►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-08-04
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-08-04
A
D
A
D
A
A
Oh
you're
right,
it
does
have
brian
grant
yeah.
Okay
I'll
fix
it
on
the
next
one.
The
the
accurate
one
is
definitely
over
on
the
cncf
public
meeting
working
dock
and
I
will
put
a
link
into
chat
for
that.
As
you
can
tell,
I
haven't
been
using
that
one,
that's
the
one.
This
is
one
I've
been
using.
There
go
cool
yeah.
D
A
Us
what
way:
hey
fun,
hello,
friends,
things
that
are
still
currently
outstanding
annual
reviews.
This
is
the
last
week
that
we'll
be
kind
of
kicking
these
out
for
both
public
comment,
as
well
as
the
three
toc
sponsor
set
up
here.
As
of
the
11th,
we
will
be
moving
towards
just
a
simple
vote.
That
means
that
it's
going
to
be
a
lot
faster
and
these
will
go
a
lot
quicker
so
last
chance
on
some
of
these
also
lots
and
lots
of
votes
out
right
now.
A
D
D
A
D
E
Yeah
so
yeah,
let
me
give
a
quick
update
on
sleek
app
delivery,
so
we
recently
just
cleaned
up
all
our
backlobby
backlogging
over
queue.
So
there's
currently
no
ongoing
review
effort
recently.
So
it's
kind
of
good
news
and
the
second
thing
is:
we
are
actively
working
on
importing
the
item
which
is
regarding
to
the
scenes
of
landscape,
because
a
lot
of
people
feedback
that
we
may
want
to
revisit
the
current
sensitive
landscape
regarding
to
application
management
and
delivery.
E
E
But
there
is
a
rough
idea,
like
you
know,
trying
to
reach
out
for
collaborators
or
volunteers
to
get
some
more
input
and
also
dropped
a
refracting
proposal
from
this
new
tab
on
cncf
landscape
and
the
last
update
is
the
pretension
in
cloud
native,
some
in
china
regarding
to
the
challenges
in
application
delivery,
so
yeah.
This
is
basically
what
we
have
recently.
So
the
main
working
item
is
the
sensitive
landscape
part.
E
E
E
The
issue
is,
if
you
look
at
today's
sense
of
landscape,
it's
actually
including
a
lot
of
virus
of
things
like
database
and
the
messaging
and
part
of
the
application
definition.
The
management
part-
and
this
is
kind
of
confusing,
based
on
feedback
from
our
community
members,
because
we
don't,
we
don't
even
know
why
I
need
to
care
about
a
specific
database
as
a
developer.
So
the
idea
is
that
we
want
to
recategorize
the
current
structure
so
and
most
of
the
people
based
on
our
previous
community
meeting
and
they
tend
to
create
a
separate
tab.
E
D
D
E
D
E
F
E
Yeah
I
agree
that
database
should
not
be
part
of
cantilever.
I
also
agree
with
that
so,
but
but
but
note
that
there
are
some
tools
in
that
category,
maybe
part
of
the
app
theory
I'm
still
we're
still
looking
at
it,
but
the
general
idea
is
that
the
current,
the
current
category
is
really
really
odd
to
to
most
of
to
most
of
the
community
members.
D
E
E
Yeah,
that
is
also
we
are
trying
to
propose.
We
really
like
the
category
of
the
sensitive
landscape
based
on
the
scope
of
the
the
things,
and
it
will
be
much
clearer
and
I
I
will
guess
that
other
sticks
could
be
involved
in
this
work.
I
I
will
try
to
actually
reach
out
the
other
shares
of
the,
for
example,
six
direct
runtime.
G
D
I
wonder
if
it
would
be,
it
would
be
an
interesting
exercise
to
take
the
existing
landscape
and
kind
of
try
to
figure
out
how
yeah
that
overlap
would
work
like
if
you
put
the
sigs
on
top
of
that
landscape,
do
they
look
in
any
way
coherent
or
are
they
all
over
the
place
and
yeah?
Maybe
it's
time
for
a
refresh
of
the
of
the
way
the
categories
are
divided
up.
D
B
F
Yeah,
I
think
you're
right,
yeah
liz,
the
architecture
is
definitely
the
landscape
was
based
on
the
architecture
was
driven
from
that,
so
it
definitely
is
is
consistent
and
that's
what
I'm
kind
of
saying.
If
we
look
at
the
architecture,
you
keep
the
technical
part
of
the
toc
in
there
instead
of
the
marketing
landscape,
be
part
right,
so
I
think
we
want
to
be
more
technically
seen
in
the
industry,
not
marketing
for
this
group.
G
But
isn't
the
and
I
I
don't
think
I
have
a
completely
formed
opinion
yet,
but
isn't
the
intended
audience
of
a
sick
different
from
the
independent
audience
of
looking
at
that
landscape,
whereas
the
stakes
are
as
broad
as
possible
to
catch
as
much
of
a
topic
as
diverse
as
it
might
be
into
one
into
as
few
as
possible.
Six,
whereas
here
you're
breaking
out
stuff
for
potential
end
users
who
are
interested
in
solving
one
particular
thing
at
a
time.
D
I'm
not
saying
it
would
necessarily
be
a
simple
thing
to
do.
I'm
just
wondering
whether
our
language
could
be
more
consistent
to
all
these
audiences
and
maybe
maybe
it's
too
complicated.
Maybe
it's
yeah
bob
making
a
good
point
that
not
everything
in
databases
would
fit
in
storage,
bg
in
memory,
databases,
interesting
point,
yeah,.
G
G
Application
management
and
delivery
also
fits
it.
So
now
we
have
three
categories
which
in
theory
fit
that
use
case.
So
maybe
it's
more
about
pivoting
from
this
hierarchical
structure
to
labels,
so
people
can
can
select
based
on
their
needs
and
have
something
more
malleable
than
a
thing
which
is
defined
once
and
then
never
changed.
B
H
Right
yeah,
just
adding
tags
is,
you
know,
like
adding
another
view,
another
filter
that
people
can
you
know,
even
if
it's,
whether
even
if
it's
not
visually
represented
in
the
diagram
which
I'm
sure
is
well.
I
know
it's
quite
easy
to
do,
based
on
the
the
ability
to
assign
a
tag
and
filter
it,
but
even
if
that
was
just
a
bulleted
list
of
projects
associated
to
a
sig.
H
H
D
D
Overview
yeah,
I
think
the
labeling
idea
could
well
have
merits,
and
I
think
also
just
taking
a
step
back
and
seeing
whether
we
think
the
categories
are
quite
right.
We
and
you
know
potentially
talking
with
the
end
user
group
about
that
as
well
to
see
what
they're
finding
useful
yeah
it's
a
really
interesting
point.
So
sig
app
delivery.
You
have
opened
a
giant
and
interesting
kind
of
worms.
E
D
E
I
I
All
right:
well,
let's
just
let's
just
tag
team,
this
all
right.
I
still
left
the
the
link
to
the
letter
that
we
sent
to
maintainers
because
we
still
have
only
gotten
one
project
out
of
60
fill
the
survey
out,
which
is
fine.
That
either
means
that
people
have
surveyed
fatigue,
which
is
cool
because
I've
been
going
to
community
meetings
anyway,
but
it
also
just
could
mean
that
the
survey
is
too
long
whatever
we
need
to
look
at
it.
This
is
really
just
a
discovery
survey.
It
wasn't
necessarily
like
a
cncf
survey.
I
Let's
like
let's
pull
the
let's
pull
the
world,
it
was
really
just
like.
Let's
get
us
up
and
running,
but
now
that
we're
up
and
running
anyway,
it's
kind
of
like
it's
kind
of
mute,
but
if
you
can,
if
you're
a
part
of
a
project,
please
read
that
letter.
It's
just
our
intro
about
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
and,
of
course,
the
like
the
discovery
survey.
I
Like
do
you
have
code
of
conduct
things
like
that,
because
we're
trying
to
focus
on
stuff
that
projects
really
need
as
far
since
gov
since
josh
is
on
the
line,
I'm
gonna
skip
the
governance
really
quick,
but
just
some
of
the
subproject
activity
that
we've
got
going
on
right
now.
We've
got
the
maintainer
circle
and
the
contributor
growth,
as
well
as
the
governance
groups
that
are
really
taking
off.
I
I'm
actually
going
to
say
the
last
bullet
now,
which
is
we've
had
quite
a
lot
of
new
contributors,
join
us
within
the
last
two
to
three
weeks,
and
I
would
love
to
thank
all
of
them
for
powering
these
sub
projects.
I
see
some
of
them
even
on
the
line
now,
like
dawn,
foster,
jennifer,
so
many
other
people
and
it's
really
really
been
awesome.
I
I
Why,
then,
we
can
do
we
can
have
sessions
in
the
very
early
morning
like
at
pdt,
lunch,
pdt,
dinner,
etc,
so
that
it's
not
taking
up
ample
time,
but
the
session
ideas
that
were
already
that
were
already
getting
logged
in
now,
people
are
coming
to
us
saying:
hey.
These
are
things
that
we
would
want
to
see
or
things
like
how
to
build
values
and
principles,
how
to
maintain
them,
inclusive
language
and
inclusive
meetings,
etc.
I
It
would
be
super
awesome
if
we
could
house
that
somewhere
outside
of
a
github
repo
and
have
sort
of
an
identity,
and
things
like
that.
So
that's
something!
That's
tbd!
That's
in
discussion!
If
that's
something
that,
if
that's
something
that
is
sounds
of
interest
to
people,
you
know
plus
ones,
and
things
like
that
would
be
helpful
and
then
last
and
then
I'll
let
josh
go
contributor.
Growth
is
another
project.
That's
been
steaming
along
quite
nicely.
I
Now
that
we've
got
an
issue
sort
of
tracking
all
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
work
on,
and
we've
created
a
cncf
project,
template
repo,
where
we're
going
to
put
the
majority
of
the
templates
and
the
guidance
so
that
you
as
projects,
can
just
fork
and
go
for
what
you
need
and
go.
So
all
of
that
stuff
is
underway.
I
We've
got
teams
of
people
now
working
on
templates
for
contributor
ladders,
as
well
as
contributing
markdown
files,
and
the
good
part
here
is
there's
tons
of
research
and
things
online,
not
even
necessarily
online,
but
just
tons
of
research.
That's
actually
happening
as
well.
That's
powering
a
lot
of
this,
so
we're
not
necessarily
recreating
wheels
here.
So
it's
just
kind
of
all
coming
together.
I
So,
if
you're
in
a
project
right
now
that
has
either
really
good
documentation
for
contributors
or
has
some
kind
of
like
documentation
that
you
feel
like
not
a
lot
of
projects
have
and
that
you,
you
think
that
they
should
be
shown
off
as
sort
of
a
best
practice.
Please
get
with
us,
because
we
would
like
to
include
that
kind
of
documentation
and
our
stuff
josh.
Why
don't
you
kick
it
with
the
last
piece,
which
is
the
governance
and
heads
out
here.
J
Yeah,
so
the
templating
effort,
of
course,
is
both
contributor
growth
and
governance,
because
if
you
are
bringing
a
new
project
into
the
cncf,
you
need
both.
You
need
both
the
contributor
growth
information
and
you
need
governance,
information
plus
a
lot
of
documents
like
things
like
a
contributor
ladder,
is
both
a
governance
document
and
a
contributor
cultivation
document.
J
J
J
J
J
H
Right
or
they're
they're
harder
in
nature,
if
I
can
use
that
term
yeah,
whereas,
like
you
know
hey,
do
you
have
a
procedure
wherein
people
can
report
vulnerabilities
or
do
you
have
licenses
assigned
to
all
your
things
or
just
sort
of
like
it's?
Basically,
there
are
a
lot
of
security,
centric
things,
but
also
just
general
hygiene
for
products
or
projects
themselves,
whereas
the
softer
side
of
of
contributor
strategy,
you
know
to
to
liz's
point,
maybe
maybe
that
could
be
those
could
be
overlaid
on
the
same
you
know,
program
or.
J
I
mean
I
mean
to
give
an
example
right,
if
you
are
a
potential
contributor,
you
really
care
about
whether
or
not
the
project
has
some
form
of
contributor
onboarding,
that's
maintained
and
that's
not
something.
That's
part
of
the
cia
badge
system,
the
you
know,
and
for
that
matter
you
know,
if
you're
a
potential
corporate
contributor
you're
going
to
care
whether
or
not
a
project
is
already
multi-organizational
the
because
you
know-
and
here
we're
talking
about
sandbox
and
incubating
projects
right,
because
graduated
projects
have
to
be
multi-organizational
vm.
J
D
We
had
a
brief
discussion
earlier
in
the
week
on
on
slack
about
whether
or
not
we
need
to
well
basically,
the
format
of
that
annual
review
document.
For
me
that
annual
review
for
sandbox
is
a
forcing
function
for
both
the
project
and
the
toc.
To
just
take
the
pulse
of
the
project
you
know
so
filling
in
that
document
is,
is
a
useful
kind
of
exercise.
J
Yeah
yeah,
it's
more,
you
know.
Somebody
eventually
needs
to
check
these
things
because
I
mean
take,
for
example,
contributor
onboarding
right,
a
project
that
has
a
good
first
issue
list
right
has
contributed
onboarding,
but
only
if
it's
maintained
so
eventually
you
know
and
they're
going
to
tend
to
fill
out.
The
first
annual
review
saying:
hey:
we've
got
that
and
then
the
project
themselves
is
not
necessarily
going
to
fill
up
their
second
annual
review
and
say:
oh,
we
don't
have
that
anymore.
J
So
at
some
point
someone
else
needs
to
take
a
look
at
it
and
say:
hey.
I
just
glanced
at
this
and
none
of
those
good.
First
issues
have
been
updated
in
a
year
and
a
half,
so
you
don't
really
have
new
contributor
on
boarding.
You
know
unless
you
put
it
somewhere
else,
the
so
you
know.
So
there
needs
to
be
some
level
and
that's
actually
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
haven't
made
a
proposal.
Yet
is
we
need
to
figure
out?
A
H
H
Projects
that
are
actively
under
review
is
ambassador,
as
proposed
for
incubation.
So
due
diligence
is
ongoing.
There
chaos
mesh
was
proposed
for
sandbox
and
came
in
at
a
time
in
which
the
or
well
yeah
it
came
in.
At
a
time
in
which
we
were,
you
know,
changing
up
the
how
to
do
a
proposal,
and
so
they
can
resubmit
it
under
the
new
form,
and
I
think
they
were
evaluated
this
last
go
round.
H
Oh
okay,
okay,
and
so
I
think
you
know,
I
think
that
they're
still
in
process
they're
still,
I
think,
they've
gotten.
Some
feedback
on
this
last
go
around
this
last
set
of
evaluations
about
sandbox
projects.
So
so
would
you
feel
any
feel
free
to
correct
me
on
any
of
the
stuff?
I
just
said:
if
that's
you
know,
I'm
used
to
it.
H
H
There
has
been
an
outstanding
need
for
a
set
of
conformance
tests
and
and
tooling
to
verify
whether
or
not
a
mesh
is
you
know,
implements
smi
specs
as
they
intend
to,
or
in
some
cases
as
they
don't
intend
to
not
all
meshes
intend
to
fulfill
each
of
those
specs
and
so,
and
so
there's
been
progress
made
on.
What's
really
been
kind
of
a
long-standing
need
for
some
time.
H
The
to
to
sum
it
up
briefly
I'll
say
that
that,
in
order
to
verify
conformance,
many
of
you
that
I'm
speaking
to
are
familiar
with
well
are
everyone's
familiar
in
concept
with
conformance,
but
to
facilitate
it
like
in
context
of
a
service
mesh
and
in
context
of
many
service
meshes
in
order
to
provide
a
utility
that
will
provision
any
number
of
service
meshes
provision.
You
know
any
of
those
that
are
participating
in
smi
provision,
a
sample
workload
on
top
of
them
define
tests
that
need
to
be.
H
You
know,
things
that
need
to
be
asserted
and
then
validated,
there's
a
bit
of
tooling.
That
need
to
be
needs
to
be
created
for
that
it's
kind
of
a
lot
and
then
finally,
it
needs
to
generate
a
report
against
whether
or
not
you
know
those
tests
are
passing
or
failing,
so
that
that's
what
this
initiative
is
about.
H
There's
something
the
thing
that
this
spec
directly
does
today
is
to
capture
the
details
of
the
environmental
details,
the
mesh
details
that
configure
the
mesh
to
configure
the
workload
the
performance
of
it.
We
kind
of.
I
think
I
think
I
presented
that
previously
with
the
spec,
those
that
are
adopting.
H
A
G
Yes,
the
vote
thing
was
already
mentioned
by
amy.
Thank
you
very
much
for
this,
so
fyi
for
the
for
the
tech
lead
ever
since
we
started,
we
have
basically
already
been
behaving
as
if
bartek
was
attacked
because
we
needed
one
and
he
volunteered,
but
we
would
still
love
to
have
this
formalized
same
for
like
thanos,
to
my
account
already
past
the
7.3
required
mark
by
having
eight
binding
votes,
which
is
why
I
didn't
listed
here
for
cortex.
G
I
think
we
still
have
a
few
outstanding
ones
and
we
can
also
use
this
talk
or
this
time
slot
to
talk
about
either
of
those
votes.
If
there's
any
questions
or
such
by
poc
the
rest
for
the
third
chair,
we
are
still
looking.
We
had
some
initial
conversations,
but
those
cooled
down
and
for
or
just
due
to
all
the
holidays.
We
basically
decided
to
pause
the
meetings
and
not
have
those
two
meetings
in
august
and
that's
already
it
from
my
side
except
someone
wants
to
discuss
either
of
the
votes.
E
K
K
So
that's
q
batch
another
project
that
is
in
the
due
diligence
stage
and
they're
applying
for
incubation
is
quay.
So
there
have
been
a
few
comments
in
the
due
diligence
document
so
publicly
available,
and
I
think
the
maintainers
reply
to
some
of
the
comments.
I
think,
unless
you
actually
put
in
some
comments.
K
So
if
anybody
from
the
project
or
maintainers
are
on
the
call,
please
follow
up
with
the
comments
and
you
know
see
where
you
want
to
take
the
the
project
forward
and
if
you
want
to
continue
with
the
incubation
path-
and
I
think
another
project
that
falls
within
the
runtime
scope
is
k3s.
And
so
there's
going
to
be
some
discussion
at
the
end
of
the
call.
D
K
K
This
is
from
michael
crosby
at
apple,
so
this
is
a
new
way
to
interface,
with
the
nodes
try
to
make
it
in
a
common
way
following
the
cni
footsteps
like
container
networking
interface.
So
hopefully
this
will
becomes
a
new
spect
and
it's
followed
by
by
the
different
teams
and
they're,
also
talking
to
sig
node
and
the
kubernetes
community,
so
so
they're
on
board,
with
the
idea
and
for
new
projects,
a
schedule
for
presentations.
K
K
K
So
ai
ops
is
one
of
the
project
projects
that
we
don't
have
and
so
that
so
we
hopefully
will
get
a
presentation
in
one
of
our
networks,
so
they
said
they're
interested
in
presenting
and
last
but
not
least,
we
had
an
intro
session
at
the
virtual
cloud
native
summon
in
china
and
we're
also
planning
to
have
intro
and
deep
dive
session
in
kubecon
north
america.
So
we're
planning
to
to
submit
that
session
yeah
and
that's
all
for
the
updates
for
sick
run
time.
So
any
questions.
K
K3S
is
a
kubernetes
distribution,
so
those
those
are
two
different
things
so
cube
edge
has
a
component
that
runs
on
top
of
a
centralized
kubernetes
cluster
and
that
has
nodes
at
the
edge
and
there's
this
edge
component
that
runs
at
on
the
edge
nodes.
So
and
then
they
talk
to
the
centralized
component
in
a
central
kubernetes
cluster.
K
D
A
I'm
actually
playing
the
role
of
the
sig
security
folks
today,
as
as
the
tech
leads,
our
deck
leads
and
chairs
are
not
available
here,
but
they
wanted
to
be
able
to
highlight
this
for
all
of
you
being
able
to
show
off
like
membership
from
63
members
from
45
different
affiliations,
which
makes
it
one
of
our
bigger
cigs
previous
highlights
include
a
chekhov
presentation
and
working
around
the
security
reference,
reference
architecture
for
cloud
native
applications
and
again
another
landscape
conversation.
But
that's
coming
up
soon.
A
Cloud
custodian
has
completed
a
re-kickoff,
so
they're
in
assessment,
and
they
are
currently
looking
for
volunteers.
That
will
be
a
highlight
of
the
wednesday
meeting
at
10
a.m.
Pacific
and
key
cloak
is
currently
near
completion
and
they
have
a
cloud
native
security
day.
A
virtual
event
on
august
17th,
so
cn
security
day
is
the
hashtag
for
that
and
that's
security.
D
D
B
For
for
profiga,
going
in
at
incubation
as
I've
sent
an
email
around
anyway,
so
so,
hopefully
we
can.
We
can
find
somebody
there.
The
tikv
and
rook
are
waiting
for
their
graduation
votes
and
we
had
a
couple
of
other
really
interesting
presentations.
There's
a
there's,
a
prius
project,
which
is
from
diocloud
and
linstor,
which
which
are
considering
a
sandbox
submission
and.
D
B
A
presentation
from
ibm
for
a
data
lifecycle
framework,
which
is
an
interesting
way
of
making
data,
sets
declarative
and
it's
used
in
in
some
research
situations,
but
I
think
it
its
scope
can
be
can
be
expanded
with.
As
you
might
be
aware,
we've
also
been
working
on
a
performance
and
benchmarking
white
paper.
B
It's
kind
of
recently
stalled,
but
in
the
sort
of
in
an
attempt
for
perfect
not
to
be
the
enemy
of
goods,
we're
going
to
we're
we're
gonna,
take
the
the
content
that
we
do
have,
which
which
actually
is
pretty
decent
already
and
and
and
try
and
target
the
v1
based
on
what
we've
got
and
look
to
iterate
rather
than
delay
it
any
further,
and
also
we
did
recordings
in
live
q.
A
for
the
for
the
virtual
summit
in
china
and
the
recording
for
the
kubecon
in
in
europa's
prep.
D
C
C
I
I,
I
think
I'll
I'll
put
this
by
way
of
a
request
to
the
doc
for
a
couple
of
things.
One
is
to
maybe
more
carefully
define
what
a
distro
is
versus
a
fork
and
I'm
not
sure
that
this
is
a
kubernetes
specific
request.
I
think
this
is
just
the
first
place,
we're
hitting
we're
hitting
this,
and
I
know,
for
example,
the
thanos
cortex
prometheus
topic
was
raised.
I
I
see
that
and
I
might
be
wrong
on
this
just
personal
opinion.
C
It
seems
like
the
k3s
is
actually
k3s.
Approval
into
sandbox
is
not
motivated
by
that,
but
is,
I
think,
I
would
say,
creating
conditions
for
more
forks.
I
feel
pretty
like
pretty
convicted
that
if
you
look
at
what's
going
on
inside
k3s,
not
not
at
the
number
of
lines
of
code
but
actually
how
it's
constructed
that
it
is,
it
is
a
fork,
but
I
really
think
that
the
toc
and
like
there
there
are
motivations.
There
are,
let's
say,
marketing
motivations
to
not
call
it
that
with.
C
If,
if
k3s
comes
into
sandbox,
which
it
appears
it
will
there
are,
I
think
it's
going
to
open
the
floodgates
to
a
wide
number
of
projects,
similar
projects
that
are
going
to
want
to
come
in
so
anyway.
I
I
guess,
I'm
just
trying
to
raise
the
alarm
here-
that
the
k3s
coming
into
sandbox
has
a
significant
long-range
impact
on
the
cncf
on
the
kubernetes
project,
and
I
think
we
need
to
look
ahead
on
the
implications
as
a
result.
D
You
know
on
on
four
edge
devices
on
smaller
having
a
smaller
footprint
k3s
and
that
experiment
you
know,
took
off,
I
think
way
beyond
sort
of
the
original
expectation.
I
think
it
was
originally
just
like
I'm
just
gonna
try
doing
this
thing.
It's
gotten
a
lot
of
attention
and
the
sandbox
is
a
place
for
cloud
native
experiments.
D
So
you
know,
we've
had
a
conversation
with
the
kubernetes
project.
It
didn't
feel
like
that
was
going
to
be
a
successful
place
to
try
and
force
it
in
there's
a
parallel
universe,
where
maybe
that
experiment
could
have
happened
within
the
kubernetes
project.
I
don't
think
we're
in
that
universe,
so
you
know
do
we?
D
C
I
I
think
that
you're
your
perspective,
there
leads
directly
back
to
the
long-running
discussions
about
what's
the
purpose
of
sandbox,
and
I
I
think
to
the
degree
that
the
purpose
of
sandbox
is
to
do
exactly
what
you're
saying.
Then
I
have
no
disagreement,
but
if
the
purpose
of
the
sandbox
is
to
also
get
projects
to
incubation
where
they
do
have
kind
of
a
life
of
their
own,
but
I
think
it's
a
different
question
and
I'm
not
actually
at
all
concerned
or
object
to
the
perspective.
C
You
have
there
about
k3s
as
a
sandbox
project.
My
deep
deep
concern
is
k3s
on
a
track
to
incubation
as
a
fork,
and
I
think
it
would
actually
be
helpful
for
the
toc
to
take
a
clear
stance
on
the
fact
that
k3s
is
a
fork
and
I
think,
there's
technical
merit
that
can
be
made
to
explain
why
that's
the
case,
as
opposed
to
a
distro,
an
opinionated
configuration,
and
I
think
even
combining
the
two
would
be
worthwhile.
D
Yeah,
I
think
that's
fair
and
I
I
definitely
don't
think
that
a
floodgate's
worth
of
forked
projects
are
going
to
get
necessarily
welcomed
by
the
toc.
So
yeah.
That's
certainly
not
our
intention
to
encourage
lots
of
forks,
maybe
there's
something
we
can
do
there
around
language,
either
specific
to
the
k3s
situation
or
yeah
I
mean
just
in
making
the
point.
The
sandbox
doesn't
have
to
be
a
route
to
incubation
yeah.
Maybe
we
need
to
clarify
that.