►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2022-08-16
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2022-08-16
A
B
C
A
D
You've
made
it
here
welcome,
welcome
in
drc
members
present
day,
let's
get
updated
and
our
agenda
day
is
open
floor
and
kind
of
like
seeing
what
people
come
up
with
so
and
dems
is
here,
hi
damns,
so
super
I'll
I'll
leave
like
the
agenda
slide
up
and
then
kind
of
like
let
folks
just
kind
of
start
with
whatever
they'd
like,
because
we
haven't
done
one
of
these
in
a
while.
Isn't.
A
E
C
Yeah,
I
I
think
it
starts
with
like-
where
is
everything
right
now
right
like
if
you
ask
that
question
like
what
is
the
inventory
of
all
the
working
groups?
Is
it
all
listed
in
the
cncf
toc
somewhere?
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
question.
Amy.
Do
we
have
the
consolidated
list
of
all
the
active
working
groups
in
the
cnc
of
toc
repository.
C
D
F
Yes,
so
we
have
an
open
pr
on
this
868.
a
lot
of
these
kinds
of
questions.
We
want
to
drive
into
the
pr
to
try
to
clarify
the
process,
because
there
are
occasions
where
a
tag
certainly
has
the
prerogative
to
establish
a
working
group
to
allow
them
to
accomplish
a
particular
project
or
deliverable
or
focus
area
that
is
well
defined
and
within
their
charter.
F
We're
trying
to
fix
a
lot
of
this
and
provide
better
clarification
and
better
guidance
and
instruction
to
both
the
community
potential
working
groups,
as
well
as
the
tags
to
understand
like
what
does
that
process
look
like
do.
We
need
to
have
talk
members
voting
on
whether
or
not
a
tag
can
have
a
working
group.
F
We
want
to
ensure
that
the
tags
feel
empowered
to
have
some
level
of
autonomy
in
accomplishing
their
charter,
their
mission
and
their
scope
and
objectives
as
they
see
appropriate
and
then
having
that
periodic
check-in
with
the
talk
liaisons,
so
any
recommendations
that
you
have
around.
How
do
we
refine
this
process?
What's
going
to
work
best
for
the
tags?
F
E
A
C
If
we
set
those
things
up?
I
think
that
will
be
much
better
going
forward,
because
I
think
we
have
some
of
that
information,
not
where
they
are
supposed
to
be
right
now,
and
nobody
knows
if
you
haven't,
since
we
haven't
written
it
down
so
back
to
what
emily
said.
So,
let's
try
to
update
richie.
You
have
the
pen
on
that
draft
pr.
G
You
know
in
particular
to
to
that
model.
So
so
you
know
that's
the
other
half
of
this,
it's
just
where
statefully
in
github
is
there
a
json
file
that
I
can
pull
out
of
to
populate
this.
Now
that
the
graphql
api
is
about
ready
to
be
live
at
least
the
first
mvp
of
it,
and
I
can
use
mutations
to
import
data
into
it.
G
E
F
F
I
was
going
to
ask
if
it
would
be
beneficial
for
the
community
for
us
to
create
an
issue
to
correspond
with
the
pr
to
capture
some
of
these
requirements
and
requests
such
as
having
working
groups
listed
in
a
json
file.
That
way
they
can
be
extracted
whether
or
not
that's
on
a
tag
repo
or
at
the
talk
level
and
kind
of
get
more
specific
information
that
you
all
need
from
us
as
we
work
through
and
kind
of
refine
this
process,
because,
as
always
prs
and
suggestions
are
more
than
welcome
on
the
existing
pr.
F
B
A
As
a
reply
to
dims,
I
think
we
discussed
this
in
within
tuc
to
some
extent
as
well.
I
think
there
is
consensus
that
we
need
something
machine
readable
which
can
then
be
parsed
and
and
presented
wherever,
but
have
something
which
is
machine,
readable
and
well-defined
places
within
the
respective
git
repos,
or
what
have
you
and
build
this?
H
A
B
Just
you
know,
speaking
from
experience
of
having
prepared
some
of
these,
I
don't
feel
like
the
list
of
questions
really
matches
up
with
exactly
what
we're
looking
to
know
from
projects,
and
it
might
be
worth
taking
a
look
at
what
questions
we're
asking
new
sandbox
projects
and
kind
of
doing
a
version.
Two
of
that,
the
questions
that
we
have
there
are
mostly.
A
A
C
A
new
one
new
issue:
either
one
works.
I
I
did
have
a
specific
question.
I
wanted
to
ask
so
whenever
we
are
going
through
the
sandbox
process,
I
realized
that
I
don't
know
what
the
organization
or
a
set
of
organizations
and
I
have
to
guess
by
the
email
address
of
the
submitter.
So
that
is
something
that
I
would
like
to
know.
A
I
I'm
just
I'm
trying
to
disturb
between
I
or
we,
but
I'm
probably
choosing
the
wii
here.
Don't
think
it
will
be
possible
to
have
a
fully
closed
set
of
questions
which
give
all
the
answers
once
answered
and
you
you
can
basically
have
a
state
machine
and
you
go
through
it
with
a
piece
of
paper
and
pen
and,
and
you
know
the
outcome.
I
don't
think
this
will
ever
be
at
that
point.
That
being
said,
there
is
much
improvement
to
be
made
emily.
F
Yeah
I
was
going
to
agree
that
there
is
a
lot
of
improvement
that
could
be
made.
I
would
ask
because
we
have
the
open
issue,
which
I
linked
884
around
some
of
what
those
process
changes
are
looking
like.
We
can
definitely
reconsider
some
of
the
questions
that
are
being
asked
and
potentially
add
new
ones,
remove
some
of
the
old
ones
or
better
clarify
the
existing
ones
that
we
have
so
that
we're
receiving
more
pertinent
information.
F
So
if
you
have
an
idea
or
if
you're
thinking
back
to
an
experience
that
you
had
as
a
sandbox
project
that
you
wish
that
we
had
requested
that
information
from
you
earlier,
please
feel
free
to
comment
on
the
issue
with
what
that
was
that
way.
We
can
try
to
collect
it
all
together
and
see
if
there
is
a
more
streamlined
and
refined
way
of
receiving
the
information
that
helps
us
make
more
informed
decisions
about
those
applications.
E
So
I'd
say
like
in
the
past,
I
think
the
tc
contributors
have
been
on
the
cncf
website.
So
I
think
it's
up
for
debate
whether
the
tags
need
to
be
on
the
cncf
website
or
or
something
else.
So
right
now
is,
I
guess,
just
tlc
and-
and
there
may
be
some
other
places
where
we
may
want
to
recognize
the
toc
contributors.
B
C
So
I
I
think
one
middle
ground
would
be
if,
if
we
are
able
to
store
and
retrieve
the
set
of
all
the
tls
and
chairs,
that
should
definitely
go
on
the
website.
If
you
make
that
mission
possible,
that
that
would
be
something
that
we
know
because
we
vote
on
it
and
we
get.
We
welcome
people
in.
We
know
when
they
step
out
so
so
we
we
do
have
a
set
of
people
who
are
supposed
to
be.
C
H
I
think
if
we
can
have
like
a
centralized
case
to
have
links
to
all
these
tags,
and
then
you
know
each
to
all
this
text
web
page
and
then
under
each
tag.
You
know,
there's
a
list
of
you
know,
I
think
of
thing.
Each
tag
has
its
leads
chairs,
but
also
at
least
for
that
tag.
I
also
have
a
list
of
contributors
who
are
really
contributing
to
that.
F
When
we
have
program
committee
members
for
any
of
the
various
conferences,
a
potential
expansion
of
that
would
also
be
reaching
back
out
to
github
to
understand
whether
or
not
we
can
issue
badges
to
those
individual
profiles.
Much
in
the
same
way
that
you
get
them
for
the
arctic
code,
vault
or
oktoberfest,
or
any
of
those
other
event-oriented
badging
schemas
that
github
offers.
D
C
A
C
Richie,
for
me,
the
problem
statement
is,
you
typically
is
when
somebody
new
is
asking
me
a
question:
hey
where
in
cncf
do
I
go
talk
to
who
do
I
talk
to
right
so
that
we
need
to
answer
that
question
by
saying:
hey
here
is
a
list
of
tags.
Here
is
the
list
of
working
groups
under
the
tags,
and
here
are
the
contacts
for
the
working
groups
or
the
tags,
and
you
know
here
are
the
people
that
are
responsible
for
you
know
the
day-to-day
working
of
these
things.
C
A
A
A
That
label
sets
are
quite
powerful,
so
I
mean
ideally,
we
have
lists
of
people,
we
attach
labels
to
them,
and
then
we
have
just
different
views
on
that
data
and
you
just
represent
that
data
from
whatever
label
and
someone
has
label
x
and
you
have
overview
x
and
you
can
just
filter
it
down
in
ideally
not
as
a
confusing
way
as
in
the
landscape,
but
basically
something
like
this
and
then
just
generate
this
dynamically.
Based
on
what
you're.
Looking
for.
A
B
C
A
C
And
the
mechanism
to
do
this
right
now
is
that
we
have
to
like
for
toc
members.
We
say
toc,
member
in
our
in
a
json
file
in
cncf
people.
I
guess
we
need
to
come
up
with
some
standardized
naming
convention
for
each
tag
or
a
working
group
with
an
attack,
so
that
then
we
can
go
around
changing
that
either
that
or
we
have
a
separate
yaml
file
that
that
essentially
has
this
information
and
our
the
generator
that
picks
up.
C
H
I
I
I
understand
that
as
tlc
right,
I
see
we
have,
you
know
linked
to
the
text
and
then
there
are
so
the
links
to
the
text
and
then
under
that
web
page
there
are
links
to
each
tag
under
each
tag.
There
is
you
know
they
are
it's
I
mean
the
chairs.
These
are
listed
and
working
groups.
Meeting
information
are
listed,
so
I'm
a
little
bit,
not
clear.
So
what's
the
new
requirement.
C
C
C
C
A
C
Okay,
so
let's
start
from
the
bottom,
I
think
I
should
have
sorted
it
the
other
way,
so
the
landscape
metadata.
I
think
we
are
in
a
good
position.
I
think
the
last
I
talked
to
gfe
most
of
the
information
is
there,
so
we
can
move
forward
with
cleaning
up
that
markdown
file,
the
toc
contributors
we've
been
talking
about
that
directly
or
indirectly.
You
know
for
the
last
half
hour,
the
code
attribution
one.
I
think
it
needs
a
little
bit
more
input
from
other
people
right
now.
C
It's
just
you
know
some
of
the
thoughts
that
I
had
this
was
about
how
do
when
people
want
to
grab
a
whole
bunch
of
code
from
another
project
and
use
it
in
their
project.
What
is
the
kind
of
things
that
they
need
to
think
about,
and
you
know
how
do
we
they
make
sure?
How
do
we
make
sure
that
we
preserve
the
notices-
and
you
know,
copyright,
headers
and
things
like
that?
C
C
F
F
F
The
talk
is
actually
fairly
close
to
closing
out
the
backlog
of
existing
sandbox
applications,
and
we
feel,
like
we've,
learned
a
lot
going
through
this
and
trying
to
streamline
it
and
refine
it
a
little
bit
more,
especially
as
the
ecosystem
continues
to
mature.
So
your
feedback
is
welcome
and
very
much
appreciated.
C
Thank
you
and
I
do
want
to
go
to
the
two
or
more
foundations,
but
before
that
I
wanted
to
just
quickly
cover
the
three
projects
that
we
are
currently
tracking.
What
and
worried
about.
Actually
there's
one
more
the
open
ebs.
I
forgot
about
that.
So
a
cd
project
they've
been
having
trouble
with
lack
of
maintainers.
Existing
maintainers
have
moved
on,
so
there
was
some
promises
by
some
organizations
to
staff
hcd,
and
that
was
not
yet
happening.
C
There
was
one
person
from
vmware
who
became
a
maintainer
recently,
so
at
least
there
is
a
little
bit
more
coverage
right
now,
but
what
ended
up
happening
was
from
google.
I
think
the
number
of
maintenance
dropped
from
two
to
one,
so
so
yeah
attrition
is
happening
and
we
don't
have
enough
people
with
the
knowledge
and
the
skills
that
are
needed
for
hdd
to
step
forward.
C
B
However,
we're
still
in
a
situation
where
the
only
two
people
who
knew
100
comprehended
100
of
the
ncd
code,
I
left
without
mentoring.
Anyone.
So
a
lot
of
the
situation
is
that
we
don't
have
anybody
currently
maintaining
the
project.
Who
really
has
a
comprehensive
understanding
of
all
of
the
parts
of
nct.
C
C
So
I'm
trying
to
surface
that
information
here
so
that
we
can
all
go
figure
out,
like
other
people
who
use
brigade-
and
you
know,
will
they
be
able
to
help.
You
know
sustain
the
brigade
project
so
but
then
been
so
far.
What
has
happened
is
a
few
people
stepped
up
and
they
were
not
able
to
do
the
things
that
were
required.
So
this
new
set
of
people
also
end
up
saying:
hey,
let's
archive
the
project,
so
that's
the
situation.
C
C
A
A
Currently
there
are
four
maintainers
employed
by
other
companies.
Unless
I'm
wrong,
two
aws
one
adobe
one,
google,
the
google
person
hasn't
done
much
anything
in
the
last
year
or
so,
and
there's
not
a
huge
uptake
in
in
slack
on
the
positive
side,
there
is
uptake
in
the
last
two
months
like
you
can
see
the
curves
go
back
up
again,
and
I
do
think
that
it's
healthy
at
the
same
time,
it's
not
as
fast
paced
as
it
used
to
be
it's
not
as
fast
paced
as
either
thanos
or
prometheus,
which
it's
always
like.
A
The
the
three
in
which
prometheus
cortex
thanos
are
moving
the
ideal
outcome,
and
this
this
call
for
help
would
be
in
particular
for
users
of
cortex,
and
there
are
quite
a
few
large
users
who
derive
value
from
it.
To
start
investing
in
it
and
getting
people
on
payroll
or
moving
them
or
hiring
them,
or
what
have
you
with
an
intention
to
to
work
on
cortex,
similar
to
all
the
other
projects.
A
F
G
A
C
Yeah
again,
the
reason
for
surfacing
it
here
is
so
we
can
go
around
telling
folks
that
you
know
this
is
where
these
are
the
projects
that
need
help,
and
these
are
the
places
where
they
need
help
for
sure.
So
I
think
I'm
done
with
the
list
of
issues
except
for
the
one
from
emily.
Can
we
go
to
that
one?
Please.
C
F
F
In
fact,
tank
security
has
an
open
issue.
It's
number
969
and
they're
repository
to
tighten
up
the
collaboration
between
open,
ssf
and
tag
security,
because
a
lot
of
their
work
is
very
similar
and
that
the
the
largest
difference
between
tag
security
and
the
open
ssf
is
the
the
fact
that
there
were
more
targeted
on
cloud
native,
which
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
But
a
lot
of
the
value
in
some
of
these
security
proposals
and
deliverables
that
are
coming
out
of
the
tag
aren't
fundamentally
unique
to
cloud
native
they're.
F
On
a
side
note,
we
are
also
within
the
foundation
starting
to
see
more
integrations
with
other
projects
outside
of
the
foundation,
but
leveraging
cloud-native
technology
to
allow
them
to
meet
their
adopters
needs.
We've
seen
some
sandbox
applications
come
up
where
we're
not
sure
whether
or
not
the
project
quite
fits
within
the
cloud
native
definition
and
may
actually
belong
better
or
perform
better
as
part
of
a
separate
foundation
that
aligns
more
with
that
mission
goal
and
objective.
F
F
But
I
don't
see
anything
within
any
of
the
charters,
both
within
cncf
and
with
an
open
ssf
that
prohibits
a
project
from
existing
in
affiliation
with
more
than
one
foundation,
either
as
a
home
foundation
where
it
properly
belongs
and
received
most
of
its
benefits
from
as
well
as
a
guest
foundation,
in
that
it's
featured
there
and
those
community
members
are
actively
encouraged
to
take
advantage
of
leverage
or
contribute
to,
and
this
is
beyond
just
the
projects
themselves.
This
also
could
potentially
expand
to
the
tags.
F
A
I
don't
know
where
I
saw
it,
but
I
saw
some
there
something
about
bouncing
those
things
up
into
linux
foundation,
because
that
is
the
root
foundation
for
all
of
the
foundations,
which
comes
with
a
whole
lot
of
procedural
baggage.
Of
course,
different
toc
different
people
to
work
with
blah
blah
blah
blah
blah.
A
Final
thought
on
the
downside:
if
you
have,
for
example,
two
tocs
and
they
don't
agree
on
a
technical
thing
and
they
want
to
pull
in
different
directions
who's
the
final
article,
do
you
have
an
escalation
mechanism
within
linux
foundation?
Probably,
yes,
how
would
this
look
like?
Who
would
staff
it
blah
blah
blah
blah
blah
all?
That
being
said,
I
think
it's
a
good
conversation
to
have.
C
C
Give
you
one
example
right
I
was
reviewing,
I
think,
six
store
stuff
and
the
dependencies
of
six
store
and
they
have
like
vast
amount
of
dependencies
even
when
compared
with
kubernetes-
and
you
know
just
getting
it
just
thinking
about
getting
an
exception
for
those
dependencies
is
like
you
know,
is
going
to
be
a
hell
of
a
challenge.
So
it's
just
small
things
like
that.
You
know
dependencies
ip
copyright
notices,
all
those
things
are
going
to
be
like
things
that
are
going
to
be
contested
between
the
foundations.
C
The
idea
of
a
home
and
guest
definitely
seems
to
resonate
with
me
in
the
sense
that
okay,
we'll
follow
the
rules
of
the
home
foundation,
but
we'll
also
get
you
know,
you
know
start
or
space
in
the
when
there
are
things
happening
in
the
guest
foundation
as
well.
I
think
this
needs
to
go
up
the
chain
for
sure
that
would
be
my
idea,
so
I
think
the
follow-up
for
this
would
be
richie
and
me
taking
it
up
to
the
gb
level,
I
guess,
or
at
least
sending
them
an
email.
C
G
I
A
He's
not
I'm
not
aware
of
this
and
amy
also
shook
her
head.
So
I
think
this
isn't
really
something
which
happened
just
to
do
the
german
formal
thing
again
even
governing
board
can't
can't
decide
this.
They
can
only
inform
it
or
suggest
something.
One
way
to
get
a
quicker
return
might
be
to
just
poke
chris
and
check
about
it,
because
he
has
the
appropriate
amount
of
hats
to
also
speak
politics
foundation.
A
I'm
not
saying
delegation,
I'm
just
saying
in
particular
for
for
emily.
This
might
be
a
good
way
to
just
get
something
more
quickly,
because
if
chris
says
absolutely
not
never
governing
board
can't
force
it
through
at
least
not
the
governing
board
of
the
cncf.
The
governing
board
of
the
linux
foundation
could
force
it
through,
but
yeah.
I
Yeah,
I
could
do
if
I
unmute
myself
yeah.
I
was
just
pointing
out
that
I
think
there
have
been
sort
of
collaborative
events
between
foundations,
at
least
where
their
linux
foundation
foundations,
the
one
that
spanned,
to
my
mind,
was
the
continuous
delivery
foundation.
I'm
pretty
sure
did
a
colo
at
the
kubecon.
At
one
point-
and
I
know
chris
when
the
cdf
was
first
created-
was
very
kind
of
bullish
about
the
fact
that
there
could
be
kind
of
collaboration
between
those
foundations.
I
I'm
not
sure
that
anything
really
happened
beyond
the
kind
of
co-existent.
You
know
co-located
events,
I
think
it's
you
know,
there's
there's
some
interest
here.
I
think
this
is
it
it
does.
It
would
be
interesting
to
kind
of
see
the
outcome
of
a
joint.
I
don't
know
open,
ssf
and
cncf
security
group.
That's
it
does
feel
like
sometimes
there's
duplicate
effort.
So
do
this
is
a
really
interesting
idea.
F
E
C
Yeah
traditionally
it's
like
we
were
talking
before
chris
has
the
most
hats.
So,
basically,
what
we
are
saying
is
like
if
we
get
the
people
to
work
on
both,
I
mean
different
projects
from
both
the
foundations.
I
think
that
is
the
best
way
to
increase
the
collaborative
nature
for
it.
But
yes,
matt
was
also
pointing
out
that
you
know
there
is
an
event
which
is
jointly
held,
is
not
the
same
as
dealing
with
ip
between
the
foundations.
J
Then,
how
does
that
intellectual
property
work
and
who
owns
it?
And
what
does
that
mean?
And
that's
just
a
big
hairy
legal
question
that
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
and
it's
something
that
before
we
could
go
down
that
path.
We
need
advice
on
and
anybody,
whether
it's
us
the
governing
board,
the
linux
foundation
board.
A
Right
this
was
also
handled
in
chat
to
some
extent.
I
think
we
are
talking
about
two
different
things.
One
is
cross
collaboration
and
cross
membership
between
different
subfoundations
of
linux
foundation,
for
example,
cncf
and
open
ssf,
and
the
other
is
to
have
linux
foundation
in
something
some
complete,
distinct
entity.
I
think
it's
already
hard
enough
to
to
try
and
solve
the
former.
G
It's
almost
like,
you
need
a
primary
foundation
and
a
secondary
one.
That's
like
an
oem
like.
If
we
look
to
like
you,
know
examples
in
industry.
It
seems
like
we
would
need
some
sort
of
agreement
there
to
do
that,
but
I
agree
there
has
to
be
a
primary
foundation
that
makes
the
decisions,
especially
if
they
have
competing
toc
interests.
G
I
don't
think
we
see
that
now,
but
I
think
it
would
be
it's
a
good
time
to
to
bring
it
up
because
it'll
probably
become
way
more
common
and
especially
to
emily's
point
in
the
security
space.
You
know
it's
it's
pretty
diverse
and
moving
rapidly,
and
I
do
have
heard
feedback
from
various
members
that
it
is
a
choice
today,
whether
it's
open,
ssf
or
cncs,
and
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
clear
path
to
be
able
to
be
participate
actively
in
both
effectively.
D
I
I
was
just
thinking
you
know
as
soon
as
you
have
this
kind
of
concept
of
a
host
or
primary
foundation,
that's
kind
of
owning
the
ip
and
and
setting
the
rules,
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
the
kind
of
guests
you
know
can't.
Is
there
anything
that
the
kind
of
guest
side
couldn't
just
do
by
participating
in
the
host
organization?
I
Is
this
more
about
saying
we
want
to
rationalize
some
of
these
groups,
in
which
case
that
might
mean
you
know.
Maybe
there
is
no
longer
a
I'm,
I'm
just
going
to
pick
this
out
of
the
air
as
an
example.
Maybe
tag
security
becomes
something
that
open
ssf
owns,
and
you
know
cncf
kind
of
ask
for
help
from
openssf
for
security-related
things
would
would
that
not
be
the
kind
of
logical
endpoint
of
this
route.
G
I
hadn't
really
thought
about
it
going
that
way.
So
I
don't
know
that's,
I
think,
that's
entirely
possible
that
things
evolve
and
maybe
they
move
in
that
direction
when
they
become
more
specialized
or
big
enough,
not
to
you
know
be
underneath
the
umbrella
of
the
cncf
anymore.
I
guess
that's
a
great
point
to
bring
up.
C
So
the
last
thing
that
I
had
in
that
topic
was
like
hey
right
now.
We
have
the
open.
Ssf
might
think
that
hey
cncf,
you
were
in
the
limelight
for
a
long
time
now
it's
our
turn
and
you're
coming
to
encroach
on
our
you
know
on
our
things,
so
that
was
another.
You
know
social
aspect
of
it
as
well
right,
so
I
don't
know
anyway,
it's
definitely
above
our
pay
grade
and
we
will
start
by
tagging,
requesting
chris
help
and
see
where
it
goes.
Okay,.