►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-06-02
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-06-02
A
A
B
D
C
A
A
A
A
C
A
Note
that
we
are
missing
a
few
cigs
this
time,
security
is
still
kind
of
down
some
chairs
and
sake
contributor
strategy,
we'll
be
sending
in
written
updates
later
so.
Ok
did
you
want
to
talk
us
through
the
I?
Do
of
note,
we've
got
some
annual
reviews,
there's
a
link
up
in
here
towards
the
board.
Where
all
of
this
is
tracked,
we
have
some
new
reviews.
From
last
time
we
met,
we
have
Brigade
and
Network
surface
finish.
Both
are
linked
here.
The
+1
right
now
means
that
open
EBS
has
one.
A
As
of
yesterday
when
I
was
checking
on
this
for
TSA
sponsors,
cortex,
telepresence
and
cupich
have
two.
You
need
three
in
order
to
be
able
to
complete
this
process,
so
my
request
of
TOC
members
is
to
go
and
review
these
particular
annual
reviews
come
in
and
ask
questions
and
if
you're
satisfied,
please
put
in
a
looks
good
to
me
and
I
will
move
it
on
towards
where
it
is
perfectly
supposed
to
be
in
the
board.
Any
questions
around
this
I
just.
C
A
A
C
C
C
You
know
review,
hopefully,
all
the
information
to
complete
this
spreadsheet,
the
spreadsheet
being
based
on
the
form.
Hopefully
all
that
information
is
already
available
in
the
submission,
so
we're
asking
Amy
to
do
that
to
save
the
projects
from
having
to
feel
like
they're
reapplying
and
then
our
plan
is
that
the
next
time
we
have
a
private
meeting,
we
will
go
through
that
process.
A
plan
is
to
hold
that
privately
but
record
it
so
that
people
can,
you
know,
see
the
discussions
that
we
have,
but
that
we
kind
of
not
interrupting
them.
C
E
C
F
Much
I
mean
it's:
it's
meant
for
a
service
that
we
offer
our
projects,
but
you
know
if
there
is
a
request
from
a
TOC
member
or
someone
that
needs
a
little
bit
more
extra
diligence
from
a
sick
point
of
view.
We
could
see
what
we
could
do,
but
those
are
truly
meant
for
projects
part
of
the
foundation.
C
I
think
that,
particularly
at
the
sandbox
level,
just
the
sort
of
surface
information
that
we
can
see
on
github
is
probably
sufficient,
because
you
know
we
we're
really
just
trying
to
you
know
we
wouldn't
want
to
be
necessarily
accepting
into
sandbox
something
that
you
know.
Somebody
not
together
appeal
that
morning
and
there's
literally
nothing
there.
But
you
know
we
don't
have
like
a
minimum
bar.
So.
G
One
quick
question
and
I
joint
lady,
my
zoom
was
being
difficult,
so
I'm
probably
missed
it
and
I'm.
Sorry,
if
you
have
to
repeat
it
Liz,
but
what
is
happening
to
the
projects
that
are
already
in
sandbox,
that's
the
ones
you're
going
to
look
through
and
vote
on.
The
private
meeting
did
I
understand
that
correctly.
You.
H
C
Yeah
exactly
so,
the
idea
is
that,
rather
than
ask
the
projects
to
kind
of
reapply,
we're
hoping
that
all
the
information
to
fill
in
this,
hopefully
relatively
straightforward
form
and
is
available,
and
that
Amy
will
be
able
to
do
that
on
their
behalf.
And
then
we
can
use
that
to
kind
of
trial.
The
process
and
yeah
we'll
find
out
by
experimentation
whether
that
process
is
more
effective,
at
least
in
terms
of
us
reviewing
it
and
and
then
we'll
take
it
from
there.
C
A
C
A
C
C
H
It's
very
curious
between
there.
Sorry
he
slides
a
period.
Sorry
about
that
yeah.
We
had
a
very
similar
problem
or
question
when
cloud
events
went
the
incubator
status
because
we
had
to
have
a
certain
number
of
you
know,
end
users
and
obviously
most
of
cloud
events
uses
is
not
for
and
you
and
we
kind
of
winged
it
a
little,
and
we
talk
about
all
the
different
vendors
that
are
adopting
it
and
that
seemed
to
satisfy
that
COC.
During
the
review
process.
C
Yeah
I
think
it.
This
seems
like
one
of
those
criteria
where
it's
quite
hard
to
imagine
a
firm
definition
that
we
would
always
be
happy
with,
and
that
perhaps
this
is
a
better
well
Chris
I
said
judgment
called
by
the
TOC
at
the
end
of
the
day
and
I
guess
this
is
another
one
of
those
things
where
you
know
public
comment
can
also
inform
you
know
if
people
think
that
something
is
coming
up
for
incubation.
J
K
For
bail
packs
and
you
end,
users
are
building
things
that
are
compliant
with
they're,
using
things
that
are
compliant
with
this
bag.
They
end
users
a
using
build
packs
to
build
things.
That
seems
like
an
end
user
use
to
me,
even
if,
like
even
if
it's
strictly
r-spec
and
not
a
the
implementation,
but
I
mean
if,
if
an
end
user
is
going
and
doing
things
because
which
they're
they
find
useful
because
it
complies
with
this
bag,
then
that
seems
potatoes
division
to
me,
yeah.
L
So
I'm,
Harry
and
I
can
add
more
details
about
this
question.
So
I
think
the
current
discussion
around
ok,
maybe
some
project
they
are
more
like
to
be
adopted
by
vendors
instead
of
end
users.
So
that
is
why
we
read
this
culture,
because
today
we
emphasize
a
lot
on
the
end
user,
adoption
for
incubation
label
and,
of
course,
with
graduation
criteria.
L
C
So
I
guess
the
useful
information
first
to
make
the
decision
would
be
to
understand
you
know
who
the
adopters
are
and
if
they're,
not
end-users.
How
is
that?
How
is
that
characterized?
You
know
it
could
be
that
it's
it's
implemented
by.
You
know
two
different
vendors
and
then
those
vendors
have
fifty
thousand
end
users
of
those
implementations
that
that
would
seem
like
useful
information
for
us
to
understand.
L
Yeah
I
I,
don't
they
intentionally
agree
with
the
point
here?
Also
somebody
use
automation,
the
same
thing
same
6/10,
my
dear
so
I
I
think
we
will
actually
do
the
recommendation
based
on
the
account
facts
and
I
will
mention
that
the
adoptions
of
this
project
is
actually
more
like
there's
a
new
audit
and
toz
to
make
the
final
decision,
because
we
can
still
do
a
recommendation
around
every
other
aspects
of
the
project.
I
think
that
that's
how
we
were
going
with
this
specific
project.
C
L
E
E
E
You
will
be
complete
this
week
that
we've
spent
quite
a
bit
of
time
with
that
team
and
with
that
project
and
for
as
far
as
I
have
personally
tried
to
come
up
with
something
to
dig
up
the
bones
or
to
come
up
with
something
negative
or
really
just
saying
this
as
a
joke.
Rather,
I
got
nothing
but,
for
my
part,
nothing
but
positive
things
to
say
that
pending
came
back
at
Ken's
analysis
as
well.
So
far,
so
good
kuhmo
was
also
proposed
for
sandbox.
E
E
They
say
that
tentatively
waiting
for
correction,
but
that
looks
correct.
Okay,
good.
We
similarly
for
mesh
Ria's
another
project
shortly
to
be
proposed
for
sandbox
sort
of
on
the
list.
Cni
Genie
was
previously
proposed
for
sandbox
and
we've.
Just
we
haven't
made
the
right
contact
with
those
maintainer
z--
to
actually
get
them
scheduled
for
review,
and
so
we
might
be
I
think
I
think
we
have
a
stale
issue,
a
stay
on
request,
sitting
out
there
so
well
we're
waiting
for
those
maintainer
to
come
back.
E
Lastly,
we
noted
I
think
last
time
we
met
that
we
had
an
upcoming
presentation
from
Jonathan
Furby
on
sort
of
the
state
of
layer.
7
proto
calls
that
are
not
HTTP,
really
much
more
IOT
focus
protocols
and
he
delivered
that
presentation
and
it's
available
not
only
was
a
recording
there,
but
his
presentation
is
in
the
network
repo.
C
So
and
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
on
the
on
the
slide.
That
is,
you
know
the
new
slide.
I
have
the
benefit
of
actually
being
able
to
see.
It
say
a
couple
of
really
interesting
things
that
one
talking
about
maybe
having
some
CN
CF
Labs
for
benchmarking.
So
is
the
idea
there
that
we'd
be
able
to
publish
results
for
I,
don't
know
different
scenarios
to
compare
different
service
mesh
implementations,
yeah.
E
You
pretty
much
yeah.
That
was
yes,
although
I
would
care
a
caveat
it
with
that
being
the
the
potentially
contentious
area,
researching
focus
and
the
point
there,
hopefully
to
lift
to
to
encourage
inspire
confidence
and
how
bad
things
could
possibly
and
just
in
helping
provide
people
information,
but
hopefully
lifting
up
on
all
of
the
projects
involved.
There
may
be
some
other
more
in
or
equally
as
interesting
things
beyond
a
comparison
about
patterns
and
best
practices
in
terms
of
it.
Really.
E
These
three
initiatives
at
least
the
first
two
sort
of
interval
interweave
a
bit
that
first
one.
If
we're
as
we
look
at
like
benchmarking,
things
and
benchmarking
various
scenarios
under
different
versions
and
different
configurations
that
we
will
see,
we
will
see
a
bunch
of
different
bunch
of
different
for
overhead
and
performance
scenarios
and
what
we're
gonna
try
to
do
in
this
ii
specification
is
help.
E
People
help
give
people
the
right
context
to
measure
when
they're
measuring
the
over
of
running
some
of
their
cloud
native
infrastructure
help
also
present
them
the
context
for
the
value
that's
being
derived
from
that
infrastructure
service
session.
Particular
it's
kind
of
interesting
in
this
regard.
In
that
of
the
variety
of
value
that
you
derive
from
a
mesh,
oftentimes
people
are
getting
that
value,
whether
it's
logs
or
metrics,
some
observer
ability
stuff
some
security
stuff.
Some
traffic
control
things
there.
E
It's
not
like
they're,
not
getting
a
lot
of
these
features
and
functions
out
of
their
myriad
infrastructure.
Today
they
generally
are,
but
mesh
can
bring
a
lot
of
those
functions
under
one
domain
of
control
into
one
system
into
one
layer.
If
you
will-
and
it's
lost
on
a
lot
of
people-
that
the
overhead
that's
incurred
from
a
mesh
that
there's
a
ton
of
value
derived
out
of
that
I
mean
clearly
there's
value
and
that
people
get
that.
E
But
but
some
of
that
value
is
softer,
like
hey
a
single
point
of
control
for
all
of
those
things
or
otherwise
had
disparity.
So
my
point
is:
is
some
of
what
we're
trying
to
some
of
the
other
scenarios
and
some
of
the
way
in
which
we
hope
that
we
would
empower
people
is
to
provide
them
a
scale,
a
new
measurements
by
which
they
would
wave
overhead
in
context,
I.
E
It
would
be
good
that
spec
is
yeah,
or
rather
the
two
would
go
in
company
or
a
can
go
in
combination.
They
can
go
out
of
combination,
you
can
go
run,
I,
guess
that's
a
great
question
in
the
way
that
I
would
put
it
is
that
the
spec
probably
helps
bring
formality
and
repeatability
to
those
benchmarks.
E
J
You
know:
we've
been
we've
been
working
on
a
benchmarking
darkins
of
performance
analysis,
stock
on
storage
for
for
a
while,
and
we
were
we
were
proposing.
You
know
kind
of
set
of
tools
that
people
can
use
to
to
run
their
own
benchmarks
and
in
the
storage
space.
But
but
one
of
the
challenges
that
we
saw
was
it
was
really
really
hard
to
ever
get
an
apples
for
apples
comparison.
J
Unless
you
know
there
are
there
so
many
caveats,
and
so
many
what-ifs
and
and
therefore
you
know,
we
specifically
refrained
from
making
any
recommendation
where
we
would
actually
publish
results
ourselves.
We.
What
we
really
wanted
to
do
was
use
this
to
test
different
options
in
their
own
environment
under
their
own
conditions,
because
because
really
that's
the
only
thing
that
that
matters,
because
the
results
in
a
synthetic
lab
are
often
irrelevant
rights
to
the
end-users,
real-life
application.
E
The
point
is
rather
in
context
of
common
patterns
or
common
things
that
are
deployed,
or
just
actually
the
one
of
the
cute
contacts
that
a
student
was
to
present
it.
It's
like
they
will
present.
This
I've
come
in
cute.
Con
is
on
like
a
very
grand
as
I'm,
like
a
narrowing.
All
a
lot
of
the
variables
and
saying:
okay,
this
function,
maybe
it's
traffic
redirection
or
it's
or
it's
a
denial
of
denial
of
a
request
or
like
this
specific
function
that
you
receive
out
of
a
mesh.
E
That's
in
this
scenario,
like
that's
what
this
cause
like:
here's,
the
incremental
cost
to
impart
Alex,
to
help
you
know
to
empower
people
with
that's,
not
a
comparative
thing.
That's
rather
like
hey.
What
is
the?
What
is
that
over
it
like
in
a
very
granular
way,
if
I'm
looking
at
architecting
my
application
around
the
power
of
this
cloud
native
infrastructure?
J
Thought
that
that's
sense
that
that's
actually
release
from
really
interesting
them
a
way
of
looking
at
it.
We
were.
We
were
also
sort
of
a
little
concerned
as
to
you
know,
are
we
are
we
verging
into
King
making
territory
by
by
by
by
putting
that
comparison
online
right?
That
was,
that
was
also
something
that
was.
We
were
really
worried
about.
K
C
C
M
Hi
uses
Ricardo,
and
so
we
have
some
sick,
runtime
updates,
so
projects
way
is
applying
for
incubation,
so
the
due
diligence
document
is
down
from
the
cigarette
time.
We
provide
a
recommendation,
but
still
pending
a
security
assessment
from
six
security.
So
once
that's
available,
it
will
be
ready
for
the
TOC
for
reviewing
documents.
M
Okay,
so
will
thank
you
and
then
we'll
provide.
That
document
will
make
it
mature
this
public
I
think
almost
it's
actually
started
by
some
of
the
folks
at
Red
Hat.
So
then
we'll
provide
that
oh
I
think
it's
some
of
the
people
and
the
call
from
red
heart
if
they're
available
like
maybe
they
can
make
that
a
public.
M
Thank
you,
so
metal
cube
is
another
project
from
Red
Hat
their
plan
for
sandbox.
So
the
document
is
ready
in
they're.
Basically,
looking
for
team
sees
sponsors,
so
anyone
who
wants
to
sponsor
that
project,
if
he
has
any
questions
you
know
they
can
ask
us
or
the
project
maintainer
cubits,
it's
another
project,
looking
to
apply
for
an
incubation,
they're
gonna
have
a
presentation
at
our
next
meeting
on
Thursday,
so
cube
edge
is
basically
actual
workloads
on
top
of
kubernetes.
M
It's
a
kubernetes
distribution,
so
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
and
with
a
PR,
and
you
know,
they're
not
really
sure
how
to
proceed.
I
guess
you
know,
there's
some
comments
about
the
latest
community
weighing
in
whether
this
will
fall
within
the
Kogi's
community
or
whether
this
will
be
a
senior
project,
so
I
think
still
waiting
for
for
the
kubernetes
community
to
weigh
in
so
attendee
scope
of
the
sick.
But
you
know
based
on
what
the
community
says,
we'll
take
it
from
there
in
container
device
interfaces.
M
So
this
is
a
project
led
by
IBM
Research
and
there's
a
there's,
a
paper
based
on
that
and
there's
first,
a
virtual
cloud
native
summit
China.
So
we
we
submitted
our
intro
session
so
we'll
have
an
interest
sessions
and
try
to
get
more
community
involvement
in
awareness
yeah.
Those
those
are
the
the
updates
for
cig
runtime.
B
C
G
L
C
Think
you
know
k3s,
probably
it
deserves
its
own
agenda
item
at
a
future
discussion.
It's
it's
obviously
kind
of
its
marked
itself
as
a
destroy.
You
know,
but
it
also
is
maybe
solving
some
problems
that
you
know
are
cloud
native,
so
there's
a
there
are
swings
and
roundabouts
to
to
what
we
do
with
that
project
yeah.
We
should
spend
some
time
on
that
yeah.
M
It's
a
very
popular
project
and
so
then
a
lot
of
use
cases.
So
that's
where
you
know
there's
some
there's.
You
know
you
know
whether
it
should
be
a
project
or
it
should
be
just
part
of
the
distribution
within
Canaris
community.
You
know,
or
you
know
they
would
benefit
from
the
CACFP
and
you
know
part
of
the
whole
set
of
projects
and
get
more
community
awareness
and
more
exposure
to
lend
users
that
type
of
thing
right
so.
C
D
J
J
We
have
to
type
up
a
bit
of
a
I
guess
a
formal
recommendation
from
this
from
the
sacristan
tie
it
all
together,
but
I
should
be
good
to
go
on
on
both
of
those
projects
to
take
it
to
a
vote
shortly
or
or
to
sorry
do
the
two-week
periods
of
shortly
and-
and
we
also
have
another
project
which
is
which
is
in
the
wings
called
probe
eager,
which
is
an
interesting,
clad
native
streaming
storage
project.
I,
guess
the
closest
thing
that
that's
similar
to
would
be
something
like
Kafka.
J
But
it's
it's
a
it's
a
fairly
mature
project
and
we've
had
with
Heather
with
other
sick
presentation
already
and
they
are.
They
are
looking
to
the
the
project
thing
we're
looking
to
to
submit
this
for
an
incubation
projects.
So
this
is.
This
will
be
something
that
will
be
on
the
on
the
agenda
for
coming
up.
And
finally,
we
wanted
to
update
that
the
the
TAC
on
the
on
the
situation
we
had
with
use
case
documentation.
J
So,
following
on
from
the
from
the
landscape
point
paper
which,
which
of
which,
just
as
a
tangent
whereabouts,
to
really
publish
now
we
were,
we
have
been
trying
to
figure
out
the
next
steps
being
documenting
a
number
of
different
use
cases
of
how
to
implement
different
types
of
use.
Cases
on
different
types
of
climbing
for
storage,
to
kind
of
go
more
to
kind
of
provide
more
depth
to
to
the
landscape
documents
that
that
we
had
published
and
at
first
we
thought
about.
You
know
having
use
cases
that
were
specific
to
particular
projects.
J
But
a
lot
of
the
use
cases
or
a
lot
of
the
consumers
of
kinds
of
storage
might
not
necessarily
be
CN
CF
projects
in
themselves.
You
know
so
a
lot
of
the
databases
that
or
message
queues
or
instrumentation
or
whatever
that
use
clinic
for
storage
might
not
necessarily
be
a
CF
project
and
therefore
you
know
we
taught
developing
those
kind
of
use.
Cases
might
might
create
the
the
semblance
of
a
formal
recommendation.
J
So
we
decided
to
we
decided
to
try
scaling
it
back
and
kind
of
create
categories
of
use
cases
where
we,
where
we
would,
you
know,
create
some
groupings
like
databases
or
message
queues
and
and
provide
some
some
general
recommendations.
You
know
along
the
lines
of
use
you,
you
know
optimize
databases
for
consistency,
for
example,
or
whatever
else,
or
performance
or
latency,
or
things
like
that.
But
but
then
we
kind
of
came
to
the
conclusion.
That's
creating
anything!
J
What
we
were
hoping
to
do
was
was
to
build
a
library
of
use
cases
in
the
in
the
sixth
Orage
give
up,
but
this
was
the
point
it
was
kind
of
like
you
know.
If
we
provide
recommendations
for
how
to
run,
say,
Postgres
for
the
sake
of
the
argument
in
native
storage,
would
that
be
seen
as
an
endorsement
of
the
Postgres,
and
you
know.
J
G
C
J
Yeah,
so
so
you
know
the
current
landscape
white
paper
document
that
we
have
published
already
covers.
You
know,
block
file
system,
distributed
file
systems,
object,
stores,
key
value,
storage,
databases
and
the
Underland
gives
some
examples
of
those
already.
The
use
cases
was
was
going
to
be
more
about.
You
know
how
how
those
have
specific
examples
of
more
specific
systems
could
consume
that
cloud
native
storage
right
and
you
know
it
was-
it-
was
sort
of
moving
it.
I
stepped
further,
so
it
wouldn't
be
as
generic,
and
that
was
the
challenge.
J
Which
which
you
know
the
minutes
that
Lee
mentioned
publishing
benchmarks
from
from
different
mesh
projects,
I
kind
of
saw
ooh.
Okay.
So
maybe,
if
that's
okay,
maybe
this
might
be
okay,
but
I.
Don't
know
that
I
guess
that
the
difference
is
that's
a
lot
of
the
consumers
of
storage
or
not
necessarily
going
to
be
CN
CF
projects
out
of
the
door.
G
C
J
Yeah
yeah-
and
you
know
we
can
provide
you
know
we
can
provide
the
venue
for
for
helping,
publish
and
and
kind
of
iterates
through
them
and
keep
them
reviewed
because
we
are--,
we
also
talked
about
you-
know
a
simple
process
to
just
to
make
sure
that
the
use
cases
are
kept
current
than
that.
So
interesting
too,
to.
J
Yeah,
so
so,
for
example,
if
we
were,
if
you
know
if
we
were
to
say
if
you
wants
to
run
an
object
store,
these
are
the
type
of
these
are
the
type
of
patterns
you
would
choose
to
use.
But
of
course
you
know
just
as
just
as
an
example,
you
could
use
surf
as
an
object,
store
or
Mineo
as
an
object
store,
but
the
recommendations
for
how
you
deploy
them
and
the
best
practices
and
everything
you
know
anything
related
to
that
are
very
different
for
a
second
menu
as
as
a
simple
example.
J
So
it's
it's
kind
of
hard
to
say
you
know
you
should
use
a
block
fastest
or
more
or
you
should
use
a
distributed
file
system
or
you
should
use
this
type
of
replication
or
whatever
else.
If,
if
you
don't
have
the
specifics
of
the
of
the
you
know,
if
you
can't
mention
the
specifics
of
the
particular
consumer
of
the
storage.
E
E
E
J
E
F
J
Topology
of
the
storage
and
the
number
of
copies
and
the
the
data,
protection
and
data
services,
and
things
like
that,
so
we
we
kind
of
cover
all
of
that
and
in
that
50
page
landscape
document.
So
so
so
this
was
kind
of
we
were
looking
at
this
as
the
next
evolution.
I.
Guess,
the
next
step
to
take
it
from
there.
E
All
right,
and
as
part
of
that
was
been
approached
once
from
those
wanting
to
bring
surface
mesh
patterns
to
the
scene,
to
the
network,
which
is
great,
it
is
a
good
home
for
a
lot
of
those
things
and
also
I'm,
aware
of
an
end-user
group.
That's
I
think
focus
on
service
mesh,
best
practices,
which
is
great
and
so
I,
don't
know
that
I've
got
I'm
trying
to
figure
this
out
myself.
I,
don't
know
that
I've
got
the
answer
about
I.
E
Think
Aaron
had
mentioned
earlier
about
just
things
becoming
too
generic
accepted
like
it's
not
worth
doing,
or
it's
not
insightful
enough.
It's
not
prescriptive
enough.
There
are,
maybe
maybe,
by
way
of
anti
patterns
you
might
be
able
to.
You
know
like
that,
might
be
a
way
of
keeping
things
clean
and
still
being
useful.
E
G
I,
like
that
idea,
I,
we
hadn't
considered
that
we
just
mainly
wanted
to
avoid
taking
a
particular
technology
and
doing
use
cases
in
the
event
we
would
accidentally
not
highlight
one
or
misrepresent
it
so
I
think
putting
it
in
the
hands
of
the
project.
Owners
allows
them
to
ensure
that
that
content
is
accurate
and
then
but
I
like
the
idea.
Definitely
yeah.
G
B
See
what
I
think
yeah
the
users
are
not
looking
for
something
generic.
The
users
are
looking
for
something
concrete,
doesn't
matter
what
project
it
is
I,
wouldn't
look
at
as
I
undertook
at
it
like
you
making
I
would
just
look
it
as
an
example,
and
as
long
as
we
give
the
users
a
chance
to
submit
their
use
case
as
an
example,
I
think
we're
fine
space.
C
Also,
if
you
know
if
these
are
documents
that
are
managed
in
github
and
a
project
feels
that
they've
been
missed
out
almost
represented,
they
can
address
that
voice
admitting
to
PR.
This
doesn't
have
to
be.
You
know.
A
group
of
sort
of
I
know
ivory
tower
authors.
Writing
this
thing.
It
can
be
collaborative
right,
yeah,
exactly
right.
C
J
J
A
D
A
H
A
N
You
so
much
Amy,
yes,
I'm
I
was
so
glad
to
be
able
to
listen
in
I've,
been
doing
that
since
before
I
got
into
this
role,
and
you
folks
work
so
hard
just
listening
in
I'm
like
man.
This
is
a
lot
of
work,
but
I
know
there's
no
time
today,
thanks
for
the
shoutout
Amy,
and
maybe
we
want
to
have
like
a
little
bit
of
space
in
the
meeting.
You
recommend
it.
Yeah.