►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-05-19
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-05-19
A
A
A
Oh
right,
Xena,
let's
focus
on
the
line.
I
think
we
could
probably
go
ahead
and
get
started.
We
have
Liz
on
regrets.
To
do
so.
I
will
be
kicking
us
off
here.
Are
normal
antitrust
policy
notice
meeting
minutes?
You've
all
made
it
here,
so
excellent
I've
got
attendance
on
the
back
channel
so
over
in
the
public,
working
duct
and
all
as
well.
This
is
our
TOC
SiC
chairs
meeting.
So
our
comic
days
really
being
able
to
review
the
sandbox
proposal
review.
A
It
have
a
conversation
about
what's
going
on
around
how
to
handle
existing
proposals,
kind
of
reviewing
existing
branding
talking
about
public
comment
period
and
if
we
should
change
that
and
the
last
piece
is
annual
reviews
are
currently
out
there,
so
I'll
be
watching
chat.
If
there's
any
questions
in
here,
so
you
kick
this
off
I
know:
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
around
this
and
I
know
that
Liz
leading
a
lot
of
this,
but
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
hear
from
other
folks
around
the
sandbox
proposal.
A
C
A
No
actions
that
definitely
is
a
question
in
here
I'm
there's,
there's
a
conference
in
here
about
like
toc,
is
reviewing
spreadsheets,
quarterly
and
I.
Believe
there
is
a
proposal
to
be
able
to
change
that
as
well.
I'll
just
drop
down
through
the
rest
of
the
slides,
so
like
minimum
two
weeks
comment,
but
probably
not
like
the
maximum
of
like
two
months
in
here,
I'm,
not
sure.
If
anyone
else
has
any
other
pieces
around
that
particular.
D
So
so
I
guess
I
had
a
general
question
in
terms
of
the
ability
to
to
implement
the
proposal,
as
is
so,
you
know
if,
if
we
were
moving
to
a
while,
I
completely
get
this
entire
that
we
want
to.
We
want
to
reduce
some
of
the
overhead
and
maybe
even
reduce
some
of
the
bar
for
joining
in
sandbox,
and
you
know,
streamline
and
simplify
the
marketing
side
of
things
which
have
always
been
a
bit
of
a
challenge.
E
That
the
discussion
that
we
had
was
that
they
would
be
there
would
be
presentations
linked
on
the
forum
and
we
would
review
those,
and
it
would
be
nice
of
those
were
a
sake
presentation,
but
they
didn't
have
to
be
so
so.
I
think
that,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
people
obviously
would
still
pretty
value
reviewing
a
sick
presentation
about
a
project.
But
it
was
not
kind
of
strict
ergo
requirement.
F
Say
I
think
the
other
thing
that
we're
really
aiming
for
here
is
to
really
systematize
the
input
so
that
it's
much
easier
for
each
TSE
member
to
scan
effectively
a
spreadsheet
and
sort
of
ensure
that
the
MVP
criteria
have
been
met
and
if
they
want
to
dig
deeper.
That's
fine,
but
I
think
that
the
part
of
the
goal
is
to
ensure
that
people
can
vote
with
really
only
the
MVP
criteria
from
the
forum.
D
And
Iranian
ain't
it
the
whole
concept
of
systemising
streamlining
our
processes.
Obviously
you
know
a
big
big
bonus
and
a
big
thick
box,
but
given
that
the
TAC
is
probably
going
to
be
voting
on,
you
know
some
of
the
some
of
the
more
abstract
of
great
criteria.
Debts
form
part
of
the
sound
books
like
it's
a
great
fit
for
the
CNC
F,
and
you
know:
how
does
it
interact
with
other
CNC?
Have
projects
and
other
things
like
that?
D
Then
that's
probably
hard
to
without
digging
a
little
bit
deeper,
because
the
MVP
data
in
that
form
probably
is
just
going
to
be
a
high-level
bit
of
information
that
I
was
just
kind
of
making
the
point
that
you
know
absolutely
systemising
and
collecting
that
base
level
of
information
is
fantastic
and
that
was
kind
of
the
basis
of
the
templates
that
we
had
sort
of
created
in
the
sandbox
process
that
we
had
just
agreed
two
months
ago.
So
so
I,
you
know
it.
It's
absolutely
the
right
thing
to
do.
G
Think
you
have
a
point:
Alex
I.
If
you
look
at
the
comments
and
the
proposal
I
actually
called
out
a
couple
of
criteria
there
that
I
find
are
overly
subjective
and
require
sort
of
deep
evaluation
like
one
of
them
was.
Do
we
feel
that
this
project
is
on
a
good
trajectory
and
I'm
like?
Oh
that's
at
least
15
20
minutes
of
argument
right
there
per
project.
B
And
to
add
to
this
point
I
think
it's
it's
kind
of
just
delaying
the
inevitable
there,
where
you
need
to
do
some
checks
and
do
diligence
anyway,
and
part
of
this
can
already
be
at
that
stage
of
letting
people
into
sandbox
course.
You
can
argue
a
lot
about
trajectory,
but
you
cannot
argue
a
lot
less
about.
Is
this
already
in
place,
at
least
on
the
baseline
now
like
they
just
need
to
have
a
governance,
and
that
just
needs
to
have
certain
provisions,
and
that's
done
so.
H
G
I
F
Although
I
think
also,
we
had
a
bit
of
a
discussion
of
this
literacy
and
we
at
some
level
decided
we
didn't
necessarily
we
weren't
going
to
be
super.
Like
the
question
was,
do
we
only
want
to
admit
projects
that
we
think
are
headed
into
incue,
bation
and
I
think
this
statement
that
we
said
was
we
wanted
to
admit
projects
that
were
feasible,
but
not
necessarily
that
we
believed
would
get
to
incubation
right.
So
we
wanted
to
sort
of
change
the
bar
from
being.
F
We
believe
that
this
project
will
get
to
incubation,
meaning
kind
of
we
believe
in
it.
We,
you
know,
we've
evaluated
it
versus
like
well,
it
could
get
to
incubation,
there's
nothing
that
blocks
it
from
getting
tanked
uation,
it's
a
lower
bar,
obviously,
but
it
also
sort
of
simplifies
the
criteria
because
it
doesn't
require
as
much
analysis
effectively
an
opinion.
So
there
was
there
was
a
strong
effort
to
kind
of
try
and
divorce
the
opinion
from
the
process
to
try
and
simplify
this.
B
F
No
actually
I
absolutely
agree
that
there
is
heart,
I
mean
like
so
I
just
wrote,
I
wrote
the
form
or
I
wrote
the
draft
form,
and
so
there's
things
like
give
us
a
link
to
your
code
of
conduct.
Right,
like
that's,
that's
a
non-negotiable.
You
don't
have
a
link
to
a
code
of
conduct.
You
don't
get
into
sandbox.
You
know
things
like
that.
So
things
like
you
know,
give
us
a
link
to
your
road.
F
Things
like
that
are
absolutely
non-negotiable,
but
I
think
they
did.
The
goal
was
basically
to
get
it
to
a
place
where
it
really
could.
You
know
I
mean
in
a
spreadsheet
form
you
could
scan
through
it
in
the
space
of
an
hour
and
vote
on.
You
know
as
many
projects
art
as
are
asking
bat
month,
for
example,
because
the
current
process
is
too
time-consuming.
F
And
also,
at
the
same
time,
sort
of
create
a
different
brand
for
sandbox,
so
that
so
that
admission
into
sandbox
wasn't
seen
as
such
a
high-stakes
thing
at
some
level
right
because
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
swirling
concerns
around
like
you
know,
sandbox
isn't
supposed
to
get
marketing,
but
people
say
we're
now
part
of
the
CN
CF
and
and
it's
been
tricky.
And
so
we
wanted
to
kind
of
resolve
that
potential
challenge
as
well.
D
I
mean
we
can
make
sure
that
we
don't
do
things
like
you
know:
gift
slots
to
sound
box
projects
to
keynote
addresses
a
coupon
or
something
right,
and
that's
something
that
this
CN
CF
can
control.
But
I
I.
Don't
think
that
anything
we
can
do
or
suggest
it's
actually
going
to
necessarily
control
how
projects
portray
this
to
the
to
the
wider
public
right
I
mean
you
know,
they're
going
to
be
entitled
to
issue
a
statement
of
fact,
which
is
we've
been
accepted
as
the
sandbox
project,
I'm,
correct
and.
F
You
could
do
a
ton
of
due
diligence
early
and
and
really
not
have
sandbox
effectively
or
had
sandbox,
be
very
restrictive
and
for
the
reasons
you
suggest
or
you
can
have
a
wide
open
and
and
try
and
change
the
branding
right
and
so
we're
going
to
change
the
cnc
of
sandbox
branding
to
be
more
sort
of
informal
in
appearance
and
we're.
If
people
want
to
put
it
on
their
website
or
whatever
they
need
to
put
CNCs
sandbox,
not
just
CNCs.
F
You
know
not
just
CNC
if
logo
in
the
word
sandbox
at
least
that
was
the
proposal,
so
I
totally
get
it
and
I
mean
we
have
been
through
this
a
few
times
in
other
contexts.
It's
very
very
hard
to
do
right
to
sort
of
provide
a
forum
for
collaboration
and
for
vendor-neutral
intellectual
property
while
also
sort
of
having
it
be
meaningful.
F
This
is
our
latest
iteration,
I,
guess
and
and
we'll
keep
adapting
there
wasn't.
You
know
certain
was
having
challenges
before
I
had
all
the
same
challenges
before
and
then
also
people
were
kind
of.
You
know.
People
were
feeling
overwhelmed
with
a
number
of
things,
and
people
are
feeling
like
their
projects,
aren't
getting
listened
to,
and
things
like
that.
J
F
B
B
Quite
a
bit
of
thought
into
the
details.
We
kind
of
need
to
know
ship
by
and
large.
No
one
else
cares
so
either
it
seems
like
there
is
a
certain
distinction
between
the
levels
and
such
obviously,
but
either
it's
within
scenes
here
for
it's
not,
and
even
if
you
have
like
ten
levels,
it
doesn't
matter,
it
is
the
scenes
we
have
project
it
has
already
carries
some
branding.
It
carries
some
weight
that
in
and
of
itself
will
be
billed
for
some
people
or
some
projects.
B
To
be
clear,
I
wasn't
suggesting
having
a
second
one
you
can
maybe
play
games
like
having
a
selenium
folks
on
the
playground
was
suggested
back
when,
when
the
sandbox
process
was
was
established
to
have
a
less
serious
name.
Of
course,
if
your
playground
project,
as
opposed
to
sandbox,
is
even
worth
less.
But
beyond
that
at
some
point
you
just
have
to
accept.
B
F
I
also
want
to
comment
about
the.
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
cig
thing
from
a
while
back,
because
I
really
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
knows
that
the
SIG's
actually
really
are
quite
valuable
and
play
a
role
in
you
know
the
due
diligence
for
incubating
projects,
as
well
as
helping
shape
where
we
want
to
go
and
find
projects
right,
I
think
one
of
things
we're
talking
about
here
is
there's
a
difference
between
projects
coming
to
us
and
then
also
us
going
to
projects
and
I.
F
Think
we
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
are
curating
the
right
projects
into
the
CNC
F,
but
at
the
same
time,
there's
just
just
giant
wave
of
projects
that
want
to
come.
Try
and
join
so
I.
Don't
I!
Don't
want
this
to
be
seen
at
all
as
like.
Hey
we
don't
appreciate
our
or
don't
value
at
the
SIG's
are
doing.
H
So
I
do
have
a
comment
on
the
sandbox
project:
I
like
the
new
style
because
sandbox
you
know,
I've
read
the
docs
on
it.
It's
for
experiments
and
early
stage
projects
and
a
lot
of
that
you're,
not
gonna.
Have
things
worked
out
and
a
lot
of
experiments
do
fail
and
it's
great
to
give
people
the
space
and
a
vendor
neutral
environment
to
do
that.
In
fact,
that's
actually
a
good
way
to
brand.
It
is
the
CNC
F.
E
H
E
G
So
that
brings
up
another
question
on
this,
which
is
that
it's
always
been
policy
that
once
a
project
has
contributed
to
the
CNC
F
yeah.
Never
there's
no
take-backs.
You
know,
as
in
the
project,
never
gets
spun
off
by
the
CNC
F.
Now
experimental
has
two
senses.
One
is
you
know
this
project
is
an
experiment.
G
It
might
not
be
useful,
it
might
not
be
possible
whatever,
but
there's
also,
it
might
actually
be
a
good
project,
isn't
a
good
piece
of
technology,
but
not
actually
suitable
for
the
CNC
F,
for
whatever
reason
you
know,
doesn't
work
with
other
cloud
native
technologies,
can't
sort
out
governance,
issues
etc.
I
think,
if
we're
sort
of
widening
the
funnel
for
new
sandbox
projects
coming
in
we're,
gonna
get
a
lot
more
of
the
question
of
well
fit
for
CN
CF
didn't
work
out
for
that
project.
What
do
we
do
now?
E
G
F
Actually
talked
about
this
a
little
bit.
Our
understanding
is
that
everything
that
matters
in
terms
of
naming
and
trademark
is
actually
owned
by
the
Linux
Foundation,
as
opposed
to
the
CNC
F,
and
so
that
actually
does
mean
that,
if
there's
a
better
home
in
a
different
part
of
the
Linux
Foundation
or
if
we
did
find
that
we
needed
to
create
some
other
kind
of
foundation
around
it,
that
should
be
feasible
legally,
with
no
renaming
or
anything
like
that.
A
A
J
Random
thoughts,
yeah
I,
guess
to
Brenda's
point,
which
is
I,
think
it
was
probably
a
self-evident.
Even
unspoken
is
that
that
getting
this
was
like
this
is
really
hard
like
getting
getting.
This
right
is
really
hard
like
whether
it
was
one
level,
but
there
was
just
in
or
out
you
know
this
is
that
that's
another
way
of
kind
of
addressing
a
part
of
this
or
if
it
was
five
levels,
did
that
both
of
those
any
which
way
you
cut
it.
J
There
can
be
pros
and
cons
to
the
approach,
some
of
those
pros
and
cons
shift
in
their
weight
over
time,
as
as
the
CAF
itself
evolves
in
the
projects
within
them,
evolved
and
so
I
thought
I
would
say
that
maybe
alleviate
a
little
bit
of
pressure
on
all
of
this
I
guess
it
for
my
part,
but
I,
probably
lean
toward
being
a
little
fearful
about
whether
or
not
we're
achieving
the
desired
outcome.
Whether
or
not
we're
like
yeah
I.
J
If
I
can
make
a
quick
analogy
to
martial
arts-
hey
it
takes
it
means
something
if
you're
wearing
a
black
belt
and
but
in
some
dojos
it
doesn't
mean
that
much
because
they
can
to
move
you
through
the
ranks
pretty
quick,
maybe
too
quickly.
So
I
guess.
My
point
is
this:
like
that
I
think
you
know
that
on
one
hand,
I'm
saying
hey,
there's
value
to
be
affiliated
with
the
sandbox
and
inherently
with
this
scenes
yeah.
J
And
so
maybe
we
don't
want
any
implicit
value
with
their
I.
Think
Richards
point
is
that
hey
look,
there's
gonna
be
implicit
value
assigned
to
that
affiliation,
whether
you
like
it
or
not,
you
live
here.
You
know
you
could
some
wording
does
make
it
fairly
clear
if
there
was
something
called
experiments.
That
sounds.
You
know
that
sounds
if
yeah
I
guess
I
guess
I'm
just
concerned
about
it
about
over
overcorrecting
or
about
like
hey.
J
J
There's
some
folks
on
that
by
the
way
of
another
example,
there
are
folks
on
the
call
that
are
cloud
native
ambassadors
and
there's
there's
only
so
many
of
those
folks
there's
things
because
of
that
constriction
and
because
there's
only
so
many
there's
or
in
the
same
thing
for
the
TOC
members,
there's
only
so
many
of
those
folks
and
are
those
people
that
are
carrying
that
role.
So
there's
no,
you
know
an
implicit
meaning
to
them.
J
So
I
just
last
thought,
I'd
be
curious.
I,
don't
know
if
other
CNCs
staffers
are
on
the
call
that
also
pay
attention
to
the
number
of
projects
going
into
the
Apache
foundation
or
going
into
other
foundations.
I,
don't
know.
If
there's
you
know,
I
guess
on
both
sides
there
there
might
be
a
concern
about
projects
getting
flustered
and
going
to
other
foundations.
L
F
D
I'm,
seeing
with
this
is
that
the
CNC
F
is
always
being
a
brand
associated
with
the
quality
of
those
projects,
and
you
know,
we've
said
a
few
times
on
the
call
that
and
neat
you
know,
tinkering
that
we
do
around
logos
and
whatever
else
is
probably
not
going
to
change.
Much
of
the
value
of
the
fact
that
projects
and
companies
behind
those
projects
we're
still
going
to
use
the
CNC
F
brand
to
to
market
themselves.
So
you
know
it's
it's
in
my
mind.
D
If
we,
if
we
reduce
the
bar
and
let
lots
of
the
sandbox
projects
in
which,
by
the
way
is,
is
probably
the
right
thing
to
do.
If
we
want
to
foster
the
experimentation
we
want
to
foster
those
communities
right,
because
setting
the
high
bar
does
is
may
be
good
for
a
branding
point
of
view
and
for
for
you
know,
maybe
providing
more
curated
or
opinionated
projects,
but
it's
less
great
for
innovation,
or
you
know
having
the
community
and
accelerates
development
in
certain
areas.
D
So
so
you
know,
I
can
argue
in
favor
of
having
more
up
sandbox
projects,
and/or
innovation,
but
but
ultimately
one
of
two
things
is
going
to
happen
on
the
marketing
side
right,
and
this
is
something
we
just
need
to
figure
out
as
we
go
along.
It's
you.
If
we
have
lots
more
projects
and
we
managed
to
get
the
marketing
message
out
right,
then
you
know
the
CN
CF
grant
is
going
to
be
diluted.
F
D
Know,
projects
that
maybe
abuse
the
CNC
F
brands
and
you
know-
and
we
and
we
have
to
worry
about-
and
we
have
to
worry
about
that
aspect
of
it.
But
ultimately
you
know
we're
kind
of.
Basically,
we
need
to
be
aware
that
were
consciously
making
a
decision
to
potentially
dilute
or
complicate
the
branding
and
the
marketing
side
of
things
in
favor
of
the
community,
experimentation
which
you
know
I,
think
everybody
is
in
favor
of
the
community
experimentation.
But
but
we
need
to
be
aware
that
this
is
the
impact
of
this
change.
I
F
F
So
this
isn't
it
Leon,
we'll
see.
I
mean
I.
Think
at
that
point
about
changing
and
reiterating
it
they're
iterating
repeatedly
as
accurate,
but
but
I
mean
the
incubation,
like
incubation
used
to
be
the
first
stage
at
the
very
beginning
of
this
thing
in
sandbox
was
created
to
relieve
all
the
community
pressure
that
you're
talking
about
and
so
I.
F
D
And
for
what
it's
worth,
you
know
like
I
kind
of
I
I
do
completely
empathize
and
sympathize
that
this
is
a
high
problem
solve
and
and
I
think
you're
right.
You
know,
I
think
we
just
have
to.
We
just
have
to
figure
out
how
we
go
when,
as
we
go
along
how
how
this
is
going
to
affect
sort
of
the
marketing
and
the
branding
side
of
things,
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
alternative
is,
because
we
have
to
foster
the
community
and.
F
I
want
to
be
clear,
also
I
mean
when
we,
this
discussion
came
up
and
the
TOC
a
little
bit
too
and
I
think
we
do
have
to
kick
people
out
too
right.
I
mean
I.
Think
we
do
have
to
be
open
to
the
notion
that
we
may
actually
kick
some
people
out
if
they
are
to
truly
end
up
being
bad
actors
and
and
so
I
think
that's
another
part
of
the
toolkit.
B
G
So
I
I
actually
want
to
jump
in
here
for
sig,
contributor
strategy
and
and
because
it's
related,
this
discussion
say
something
that
we
liked
about
the
proposal,
which
is
a
lot
of
potential
CNC
of
projects
in
terms
of
meeting
requirements
for,
like
incubation,
run
into
sort
of
a
chicken-and-egg
problem
where,
in
order
to
be
incubating
projects,
they
need
to
have
independent
governance
and
they
need
to
have
a
bunch
of
other
things
that
can
be
hard
to
develop.
Well,
the
project
is
sponsored
by
a
single
company.
If
you
follow
me
like
I,
know,.
G
Look,
we,
you
know,
have
the
project
submariner,
that's
sponsored
by
Rancher,
but
we've
got
a
bunch
of
people
contributing
to
it
from
other
companies.
But
as
long
as
Rancher
is
a
hundred
percent
responsible
for
that
project,
they're
not
necessarily
going
to
sort
of
open
up
the
governance
until
it
belongs
to
the
CNC
F
and
it's
not
their
responsibility
anymore,
which
is
a
completely
appropriate
attitude
right
when
they're,
responsible,
they're
responsible
and-
and
they
don't
want
things
to
go
off
the
rails.
G
So
from
a
contributor
growth
perspective
in
a
governance
perspective,
it's
really
nice
to
have
a
sandbox
area.
That
would
be
an
actual
sandbox
that
would
have
a
low
bar
to
entry
so
that
projects
can
put
together
all
of
the
requirements
that
they
have
in
order
to
become
an
incubating
or
a
graduated
project.
M
You
know
they
can
go
for
the
for
incubation
and
later
around
to
graduation
right
and
then
that's
the
value
I
see
for
the
CNC
F,
and
you
know
the
king
of,
for
example,
that
graduated
projects
we
can
say
it
is
being
used
by
you-
know
a
number
of
end
users
right
and
then
they're
using
it
in
production.
In
you
know,
in
reliable
systems,
so
I
see
the
value
there
and,
and
then
the
sandbox
would
be
the
place
where
people
can
come
in
and
collaborate
and
innovate.
I
I
J
I
The
point
is
that
not
all
the
project
would
join
the
sandbox
and
with
a
goal
to
move
to
incubation,
so
I
will
join
the
sandbox
for
the
initial
ap
space
for
collaboration,
so
yeah
there
might
be
a
bottleneck,
but
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
as
high
as
you
might
think.
At
this
point,
and
if
SIG's
I'm
not
going
to
be
involved
in
reviewing
the
sandbox
projects,
there
going
to
be
more
probably
more
time
to
review
the
projects
for
incubation,
helping
with
your
diligence
and
so
on,
I
would.
F
Also
just
say
from
experience
with
different
projects,
the
incubation
stage
is
just
less
pressurized
because
people
are
already
in
the
CNC
if
they're
already
like
it's,
it's
it's
just
not
so
angst
inducing
and
I
found.
In
my
experience,
people
are
more
willing
to
be
patient,
so
I'm
less
worried
about
the
bottleneck
there
as
well,
because
I
think
it's
psychologically
people
that
people
are
used
to
beep
are
used
to
the
process
a
little
more
by
the
time
they
get
there.
Yeah.
L
F
L
F
J
That's
not
gonna,
say
things:
do
you
need
to
change
it?
That's
actually
10.
My
point
is
I.
Can't
what
is
the
value
of
sandbox,
then,
if
it,
if
you
can
achieve
much
of
the
same
things
for
a
working
group
and
a
saying
or
or
something
similar,
you
know,
would
we
we
expect
that
we
would
have
sort
of
immediate
contention
around
incubation?
Not
all
the
projects
are
ready
for
that
or
or
meet
those
requirements.
A
A
A
A
F
A
Okay,
now
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
know
this
is
still
in
flight
and
we're
still
trying
to
be
able
to
work
cocktails
here.
But
I
wanted
to
be
at
least
able
to
have
a
conversation
of
hey
that.
We
know
that
this
is
going
to
be
kind
of
messy
but
being
able
to
have
this
conversation
is
important
and
if
there
is
no
further
comment
on
this
one.
A
Oh,
there
was
a
note
in
here
about
public
comment.
I
know
that
there
is
a
current
proposal
out
there
to
be
able
to
move
public
comment
periods
right
now
from
two
weeks
to
one
week.
It
seems
like
most
people
they're
saying
we're
good
with
two
weeks,
but
wanted
to
invite
it's
now
about
anything
else
around
that.
A
And
not
that
I
would
change
this
inflate,
but
our
current
on
projects
that
are
in
public
comment
votes
will
go
out
next
week.
So
please
go
ahead
and
review
and
last
piece
is
our
project
stating
TOC
input.
We
have
lots
of
wonderful
annual
reviews
out
there
and
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
get
some
eyes
on
these
I
know
that
Elena
you've
done
a
fantastic
job
being
able
to
come
in,
but
I
wanted
to
highlight
this
for
everyone
else
as
well,
that
we
need
three
TRC
members
to
be
able
to
approve
that.
A
B
To
a
1-point
from
from
sick
observability,
they're,
currently
doing
the
review
of
of
cortex,
and
we
found
a
lot
of
the
questions
in
a
due
diligence
document
and
such
very
open-ended
and
not
giving
a
lot
of
guidance
as
to
the
actual
intention
behind
them.
So
we
would
like
to
basically
tighten
those
up
and
we
submit
a
counterproposal
as
it
were
to
20.
You
see
in
the
white,
a
sig
chair
group,
any
anyone
who
also
wants
in
on
that
or
any
specific
for
we
should
be
following
or
just
I
camera
together
and
sendeth.
G
A
N
A
F
Yeah
sorry
I
think
yeah.
What
Amy
said
I
was
on
mute.
Sorry,
no,
it's
great
and
I
think
we're
still
sorting
it
out.
I
think
we
do
want
people
to
sort
of
trial
out
the
form
that
we're
developing,
but
it's
not
done
yet.
Then
we
don't
want
to
block
people
so
I
think
what
can
you
know
we're
gonna?
If
people
have
specific
questions
about
specific
projects,
they
can
mail.
Those
the
TOC.