
I
mean
it's
like
I
said
it's
kind
of
two-fold
again
of
we
do
have
a
documented
process
for
g-a-g
gosh,
it's
too
early
grpc
grfc,
because
we,
like
our
acronyms,
so
you
know
you
make
the
proposal.
You
fill
out
the
standard
document
kind
of
similar
to
how
the
toc
does.
We
have
a
two-week
process.
You
know.
C
So
no
not
everything
is
going
to
go
through,
but
you
know
we.
We
definitely
have
a
well-documented
process
and
other
things
have
and
then
that's
countered
by
that's
one
library
that
is,
you
know,
particularly
strict.
Perhaps
you
can
counter
that
with
you
know,
when
you
look
at
like
I
said
the
swift,
repo,
the
rust
repo,
you
know
those
process,
they
have
the
same
process.
C
So
I
think
that's
you
know
some
of
it
like.
If
we
keep
going
back
to
the
main
repo,
which
is
the
sea,
you
know,
that's
got
a
ton
of
technical
debt
and
other
issues.
So
it's
not
necessarily
as
easy
to
put
in
a
new
feature
as
it
would
be
in
some
of
the
other
languages
and
that's
not
a
project
specific
barrier.
That's
just
that
particular
you
know
technical
spec.
K
C
C
B
I
feel,
like
you
know
time
has
you
know,
that's
that's
clearly
a
a
thing
that
needs
to
be
to
be
addressed,
but
you
know
that
doesn't
seem
insurmountable.
I
wonder
whether
we
should
be
well.
First
of
all,
let
me
just
see
if
there's
anyone
from
the
toc
here
today
who
would
be
interested
in
sponsoring
grpc
through
the
process,
subject
to
things
like
this
being
fixed
up.
B
B
B
C
Well,
and
that's
what
I
think
like
having
that
requirement
for
graduation
that
it's
you
know
used
in
production
like
well,
that's
why
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
go
anywhere
because
it's
being
used
in
production
at
google
and
netflix,
and
you
know
a
lot
of
big
companies
that
are
involved
in
the
cncf
as
well.
So
I
mean,
if
I
was
speaking
to
an
end
user,
that's
what
I
would
say
and
I
think
that's
how
they've
adopted
it.
C
B
And,
of
course
I
mean
this
is
this:
is
where
the
you
know,
the
multi-vendor
thing
addresses
the
risk
thing
to
some
extent,
because
it
basically
says
you
know.
If
one
company
decides
not
to
participate
anymore,
there
are
other
people
who
are
still
interested.
We
think
you
know
we
and
we
have
that
you
know
so.
M
C
L
B
C
D
B
D
L
L
Would
we
measure
it
and
what
would
you
like
to
see
we've
seen
in
a
general
way,
a
pretty
strong
adoption
of
the
project,
including
several
users,
using
it
a
scale
in
in
production?
I
think
we
documented
some
of
them
in
in
our
pr
in
a
general
way.
At
this
point,
yes,
you
know,
csd
is
the
company
that
originally
contributed,
but
the
community.
L
We
feel
it's
pretty
healthy,
pretty
much.
This
point
largely
on
autopilot.
We
have
constant
discussions
like
constant
contributions,
including
contributions
from
our
some
of
our
direct
competitors
that
are
participating
to
to
the
project.
We
have
many
companies
with
commercial
products,
basic
basic,
essential
solutions
on
top
of
of
falco.
N
We've
made
it
very
much
inroads
with
the
falcao
sidekick
project,
which
has
you
know,
many
external
contribute
contributors,
and
so
so
much
in
fact
that
we've
created
seven
direct
blogs
that
have
integrations
to
things
like
prometheus,
open,
fuzz.
You
know
techton,
argo
cd,
which
is
also
a
project
looking
to
get
graduated
so
there's
a
lot
of
community
integration
and
also
we're
seeing
maintainers
that
are
of
a
wider,
a
wider
maintainer's
base
from
that
perspective,
so
we're
just
looking
at
it.
This,
like
yeah,
I
think
we're
much
more
established
than
we
were
during
incubation.
N
For
instance,
if
you
look
at
it
for
docker
pulls,
for
instance,
it
was
from
8.2
million
the
dockable
says
of
this
morning
to
29
million,
so
we
know
this
project
is
being
used,
so
we
just
want
to
understand
from
the
talk.
What
is
our
next
steps?
What
can
we
do
to
put
the
talk
at
ease
for
either
one
for
us
to
get
a
sponsor
or
two
for
us
to
graduate
or
both.
B
But
you
know,
if
I
look
at
again,
you
have
the
disadvantage
that
I
know
some
of
these
people.
The
fact
that
two
of
the
top
three
contributors
have
moved
on
and
they
may
be
they're
still
contributing
so
that's
great,
but
I
would
want
to
see
them
contributing
over
a
period
of
months
to
say
that
that's
actually
stable.
N
On
the
ebp
side,
again,
we've
made
inroads
talking
to
other
projects
that
are
using
ebpf
and
as
mainstay
projects
of
this.
So
if
you
look
at
like
we've
talked
to
like,
for
instance,
from
tracy,
to
see,
if
maybe
there's
ways
we
can
come
up
with
a
universal
rule
set
or
contribution
to
like
you
know,
he
asked
us
to
look
into
updating
a
a
a
a
driver
kit
update,
so
we
can
all
have
a
standard
place
there.
N
That's
one
in
terms
of
you
know
like
we
talked
about
before
and
you're
in
the
space,
and
you
understand
this.
It's
very
hard
to
find
folks
that
understand
ebpf.
You
know
xdp
all
those
types
of
things,
and
so
you
know
that's
something
that
you
know
because
we,
you
know
you
know
cystic,
has
that
underlying
expertise,
it's
and,
as
I'm
sure
the
same
is
for
isabella
or.
K
I
mean
I'm,
I'm
currently
doing
the
incubation
review
for
psyllium
and
they
have
nine
external
contributors
contributing
to
the
core
things.
I
I
I,
those
are
people
who
you
know
will
be
working
with
the
ppf
and
I've
been
talking
to
end
users
about
ebf
and
and
that's
not
the
part
of
it
that
they
have
problems
contributing
with,
because
I
asked
explicitly
about
that
because
it's
obviously
an
issue.
So
I
actually
don't
think
that's
a
that's
a
an
excuse
for
not
having
maintainers
on
the
ep
on
epdf
code.
N
B
It's
more
just
looking
at
the
the
you
know.
If
I
look
at
the
core
code,
you
know
if
I
look
or
if
I
look
at
the
core
repo,
knowing
that
you
know
I
mean
I'm
just
looking
at
the
graphs
now,
I'm
going
to
guess
that
two-thirds
of
the
contributions
in
the
last
month
came
from
people.
Who've
recently
changed
from
cystic
to
something
else.
B
I'm
just
doing
that
by
I
don't
you
know,
which
you
know
and
that's
great,
it's
fantastic
that
there
could
be
another
company
supporting
the
you
know
the
project
going
forward,
but
I
wouldn't
want
to
you
know,
say
to
an
end
user
that
that's
it's
multi-vendor,
it's
the
risk.
I
want
to
see
that
over
a
longer
period
of
time-
yeah-
that's
that's
my
honest
opinion
of
it.
It
just
doesn't
feel
that
we
have
an
established,
stable
group
of
cross.
B
B
I,
as
I
say
I
just
have
this
flag
right
now-
that
the
core
project
has
a
small
number
of
maintainers.
Those
maintainers
are
almost
exclusively
from
cystic
or
just
leftistic.
I
would
want
to
see
over
a
period
of
months,
some
stability
around
that
and
you
know
a
continued
continued
activity
to
to
make
people
confident
that
that
is
a
project
that
isn't
just
going
to
get
parked.
L
L
B
G
N
N
We
have
we've
heard
this
now
right
and
now
we
know
what
we
need
to
do,
but
this
took
x
amount
of
time-
and
I
know
we
know
you're
ever
talking
as
we
understand
that
as
much
as
we
might
disagree
right,
we
still
have
to
make
sure
that
we're
following
the
the
talk
process,
because
we
do
want
to
graduate-
do
feel
that
the
adoption
of
this
project
is
is
is
making
this
thing
like
where
it's
it's
a
necessary
project
out
there.
So
we
will
continue
to
do
that.
N
L
N
N
B
And
you
know
in
I
mean
I
I
would
say:
maybe
you
know
six
months
seems
like
a
reasonable
period
of
time
for
things
to
happen.
So
you
know
if
you
came
back
and
said
actually
yeah
look
at
this.
You
know
we've
got
the
same
group
of
maintainers,
but
now
they're
working
for
different
organizations,
so
we
kind
of
proved
that
multi-vendor
thing
and
it's
been
stable
for
six
months
and
you
know
an
adoption
is
still
going
up.
B
N
There's
no
denying
the
the
adoption
of
bats
grpc
and
falco
and
they'll
continue
to
be
adopted
and
used.
Regardless
of
you
know
again.
We
really
appreciate
the
you
know
the
graduation
kind
of
spec
and
all
that
it's
awesome.
We
love
to
hear
it
and
that's
the
thing
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
what
is
necessary
to
get
over
there.
So
there
isn't
that
you
know
that
object
in
trying
to
promote
a
project.
So
let's,
let's
figure
that
out
and
we
appreciate
everyone
giving
their
feedback
here.
B
I
think
where
we
have
had
historically
concerns
about
projects
a
lot
of
the
time
it's
come
down
to
this.
If
it
isn't
multi-vendor
multi-organization
maintainers,
you
know
some
projects
demonstrate
that
very
clearly
I
mean
you
know.
Kubernetes
is
a
fabulous
example
for
that
and
where
projects
don't
do
that
and
different
toc
members
have
historically
had
stronger
or
different
feelings
about
how
how
crucial
multiple
vendors
is,
how.
N
I'm
sorry
to
interpret.
We
definitely
understand
that
we
do
have
aspects
of
of
multi-vendors
and
in
terms
of
the
the
maintainers
aspect,
on
the
core
side,
it
just
seems
like
that
seems
to
be
the
the
reflect
the
inflection
point
at
this
point.
Maybe
if
I'm
missing
it
right
or
wrong,
but
that
makes
sense.
B
L
B
B
B
B
N
Project
in
terms
of
tag
security,
just
one
kind
of
note
for
the
talk-
we've
we're
kind
of
almost
a
gold
standard
for
for
the
the
vulnerability
assessment
aspects
and
those
things
that
we
have
been
done
so
like
that
I've
I've
been
told
from
members
of
the
tag
security
that,
like
that's,
it's
really
been
was
done
well
from
that
perspective,
so
I
think
their
concerns
in
terms
of
you
know
vulnerability.
You
know
that
they've
looked
into
were
addressed
as
part
of
this
initial
process.
N
So
if
you
look
in
the
pr
that
has
that
being
addressed,
so
I
I
think
that
should
be
less
of
a
concern.
Obviously
we'll
we'll
run
into
that
as
we
go,
but
that's
definitely
something
that
we've
as
a
security
product.
We
want
to
ensure
that
we're
addressing
and
again
we.
We
appreciate
the
talk,
giving
us
the
time
to
be
able
to
speak
about
falco,
because
we
will
feel
very
strongly
about
it
and
we'll
continue
to
feel
strongly
forgot
about
it.
So
we
know
it's
a
product.
People
excuse
me,
it's
a
project.
B
A
A
O
O
Yeah,
I
I
mean,
there's
a
there's,
a
virtual
kubrick
community
meeting
actually
on
thursday
in
couple
days,
so
I
I
don't
know
if
anyone
from
that
community
is
on
this
call,
but
I
intend
to
attend
the
virtual
kubla
meeting
and
have
a
discussion
about
the
you
know.
The
the
issue
is
really
compliance.
What
what's
the
current
situation?
O
What
we
believe
should
be
the
should
be
the
right,
a
stance
you
know.
At
least
I
want
the
project
to
have
a
strong
opinion
of
this.
Then
then
I
could
bring
it
back
to
toc
to
have
a
discussion,
because,
right
now
we
don't
seem
to
know
where
we
really
are
clearly
and
we
always
don't
have
a
strong
opinion.