►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-03-03
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-03-03
C
A
E
A
B
B
B
F
So
we
did
a
couple
reviews,
one
directly
related
to
six
storage,
which
was
for
rook
we're
leaving
the
commenting
open
until
tomorrow
for
a
week
to
get
make
sure
there's
no
outstanding
issues.
We
personally
don't
have
any
concerns
for
the
sig
from
the
sig
for
graduation,
so
we
would
recommend
to
graduate
Assad
has
volunteered
to
be
the
TOC
sponsor
for
that.
So
we
feel
like
that's
in
in
good
hands.
F
F
We
know
that
in
the
past
that's
been
one
of
kind
of
the
red
flags
of
having
that
as
being
part
of
the
base
product
and
then
the
other
one
is
the
default.
Deployment
is
not
a
che
out
of
the
gate,
and
the
user
must
then
go
configure
that
separately.
So
it's
not
a
che
natively.
That
somewhat
worries
us.
That
would,
of
course,
need
to
be
talked
to
with
the
TOC,
but
those
were
our
two
concerns
that
came
out
of
our
investigation
of
harbor
and
then
for
the
backlog.
F
B
G
I
can
I
can
speak
about
that?
If
you
don't
mind
list,
it's
a
hi
everybody.
This
is
my
column,
one
of
the
maintenance
of
hard
work.
So
essentially
the
harbor
has
many
components
and
readies
and
Postgres
are
the
only
two
of
them
that
we
deploy
out
of
the
box
without
an
H
a
configuration
option,
and
we
do
that
for
a
few
very
specific
reasons.
G
There
are
readily
available
operators
and
how
much
that
customers
can
use
to
the
priorities
in
Postgres
in
an
H
a
way
so
for
the
folks
that
actually
do
want
to
deploy
them
in
H
a
way
they
they
do
that
very
very
easily,
and
the
second
reason
is
most
of
our
customers.
Don't
really
put
a
single
instance
of
harbor
on
one
kubernetes
cluster,
because
the
cluster
of
kubernetes
becomes
your
unit
of
failure
and
that's
a
problem
for
them,
especially
if
you
are
using
harbor
to
be
the
vehicle
for
basically
hosting
all
your
cloud
native
artifacts.
G
So
what
customers
instead
do?
They
deploy
a
harbor
onto
separate
clusters
and
they
use
harbor's
replication,
which
is
a
very
widely
used
feature
to
replicate
assets
from
one
harbor
to
the
others.
That
way,
they
have
two
highly
available
harbor
instances
with
each
of
them
with
their
own
copy
of
readies
and
Postgres,
and
they
put
a
global
load
balancer
in
front.
F
F
Don't
feel
like
we
would
do
as
an
exhaustive
due
diligence
since
we
were
just
looking
at
a
secondary
piece
of
it.
You
know
it
looks
like
the
concerns
that
we've
brought
up
have
been
noted
and
there's
plans
to
fix
that,
whether
or
not
that
meets
the
criteria
for
graduation
I
would
have
to
yield
to
the
TOC
for
it,
but
I
feel
like
we're
done.
Our
comments
are
put
in.
We
don't
need
any
extra
time.
Okay,.
B
That's
cool,
so
I
think
Michelle
will
talk
a
bit
later
on
about
trying
to
streamline
the
kind
of
graduation
process,
but
it
sounds
to
me
as
though
so
bases
projects
we
have
the
kind
of
documentation
in
place
for
the
TOC
to
you
know,
review
and
start
forming
our
opinions
on
it
and
normally
the
way
this
works.
I
don't
know
if
we
have
a
TSE
sponsor
for
harbor,
yet
yeah.
B
Great
okay,
so
the
way
this
would
normally
work
is
that
person
would
be
responsible
for
determining
whether
you
know
basically
saying
yeah
at
this
point.
I
think
we're
ready
to
call
a
vote,
and
normally
by
that
point
we
will
have
discussed
it
and
you
know
raised
any
questions
we
have
so
yeah
I.
Think
the
next
step
sounds
like
it's
for
us
to
review
the
comments
and
content
that
are
in
those
two
I
guess.
If
I
click
on
those
issues,
your
PRS
will
find
all
the
documentation
there.
Yeah.
B
B
D
Sorry
I
was
muted
skip
over
this
slide,
because
I
forgot
to
remove
the
placeholder,
so
we
have
a
few
new
members.
We
have
links
here
to
some
recent
presentations.
We
had
a
really
great
presentation
from
the
the
financial
services
user
group
about
kubernetes
threat,
modeling
that
video
is
well
worth
looking
at
we're.
Also
thinking
about.
Can
we
take
those
assets
and
make
them
available
more
broadly,
because
the
threat
modeling
isn't
unique
to
the
financial
services
sector.
D
The
spiffy
spire
security
assessment
is
in
progress.
Just
kind
of
wrapping
up
we're
doing.
The
brendan
is
leading
that
and
doing
the
final
PR
with
the
team,
and
we
had
a
great
presentation
just
in
February,
and
then
we
also
wanted
to
highlight,
because
we
haven't
had
one
of
these
meetings
for
a
while
that
clouds
custodian
came
in
dis
in
December,
and
there
I
just
recently
reviewed
their
presentation
where
they
started
through
the
assessment
process.
D
I
really
want
to
kind
of
call
out
to
cloud
custodian
for
helping
us
and
being
patient
with
us
through
the
process
of
kind
of
defining
the
project
onboarding
a
little
more
clearly.
So
thanks
to
Liz's
recent
documentation,
I
caught
that
they
hadn't
had
a
you
know,
there
was
no
record
of
their
proposal
interest
in
the
TOC
repo
and
they
filed
an
issue
and
also
wanted
to
call
out.
D
There's
there's
there's
an
open
issue
now
about
it's
not
clear
when
the
PR
happens
so
I
think
we'll
roll
with
it
with
cloud
custodian,
we're
in
close
communication
and
we'll
figure
out
how
to
make
that
happen,
but
and
then
update
the
docs.
So
it's
clear
so
we're
just
test
driving
the
new
docs.
Thank
you.
Everyone
who
participated
I
think
it
will
get
better
for
y'all
chime
in
so
upcoming.
We've
got
cloud
native
security
day
at
cube
con
am
it
after
damn
and
then
we
had
an
election.
Thank
you.
D
D
But
I
was
thinking
it
might
be
neat
to
have
a
like
TOC
and
meet
the
tech
leads
Q&A.
We
could
have
like
a
virtual
session
if
people
are
interested
and
just
want
to
call
out
that
just
these
are
three
fabulous
leaders
who
have
been
involved
in
making
the
sake
what
it
is.
Justin
Kappas
was
doing,
work
on
security
for
the
TOC
as
a
TSE
contributor
before
the
cigs
were
a
thing
before
our
previously
known
as
safe
group
got
together.
D
Emily
Fox
joined
us
last
year
and
was,
with
Michael
Ducey,
led
the
very
first
cloud
native
security
day
at
cube,
con
San
Diego
and
has
been
incredibly
contributing
to
our
governance
process
and
just
came
in
and
cleaned
up
all
the
docs,
where
there
are
confusions,
which
is
great
and
Brendan.
Brandon
has
been
with
us
for
a
long
time
and
really
took
leadership
in
terms
of
creating
the
issues
in
the
pre
Po
and
has
been
a
security
reviewer
on
each
of
our
initial
assessments
and
is
now
leaving
spiffy
spire.
D
So
a
quick
overview
of
our
projects,
we
six
security,
so
you
can
go
to
the
project
board
at
any
time
to
see.
What's
on
deck,
we
have
six
security
day
and
project
progress,
as
well
as
the
first
five
security
assessment.
This
is
not
all
the
only
thing
that
sig
is
doing,
but
these
are
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
coordinate
mostly
across
many
people's.
So
next
slide
the
security
assessment
queue
we
have
cloud
custodian
should
probably
be
moved
into
in
progress
and
it's
not
their
self-assessment
is
almost
there.
D
We've
actually
kicked
it
off
and
then
spiffy
spire
is
almost
done,
and
next
is
Falco
is
working
on
wrapping
up
their
assessment.
So
so
we've
been
using
this
project
board
to
kind
of
help.
Us
remember
how
we
have
to
nudge
things
around
and
that's
been
kind
of
helpful
and
just
to
remind
everybody.
We
are
collecting
all
of
the
little
hiccups
in
the
security
assessment
process
and
there's
been
a
bunch
of
questions
from
the
sig
about
how
did
the
security
assessments
and
from
the
project's
themselves.
How
does
the
security
assessments
work
with
like?
D
D
D
B
Yeah
I
feel
like
for
for
sandbox
projects.
It's
a
it's
a
nice
thing
to
be
able
to
start
looking
at
the
security
posture
of
a
project,
but
it
shouldn't
be
a
requirement.
I,
don't
know.
Maybe
you
should
be
looking
at
making
that
a
requirement
for
incubation.
You
know
so
that
it
happens
to
a
project
while
it's
in
sandbox,
yeah.
D
I
think
that
the
the
we
don't
want
to
put
a
big
burden
on
the
project.
We
just
want
to
figure
out
how
we
can
relatively
early
get
the
project
to
kind
of
commit
to
who
its
path
towards
actually
having
its
security
concerns
met.
And
maybe
you
know
we'll
talk
more
about
that
before
coming
up
with
an
actual
detailed
proposal
or
details.
D
Sounds
very
reasonable,
so
next
slide
I
think
is
about
cloud
native
security
day.
So
we
have
a
lot
of
registrations.
Hopefully
everybody
will
stay
healthy
and
this
will
stay
on
track.
We
won't
have
open
spaces
at
this
time
just
due
to
constrained
physical
space,
but
we
have
a
bunch
of
great
sessions
queued
up
and
and
then
we're
also
kind
of
looking
at.
There
are
some
people
who,
from
our
from
six
security,
who
can't
travel
due
to
restrictions
and
so
we're
looking
at
maybe
having
some
virtual
sessions
where
people
are
gathering
socially
at
cube
con.
B
A
J
I
So
you
stick
up
delivery
recently.
We
actually
have
three
projects
in
there
under
review,
which
is
which
are
kudu
kept
down
and
build
attacks
and
I
feel
taxing
for
incubation.
So
it
will
maybe
take
a
longer
time
than
expected.
So
captain
is
under
ongoing
review
them
very
quickly
and
we
are
discussing
that.
I
Maybe
captain
need
another
round
of
presentation
again
because
it
actually
was
presented
in
the
sea
very
early
and
during
that
time
the
process
is
not
quite
ready
and
so
I
think
that
captain
made
many
an
hour,
run
the
rip
and
run
the
presentation
unless
they
think
there's
nothing
change
during
such
a
long
time.
I,
don't
think
that's
the
case
and
for
build
packs
and
we
need
to
start
withdraw
to
the
review
documentation
and
we're
going
through
that
part.
I
We
need
to
sync
with
the
project
maintainers
to
get
help
from
their
perspective,
to
start
the
the
recommendation
documentation
from
from
the
streets
from
from
from
the
their
own
template
and
from
our
existing
template
and
for
CUDA
project.
We
actually
need
some
situation
from
TOC.
We
have
talked
with
over
on
CTO
contact
person,
I
mean
Michelle
and
key,
and
we
can
actually
enter
for
more
details
and
during
the
TOC
discussion
and
on
the
other
hand
we
also
need
some.
I
We
also
require
some
update
because
some
update
from
TOC
about
the
Argo
and
a
framework
which
you
have
already
send
the
recommendations,
I
think
for
quite
a
while,
but
there's
still
no
update
yet
and
regarding
to
the
working
group.
So
this
is
actually
a
one
of
the
most
important
thing
we
are
recently
doing
and
we
actually
created
to
the
working
groups
which
all
have
a
lot
of
feedback.
So
the
first
one
in
the
Ale
gap
working
group
we
have
already
bootstrap
to
this
working
group.
I
We
had
our
first
meeting
an
agenda
and
we
are
now
working
on
kicking
off
the
Charter
documentation
and
for
awkwardly
working
group
also
boots
shafted
or
the
bootstrap
2d
working
group
with
many
interesting
parties,
and
now
we
have
already
begun
to
work
work
on
the
joking
dropping
the
chart
documentation
and
we
also
go
for
contributors
to
finish
that
hard
work
yeah.
This
is
pretty
much
about
this.
They
got
to
hurry
up
dating
if
you
have
any
questions
be
there.
Let
us
know.
B
C
Argo
is
something
I'm
reviewing
if
I
can
jump
in
here,
Liz
sure
so,
I
have
I've
reviewed
the
recommendation
and
the
proposal
and
I'll
put
my
comments
into
the
pull
request.
I
think
my
main
concern
is
like
cargos
of
great
projects.
Mature
lots
of
people
are
using
it.
It
seems
to
meet
all
the
criteria.
My
only
hiccup
here
is-
and
this
is
something
that
was
brought
up
by
say,
got
delivery.
C
Is
that
it's
a
collection
of
projects
and
generally,
what
we've
seen
is
that
the
projects
that
go
into
the
ciencia
are
it's
like
one
main
project
and
then
maybe
there's
an
ecosystem
of
projects
around
it,
or
maybe
they
have
incubating
projects
to
help
the
community,
or
some
notion
like
that,
but
are
go.
Is
this
set
of
tools
that
that
are
in
a
toolbox
I'm?
So
that's
that's.
C
What
makes
it
a
little
bit
different
and
I
think
we
just
need
to
have
a
conversation
around
that
other
than
that
I,
don't
see
any
hiccups
there
so
I'll
put
that
in
the
pull
request
and
we
can
continue
the
conversation
there.
I've
been
reading
the
TOC
principals
document
and
reviewing
the
other
projects.
Just
to
make
sure
that
I
haven't
missed
an
example
like
this
one,
but
I
haven't
come
across
anything
helpful.
So
far,
so
just
warns
a
discussion.
That's
all
am.
B
H
Yes,
so
we
have
a
few
updates.
We
will
do
a
few
projects,
so
first
we
have
volcano,
which
is
that
at
processing
in
kubernetes,
so
we
reviewed
it
and
we
went
through
the
template
and
the
original
template
that
Disick's
actually
put
together
and
we
recommended
in
it
from
for
stem
box.
So
right
now,
it's
looking
for
three
sponsors
I
think
the
clouds
was
the
maintainer
entire,
an
email
to
the
TOC
mailing
list
looking
for
sponsors.
H
So
if
you're
looking
or
interested
in
this
project,
we're-
hopefully
you
can
sponsor
so
that's
for
volcano,
and
then
we
had
a
presentation
for
kada
or
the
last
meeting.
We
also
revealed
that
project
and
would
really
like
it-
it's
basically
kubernetes
and
driven
auto-scaling.
So
if
it's
well
into
the
serverless
ecosystem,
so
we
need
a
to
sponsors
now
so
Thank
You
Liz
for
stepping
in
so
yeah.
This
is
a
very
interesting
project
that
I
think
fits
pretty
well
with
the
CN
CF
and
how
we
can
enable
serverless
with
kubernetes.
H
So
that's
kada,
and
we
also
review
Harvard
for
graduation
and
we're
also
recommending
it
for
graduation.
So
there
was
some
talk
about
some
slides
about
six
storage,
and
so
they
were
gated
and
they
have
some
concerns.
So
I
think
it's
more
add
to
the
TOC
now
to
review
it
and
find
out
that
they
want
to
vote
for
it.
H
So
I
think
Harbor
looks
pretty
solid
from
the
runtime
point
of
view.
So
that's
why
we
think
it.
You
know
the
all.
The
comments
were
addressed
on
the
due
diligence
document.
So
that's
why
we
recommend
in
it,
and
we
have
virtual
cubelet
coming
up
for
review
I.
So
I
with
its
on
the
schedule
and
next
meetings.
B
K
K
Good,
so
there
are
three
projects
or
four
that
are
kind
of
under
discussion
there.
There
are
two
that
are
currently
under
review.
The
first
project
on
the
list
is
contour,
contour
is
proposed
for
incubation
and,
as
such,
we've
gone
through
a
presentation
in
the
city
and
and
that
the
project
representatives
are
preparing
for
due
diligence
and
so
Michael
Michael,
who
I
think
might
still
be
on.
The
call,
is
focused
on
getting
Harbor
over
the
line
and
will
be
coming
back
to
engage
in
due
diligence
with
ken
Owens
and
take
the
project.
K
Through
done
the
note
there
contour
was
proposed
right
around
the
time
that
we
were
having
you
know
new.
You
know,
board
seats,
shifting
around
and
so
of
the
two
prior
sponsors
Jo
and
Alexis,
who
are
no
longer
on
the
TLC,
go
there
where
that
project
is
going
to
solicit
new
sponsors,
and
so
in
many
respects.
This
is
a
public
call
for
new.
G
G
G
B
G
J
K
K
This
project
is
aimed
towards
proposed
for
the
sandbox,
and
so
the
state
network
is
hopefully
is
finishing
up
review,
maybe
later
today
or
certainly
by
tomorrow,
and
it
has
its
three
toc
sponsors,
and
so
so
we
expect
this
might
be
the
first
project
to
kind
of
come
through
this.
It
should
be
great
there's
a
couple
of
projects
on
the
backlog.
K
K
There's
a
patterns
in
reference
architecture,
kind
of
a
working
group-
that's
been
proposed
within
the
scenes
yet
and
this
one
if
the
content
of
it
has
an
immediate
focus
towards
service
mesh,
but
I
think
it
has
an
inclination
for
its
charter
to
be
broad
across.
Essentially
all
of
cloud
made
it
and
so
there's
a
discussion
that
we
need
to
have.
We
need
to
invite
the
invite
those
constituents
to
seek
network
to
to
reconcile
us
if
we
can't
produce
a
single
paper
or
or
set,
and
that's
that's
it.
K
D
Trying
to
give
us
a
quick
update,
I
am
here
alright
I'm
in
a
not
really
a
cave
but
kind
of
a
cave
I'm
playing
at
your
today,
hi
everyone,
all
79
of
you
welcome
to
my
cave
here
that
I
have
no
light
with
what
I
want
psych.
Let
me
get
to
the
deck
all
right,
so
really,
really
briefly
about
the
contributor
strategy.
We've
met
a
few
times
now
it's
about
two
to
three
included.
The
meeting
notes
in
the
deck
I
did
go
ahead
and
submit
the
Charter
our
work
in
progress
charter.
D
D
D
This
is
a
contributor
experience
like
sig,
but
this
would
be
high-level
advisory,
focusing
on
things
like
community
health
checks
for
projects
to
make
sure
that
they're
doing
really
good
things
and
making
sure
that
they're
thinking
about
certain
contributor
contributor
related
issues
early
on,
so
they
don't
have
to
get
to
that
later
on
and
retrofitted,
something
along
those
lines.
So
this
is
a
big
cig.
We
have
three
stake
holders,
CNCs
projects
and
their
contributors
and
maintain
errs.
D
Obviously,
that's
the
biggest
one,
but
then
next
also
would
be
at
the
end
users
and
the
broader
community
event
of
member
communities.
Our
member
companies
I'm,
sorry,
and
the
reason
why
this
is
a
stakeholder
for
us
is
we'd
like
to
educate
this
population
of
people,
multiple
things
a
how
to
how
to
best
contribute
to
projects
that
are
currently
in
CNC
F,
as
well
as
how
projects
can
best
get
feedback
from
them
and
just
help
that
process
out
a
little
bit
more.
D
The
next
stakeholder
is
obviously
the
TOC
being
an
extension
of
the
TOC
and
helping
them
with
research,
as
well
as
keep
their
own
community
groups
and
meta
community
group
issues
things
that
I
wanted
to
call
out.
That
would
be
in
scope
again.
Things
like
this
idea
of
a
quote
community
health
check
like
what
you've
just
seen
with
a
couple
of
the
other
SIG's
where
they
go
through
projects
and
give
their
due
diligence
and
opinions
same
thing
here,
and
we
would
pick
that
Josh
burkas
is
on
the
call
right
now.
D
Josh
would
be
doing
things
like
open
governance,
checks
and
stuff
along
those
lines.
Things
that
I
wanted
to
call
out
is
out
of
scope
that
I've
been
calling
out
this
entire
time,
just
so
that
there's
no
confusion,
the
day-to-day
operations
of
CNCs,
SIG's,
kubernetes,
SIG's
or
any
group,
or
any
community
group
of
CNC
F.
D
Just
so
you
can
see
like
how
we
would
get
this
bootstrapped
mainly
has
to
do
with
obviously
discovery
the
formation
of
some
working
groups,
so
we've
already
identified,
and
then
also
that
start
of
that
checklist
and
that
due
diligence
for
for
projects
proposing
myself
and
Josh
burkas
as
chairs
of
the
TOC
so
allows
us,
and
that's
really
it
at
a
high
level
for
the
Charter.
Obviously,
there's
much
more
detail
inside
of
the
Turner
and
our
first
sort
of
kickoff.
B
We
had
the
idea
of
wealth,
the
realization
that
maintain
is,
and
the
TOC
basically
at
the
moment
have
no
real
kind
of
particular
communication
channel,
and
we
talked
about
perhaps
setting
up
a
one-off
or
an
infrequent
kind
of
TOC
maintained,
as
calls
so
that
we
could
flush
out
issues
or
concerns
from
the
maintainer
and
I'm.
Just
wondering
whether
this
should
be
what
the
maintainer
circle
should
be
that
or
whether
that's
a
separate
thing,
I
think
I,
don't
know
if
this
feels
like.
D
Over
that
yeah
yeah
no
I
was
gonna
say
it
sounds
like
this
could
be
that,
for
you,
I
mean
it.
You
know
in
many
I
mean
there's
so
many
nice
folks
in
was
calling
guarantee.
You
half
of
us
have
been
to
some
kind
of
leadership
circle
thing
before
right,
where
we're
like.
We
have
all
these
distributed
peers
and
we
all
are
in
our
own
silos,
but
we
all
come
together
and
try
to
work
on
like
open
projects
together.
I
feel
like
that's.
D
D
We
don't
necessarily
have
that
like
here
right
like
that
community,
so
I
think
that,
like
what
you're
trying
to
achieve,
and
also
wanted
to
talk
to
like
the
GB
reps
too,
because
the
GBR
apps
obviously
have
that
door
too,
so
I
think
we
could
all
get
everything
we
want
achieved
under
this
umbrella
and
have
like
a
really
good
micro
community
set
up.
That
has
really
good
inputs
and
outputs
and
communication
that.
M
Already
so
I'll
be
kind
of
brief
buried
and
gone
here
in
the
chat
is
a
poor
quest
over
the
last
or
last
month.
We've
had
three
different
meetings
across
community
of
folks
that
have
come
out
and
I
think
we
have
condenses
on
our
charter
and
so
I've
put
in
the
actual
polar
quest
as
well
as
sort
of
a
human,
readable
or
eyeball
friendly
link
in
the
in
the
chat.
M
Our
next
steps
are
to
confirm
our
liaison
to
the
TOC
and
then
have
you
know
the
TST
have
a
look
at
our
charter,
give
us
feedback
and
or
Oh
to
improve
it
as
I
understand
the
processes,
then
the
the
tivity
selects
and/or
approves
chairs
and
then
the
TOC
and
the
chairs
together.
I
choose
tech,
tech
leads.
We
have
a
lot
of
interest
from
both
vendors,
the
user
community,
and
then
the
turnout
has
been
very
good
and
positive
and
I
think
the
working
groups
have
been
productive
and
we're
all
very
excited
to
move
this
forward.
M
N
M
B
Great
and
I
have
to
I'm
gonna.
Just
add
to
that
and
say
thank
you
to
everybody.
Who's
been
enthusiastically
getting
involved
in
these
things
over
the
past
few
months.
I
feel
like
this
has
really
expanded
the
scope
of
what
this
I'm
gonna
say.
The
TOC
community
can
can
do
because
yeah
you're
all
taking
on
some
really
important
work.
So
thank
you
very
much.
All
right
is
it.
C
M
Take
credit
for
accidentally
pushing
PR
to
the
wrong
to
the
wrong
place.
So
the
link
that
I
have
I
put
in
the
slides,
as
well
as
the
chat,
is
to
the
cig,
observability
repo
that
recently
created
for
us
and
that's
I,
think
that
we're
gonna
will
shore
up
the
the
other
one
that
the
current
versions
and
in
delaying
things,
okay,.
B
Need
to
say
yes,
if
the
contributor
strategy
charter
is
ready
for
us
to
review
and
vote
on
that
same
deal
for
that
one
as
well.
So
two
folks,
please
put
your
comments
in
on
on
that
one
as
well
and
Amy.
Can
you
keep
us
honest
and
send
us
out
a
link
to
the
charters
for
both
of
these
two
to
chase
us
all
to
you,
which.
B
So
we
heard
about
volcanion
Qaeda,
being
reviewed
by
Singh
one
time
earlier
and
so
I
went
through
the
process.
I
think
it
feels
to
me,
like
the
first
time
that
we've
gone
through.
Actually
this
quite
structured
process
of
getting
the
recommendation.
I
reviewed
the
thing
from
Kader
I
watched
the
presentation
to
sig
run
time,
I
have
to
say
I
found
it
pretty
helpful
and
straightforward
the
way
all
the
information
was
collected
together
there
so
felt
to
me,
like
this
process
might
actually
be
working,
so
I'm
going
to
just
call
on
other
TOC
folks.
B
C
That
it's
unclear
whether
like
two
people
from
the
same
company,
can
sponsor
a
project.
That's
from
you
know
that
wasn't
something
that
was
initiated
in
their
in
their
company
or
like
I.
Don't
just
don't
know
the
rules
around
sponsoring
and
if
I
can
sponsor
the
same
project,
that's
someone
from
the
same
company
can
sponsor.
So
if
we
could
clarify
that
and
document
it
that'd
be
really
helpful.
L
So
I
just
have
a
quick
note
that
I
caught
honest.
The
reason
we
went
to
three
TOC
sponsors
was:
the
TOC
could
have
two
seats
of
people
from
a
company
and
they
didn't
want
any
company
to
be
able
to
choose
it.
So
does
that
mean
people
from
a
company
can
then
sponsor
a
project
out
of
their
own
company,
because
you
still
need
more
sponsors
beyond
the
number
of
people
who
can
be
on
the
TOC
I.
Think
that
was
part
of
the
discussion
before.
B
D
Exists,
but
the
resolution
of
that
issue
does
not,
and
so
we
raised
this
from
six
security
and
the
TOC
must
have
been
very
busy
and
didn't
respond
to
which
is
fighting.
So
we
had
established
a
division
resolution,
conflict
of
interest
guidelines
for
the
security
review
specifically,
and
it
would
be
great
if
somebody
on
the
TOC
wanted
to,
or
you
know
you
wanted,
to
nominate
someone
to
like
dig
into
this
and
figure
this
out
generally
and
so
I
think
this
is
another
example
of
you
know
like
we.
D
Just
more
specific
details
would
be
great,
so
I'm,
so
maybe
Paris
could
add
the
specific
issue.
Like
this
specific
issue
and
I,
think
that
you
know
like
there
could
be
a
number
of
different
ways
that
could
this
can
be
resolved.
We
can
collect
all
the
different,
my
new
things,
or
maybe
there
could
be
like
a
general
when
there
is
a
decision
to
be
had.
Let's
make
sure
XYZ
people
from
ABC
companies
do
or
don't
do
things.
B
B
F
F
F
D
A
F
B
B
F
B
So
we
need
so.
This
is
something
that
Dan
convened
with
some
folks
from
home.
I'm,
not
sure
what
other
interested
parties
I
have
seen,
but
I've
forgotten
a
round
operator,
discovery
and
home
chart
discovery
and
because
operator
hub
is
part
of
operator.
Framework
probably
makes
sense
for
us
to
at
least
have
received
that
document
before
we
make
a
decision
on
operator
framework.
B
B
C
F
Just
in
the
interest
of
making
sure
we
have
clear
communication,
the
PR
has
Chris
asking
for
a
TOC
boat.
So
if
we
are
requiring
this
document,
could
we
please
add
that
to
the
PR
so
that
we're
being
consistent
about
what
we're
asking
for
him
and
why
it's
being
held
off
since
the
PR
indicates
moving
forward.
N
F
C
A
C
C
When
Liz
and
I
were
reviewing
this
the
other
day,
we
found
that
or
yesterday
we
found
that
it
like
maybe
could
use
a
little
bit
more
meat,
and
maybe
the
incubation
process
is
a
little
bit
more
hands-on
than
the
graduation
process
needs
to
be,
or
the
proposal
process
scuse
me,
and
so
we
came
up
with
this
and
it's
a
proposal
it's
in
a
PR.
So
we
welcome
community
feedback.
C
Essentially,
the
the
project
that
wants
to
graduate
would
fill
out
a
graduation
proposal,
template
which
is
exactly
what
projects
have
already
been
doing.
Essentially,
it's
a
copy/paste
of
the
graduation
criteria
and
at
the
bottom
there's
a
spot
to
link
the
Enki
previous
incubation
DD
document
that
the
project
is
already
completed
and
a
section
which
allows
the
project
to
address
any
concerns
that
were
brought
up
in
incubation.
So
once
that
proposed
gets
pull
requested
into
the
CN
CF
TOC
repo.
C
That
project
would
get
scheduled
for
a
presentation
in
front
of
the
TOC
and
the
rest
of
the
community.
This
is
just
because
you
know
like
it
feels
like
everybody
should
be
involved
in
the
graduation
process
and
have
like
one
place
to
talk
about
a
project
that
is
graduating.
Perhaps
there
are
cross
state
concerns
that
side
chairs
want
to
bring
up
here.
Essentially,
it
should
just
be
highlighted
in
front
of
the
entire
community,
the
once
the
project
gets
scheduled.
There's
also
time
like
for
the
relevant
states
to
do
their.
C
C
Essentially,
the
project
is
to
address
how
it's
grown
in
incubation,
address
any
concerns
from
the
incubation,
DD
document
or
from
the
stake,
and
then,
for
you
know,
have
case
studies
if
they
like
and
take
Q&A
from
the
community.
After
that,
there
will
be
a
two-week
period
of
time
for
a
public
comment
on
a
toc
mailing
list,
after
which
that
would
be,
you
know,
turned
into
a
TOC
vote.
So
that's.
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
there
is
the
proposal
template
that
I've
outlined
here.
That's
in
the
pull
request
as
well.
C
I
think
that's
all
of
the
main
bits.
I,
don't
know
what
happened
in
chat,
but
there's
like
five
things
that
happen
in
chat,
so
somebody
has
any
concerns.
Let
me,
let
me
know-
and
also
this
is
very
I
mean
if
we
hate
this
as
a
community.
It's
completely
okay,
I
just
wanted
to
get
something
get
a
proposed
solution
in
there,
since
folks
are
waiting
to
graduate
and
and
kind
of
go
from.
There
would
love
any
facts.
C
Yeah,
so
the
cigs
are
in
the
process.
Amy,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
going
to
the
last
slide
so
once
the
project
submits
kia
are
and
subsequently
get
scheduled
for
a
presentation.
We're
asking
that
cigs
review
that
project
in
the
mailing
list
or,
in
their
sake,
meeting
to
come
up
with
any
comments
that
they
would
want
to
bring
up
at
the
presentation.
Okay,.
C
A
C
C
To
process
yeah
I
don't
want
to
I,
don't
want
to
throw
too
much
out
there
because,
like
I
didn't
know
what
this
process
would
be
controversial
or
people
have
issues
with
it.
It
is
if
there
are
controversial.
Controversy
is,
if
you
know,
or
contentious
points,
let's
go
ahead
and
raise
them,
but
if
there
aren't
I'd
really
love
to
move
this
along
in
the
next
few
days,
so
we
can
get
that
graduation
get
a
presentation
meeting
up
for
graduation
just
because
people
look
to
graduate
before
coop
kind.
C
We
talked
about
this
last
coop
con
two
and
then
prioritized
reviews
for
graduation
within
the
month
before
coop
con
and
if
there's
a
way
that
we
could
alter
the
process
a
little
bit
so
that
these
projects
could
kind
of
come
across
the
line
and
celebrate
at
KU
pine
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a
valid
thing
that
we
want
to
encourage
or
not,
but
I
know
it
happens.
So
let's
discuss
it
again,
I
don't
through
throw
too
much
there
at
one
time.
So
let's
discuss
this
proposal
and
then
once
we've
come
to
a
consensus.