►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2019-12-17
Description
Join us for Kubernetes Forums Seoul, Sydney, Bengaluru and Delhi - learn more at kubecon.io
Don't miss KubeCon + CloudNativeCon 2020 events in Amsterdam March 30 - April 2, Shanghai July 28-30 and Boston November 17-20! Learn more at kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy, and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects
CNCF TOC Meeting 2019-12-17
Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TG3CnUAqmTTrPdIV7k0Wu1K1Y9la1SoxPnWfCpIR_0Q/edit#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0
A
C
A
F
E
F
A
D
I
B
H
A
A
Okay,
I
think
we're
having
trouble
getting
slides
shared
this
morning,
but
so
we
can
just
roll
from
the
document
and
if
we
were
able
to
get
that
up
and
running
also
fair
I
will
post
links
over
into
here.
But
realistically
so
I.
Don't
that
important.
Today
the
big
thing
is
kicking
off
with
like
our
process
agendas,
so
yeah.
G
A
G
F
Did
update
I
can't
have
this
conversation
real,
quick
before
I
went
in
and
actually
created.
This
flowchart
I
basically
updated
the
pull
request
earlier,
with
some
kind
of
like
a
rethinking
of
how
we
have
the
process
of
accepting
projects,
and
so
I
can
walk
us
through
that.
If
you
want,
if
that
makes
no
sense
yeah.
That
sounds
good.
F
Great
awesome,
thank
you,
so
so
I
split
up
the
process
in
two
phases,
since
sometimes
we
think
about
like
so
the
problems
I'm
kind
of
trying
to
solve
for
with
these
stages
and
phases
is,
is
one
being
like.
You
know,
there's
some
historical
triaging
that
Kris
and
Amy
have
done
for
us.
So
we
wanted
to
kind
of
take
that
responsibility
as
a
TOC
and
making
marks
Karen.
We
have
in
the
past
kind
of
treated
in
projects
that
have
been
more
involved
a
little
bit
different
than
projects
that
have
not
been
involved.
F
Like
we've
said,
oh,
come
to
a
TOC
presentation
or
no
go
to
a
sick
presentation,
so
I
kind
of
wanted
to
streamline
this
process
and
think
about
tracking,
and
you
know
what
what
the
inputs
and
outputs
of
each
each
phase
in
each
stage
are
so
just
kind
of
like
as
a
short
overview,
a
lot
of
the
first
phase
that
we're
thinking
is.
We
have
a
like
an
initial
phase.
This
is
any
project
that
wants
to
be
part
of
CN.
F
Cf
should
go
through
the
process
of
opening
on
time
and
issue
on
the
CNCs
repo
and
then
the
TFC
repo,
and
this
issue
would
have
like,
would
contain
a
filling,
a
filled
out
version
of
like
a
lightweight
issue
template.
So
there
would
be
a
two
paragraph
max
description
of
the
project
and
by
the
way,
a
lot
of
this
is
already
in
the
proposals,
so
I'm
just
taking
out
kind
of
the
same
thing.
So
you
can
copy
and
paste
that
over
to
the
informal
proposal
when
that
part
of
the
process
comes
through.
F
F
Preferred
project
level
is
if
they
have
a
preference.
A
lot
of
people
don't
understand
what
sandbox
is.
What
incubating
is
what
graduation
is
and
that's?
Okay,
they
don't
have
to
be
experts
on
the
CNC
X
process
to
kind
of
come
up.
A
poster
project
will
will
educate
that
through
that
through
the
process,
so
the
second
phase
is
the
triage
phase.
So
this
is
we've
discussed
in
the
last
private
TOC
meeting
we
actually
volunteered
to
be
on
call.
This
was
Brendan
Birds
proposal.
F
So
if
we
hate
doing
this,
we're
gonna
just
get
inflamed
okay,
but
remember
cuz.
We
would
have
like
kind
of
an
on-call
system,
so
there
would
be
one
TOC
maintainer
on
call
that
be
responsible
for
checking
the
issues
and
triaging.
So
if
this
project
is
a
good
fit
for
the
CTF
we'd
be
like
great:
let's
pass
this
off
to
the
sake.
If
it's
not,
then
they
would
probably
discuss
with
the
TOC.
F
It's
you
know,
being
on
reservations,
come
up
with
a
statement
and
a
justification
of
why
it
doesn't
fit
in
the
seams
yeah
and
respond
on
that
issue
and
close
out
the
closeout
thought
process.
I
see
that
there's
a
comment
in
the
comment
section
or
zoom,
but
I'm
not
gonna
check
in
until
the
end.
So
if
you
have
an
introduction,
just
feel
free
to
say
it,
okay
and
then,
if
so
so,
then
it
goes
to
say
so
what
does
that
mean
right?
So
we
may
say:
hey
this
might
be
the
TOC
member
may
say
hey.
F
We
think
this
is
the
sandbox
public
Roger.
Can
you
go
check
it
out
or
this
is
man
cube
a
team
level
project
go
check
it
out
or
we
don't
know.
Let's
just
give
us
your
recommendation.
This
is
where
the
initial
presentation
happens.
So
if
they
get
a
yes
in
the
triage
base,
then
you
know
wheel
as
a
TOC
member
will
tag
the
relevant
sig
and
the
sig
cares
and
then
we'll
request
a
recommendation.
So
the
project
will
go.
F
Do
a
presentation,
they'll
open
a
pull
request
with
a
proposal
the
sig
will
do
some
due
diligence
and
conditional.
You
know
question
answering
all
that
kind
of
stuff
TOC
members
can
join.
This
will
all
be
recorded
and
documented,
and
so
what
comes
out
of
this
phase
is
a
recommendation.
Template
and
the
recommendation
template
is
what
the
state
fills
out
for
the
TOC.
So
the
sake
says
hey.
We
think
this
is
a
project.
What
this
project
is
good
or
you
know
not
great
for
the
scenes.
F
Yeah
they'll
include
a
justification,
any
recommended
project
level
and
any
concerns
they
have
that
we
should
keep
track
of
and
that's
where
the
TOC
comes
in.
So
if
it's
a
sandbox
level
we'll
go,
look
for
the
you
know
three
sponsors
all
public,
all
in
the
issue,
I'm
not
excusing
in
the
pull
request.
F
We
can
watch
as
TOC
members
watch
the
recording
of
the
project
presentation
and
you
can
also
request
for
the
project
to
come
to
a
TOC
meeting.
We
will
have
already
watched
the
recording
and
that's
a
chance
for
us
to
kind
of
do
some
any
any
more
due
diligence,
any
more
question
answering
sessions
and
all
that
and
so
incubating.
Okay
to.
F
F
Yeah
and
so,
and
so
if
oh
yeah
you're
fine,
so
if
it's
an
incubating
project
the
TSE
can
find
through
sponsors
at
that
point,
while
also
doing
the
due
diligence
and
user
interviews
in
conjunction
with
the
state
chairs
and
what
comes
out
of
that
and
I.
Don't
think.
I
may
not
have
put
this
specific
thing,
but
what
comes
out
of
that
is
the
due
diligence
document
and
the
vote
is
the
output
of
that
phase.
So
that's
a
high
level
of
what's
going
on
here.
J
J
This
thing
early
on
in
the
process
seems
like
it
might
be
somewhat
contentious,
I
think
it's
potentially
okay,
but
but
that
you
know
that
makes
me
slightly
uneasy
and
particularly
if
they
do
it
without
involving
the
same
who
might
have,
you
know,
formed
a
sort
of
strategy
around
that
space,
and
so
that's
that's
one
area
where
I
think.
Maybe
we
need
a
little
bit
of
refinement
and
the
other
question
was
around
having
three
sponsors
for
sandbox
versus
two
for
the
others.
J
I
was
wondering
so
one
of
the
things
that
has
held
that
projects
in
the
past
has
actually
been
just
getting
enough
attention
to
to
get
to
sponsors
and
I.
Think
getting
a
third
one
engaged
and
able
to
look
closely
at
the
project
is
absolutely
as
the
process
done:
I'm
not
sure
how
much
value
it
adds.
So
those
are
my
two
comments.
G
F
But
great
great
comment:
I
got
ahead
of
myself,
there
I
should
probably
put
to
three
and
then
the
single
TOC
a
number
process.
So
I
would
love
your
comment
on
that
on
that
pull
request,
so
we
can
keep
track
of
it.
But
what
we've
thought
about
from
the
TOC
side?
What
we
discussed
is
that
there
could
be
an
appeals
process.
So
you
could,
you
know,
have
you
could
say?
Hey
I
want
another
TOC
member
to
check
this
out.
You
could
appeal
if
you
want
to
do
that.
F
Another
potential
possibility
is
that
we
could,
before
the
single
TOC
member,
says
no
and
has
that
justification.
I
think
that
there
could
be
a
process
that
we
have
is
the
TOC
which,
which
is
like
lazy
consensus.
So
we
could
kind
of
if
I
were
the
TOC
triage
or
that
week
and
I
didn't
think
that
a
project
was
a
good
fit.
I
could
say:
I
could
email
the
TOC
mailing
list
and
say:
hey
I,
don't
think
this.
This
is
early
to
be
private.
F
Mailing
list
I'm
not
really
sure
if
it
should
be
in
public
or
private,
but
I
could
email
the
TOC
and
say
hey
I,
don't
think
this
is
a
good
fit.
This
is
my
reasoning.
Do
you
all
agree
with
me
or
are
there
any
disagreements
and
we
could
kind
of
discuss
it
in
the
back
end?
That's
where
I
went
in
kind
of
made
that
public
basing
justification
and
recommendation.
F
J
I
think
that
sounds
like
a
great
way
of
addressing
it.
I
think
it's
the
no
it's
the
no
outcome.
That's
that's
potentially
problematic.
The
yes
outcome
is
fine,
because
the
you
know
the
CG
and
the
and
the
TOC
have
a
you
know
late
later
opportunity
to
change
the
yes
provision
well
into
a
No.
It's
the
no
option
that
doesn't
have
a
you
know,
fullback
plan,
but
what
you
skip
stuff
makes
no
sense.
H
Okay,
yeah
I
mean
a
couple
other
points
there,
Quinton
I
think
you
know
we
also
talked
about
having
some
advisory
about
sort
of
projects
resubmitting
and
like
when
and
and
and
how
that
comes
into
play.
One
of
the
things
we're
optimizing
for
here
is
you
know
my
I
joked
that
sometimes
the
talking
to
the
TOC
feels
a
little
bit
like
talking
to
a
VC.
Nobody
ever
says
no
right.
H
F
I
just
wanted
to
address
a
comment
on
the
pull
request.
I
think
Sarah
made
this
comment:
is
the
recommendation
template
the
same
message
of
due
diligence,
template
I
in
my
process?
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
so.
I
think
the
recommendation
template
is
more
lightweight.
It's
more
of
a
reflection
of
the
conversation
that
happened
in
mistake
and
less
of
a
you
know
super
deep
dive
into
the
technical
details.
F
The
due
diligence
would
happen
in
the
TOC
action
phase,
so
this
is.
This
is
a
great
question,
because
this
is
something
that
I
was
a
little
bit.
I
wanted
to
discuss
a
little
more
so
when
the
TOC
gets
a
recommendation
back
from
the
say,
I
think
at
that
point.
So
this
is
what
we
need
to
clarify.
Do
we
get
is
if
the
recommendation
is
incubating.
Do
we
get
two
sponsors
for
that
incubating
project?
F
First,
before
we
do
the
diligence
to
due
diligence
so
that
they
can
help
the
safe
with
due
diligence
or
do
we
do
the
due
diligence
before
finding
the
two
sponsors
and
I
think
it
should
be?
Thus,
it
comes
back
with
a
recommendation.
The
TOC
finds
the
necessary
sponsors
and
then
those
sponsors
are
responsible
for
coordinating
with
the
same
on
the
actual
user
interviews
and
due
diligence
document.
So
it's
after,
if
it's
in
that
fourth
phase,
okay
well
I,
think
make
sense.
M
So
we
would
something
like
maybe
there's
a
lesser
like
some
subset
of
the
due
diligence
template
like
it
like
I,
don't
want
to
have
like
all
of
these
different
templates
that
yeah
absolutely
like
some
I
guess,
I'd
be
interested
in
what
subset
of
the
questions
in
the
due
diligence
template
that
you
would
want
us
to
consider
right.
There
may
be
aspects
of
it
that
are
really
more
either
they're,
just
more
of
a
deep
dive
or
they're,
more
kind
of
TOC
things.
M
F
F
G
M
G
M
That,
like
basically,
what
I
had
thought
about
in
the
flowchart
which
I've
seen
work
before,
although
I
can't
think
of
the
reference,
which
is
this
idea,
that
the
sig
would
have
to
have
a
champion
to
the
TOC
that
if
we
can't
find
a
champion,
that
would
be
maybe
a
soft
way
of
saying:
hey.
No
one
in
the
sig
is
willing
to
champion
this
project
and
they
have
not
made
a
compelling
case
for
membership
in
the
TOC.
Here
are
notes
right,
so
it
would
be
more
like
and
then
the
toc-toc
membership
could
be
like.
M
Well,
you
know,
I,
don't
know.
What's
up
with
that,
sig
I'm
gonna
champion
it
right.
So
the
idea
being
that
before
we
have
the
official
vote
and
the
sponsorship
we
need
somebody.
Maybe
it's
initially
a
TOC
mm,
a
sig
member.
Typically
right,
it
would
be.
You
know,
typically
a
sig
chair,
but
it
could
be
delegated.
Who
is
really
going
to
be
like
I
have
thought
through
this
project
they
are
great
fit
for
the
COC
I'm
gonna
be
the
point
of
contact
from
the
sig
to
say
this
is
a
great
project
right.
M
M
F
An
idea
yeah
that's
something
to
definitely
consider
I
hadn't
thought
about
that
and
I'd
really
like
the
champion
idea.
I
really
want
to
sit
on
that
a
little
bit.
That's
okay,
yeah,
just
I!
Do
I
think
this
is
safe
approach.
Thank
You
Michelle
for
working
on
this.
Thank
you
so
I'm,
just
iterating
on
Sarah's
version
and
Brendan's
version.
This
is
not
from
scratch,
but
we'll
get
there
yeah
yeah.
It's
got
any
questions
or
points
on
this.
One
I
think.
M
Sarah
had
something
so
I'm
just
curious,
I.
The
flow
chart.
I
love
this,
like
the
simplicity,
in
a
positive
way
of
the
four
phases
and
naming
those
and
I
think
that
the
flowchart
could
be
greatly
simplified.
With
this
structure
and
I'm
just
curious
about
and
I
think
some
of
these
could
be
and
I
think
we
lost
you
on
some
of
the
sorry
my
audio
is,
it
seems
fine,
but
zoom
keeps
telling
me
it's
worried
about
me.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
we
can
hear
you
know.
M
I
noticed
that
informally,
when
there's
when
the
20
OC
members
are
less
familiar
with
a
project,
or
this
has
come
up
in
cig
meetings
as
well.
When
we're
less
familiar
with
the
project,
we'll
say:
oh,
it's
a
project,
this
other
CN,
CF
project
seems
related.
How
are
you
the
same
difference
right
and
instead
of
it
that
being
a
back
and
forth
just
set
as
an
expectation
from
the
outset
that
the
project
would
go
find
other
related
projects
in
the
CNC
F
and
you
know
at
least
see
like?
M
M
Look
at
that,
because
I
find
that
there's
like
this
long,
slow
thing
where
projects
that
are
new
to
the
CN
CF
are
kind
of
like
what
do
I
do
while
I
wait
for
an
answer
and
the
truth
is
the
projects
that
are
part
of
the
CSA
or,
like
our
part
of
the
community,
are
already
doing
the
things
that
will
make
them
more
successful.
But
the
new
people
new
to
the
community,
don't
know
what
those
things
are.
So
I
just
wanted
to
ask
what
people
thought
of
that
kind
of
encouragement
to
engage
yeah.
F
That's
I
think
that
that's
a
really
good
point.
Do
we
already
have
a
question:
I
can't
think
of
I
filled
out
a
few
proposals,
but
I
can't
think
of
a
question
that
specifically
say
it
states
like
how
are
you
related
to
other
projects
and
where,
where
do
you
fit
into
the
landscape
like
a
competitive
analysis,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
I.
Think
put
that
in
to,
in
my
opinion,
put
that
into
the
project
proposal
which
would
get
open
at
the
same
time
as
the
project
presentation,
so
that
they
can
go.
Look
at
that.
F
N
For
what
it's
worth,
the
in
a
storage
thing
we
put
together
this
this
template,
which
I've
shared
with
Liz's
documents
that
she
was
putting
together
just
now,
and
we
cover
things
like
you
know,
adoption,
but
also
the
ecosystem
like
what
what
other
projects
there's
this
project
interact
with
and
does
the
project
require
any
specific
versions
of
things
and
there's
those
projects
similar
to
other
CN
CF
projects.
There's
no
sort
of
questions
so
I
mean
I.
N
Think
what
we're
discussing
here,
though,
is
how
much,
how
much
information
do
we
collect
at
this
initial
phase
versus
what
we
collect
and
we're
actually
reviewing
in
the
sig
right,
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
right
answer
is.
I
think
there
probably
should
be
like
a
handful
of
questions
that
that
the
talk
person,
who's
kind
of
on
call,
should
have
access
to
if
they're
trying
to
make
it
an
informed
decision
and
I
think
it
will
also
be
beneficial.
N
That
sort
of
all
the
projects
have
a
common
five
or
ten
questions
or
whatever
else
a
day
that
they
answer
when
they're
submitting
to
to
that's
talked
person,
that's
making
that
initial
call,
because
otherwise
we
kind
of
then
get
into
their
into
the
realm,
where
we
have
the
sort
of
shifting
goalposts
issue
that
we've
had
in
the
past.
I.
G
F
So
I
think
perhaps
I
can
I
want
to
keep
that
heart,
really
small.
For
now
anything
we
should
come
back
in
a
few
months
and
revisit
it
and
ask
the
TOC
members
like
in
the
triage
phase.
Did
you
come
back
and
if
the
answer
is
yes,
then
you
can
just
hop
in
or
we
can
no
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
matter
to
me
I.
G
F
G
G
This
is
the
theory
it's
only
a
theoretical
concern,
but
nevertheless
something
we
should
be
conscious
of
that
right
now
you
could
have
two
toc
members
from
the
same
organization
and
if
they
wanted
to
put
one
of
their
organizations
projects
into
the
cncs,
there
is
nothing
to
stop
that,
but
with
3
there
would
have
to
be
buying
from
someone
else.
I
don't
think.
We've
had
any
cases
anything
like
that,
but
it
seems
like
a
good
thing
to
make
sure
you
know
gee.
If
you
can't
get
sponsorship
from
3
toc
members.
H
B
M
Sponsor
ship,
how
to
roll
this
might
be
a
more
informal
but
I
thought
the
sponsors
were
like
had
some
also
kind
of
obligation
to
the
project
that,
if
a
project
needed
to
find
its
way
in
the
CNC
f,
that
the
sponsors
would
be
there
for
them
right
that
it
was
like
kind
of
that
type
of
relationship
and
I
made
of
maybe
I
read
that
somewhere.
Maybe
it
was
discussed
I,
don't
recall
so
I'm
curious.
What
the
role
of
like
do
you
is.
M
G
There
might
be
a
difference
between
formal
and
informal
role,
but
the
formal
role
is
just
through
the
sponsoring
process.
To
my
understanding,
in
fact,
we
used
to
have
a
list
of
who
the
sponsors
were,
and
you
know
they
were
people.
Who've
been
been
on
the
TLC
for
many
months,
so
we
don't
have
any
kind
of
process
for
updating
that.
J
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
that
was
a
flaw
actually
Liz
and
I
think
the
intention
was
that
that
sponsor
and
this
predated
the
syncs
and
maybe
the
cigs-
make
that
kind
of
redundant
and
things
that
cigs
are
responsible
for
looking
after
the
project
after
it
is,
you
know,
brought
into
CN
CF,
but
but
at
the
time
when
it
was
initiated,
the
intention
was
that
that
the
sponsors
would
be.
You
know
there
to
look
after
the
project
at
the
time
and,
yes,
we
fell
down
in
that
some
of
the
you
know.
J
Just
one
other
comment
on
the
on
the
three
versus
two
things.
I
think
it's
a
very
valid
concern
if,
if
a
single
company
can
put
two
TRC
members,
often
and
launches
something
I
think
that
is
problematic
and
I
think
we
should
distress
that
one
concern
is
that
you
know
getting
two
responses
sufficiently
engaged
is
difficult
enough,
getting
three
would
be
even
more
difficult,
potentially
and
time-consuming.
J
So
an
alternative
would
be
to
say
that
the
two
sponsors
have
to
be
from
different
companies,
but
that
might
be
another
one,
but
it
doesn't
address
Joe's
Joe's
comment
that
you
know
you
want
to.
You
know
somewhere
around
a
third
of
the
TOC
members
to
be
sponsors.
I
guess
is
case
licit
kind
of
requirement.
There
I.
H
Think
you
know
the
you
know
we
have
seen
and
I
don't
think
we've
seen
this
lately,
where
projects
will
what
I
would
call
sponsor
shop
where
they
would
essentially
go
through
and
have
a
lot
of
one-on-one
conversations
with
TOC
members
and
and
try
and
get
people
to
say
yes
before,
there's
sort
of
any
concerns
were
shared.
That
type
of
thing,
I
think
as
a
TLC
we're
doing
better
at
communicating
as
we
get
in
bound
communications,
but
I.
Think
at
that
three
level.
You
know,
there's
a
definitely
makes
it
harder
to
do
something
like
that.
N
G
Yeah,
that's
really
interesting,
I
wonder
if
that
needs
to
be
formalized
or
whether
that's
so
kind
of
likely
to
come
out
in
the
wash
anyway.
Just
because
toc
members,
you
have
a
particular
interest
in
a
particular
area,
are
more
likely
to
be
than
actual
sponsors
for
project.
You
know,
I
can
definitely
think
of
cases
where
you
know,
projects
have
come
in
and
its
really
outside
of
my
wheelhouse
and
I
would
not
feel
you
know.
A
Be
the
sponsor
there
is
a
question
in
chat
about
making
the
binding
the
TOC
from
different
organizations,
meaning
to
sponsors
you
from
the
same
Oregon
just
count
as
one
I
am
trying
to
be
able
to
think
of
a
place
where
we
would
actually
have
that
happen
at
the
moment
that
is
not
possible,
but
possibly
in
the
future,
which
is
the
same.
We
do
not
have
TSA
members
from
the
same
organization.
Everyone
here
is
from
separate
doors,
no
II
do
Michel
and
you're
right.
Okay,
you
guys.
Thank
you.
A
bigger
part.
G
C
You
can
ask
a
question
here:
do
the
sponsors
have
time
for
extra
responsibility,
especially
as
more
projects
are
added,
so
do
we
want
the
sandbox
projects
to
grow
kind
of
like
the
Apache
foundation
has
or
do
we
want
to
keep
them
small
and
then
do
the
sponsors
have
the
time
to
put
in
for
that
extra
responsibility?
Given
the
growth,
that's
wanted
right,
I.
G
H
It's
also
worth
recognizing
that
the
set
of
service
has
offered
his
hand
box
projects
is
minimal,
and
so
the
amount
of
active
time
from
the
TOC
to
sandbox
project
should
be
relatively
low.
That's
you
know
when
this
you
know
for
good
reo
when
we
move
from
from
inception
to
sandbox.
The
decision
at
that
point
was
to
try
and
make
the
sandbox
process
be
less
rigorous,
more
open,
less
services
and
more
available
as
a
landing
ground.
You
know
a
landing
spaces.
H
J
I
think,
even
in
the
absence
of
additional
services,
Joe
I
think
that
there
is
I
mean
I,
don't
know
personally,
as
a
potential
sponsor
of
a
project.
I
would
certainly
not
want
to
put
my
name
next
to
a
project
as
a
sponsor
unless
I
had
you
know
a
certain
amount
of
understanding
of
what
the
project
was
about
and
and
make
sure
that
I,
you
know,
wasn't
dragging
my
own
name
through
the
through
the
mud
by
it
by
sponsoring
something
which
which
turned
out
not
to
be
a
good
idea.
J
So
so,
even
that
amount
of
effort,
I
think,
was
difficult
to
get.
You
know
to
TOC
members,
especially
for
projects
that
may
not
be
at
all
familiar
with.
You
know,
for
the
household
name
stuff,
it's
it's
pretty
straightforward,
but
for
the
you
know
very
early
stuff
that
a
lot
of
TRC
members
may
have
I've
heard
of
before,
and
they
might
have
to
go
and
do
a
bunch
of
reading
to
figure
out
whether
they
think
this
is
something
I
want
to
put
their
name
to.
It
was
a
pretty
big
hurdle
for
some
of
the
projects.
J
I
must
say
and
I
think
it.
You
know
it
further
exacerbates
the
point
you
mentioned
about
this
TRC
sponsor
shopping
thing,
where
it's
it's
pretty
difficult
to
get
those
two
you're
now
three,
and
so
you
just
go,
and
you
know
splatter
gun
all
the
TOC
members
and
try
and
get
them
all
excited
about
the
project.
I.
F
Can
see
where
you're
coming
from
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
want
to
just
consider
is
that
in
this
process,
even
at
the
sandbox
level,
the
presentation
is
happening.
You
know
to
the
sig
and
that
a
lot
of
the
responsibility
for
setting
the
sandbox
level
project
is
now
delegated
to
the
to
the
sig,
and
we
asked
for
a
recommendation
even
at
the
sandbox
level,
so
that
was
yeah.
F
I
mean
I,
understand
that
the
husband,
an
issue
in
the
past
and
even
I
have
encountered
that
it
takes
a
lot
of
time
to
really
understand
something,
and
you
know,
ask
the
right:
question:
isn't
read
throughout
the
documentation
and
the
proposal
and
all
that,
but
now
that
that
should
be.
Some
of
that
is
a
shared
responsibility,
and
that's
just
something
to
consider.
F
G
G
Okay,
all
right,
so
the
next
thing
I
had
was
on
the
agenda
was
I
drafted
a
proposal.
I've
done
this
in
a
Google
Doc,
initially
for
a
process
for
getting
sandbox
projects
through
an
annual
review
again
trying
to
keep
this
really
lightweight
but
putting
the
responsibility
really
on
to
the
project.
To
say
this
is
you
know
this
is
where
we're
at
and
just
post
the
link
I
did
send
it
round.
I
think
I!
Think
I
didn't
send
it
round
to
the
TSE.
This
I
haven't
seen
any
comments
on
it.
G
N
I
really
like
the
idea
for
what
it's
worth,
what
I
was
also
thinking
was
that
if,
if
we
use
a
template
to
accept
a
project
into
the
sandbox,
then
we
can
keep
that
templates
updated.
So
we
can
have
kind
of
points
in
time
as
to
how
the
project
is
advanced
because
and
we
can
kind
of
use
the
diffs
and
github
or
whatever
it's
a
show
to
show
the
changes
over
time
to
it.
G
G
A
G
A
M
C
How
our
SIG's
gonna
be
looped
into
this
project
backlog
for
their
work
and
I
asked
because
I
was
talking
to
the
Kudo
folks
and
I
was
talking
to
the
sig
folks
over
say:
got
delivery
and
I
see
it's
under
the
in
project.
Due
diligence
presentation
but
I
was
told
they've
already
presented
in
the
sig
doesn't
feel
they
have
any
other
work
to
do
involved.
C
F
Absolutely
the
the
we
want
to
take
a
step
back
to
talk
through
the
process,
but
I
think
it's
up
to
us
to
give
the
sig
a
template
to
follow
like
a
recommendation
template
to
fill
out
so
that
the
TOC
can
kind
of
take
it
over.
If
we
want
to
go
that
route,
Liz
you're,
leaning
over
shouldn't
I
say
something
no.
G
D
B
F
F
G
One
thing
I
noticed
on
here,
so
there's,
cortex
and
I
have
some
recollection
that
samos
are
also
I,
don't
see
anything
on
the
board,
but
I
recall
an
email
in
the
last
day
or
two
about
Santos,
maybe
on
mister,
remembering
that.
But
anyway,
we
don't
right
now
have
an
observed
ability
sake,
and
it
would
be
wonderful
if
we
did
have
such
a
thing.
So
if
there
is
anyone
out
there
on
this
call
or
if
you
know
of
anyone
who
would
be
interested
in
setting
up
a
observability
sink.
P
We've
already
started
actually
over
the
next
two
quarters
within
one
quarter
in
force
for
a
general
observability
platform,
that's
cortex,
Loki,
Cortana
and
Jaeger
in
q2
q3
for
our
micro
services,
which
are
all
hosted
in
multiple
thoughts.
So
we've
been
doing
a
ton
of
work
around
observability
and
I
would
love
to
engage
with
whatever
cig
we
might
create
or
help
create
it
I'm.
Not
sure,
though,
what
the
process
is
like
I
said
this
is
my
first
CNC
F
meeting
that
I've
attended.
So
thank.
F
P
Mean
the
observability
is
really
at
the
center.
We
were
a
DevOps
accessori
team
and
we've
transitioned
to
really
making
more
self
service
components
so
that
we
can
scale
out
the
organization
without
you
know,
scaling
by
organization
to
pace.
So
observability
is
really
just.
It
touches
everything
we
do
from
the
business
and
the
technical
side.
So
yeah.
F
G
M
So
more
specifically,
as
a
sig
chair,
we
have
a
very
well-documented
process
that
everyone
who
follows
it
has
a
different
interpretation
of
what
it
means.
So,
if
you
are
interested
in
the
leading
a
sig,
it
would
be
fabulous
if
you
read
that
process
and
added
annotations
clarifications
or
true
a
set
of
questions,
because
now
it's
sort
of
hard
to
retro
actively
go
back
and
try
to
figure
out
what
was
confusing
about
something
that
we
now
understand.
M
J
J
F
G
M
P
A
A
A
So
for
that
maintainer
seat,
we're
actually
working
on
logistics
to
be
able
to
extend
that
further.
The
challenge
is
that
there
is
a
general
board,
maintainer
selected
seat
that
is
supposed
to
be
able
to
open
nominations
basically
directly
following
this,
so
we
are
working
on
logistics
to
be
able
to
not
have
to
nomination
processes
running
in
the
same
bucket.
Basically,
so
if
there
there's
no
objection
to
extending
the
deadline
right,
no,
it's
the
logistics
problem
on
my
end
and
okay,.
C
C
A
C
A
Timetable
says
that
the
general
board
agrees
towards
being
able
to
have.
This
is
where
the
election
to
start.
My
real
challenge
right
now
is
that
the
end
of
the
elections
kind
of
overlap
a
little
bit
with
the
end
of
what
they
proposed
for
the
written
down
schedules
I'm,
because
right
now
we
have
the
seats
end
on
the
29th
and
the
next
people
come
in
and
they
are
seated
on
February
3rd,
so
that
that
is
like
an
absolute
like
has
to
make
deadlines.
A
R
A
R
R
G
A
F
The
then
I
don't
really
see
it
much
of
an
issue-
and
this
is
just
me
spit
following
here,
but
with
the
maintainer
elected
TOC,
see
that's
an
addition.
So
there's
not
like
a
seat,
that's
missing
from
the
TOC
that
we
would
have
to
like
really
worry
about
there.
So
I
think
that
that
deadline.
We
could
make
a
case
to
the
governing
board
or
whoever
needs
to
vote
to
like,
or
you
know,
do
lazy
consensus
to
make
sure
that
the
dates
are.
F
You
know,
correct
and
approved,
and
all
that,
so
there
is
a
there's
that
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
big
issue.
Brandon
Phillips
was
the
other
developer
representative
on
the
governing
board.
His
term
ends
in
December,
so
there
is
a
gap
there
of
a
month
and
I.
Don't
think
that
that's
again
like
that,
I
think
that
if
there
was
a
problem
with
you
know
timelines
and
all,
but
that's
the
thing
that
we
need
to
consider.
We
just
need
to
make
sure
that
the
GP
seat
for
a
developer
rep
is
like
that
election
is
on
time.
F
I,
don't
see
a
huge
issue
with
the
TOC
maintainer
elected
seat
timeline.
If
we
don't
have
it
I,
don't
see
any
repercussions,
I
just
think
the
governing
board
probably
needs
to
do
some
sort
of
lazy
consensus
to
approve
like
an
extension.
If
that's
the
process
that
we
want
to
go
towards,
but
again
maybe
Dan
and
Chris
are
better
for
our
resource
were
answering
those
questions
and
then
the
other
thing
when
to
mention
was
oh.
A
F
F
A
G
F
You
know
the
qualification
period
like
that
shouldn't
apply
to
the
maintainer
seat,
because
that's
more
of
like
for
the
further
chibi
seats,
it's
like
there's
a
bunch
of
nominations
and
then
the
G
B
is
the
endorsing
part
of
it.
G
B
says:
hey.
These
people
are
qualified.
We
already
do
an
endorsing
kind
of
process
with
the
means
hearing
a
bunch
of
elected
C
by
requiring
them
to
put
forth
to
enforcers
from
two
different
projects
and
companies.
F
A
F
Are
also
there's
also
never
been
agreed
that
we
should
update
the
Charter,
but
this
is
kind
of
a
gray
area,
because
before
it
was
only
the
TOC
and
the
GP
who
were
doing
the
nominating
so,
of
course
they
would
go
through
qualifying
and
actually
the
G
be
selected.
Seats
are
not
qualified
by
the
TOC,
so
only
the
GB
qualifies
those
and
then
the
t's
TOC
qualifies
their
nominees.
So
the
maintainer
should
qualify.
I
mean
just
going
along
with
the
pattern,
so
the
maintainer
should
qualify
their
own
nominee.
F
G
A
two-week
period,
therefore
qualification.
So
if
the
Chancellor
says
that
everyone
has
to
go
through
the
qualifications,
I
don't
see
why
it
would
be
a
problem
to
stagger
them
to
say
we
have
two
weeks
to
go
through
the
governing
board
and
TOC
ones,
and
one
week
for
the
maintained
ones,
I
mean
it's
not
a
question
for
us.
It's
a
question
for
the
GP
yeah.
We.
F
C
I
was
just
gonna
say
you
know,
I
like
the
idea
of
pulling
the
GB
and
TOC
qualifications,
because
if
you've
got
somebody
who's
from
a
maintainer
of
a
graduated
or
incubating
project
who
got
people
from
two
other
companies,
not
theirs
to
sign
up
and
two
other
projects,
not
theirs
to
do
it
across
the
projects.
Imagine
the
GB
coming
in
and
saying
no,
we
decided
this
person
isn't
qualified.
That's
where
I
think
it's
gonna
get
a
little
bit
hard
and
weird,
because
I
mean
the
qualification.
There
is
already
really
hard
yeah.
G
G
Okay,
I
think
we
can
take
these
suggestions
to
the
governing
board.
It
sounds
as
though
it's
quite
a
lot
of
will
from
you
know,
Amy
and
the
rest
of
the
organization
to
try
to
find
a
way
to
extend
nominations,
because
clearly
it
has
been
been
confusing,
so
appreciated,
I
think
we're
up
to
time.
We
go
through
a
lot.
Yes
very
much.
We've.