►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2023-03-21
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2023-03-21
Agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jpoKT12jf2jTf-2EJSAl4iTdA7Aoj_uiI19qIaECNFc/edit#
Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ViO5xKiAry13IHZJXYpAy0qL_HA-MjrmHvPjDQzeiJE/edit#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0
A
B
E
A
C
All
right
thanks,
everyone,
quick
reminder
about
the
Linux
foundation's
Anti-Trust
policy
notice.
You're
here
we're
happy
to
have
you
meeting
Logistics
are
available
on
in
the
TOC
repo.
We
have
a
fair
amount
of
Toc
members
today
here,
as
well
as
some
tag
chairs
and
tag
members,
as
well
as
a
lot
of
community
members
that
are
interested
in
some
proposed
changes
and
items
for
discussion
around
Milestones,
as
well
as
changes
to
the
graduation
criteria.
C
The
concept
here
being
not
too
introduce
an
exorbitant
amount
of
new
targets
for
projects
to
lead
reach,
rather
providing
other
successful
measures
that
other
projects
have
adopted
or
hit
or
showcased
as
guiding
points
or
potential
opportunities
that
other
projects
could
look
to
and
leverage
as
they
grow
in
maturity.
Things
that
we've
seen
other
successful
projects
that
have
graduated
or
move
between
levels
such
as
whether
or
not
they
have
a
healthy
amount
of
early
adopters
for
the
project.
C
Whether
or
not
they
engaged
early
with
a
particular
tag
to
receive
good
feedback,
build
better
governance,
more
clarity
on
how
to
contribute
to
a
project
things
of
that
nature.
So
things
that
have
worked
well
for
projects
moving
levels
that
have
already
graduated
that
are
seeing
a
higher
level
of
maturity.
There
is
a
corresponding
PR.
It
is
number
997
which
has
an
initial
starting
point.
We
had
a
lot
of
good
active
discussion
on
both
the
pr
and
as
well
as
some
of
the
comments
that
we
received.
C
There
was
good,
constructive
feedback
on
where
we
can
make
changes.
There's
a
few
observations
from
community
members
about
whether
or
not
we
should
provide
specific
numbers
as
ideas
for
projects
to
Target,
or
should
we
make
it
a
little
bit
more
generic,
because
different
projects
have
different
sizes,
different
maintainers,
different
Scopes,
so
setting
something
like
having
five
contributors
or
five
maintainers
on
it
may
not
translate
well
to
everybody.
C
So
how
do
you
provide
that
level
of
guidance
if
projects
are
interested
in
pursuing
that
Liz
had
some
excellent
feedback
on
how
we
can
make
this
more
informative
and
less
checklisty,
because
there
seems
to
be
still
some
confusion
or
lack
of
clarity
that
these
are
not
criteria.
That's
a
separate
conversation
we'll
be
having
later
today,
so
I
wanted
to
open
the
floor
to
feedback
suggestions
for
those
that
have
been
following
along
on
the
issue.
G
G
G
People
are
making
about
these
things,
which
I'm
not
sure
are
entirely
warranted,
and
it's
the
really
important
thing
with
a
long,
lasting
Foundation,
is
to
have
a
wide
range
of
different
kinds
of
projects
that
can
flourish
under
a
common
umbrella
and
not
assume
that
a
certain
pattern
for
one
type
of
project
is
the
right
one
to
copy
for
all
types
of
projects
and
I
believe
that
you
know
we
have
many
extreme
cases.
Kubernetes
is
a
huge
project.
G
I've
done
it
these
days,
whether
it's
bigger
than
Linux,
probably
not,
but
it's
it's
probably
on
a
similar
order
of
you
know
cyclatomic
than
black
City.
If
nothing
else-
and
there
are
other
projects
that
are
really
flourishing-
with
a
very
small
number
of
maintainers
and
contributors
they're
one
or
two
person
projects-
and
they
do
very
well
for
once
in
the
past
I
am.
G
I
know
there's
also
discussion
around
sustainability
for
those
kinds
of
low-level
infrastructure
where
there
is
a
common
funding
model
across
foundations.
I
believe
this
has
been
discussed
with
open
SSH,
for
example,
sorry
openssl
that
you
have
maintainers
from
different
sponsors,
put
money
into
a
pool
and
then
they
fund
the
salary
of
somebody
who
works
for
the
foundation.
I
think
that
model
can
work
okay
too,
but
it's
quite
difficult
to
do
it
across
the
whole
industry
and
it's
very
hard
to
do
it
with
innovation.
G
And
what
I
particularly
worry
about
with
our
Innovative
side
is
I.
Think
we've
lost
our
way
in
terms
of
the
original
vision
of
encouraging
Innovation
from
small
companies
and
I
think
that
the
cncf,
partly
because
it's
tragicated
to
a
lot
of
different
audiences,
The,
Wider
Community,
big,
end
users,
big
vendors
of
sponsors
as
well.
G
There
is
an
assumption
that,
for
example,
you
know
every
project
wants
to
have
multiple
maintainers
from
multiple
companies,
but
I've
seen
many
cases
where
there
are
large
companies
that
employ
somebody
who
works
on
a
project
who
then
moves
on
it's
just
not
particularly
reliable,
there's
also
cases
where
large
companies
don't
want
to
hire
their
own
maintainers.
That
want
to
have
a
single
or
a
couple
of
vendors.
They
can
work
with
them
sponsor
maintainers
through
that
company,
which
is
the
case
with
Nat.
G
It
really
kills
people
and
it
kills
their
morale
and
it
kills
their
productivity
and
I'm
really
worried
about
that.
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
there's
a
lot
of
good
will
behind
this
stuff,
but
please
please,
please
consider
this
as
you
go
through
this
process
is
my
main
request.
Don't
assume
that
just
because
you've
say
got
you
know
five
maintainers
from
different
companies.
G
You've
automatically
got
something
that
is
sustainable
because
you
don't
because
if
you're
then
burdening
them
to
work
for
free
and
it's
very
hard
to
you
know
to
make
money,
those
people
will
not
be
able
to
stay
next
to
stay
in
that
commitment
to
approach
it
for
a
long
time.
Okay,
so
I'll
stop
talking
there
and
and
and
shut
up
because
I
said.
C
Thank
you
Alexis,
so
I
want
to
just
verify
and
like
re-summarase
what
I
believe
I
heard
you
say
we
should
be
con
make.
We
should
be
very
clear
on
which
things
are
criteria
for
projects
knowing
full
well
that
it's
not
going
to
be
the
same
for
everyone
and
I.
Think
Liz
did
an
excellent
job
previously
identifying
like
this
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
TOC
had
initially
set
that
criteria,
because
there's
so
much
variance
between
projects
and
evaluating
their
maturity
and
that's
pretty
reasonably
documented.
C
So
that
should
be
a
strong
consideration.
Moving
forward,
also
making
sure
that
there
is
space
given
the
different
constructs
for
engaging
and
supporting
maintainers
of
different
quantities
for
a
given
project.
There's
a
lot
of
different
models
out
there
with
large-scale
organizations
and
small
cell
organizations
for
providing
appropriate
support.
The
also
the
administration
burden
on
a
lot
of
some
of
the
open
source
projects
can
be
leading
to
a
significant
amount
of
burnout
amongst
maintainers.
C
You
also
said
something
that
was
very
intriguing
around
the
discussion
for
sustainability
of
low-level
infrastructure
for
projects
and
that
some
of
those
considerations
will
look
probably
very
different
than
something
that's
more
user.
Interactive
did
I
miss
any
part
of
the
concerns
that
you
raised
before
I
hand
it
over
to
Josh
and
then
Liz.
G
I
think
so
I
mean
I.
Just
think
that
let
me
put
this
another
way
when
I
was
the
COC
chair,
I
tried
to
convince
people.
It
was
a
good
idea
to
see
their
projects
and
the
cncf,
and
we
had
some
early
successes,
but
now
I
just
see
if
I
was
starting
a
company
and
I
wanted
to
be
an
open
source.
Company
I
wouldn't
put
my
project
in
the
foundation.
It's
just
too
much
work
and
everybody
tries
really
really
hard
to
stop
you
making
money
out
of
it.
H
H
So
the
idea
that
we'd
have
you
know
sort
of
this
path
like
we
have
for
users
right
with
the
cloud
native
maturity
path.
But
we
have
for
users
to
have
the
sort
of
path
of
project
maturity
with
the
understanding
that
there's
a
lot
of
different
sort
of
parallel
paths
that
you
could
take
I
think
would
actually
be
very
helpful
to
a
lot
of
projects.
And-
and
so
you
know,
we
do
a
lot
of
fine-tuning-
of
the
individual
sort
of
guide
posts.
F
Yeah
so
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
well
I
put
into
the
into
that
cloud
native
Milestones
issue
and
I
think
what
Josh
just
said
about
maybe
calling
it
something
like
guideposts.
The
terminology
that
we
use
for
this
is
really
important
and
I
really
I.
Think
there's
some
amazing
ideas
in
here
about
how
we
can
advise
projects.
You
know
what
kind
of
activities
might
work,
what
kind
of
things
could
help
them
attract
more
contributors
and
I.
F
Think
if
there
is
a
number
one
concern
that
projects
probably
want
to
address
it's,
how
do
I
get
more
active
contributions
into
my
project
or
active
contributors?
So
there's
some
great
guidance
there.
Some
great
help
that
the
cncf
can
offer
to
projects,
but
I
really
think
we
need
to
decouple
that
entirely
from
any
mention
of
the
maturity
levels,
because
as
soon
as
somebody
says
this
kind,
this
is
the
sort
of
thing
you
should
be
doing
as
an
incubating
project.
Well,
this
is
the
sort
of
thing
you
should
be
doing
as
a
graduated
project.
F
People
will
start
to
interpret
that,
even
if
it's
explicitly
stated
that
this
isn't
a
criteria,
they
will
interpret
it
as
well.
It's
not
really
a
criteria,
but
it's
going
to
count
against
me.
If
I
don't
do
it
right,
because
that's
the
expectation
and
so
even,
however
I
think
we
need
to
be
incredibly
clear
that
they
are
not
this.
F
I
So
and
I
think
the
Counterpoint
to
that
Liz,
which
we've
talked
about
in
the
past,
is
though
it
can.
It
cannot
be
a
checklist
either.
That
assumes
once
I
have
done
all
these
things.
My
project
will
be
accepted.
I
do
think
that,
as
we
grow
in
scale,
there
is
power
in
not
accepting
everything
and,
while
I
welcome,
you
know,
projects
to
grow
and
get
visibility,
and
you
know
Alexis
to
your
point
around.
I
You
know
giving
a
stage
for
those
small
projects
to
have
an
opportunity
to
do
that.
It
has
to
be.
There
has
to
be
some
sort
of
guidepost
or
something
that
we're
able
to
attune
to,
because
we're
we're
a
few
people
with
now
hundreds,
if
not
even
more,
projects
on
the
landscape,
and
if
we
want
the
foundation
to
continue
to
be
useful
and
viable,
which
I
was
a
little
worried.
Alexis.
G
I
So
saying
that
now,
then
we
need
to
stop
and
refocus
and
say
what
is
our
value
to
this
community?
How
are
we
best
serving
all
the
people
and
all
the
projects
within
it
in
a
way
that
Fosters
this
Innovation?
That
brings
small
projects
that
allows
them
to
grow
because
I
think
if
we've
lost
that
we've
kind
of
lost
our
North
Star.
So.
G
For
me,
the
vanilla
example
is
Kafka
coming
out
of
LinkedIn,
and
then
it
had
three
or
four
years
to
benefit
from
being
an
anchor
project
inside
LinkedIn,
and
then
it
became
confluent
the
company,
and
there
are
other
other
folks
involved
in
the
Kafka
ecosystem
as
well,
but
I
think
that's
a
great
pathway
and
then
the
other
two
classes
of
stakeholder
were
individual
contributors
in
the
community.
Again
I
think
cncf
has
done
a
pretty
good
job
here.
G
There's
been
some
ups
and
downs
over
the
years
with
events
and
marketing
versus
community,
of
course,
but
really
I
think
it's
a
Triumph
actually
overall
and
finally,
small
Innovative
companies
and
they've
got
to
have
an
incentive
to
be
involved
and
if
they,
if
they
can't
succeed,
they
will
go
and
do
something
else
and
I.
Think
that
if
you
take
away
that
group
of
folks
whether
they
are
starting
from
scratch
or
spun
out
of
LinkedIn,
you
won't
have
a
successful
Foundation
anymore
yeah.
That's
my
word.
C
I
G
That
is
exactly
my
point.
Is
the
cncf
serves
the
interests
of
companies
like
IBM,
quite
well,
actually
and
I?
Think
those
interests
are
totally
legitimate.
I
want
to
see
IBM
Red
Hat
Microsoft
be
seriously
excited
about
cncf
and
I.
Can
you
know
Regale
you
with
stories
about
the
different
things
we
learned,
as
we
grew
up
from
a
few
companies
to
getting
folks
like
Microsoft
and
back
kubernetes
and
joy.
That
was
a
very
interesting
times.
G
I
mean,
let
me
give
you,
let
me
give
you
Doug
an
artificial
example,
because
I
don't
want
to
get
too
into
the
details.
Yeah
one
of
the
things
that
Apache
software
Foundation
does
and
was
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
didn't
choose
the
Apache
software
Foundation.
To
put
all
of
this
into
an
example.
Linux
instead
is,
if
you
have
a
commercial
offering
whether
it's
Professional,
Services
or
an
Enterprise
product,
and
you
use
the
word
compact
in
it.
G
You
immediately
will
receive,
cease
and
desist
lessons
from
the
Apache
legal
team,
and
that
makes
it
almost
impossible
to
make
any
money
in
the
in
the
market
around
Tomcat.
So
there
isn't
a
market
around
Tomcat.
Instead,
it
becomes
a
tool
that
you
can
own
a
component
that
that
may
or
may
not
be
part
of
other
offerings,
and
that
means
that
the
investment
you
have
to
make
in
order
to
get
off
the
ground
commercially
includes
have
a
successful
Upstream
project
in
the
in
the
foundation
and
have
something
that
is
outside
of
that.
G
That's
totally
separate
and
builds
on
it,
and
probably
that
has
to
be
open
source,
which
means
you
also
need
to
have
an
Enterprise
version
as
well.
So
you
need
to
go
from
xero
to
Prometheus,
grafana
and
grafana
Enterprise
on
your
own,
which
is
basically
impossible.
It's
much
easier
to
start
outside
and
have
a
curated
offering
and
then,
if
you
become
successful,
maybe
tear
off
a
piece
and
have
a
shared
version.
That's
upstreaming
that
other
people
can
build
around.
But
that
is
you
know.
If
you
become
successful,
why
would
you
even
bother
doing
that
got.
H
There
are
a
variety
of
different
ways
to
build
up
your
project
and
your
business
model.
One
of
those
has
that
has
been
popular
honestly,
since
the
early
odds
is
what
we
call
open
core,
for
example,
and
yeah
there's.
You
know
that's
going
to
be
one
of
the
strategies
pursued,
particularly
by
startups
with
open
source
products,
but
we
wouldn't
want
an
open
core
project
to
be
part
of
the
cncf.
G
H
Yeah
so
I'm
just
saying
not
everybody's
going
to
join
and
not
everybody
should
join,
but
clearly
the
cncf
is
providing
value
for
a
lot
of
organizations
and
companies
that
are
interested
in
joining
the
cncf
the.
So
you
know
if,
if
we
have
major
challenges,
it's
actually
more
in
how
do
we
scale
what
we're
already
providing
those
projects.
D
Thanks
so
I
I
have
kind
of
multiple
hats
here
right,
so
the
first
hat
I
want
to
put
on
is
as
a
maintainer
of
a
project
right
somebody
who's
done
day
in
and
day
out,
work
on
an
open
source
project.
You
know
inside
of
different
foundations
over
the
years
outside
of
Foundations
and
when
I
first
got
into
doing
things
with
the
cncf
and
it
started,
and
it
started
providing
Services
I'll
be
open
and
I'll,
say
I
could
see
a
lot
of
benefit
coming
along
with
it
right.
D
You
got
things
like
third-party
Security
reviews,
and
so
it
wasn't
just
a
home
to
collaboratively
work
on
the
source,
whether
the
companies
in
a
vendor
neutral
place.
There
were
benefits
to
it
and
I
think
a
lot
of
those
still
exist,
but
I
also
think
that
now
we're
seeing
more
things
that
make
it
more
difficult
for
those
developers,
expectations
to
show
up
for
committees
and
to
be
involved
in
things
that
don't
help
them
Drive
their
own
project.
D
Where
are
the
different
roles
involved
right
because
then
you've
got
end
users
Right
End
users
say:
oh
this
thing:
it's
single
vendor!
Well,
what
happens
to
that
vendor?
What
happens?
It's
a
venture
capital
funded
company.
Let's
be
honest!
What
what
happens
to
this
company
do
I.
My
big
Enterprise
want
to
rely
on
one
single
VC
driving,
something
you
know.
Vc
funded
company
or
do
I
want
to
have
multi-vendor,
so
I
feel
that
that
project
I'm
going
to
pick
up
has
more
longevity
to
it,
because
you
have
fewer
points
of
failure.
G
With
respect,
I
have
to
drop
off,
but
I
just
want
to
comment
on
that
last
statement.
If
you
have
five
people
from
five
big
companies
backing
a
project,
it
just
provides
absolutely
no
guarantee
of
sustainability.
If
that
project
is
incapable
of
generating
value
for
those
companies
that
are
backing
it.
You're.
G
Have
a
single
vendor
company,
which
is
doing
well
and
can
get
a
return
from
the
work
that
people
are
putting
in
whether
or
not
VCS
are
involved.
Then
it
is
providing
value
to
its
end
users
and
to
people
building
it,
and
that
is
much
more
sustainable
and
can
be
much
more
sustainable
than
something
which
seems
to
have
lots
of
maintainers.
G
But
actually
something
goes
wrong
and
those
people
will
fold
and
with
all
the
due
respect
to
the
folks
and
big
companies,
we've
just
seen
serious
rounds
of
big
Tech
layoffs,
big
tech
companies
could
get
bored
of
this
stuff
and
stop
backing
it
quite
so
well
and
then
suddenly,
where
are
we?
You
know
it's.
It's
not
obvious
to
me
that
having
maintainers
from
more
than
one
company
is
a
guarantee
of
sustainability
anyway,
with
that
I
must
drop
off
and
I'm
really
sorry
to
interrupt.
D
Yes
have
a
good
day.
Thank
you,
bye-bye,
sorry
and
I
have
to
agree
with
the
lectures
on
it.
It
doesn't
mean
it's
value,
I'm,
just
saying,
there's
lots
of
end
users
who
make
that
point
if
that's
what
they
desire,
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
complexity.
Here
now
we
do
have
projects
coming
in
and
where's
that
value
statement
compared
to
where
it
used
to
be
to
where
it
was
at
I.
Think
that's
worth
digging
into
right.
D
C
All
right
so
I'm
gonna
pause
this
part
of
the
discussion,
because
we've
shifted
topics
a
little
bit,
but
I
do
think
that
it
was
worthwhile.
So
I
have
a
list
of
action.
Suggestions
and
changes
associated
with
formerly
called
Milestones
sounds
like
guiding.
Post
is
a
better
suggested
change.
So
I'm
going
to
take
this
I'm
going
to
consolidate
some
of
that
feedback,
I'm
going
to
comment
on
the
pr
and
execute
some
changes
so
for
those
that
are
interested.
C
Please
check
out
the
pr
for
updates
within
the
next
two
weeks,
because
I
am
busy
I
will
try
to
get
that
done.
I
do
also
feel
like
there
is
a
good
and
worthwhile
conversation
about
the
value
or
perceived
value
in
projects
within
cncf
and
how
we're
engaging
with
them.
How
we're
setting
up
maintainers
and
contributors
for
Success,
while
still
providing
value
alignment
to
those
organizations
that
are
interested
in
both
donating
and
also
adopting
those
projects,
so
I
think
that's
going
to
be
a
good,
separate
conversation
for
a
later
date
feet.
C
Just
don't
have
the
structure
for
how
we're
going
to
pursue
that
at
this
point
in
time,
but
I
will
take
a
note
for
the
TOC
to
pull
that
back
and
figure
out
how
we
can
move
forward
with
that
discussion.
The
Next
Step
that
we
have
is
around
criteria
for
graduation
and
potentially
moving
levels.
Just
generally
moving
from
sandbox
to
incubation
incubation
to
graduation,
we've
heard
a
lot
of
feedback
initially
around
some
of
the
confusing
criteria
that
we've
had
or
some
of
the
differences
in
requests
for
projects
moving
levels.
C
It
was
recently
updated
slightly
last
year
with
some
changes
to
the
FAQ
to
include
better
Clarity
on
what
adopters
are,
and
also
to
include
the
concept
of
a
due
diligence
refresh
at
graduation,
because
sometimes
projects
come
in
and
it's
been
many
many
years
since
their
due
diligence
was
done
so
obviously
doing
a
refresh
there.
Not
many
folks
may
be
aware
of
that,
because
it's
not
something,
we've
actively
discussed
and
there's
only
one
line
in
the
repo
associated
with
it.
C
So
that
being
said,
there
are
about
three
open
issues
related
to
moving
levels
and
criteria.
Changes,
there's
been
a
fair
amount
of
discussion
on
both
of
them
for
things
like
Clarity
of
a
security
audit
versus
a
review
and
assessment
during
incubation
or
graduation
other
expression
of
potentially
security
measures
or
assurances
that
projects
are
looking
to
provide
their
adopters.
Updating
a
standardized
template
as
well
as
potentially
time
boxing
some
of
those
States
or
moving
projects
out
of
the
leveling
framework,
but
still
allowing
them
to
flourish.
F
Foreign
yeah
I
just
wanted
to
make
another
point
about
the
time
frame.
So
I
recall
when
we
first
talked
about
trying
to
stop
projects
from
kind
of
rushing
up
three
weeks
before
kubecon
and
going
hey.
We
want
to
be
incubating
via
coupon,
you
know
can,
can
you
do
that,
and
that
was
definitely
a
problem.
So
there
was
this
idea
of
instituting
a
period
of
like
a
sort
of
moratorium
period.
F
F
I'm
much
less
bothered
about
whether
or
not
we
make
it
by
kubecon
other
than
that.
If
we
do,
we
want
to,
you
know,
celebrate
it
in
some
way
and
have
time
to
prepare
I'm
much
less
bothered
about
that
than
I
am
about
the
fact
that
it's
going
to
be.
You
know,
six
months
between
the
initial
application
and
getting
to
the
point
where
people
can
even
make
public
comments,
I'm
just
putting
it
out
there
that
maybe
causing
those
that
whole
process
for
12
weeks
total
in
a
year.
Maybe
overkill
on
that
particular
problem.
F
C
Heard
and
and
I
know
that
we've
we've
talked
about
that
before
and
I
think
it's
worth
revisiting
for
sure.
Given
now
that
we've
tried
it
a
few
times,
we've
gotten
good
feedback
from
projects
such
as
psyllium
and
others
around
this,
as
well
as
COC
members
that
are
in
the
position
of
communicating
this
morgatorium
with
projects.
So
I
think
that's
definitely
something
that
we
can
work
on
adjusting
to
be
more
favorable
and
taking
a
good
making
good
use
of
that
time
frame
for
public
comment,
potentially
Tom.
K
G
K
Let's
say
that
yeah
six
months
three
months,
sorry
is
a
lot
of
time.
The
second
thing
I
I
wanted
to
mention
is
that
when
you
open
a
proposal
today,
it's
still
somewhat
unclear
on
what
is
expected,
and
it's
sometimes
in
the
small
things
like
do
I.
Add
all
the
content
in
the
pr
that
I'm
opening
or
do
I
need
to
open
a
Google
doc.
K
Obviously
the
answer
is
a
Google
doc,
for
which
we
now
have
a
Google
workspace,
where
it
needs
to
end
up
eventually,
but
all
these
small
things,
if
we
could
like
better
document
them
and
maybe
consider
going
with
issues
rather
than
PRS,
would
already
be
helpful
to
to
iron
out
these
small
things
which
don't
take
a
lot
of
time.
But
in
the
end
it's
friction
that
we
can
get
rid
of
again
simple
example:
I
I
spend
a
lot
of
time
getting
all
the
content
in
the
pr
and
then
only
to
hear
hey.
K
J
Yeah,
just
to
that
I
well,
I,
obviously
I
understand
all
those
constraints.
I,
don't
think
that
necessarily
justifies
putting
a
freeze
on
the
process
right.
All
it
means
is
yeah,
things
will
slow
down,
but
that
doesn't
mean
it
has
to
be
an
explicit
slowdown.
That
says
we
shall
slow
down
if
everybody
happens
to
be
busy
and
that's
fine,
it
just
naturally
slows
down,
but
if
everybody
isn't
busy,
why
should?
Why
should
we?
Why
should
the
TOC
basically
stop
doing
one
of
the
things
that
it
has
to
do
right?
J
It's
just
things
change
in
terms
of
balances
and
things
go
slower
and
faster
different
times.
I,
just
don't
think
you
need
explicit.
We
shall
slowed
down
at
this
period
of
time
for
this
particular
part
of
our
process
or
part
of
our
job,
and
that
just
doesn't
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me.
That's
actually
not
why
I
raise
my
hand.
C
Awesome
I
appreciate
the
feedback,
Doug
there's
a
lot
actually
there
from
my
experience
and
in
mind.
I
have
not
been
on
the
TOC
a
significant
amount
of
time.
The
TOC
members
do
have
a
lot
of
Demands
as
Liz
just
posted
in
the
chat
for
our
time,
and
we
do
have
existing
commitments
such
as
performing
the
due
diligence
working
with
projects
to
get
them
aligned
with
moving
those
levels
being
available
and
to
support
them
as
well
as
coordination
with
the
tags
as
well
for
their
engagement
with
projects.
So
there
is
a
lot
there.
K
K
Okay,
I'm
on
the
car
I
was
saying
all
of
a
sudden.
When
we
opened
the
proposal,
we
needed
three
additional
reviews
from
various
Stacks
which
were
not
documented.
So
if
we
could
fix
that,
then
we
could
also
reduce
the
time
that
a
proposal
is
open
so
that
people
are
better
prepared.
Another
thing
we
can
do
is
if
we
go
with
GitHub
issues,
we
can
also
use
the
issue.
Forms
template
sorry,
so
that
people
exactly
know
what
they
need
to
do.
K
So
if
you
want
to
open
a
graduation
proposal
here
is
the
checklist
of
the
reviews
you
have
to
do.
This
is
the
due
diligence
template
you
need
to
use
and
you
can
only
open
it
once
you've
finished
all
of
these,
so
that
by
the
time
the
proposal
is
open,
Toc
and
Theory
just
has
to
review
the
material
assign
a
sponsor.
K
C
E
I
think
it's
also
valuable
for
us
to
like
have
an
agreement
that
all
of
the
criteria,
regardless
of
whether
it
is
required
or
not
like
that,
that
we
are
able
to
identify
like
what
criteria
is
required
to
move
toward
graduation
and
I.
I've
also
heard
that
avoid
I've
also
heard
Aaron
say
like
we
can't
just
provide
a
checklist
right,
there's
not
like
10
things
you
do,
and
then
you
are
graduated.
E
What
I
want
to
raise
is
that
it's
also
important
that,
whatever
that,
whatever
that
balance
point
is
like
you,
you've
you've
reached
these
you've
reached
the
gold,
the
gold
stones,
that
should
get
you
to
graduation.
What
is
that
last
criteria
that
will
get
you
across
the
line?
It
can't
be
a
mystery.
It
has
to
be
something
that
we
document
and
it
has
to
be
something
that
we
measure
and
it
has
to
be
something
that
somebody
can
attain.
E
L
I
think
there,
given
the
incentives
involved
in
given
the
given
the
different
perspectives.
I,
don't
think
we
can
find
anything
where
everyone
is
truly
happy.
It
kind
of
has
to
be
a
compromise
and
accepting
this
is
not
great
I'm,
not
even
saying
not
easy,
but
it's
not
it's
just
not
great,
but
I.
Don't
think
we
can
fully
spread
a
circle.
A
B
Yeah
I
I
think
I
call
you
know
what
this
trip
said.
I
think
they,
you
know,
there's
a
trade-off
here
right.
We
in
order
to
for
POC,
to
evaluate
the
projects
and
also
for
the
project
maintenance
to
know
why
their
party
is
accepted
or
not
accepted.
We
need
to
have
some
criteria,
some
which
some
objective
criteria,
but,
of
course
we
also
want
some
Flex
some,
because
parties
are
all
different,
maybe
need
some
for
some
flexibility.
B
So
there's
a
trade
up
here
that
cannot
meet
or
meet
everyone's
needs
or
make
everyone
happy
right,
but
I
think
you
know
if
without
some
unclearly
spelled
out
criteria,
then
there
will
be
more
issues.
You
know
people
is
going
to
say
why
you
know
my
party
is
rejected
and
the
other
party
is
accepted
right
and
also
a
work
based.
You
know
the
TLC
should
evaluate
and
those
projects
and
make
the
decision.
M
Hey
there
Jared
from
the
rook
and
Crossland
projects,
so
yeah
there's
a
lot
of
effort
going
on
here
and
definitely
appreciate
that
one
thing,
I'm
kind
of
curious
about
is
four
projects
that
are,
you
know
in
the
process
of
graduating,
or
you
know,
opening
a
proposal
soon.
Etc,
there's
a
lot
of
open
issues,
a
lot
of
discussion
here.
So
do
we
anticipate
that
you
know,
since
there
are
likely
changes
coming
that
you
know,
projects
that
are
you
know
working
towards
graduation?
C
I
can
actually
answer
that.
Initially,
we
have
not
discussed
it.
Okay
to
be
completely
upfront.
We
have
I.
We
are
aware
that
it
is
not
prudent
to
Levy
in
Flight
discussions
as
requirements
for
projects
I,
think
everybody's
in
in
violent
agreement
there,
that
that
is
not
the
way
that
we
want
to
go
about
doing
things,
but
we
also
want
to
consider
projects
that
applied
to
move
levels
at
this
state
of
time
by
which
they
applied.
C
They
felt
that
they
were
ready
and
if
we
are
moving
those
goal
posts
for
them,
that
might
be
creating
additional
work
or
they
might
feel
that
it
was
wasted
effort
on
their
part
to
apply,
especially
if
we
relax.
Some
of
those
so
I
think
it's
worthwhile
for
us
to
figure
out
what
an
implementation
or
a
rollout
strategy
actually
looks
like
if
and
when
we
make
changes
depending
on
what
those
changes
actually
are
and
which
portions
of
the
process
that
they
fall
under.
C
But
we
have
not
had
a
concrete
discussion
about
it
because
we
haven't
even
developed
what
those
criteria
look
like.
We've
had
a
little
bit
of
indicators,
some
active
discussion
on
the
issues,
so
I
appreciate
you
elevating
that
as
a
public
concern,
and
it's
definitely
something
that
we
are
going
to
heavily
consider
when
we
look
at
making
these
changes.
C
So
we've
got
about
eight
minutes
left
I
think
that
we've
had
an
excellent
discussion
today
and
we've
heard
a
lot
from
a
great
many
people,
both
folks
that
have
been
in
various
roles
both
within
the
maintainers,
as
well
as
within
the
TOC
and
some
of
the
considerations
and
constraints
that
they've
been
encountering
thus
far.
I
wanted
to
open
it
up
to
some
last
thoughts
associated
with
this
discussion
on
criteria
and
moving
levels.
C
J
So,
what's
the
next
step
here
in
the
TOC
process?
Is
it
simply
way
for
people
and
Toc
to
have
time
to
comment
on
the
issues
in
the
pr?
Is
there
a
subgroup
people
are
supposed
to
go,
should
go
off
and
try
to
come
back
with
a
concrete
proposal
that
may
get
a
little
more
tension
than
the
pr
or
issues
out
there
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
move
the
ball
forward
and
not
to
say
okay,
we
vented
for
a
while
and
now
we're
going
to
go
back
and
nothing's
changed.
That's.
C
A
really
good
question:
thank
you,
Doug.
So
Toc
members
I'd
like
to
ask
you
all
what
you
what
you
feel
about
this
we've
been
doing
a
lot
of
discussion
internally
on
some
of
this
receiving
feedback
and
Fielding
it
from
community
members
and
I.
Think
generally
everything
that's
been
said
here
on.
The
call
is
probably
something
that
we've
touched
topics
on
one
way
or
another.
C
B
So
I
think
I
think
this
is
my
suggestion.
I
think
we
have
all
these
issues
open
right
for
the
criteria.
I
think
we
need
to
collect
all
the
feedback
constructed
me
to
a
document
and
then
you
know
probably
tlsa
can
discuss.
You
know
all
these
different
comments,
suggestions
and
then
we
will
see
you
know
what
we
can
change
to
what
makes
sense,
and
then
you
know
we
discuss
and
say
what
we,
what
which
part
we
should
need
to
change
or
you
know,
need
to
clarify.
B
We
come
up
with
that
list
and
then
how
to
create
a
PR
or
maybe
before
that
we
post,
maybe
a
PR,
to
highlight
the
changes
and
then
post
for
comments
right.
But
of
course
you
know
with
all
these.
There
are
so
many
different
comments
right.
Sometimes
the
comments
are
are
not
you
know,
maybe
some
comments
they
conflict
with
each
other,
so
we
cannot.
The
change
cannot
meet.
You
know
cannot
address
every
comments,
so
I
think
TLC
needs
to
reach
consensus
on.
You
know
on
the
change
yeah.
N
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
give
some
perspective
from
a
cnci
project
going
through
graduation
and
I
apologize
I'm,
not
an
expert
here,
but
attending
on
behalf
of
someone
in
another
time
zone.
One
thing
that
we've
seen
is
kind
of
this
frustration
of
not
having
clear
guidelines
on
what
we
need
to
do
and
when
and
how-
and
you
know
so-
we
get
told
like
you
need
the
XYZ
report
and
then
we're
like
okay.
Here
we
go,
we
got
this
done,
it's
like!
N
B
Well,
I
think
that's
a
great
one,
actually
I
think
a
lot.
Quite
some
frustration
comes
from
the
document.
It's
not
clear
or
you
know
people
don't
know
where
to
find
those
information.
Probably
probably
the
first
step
is
to
clarify
that,
rather
than
make
a
dramatic
change
on
the
process,
you
know,
and
that
will
disrupt
a
lot
of
you
know.
Existing
party
and
also
another
parties
in
the
pipeline.
I
think
that
may
cause
more.
You
know
frustration.
Probably
the
first
step
is
to
clarify
you
know.
B
C
Okay,
all
right
so
we're
nearing
time
and
there's
some
questions
around
Target
dates
for
Toc
to
come
up
with
recommendations
or
tentative
Target
dates.
I,
don't
know
that
we
have
consensus
amongst
ourselves
to
be
able
to
provide
you
all
with
a
date.
So
here's
what
I'm
going
to
propose
the
TOC
is
going
to
work
together
over
the
next
two
to
three
weeks
to
figure
out
what
we're
going
to
do
if
it
is
pull
together.
C
A
working
group
which
we've
made
some
changes
a
few
years
ago
about
working
groups
at
the
TOC
level
that
need
to
be
Revisited,
so
we're
going
to
make
a
decision
on
whether
or
not
to
turn
this
over
to
a
working
group
to
consolidate
all
the
feedback
and
the
notes
that
we've
already
collected
in
these
areas
or
to
reflect
internally
on
this.
So
I'm
going
to
look
at
my
calendar
and
Amy.
If
you
could
help
me
out
figuring
out,
our
dates
looks.
A
Like
we've
got
a
few
upcoming
meetings,
yeah
as
I
look
at
things
from
here,
we've
got
the
28th.
We've
got
the
fourth.
The
fourth
is
going
to
be
a
open
meeting
with
POC
like
Peg
updates
from
all
of
you.
The
18th
is
our
week
before
kubecon
and
I.
Don't
know
if
folks
are
interested
in
being
able
to
say
like
let's
regroup
and
come
back
by
like
the
18th,
with
maybe
some
some
guidance
or
next
steps.
Emily
is
that
unreasonable.
C
I
I
don't
want
to
lose
the
momentum
that
we
have
on
this,
so
Cashing
Out,
pushing
it
out
significantly
far,
is
not
going
to
be
favorable.
So,
let's
target
April
4th
okay
for
the
TOC
to
issue
a
decision
on
how
we're
going
to
proceed
forward
with
clear
expectations
for
community
members
to
get
involved
depending
on
what
that
decision
is,
and
then
a
proposed
timeline.
Does
that
sound
good
for
everyone?.
A
K
C
Okay,
so
expect
to
hear
from
us
April
4th
close
a
business
for
whichever
time
zone
you're
in
we're
going
to
provide
a
path
forward
with
details
on
how
to
engage
and
provide
your
wonderful
suggestions
and
feedback
again
on
all
of
these
issues.
It'll
be
broken
up
into
primarily
focused
on
the
criteria,
but
you'll
also
receive
some
notification
associated
with
Milestones
now
guiding
posts
once
those
changes
are
made.
I'm
going
to
attempt
today
to
provide
a
summary
of
the
items
that
we
discussed
in
the
next
steps
forward
on
the
TOC
mailing
list.
C
C
All
right,
well,
I,
would
like
to
thank
everyone
for
attending
today.
Your
feedback
has
been
phenomenal
and
getting
a
path
forward
on
a
lot
of
these
suggestions
and
remediations
for
improving
and
making
the
process
a
lot
easier
for
everyone,
both
Toc
maintainers
and
community
members,
as
well
as
adopters.
So
thank
you
all
so
much
for
your
time
and
your
passion.
I
will
see
you
later.