►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2023-08-15
A
B
A
A
We
have
several
TUC
members
present
today
on
the
call,
but
we
are
not
making
any
decisions.
Our
agenda
today
is
discuss
the
moving
levels,
task
force
that
is
being
executed
out
of
tag
contributor
strategy.
There
have
been
a
lot
of
comments
on
the
issue
and
we
want
to
ensure
that
we
have
a
good
dialogue
around
kind
of
setting
expectations,
as
well
as
making
sure
that
any
volunteers
that
are
interested
in
participating
in
this
kind
of
understand
what
it
is
that
they're
getting
into.
A
We
have
attempted
to
define
a
scope,
but
I
know
that
there
were
a
lot
of
questions
on
the
issue,
so
let's
go
ahead
and
move
forward.
So
overall,
a
little
bit
of
background
around
this
is
we've
had
a
lot
of
feedback
and
comments
from
both
projects
and
community
members,
as
well
as
Toc
members
around
the
entirety
of
the
moving
levels
process.
A
So
the
goal
of
this
group
is
to
work
with
the
data
that's
been
collected
both
on
the
particular
issue,
where
we've
had
folks
provide
comments,
as
well
as
several
other
issues
on
the
TOC
repo
regarding
moving
levels
and
the
maintainer
feedback
survey.
Regarding
the
experience
overall,
some
of
the
challenges
areas
that
worked
and
what
didn't
work.
A
So
we've
attempted
to
Define
some
of
the
areas
that
are
in
scope,
such
as
defining
levels
of
maturity
within
the
life
cycle,
criteria
and
common
characteristics,
the
distinguishing
trait
there
being
that
not
all
criteria
May
apply
to
all
projects.
For
instance,
not
every
project
is
a
specification,
so
we
might
need
to
make
determinations
that
are
unique
to
specifications
versus
our
more
traditional
thinking
around
projects.
A
We
also
need
to
do
a
better
job
of
defining.
What
archival
archiving
projects
is
is
the
state
of
growth
within
that
there's?
Also,
this
concept
of
supplemental
as
a
state
of
growth
in
the
TOC
has
seen
this
significantly
more,
both
in
projects
that
are
applying
as
well
as
projects
that
exist
within
the
ecosystem
and
may
have
shifted
slightly
from
when
they
were
initially
accepted
into
the
cncf.
So
they
may
not
reach
a
high
enough
level
of
maturity.
A
We
would,
we
would
see
widespread
rampant
adoption
throughout
the
ecosystem
and
high
maturity,
but
rather
they
perform
a
supplemental
function
to
the
overall
ecosystem
and
we
are
not
expecting
them
necessarily
to
meet
that
higher
stage
of
growth.
I
know
Liz
had
a
question
about
this,
but
that
was
a
little
bit
of
the
thinking
around
it,
restructuring
the
process
and
for
each
level
in
a
state
of
evaluation
that
occurs
at
that
level.
A
Defining
who
the
stakeholders
are
and
who's
responsible
for
executing
each
portion
of
the
process
at
each
step
and
defining
what
if
any,
additional
attributes
should
be
recorded
or
captured,
to
express
the
domain-specific
maturity,
characteristics
and
evaluation
by
which
those
attributes
could
be
expressed.
So
there's
a
lot
of
information
there.
We
tried
to
make
sure
that
we
were
hitting
on
the
key
areas
of
scope,
that
the
TOC
is
looking
for.
A
Some
of
the
specific
areas
that
are
out
of
scope
are
defining
cncf
benefits
to
project
at
levels
or
States,
as
well
as
identifying
any
cncf
staff,
specific
roles,
functions
or
activities
as
part
of
the
moving
levels
process,
and
the
reason
why
those
two
areas
are
defined
as
being
out
of
scope
and
I
believe
Craig
or
Doug.
Had
this
as
a
question
on
the
on
the
issue
and
I'll
take
a
look
at
it
and
make
sure
we've
addressed
them
all
in
a
moment
is
the
TOC
is
responsible
for
the
technical
Direction.
A
So
it's
part
of
our
moving
levels
and
process
criteria.
We
are
not
necessarily
in
a
position
to
dictate
how
the
cncf's
resources
are
directed
towards
projects.
That
is
your
recommendation.
I
Believe,
In,
Amy
you'll
have
to
correct
me
to
the
governing
board,
by
which
we
can
request
additional
resources
of
cncf
to
be
applied
to
projects
at
various
States,
so
I'm
in
my
mind,
I'm,
seeing
the
cncf
benefits
and
the
staff
specific
support
functions
for
whatever
recommendations
come
out
of
this
and
what
the
TOC
finalizes
to
be
a
recommendation
to
the
governing
board
to
allocate
against.
A
That
does
not
mean
that
this
working
group
can
or
or
I'm
sorry.
This
does
not
mean
that
the
working
group
should
exclude
recommendations
in
this
area,
but,
more
importantly,
that
that's
not
the
focus
of
this
activity,
but
if
there
is
something
obvious
such
as
paying
for
or
coordinating
security
audits
for
projects,
for
instance,
it's
an
existing
benefit
and
it's
an
existing
criteria.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
that's
still
accounted
for
within
this
process.
A
Let
me
just
double
check
some
of
the
other
questions
and
comments
that
we
had
on
here.
There
was
a
question
around
examining
the
purpose
of
the
levels
themselves
and
I
think
that
is
definitely
in
scope.
It's
an
area
of
discussion.
If
we
don't
understand
what
the
purpose
of
the
levels
are
and
what
they're
trying
to
convey
both
to
the
community
to
the
projects
to
potential
adapters,
we're
not
really
going
to
be
able
to
make
effective
change
to
the
overall
process,
so
definitely
getting
a
definition
on
that
is
kind
of
the
intent.
A
A
C
I
can
but
life
me
I
can't
seem
to
find
a
little
thing
to
say,
raise
my
hand
and
zoom
right
now,
it's
really
weird
anyway.
Anyway,
my
question
was
relative
to
the
levels
and
stuff.
Let's
just
take
an
extreme
example.
Let's
say
this:
this
task
force
is
what
it's
called
I
guess
decides.
You
know
what
we
don't
need
levels
we
want
to
do
something
slightly
different.
A
But
as
we
see
cnzf
projects
come
into
the
ecosystem.
The
chasm
model
assumes
that
projects
have
an
end
when
they
graduate.
But
what
we've
seen
as
of
late
is
that
projects
don't
end.
We
expect
them
to
continue
to
exist
and
sustain
and
evolve
with
the
community
with
industry,
with
whatever
the
needs
of
the
organizations
and
adopters
are
and
whatever
brilliant
ideas.
Our
community
members
come
up
with
to
create
new
projects.
A
C
A
D
D
Is
there
a
phase
in
moving
levels,
wherein
we
we
kind
of
change
the
way
that
sandbox
Works
to
include
to
to
to
use
that
as
a
defining
period,
for
whether
the
relationship
between
an
a
project
coming
into
the
cncf
and
the
and
the
cncf
itself
can
actually
establish
a
reasonable
relationship
before
actually
committing
to
one
another
in
that
way,
right
like
for
the
most
part
right
now,
we
just
let
P
we
reevaluate
projects
for
inclusion
and
then
immediately.
D
They
are
a
part
of
the
the
cncf,
and
that
means
that
our
sandbox
Q
is
growing
pretty
significantly
and
the
number
of
projects
that
we
include
into
sandbox
continues
to
grow,
and
so
when,
when
those
projects
are
included
into
sandbox
there,
they
may
not
be
incentivized
necessarily
to
move
out
of
sandbox
from
sandbox
to
incubation
or
from
incubation
to
graduation,
because
they've
effectively
accomplished
their
goal
right.
If
it's
a
third
party,
it's
now
under
a
third-party
entity,
other
contributors
can
contribute
to
it.
D
C
A
As
well
as
the
comments
on
this
particular
issue
and
whatever
community
members
suggest
for
recommendations,
we
want
to
meet,
we
want
to
ensure
that
whatever
process
comes
out
of
this,
whatever
that
architecture
or
leveling
framework
is
or
maturity
model
that
we're
capable
of
adapting
to
the
speed
at
which
projects
need
and
a
way
that
considers
any
maturity,
requirements
or
needs
within
the
domain
that
they
operate.
And
what
I
mean
by
that
is.
A
That
we
would
like
to
be
able
to
do
this
as
quickly
and
efficiently
as
possible,
while
still
considering
we
have
to
plan
for
not
only
200
or
maybe
even
300,
projects
coming
into
the
cncf
within
the
next
few
years,
but
also
that
we
could
see
significantly
more.
So.
This
process
has
to
work
for
everything
and
a
lot
more
of
them,
with
the
current
constraints
and
resource
limitations
that
we
have
as
community
members
and
volunteers.
A
We
would
like
anybody
that
is
interested
in
participating
in
this
group
to
comment
on
the
issue.
I
know:
we've
seen
several
folks
that
have
expressed
interest
and
have
recommendations,
they've
already
provided
comments.
A
What
we're
going
to
do
is
we're
going
to
look
at
kicking
this
off
on
the
week
of
August
21st,
we
will
have
two
Toc
members
that
will
be
a
part
of
this
group
to
ensure
that
the
rest
of
the
TOC
is
informed
of
like
what's
going
on
as
well
as
ensure
that
any
considerations
that
the
TOC
has
as
far
as
moving
levels
or
are
suggested
as
Community
level
Community
member
input
to
this
group,
and
that
way
we
have
better
lines
of
communication
and
we're
not
surprised
by
anything
that
comes
out
of
it.
A
E
I
just
had
a
brief
question
is,
is
as
far
as
projects
in
the
sandbox
is
there.
Is
it
a
goal
to
have
some
measure
of
how
they're
collaborating
with
each
other?
Are
they
merging?
Are
there
any
indicators
of
sort
of
I
I?
Remember
a
few
years
ago
talking
about
the
intent
of
sandbox
in
the
discussion,
you
were
referencing
before
with
Liz
and
whatnot
that
that
was
kind
of
called
out
as
an
ancillary
goal.
I
remember
if
I
read
it
or
if
I
heard
it,
but
is.
E
A
I'm
gonna
say
that's
entirely
up
to
the
project,
although
the
TOC
does
recommend
and
encourage
projects
to
partner
and
work
together
to
see
where
they
can
optimize
for
Integrations,
but
we
don't
necessarily
dictate
one
project
should
interact
with
or
merge
with
another
project.
We
would
like
to
see
that
where
it
makes
sense
and
it's
reasonable,
but
that's
not
true
in
all
cases,
Josh.
F
Yeah
I'm
looking
at
this
timeline
and
if
discussing
whether
or
not
we
should
even
have
the
levels
that
we
have
is
in
scope,
I
can't
imagine
that
the
committee
is
going
to
deliver
concrete
recommendations
within
eight
weeks,
I
mean
I
mean
that
that
debate
by
itself
could
go
on
for
quite
some
time.
Yeah.
A
A
I,
don't
want
us
to
continue
to
stare
at
the
problem.
We've
been
doing
that
for
a
long
period
of
time
we
haven't,
we
haven't
actually
moved
forward
on
it,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
an
end
goal
and
insight.
The
other
item
that
I
will
say
is
I
want
to
ensure
that
we
are
focused
on
iterative
improvements,
so
the
deliverables
are
the
outcomes,
and
the
recommendations
of
this
group
can
certainly
be
long-term
vision
and
like
this
is
where
we
would
like
to
see
everything
moving
forward.
A
A
A
So
it
sounds
like
Josh
from
your
recommendation.
Eight
weeks
is
definitely
not
enough.
We
could
probably
push
this
out.
A
F
A
Okay,
do
you
think
it
would
be
reasonable
to
have
an
initial
focus
of
this
group
on
immediate
improvements
and
then
a
more
long-term
revisit
of
the
levels
overall.
F
Yeah
I
mean
because
the
the
levels
of
the
world
that's
going
to
be
a
long
discussion
right,
we've
had
them.
Since
the
cncf
was
created,
they've
been
tweaked
a
number
of
times.
Yeah
people
can
be
discussion.
The
projects
that
have
gone
through
getting
to
graduated
are
now
very
invested
in
the
system,
most
of
them
so
I.
You
know
I
see
that
taking
a
long
time
to
resolve
it's
almost
like.
We
would
want
to
have
a
separate
committee
to
debate
that
you
know
to
discuss
that
particular
topic.
A
Okay,
Doug
and
then
Matt.
C
Yeah
so
I
don't
want
to
say
a
problem
with
like
pushing
the
date,
but
in
the
flip
side,
I
do
tend
to
like
forcing
functions
and
so
having
a
sooner
date,
with
the
assumption
that,
if
something
happens,
we
can't
make
that
date,
then
we
can
move
it
out
if
needed,
but
I
like
the
idea
of
having
something
rather
sooner,
because
otherwise
people
get
busy
with
their
real
day
jobs,
and
then
things
get
pushed
out
thinking.
You
know
what
was
it
there's
an
expression
about
things,
fill
the
time
as
needed
or
fill
the
void.
C
You
know
kind
of
stuff,
so
I
like
the
idea
of
a
forcing
function,
with
the
assumption
that,
if
it,
if
worse,
comes
to
worse,
we
need
more
time.
Then
the
TOC
will
allow
more
time
if
needed,
but
either
way
it's
technically
fine.
With
me,
Matt.
G
Yeah
I,
like
the
idea
of
a
forcing
function
revisiting
the
levels
is
probably
I
mean
that
that's
a
highly
contentious
and
political
thing.
You've
got
graduated
projects,
you've
got
companies,
you've
got
projects
and
they
want
to.
You
know,
there's
just
so
much
to
that,
and
so
many
angles
and
you
open
that
up
and
the
people
who
are
dealing
with
it
are
going
to
have
people
coming
out
of
the
woodwork
to
try
to
influence
it.
G
It's
going
to
be
much
more
contentious
and
debated,
and
it
doesn't
solve
our
short-term
problems
right.
Our
short-term
problems
is
how
do
we
manage
the
current
set
of
projects
that
we
have
and
I
think
I
I
like
the
idea
of
breaking
it
up
into
two
things?
One
deal
with
the
big
hairy
one
later,
but
deal
with
the
short-term
things.
We've
got
to
get
done
to
communicate
more
clearly
and
expectations,
and
how
do
you
do
things
within
the
current
structure
and
I?
G
G
We
just
don't
know
and
don't
realize
so
I
like
focusing
on
just
practical
things,
to
help
things
moving
and
move
that
big
hairy,
color
of
the
bike,
Shad
conversation
off
and
and
just
focus
on,
Real
World
stuff,
and
if
you
focus
on
things
that
will
impact
you
know
things
given
the
current
levels,
I
like
the
idea
of
having
it
time
boxed
as
well,
that
kind
of
forces
people
to
focus
on
it
it.
It
has
a
realistic
output,
because
we're
gonna
have
a
probably
a
TLC
presentation
at
cubecon
right.
G
This
is
one
of
those
things
that
hopefully
will
have
an
output
from.
We
can
talk
about
a
kubecon.
These
ideas,
then,
can
be
run
across
people
in
person
right.
We
can
talk
about
it
there
with
people
and
that
can
influence.
Maybe
things
maybe
we'll
get
feedback
there
and
then
at
the
next
Toc
meeting,
we'll
be
able
to
talk
about
some
of
that
feedback,
but
I
think
it.
It
feeds
us
for
those
in-person
meetings,
which
I
think
is
good
too.
H
You
know
match
summarize
it
well
well,
I
think
we
should.
We
can
have
some
short-term,
you
know
focused
goals
and
delivery
and
then,
for
the
long
term,
thing
I
think
that
may
need
a
lot
of
you
know.
They
were
involved
a
lot
of
debate
and
also
we
can
learn,
as
Matt
mentioned
I
think
you
know
from
this
clarification
process.
A
A
So
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
modify
it
we'll
focus
this
timeline
on
initial
and
iterative
improvements
and
then,
with
the
expectation
that
there
will
be
a
follow-on
activity
once
those
improvements
have
been
applied
to
actually
reconsider
the
leveling
framework
that
we
currently
have
in
place,
probably
starting
next
year.
Sometime
does:
how
does
that
sound
for
folks.
A
I
I
don't
want
to
lose
the
momentum
on
this,
so
I
don't
want
it
to
be
this
time
next
year
when
we're
having
the
same
conversation
about
moving
levels,
so
perhaps
around
early
spring,
mid
late
spring,
depending.
A
Camille
had
a
good
comment
and
chat
about
considering
the
the
projects
that
are
currently
going
through
the
process
today
and
the
ecosystem
knowledge
that
they've
possessed
as
a
result
of
that,
definitely
needs
to
be
considered
for
sure
one
of
the
items
I
don't
believe
it's
clear
on
the
issue,
but
I
I
think
I've
mentioned
many
folks
that
have
reached
out
to
me
is
that
we
do
need
to
consider
the
projects
that
are
currently
in
the
process
for
moving
levels
as
well
as
the
ones
that
have
already
applied,
but
are
not
assigned
to
a
TUC
sponsor
to
start
the
due
diligence.
A
So
whatever
recommendations
come
out
of,
this
group
I'd
like
to
see
some
versioning
or
migration
for
anybody.
That's
currently
in
Flight,
whether
or
not
that's
volunteer,
based
that
they
want
to
try
the
new
process
or
purposefully
be
excluded
from
it,
because
I've
already
started.
Those
should
all
be
considerations
as
well.
H
B
H
F
A
H
A
Let's
see
what
the
recommendations
from
the
group
are,
some
of
those
improvements
may
be
adjustments
to
criteria.
I
do
know
that
tag
contributor
strategy
has
an
open
request
for
evidence.
Governance,
reviews
for
graduated
projects
and
I
do
know
that
there's
been
some
other
discussions
in
the
past
about
modifying
some
of
the
criteria
at
various
levels.
A
B
Didn't
but
basically
like
I'll
go
back
to
timelines
here,
like
the
intention
at
least
right
now
is
that
I'm,
the
one
that's
going
to
be
able
to
like
schedule
the
meetings
get
us
to
a
place
where
we
actually
have
recommendations
to
be
able
to
give
to
everyone,
if,
if
someone
volunteers
to
be
able
to
lead
I'm
happy
to
be
able
to
partner
with
them,
but
realistically
I'm
kind
of
your
your
non-voting
kind
of
like
Shepherd.
B
That
kind
of
moves
everything
across
the
line,
but
I'm
also
going
to
highlight
a
new
staffer
with
us,
George
Castro,
who
I'm
bringing
in
to
be
able
to
help
me
out
on
this
one
and
George
wave
to
the
crowd.
The
reason
that
I
want
George
involved,
because
George
has
actually
been
with
a
project
to
be
able
to
move
between
levels
and
he's
now
a
staff
member
as
well
so
I
can
task
him
with
things.
Thank
you.
B
B
All
right
game
on
basically
like
that's,
that's
exactly
where,
like
I,
want
to
be
able
to
like
have
at
least
a
few
of
us
kind
of
like
paying
attention
in
here
to
be
able
to
make
sure
that
we
do
actually
get
this
cross
the
line
and
have
like
reasonable
recommendations
to
be
able
to
bring
to
the
TOC.
So.
A
Okay,
so
for
Toc
members
right
now,
I
know
that
Duffy
is
definitely
interested.
Matt
is
also
interested,
but
might
be
time
constrained.
I
know
that
I
am
also
interested,
but
will
also
be
time
constrained.
So
at
the
very
least,
you've
got
one
two
c
member
available
and
you've
got
at
least
between
Matt
and
I.
We
can
probably
make
up
that
second
one.
A
I
H
A
Okay,
all
right,
so
what
we're
going
to
do
for
the
kickoff?
That's
gonna
get
started
Amy.
If
you
could
put
together.
The
meeting.
I
can
certainly
go
in
and
update
the
issue
with
the
scoping
information
to
talk
around
the
initial
iterative
improvements
and
then,
with
the
longer
term,
I'm
expected
to
happen
in
early
early
to
mid
spring
of
next
year,
and
then
we
can
go
from.
There
am
I
missing
anything.
B
J
J
Yeah
sorry
I
dropped
it
in
the
chat,
but
I
was
looking
at
that
Foundation
issue
on
the
impact
of
Azure
corpse,
license
change
and
was
just
curious
if
there
was
any
timeline
on
a
talk
statement
or.
B
Guidance
not
a
talk
statement,
but
there's
I
just
dropped
the
link
in
the
chat.
We
have
Source
available
recommendations
that
have
been
published
over
in
Foundation
like
like
not
necessarily
talk,
issue
right
now
kind
of
looking
at
this
more
like
broader
Foundation
pieces,
happy
to
be
able
to
take
questions
and
on
that
particular
issue
which
I
will
go,
find
and
drop
into
chat
as
well.
B
The
if
you
do
have
pieces
that
you
know
that
you're
using
in
your
project,
we
would
love
to
be
able
to
know
about
them
kind
of
just
looking
for
data
right
now
about
like
where
and
what
might
be
impacted.
So.
K
And
hi
I'm
Adam
I'm,
the
Corp
representative
to
the
cncf,
so
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
for
any
of
the
TSC
members
provide
assistance
in
understanding
what
the
change
means
for
registers,
projects
being
engaged
with
a
few
people
already
and
actively
tracking
issues,
617
so
happy
to
help.
If
I
can.
I
J
You
I
I've
I've,
dropped
my
our
projects,
data
into
that
issue,
I'm
more
just
curious.
Like
do
we
have
any
guidelines
from
a
foundation
level
like
before,
using
it
and
I,
don't
know
if
that's
the
appropriate
form
to
be
fair,
like
we're
using
a
functional
tests,
we
have
some
uses
of
libraries,
the
library
service
to
MPL,
thankfully,
but
I'm,
just
curious
where,
where
we
should
be
drawing
where
the
lines
are
so
to
speak
and
I'll
go
read
that
document
that
you
just
posted.
Thank
you.
B
Yeah
start
with
that
document
come
back
with
questions.
We
might
not
have
very
many
answers
right
now,
but
we
at
least
have
some
things
we're,
starting
from
so
yep.
G
You
know
it
would
be
useful
to
know
just
for
General
the
cncf
projects
they've
got
to
be
under
the
Apache
2
license,
and
there
are
only
a
lot
certain
licenses
that
are
generally
allowed
and
the
others
have
exceptions
and
there's
already
a
policy
around
that
you
can
find
details
on
that
in
the
foundation
repo
alongside
the
source
available
recommendation.
K
As
TSC
member
you
came,
you
you,
your
opinion,
characters.
A
So,
for
folks
that
have
more
questions
about
the
licensing
change
that
we've
been
talking
about.
There
is
an
open
issue
on
the
foundation
repo
that
was
linked.
It's
number
617,
please
go
and
provide
any
comments
or
additional
insights
there,
as
well
as
please
review
the
file
that
Amy
graciously
linked
within
chat
regarding
some
of
these
changes.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Everyone
for
your
time
today
on
the
call,
as
we
learn
more
we'll,
be
providing
updates
both
on
that
issue
regarding
licensing
and
as
we
move
forward
with
the
moving
levels
process.
Please
sure
to
check
out
that
issue
on
the
tech
contributors
strategy
repository
expect
to
see
some
changes
coming
out
shortly
today,.