►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-09-01
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2020-09-01
A
B
B
C
B
Yeah
we've
got
30
folks
on
the
line,
so
what
I
was
actually
hoping
for
and
was
kind
of
holding
around
was
the
ziggup
delivery.
Folks,
because
they're.
B
B
From
the
end
or
something
when
I
did,
everyone
got
surprised
now,
everyone's
still
surprised
so
yeah
yeah,
but
no
you're
right.
We
can.
We
can
go
ahead
and
roll
and
because
slides
are
up
there
in
any
way.
So.
D
B
Made
it
to
our
september
meeting
yeah.
I'm
number
one
item
number
two
that
I
did
not
actually
put
on
slides
directly,
but
jeff
brewer
has
resigned
effective
this
month
and
we
will
be
running
an
end
user
election
so
more
to
come
on
the
list
for
that
and
thank
you
so
much
jeff
for
the
work
that
you've
done
here.
B
D
B
Yes,
that
is
correct
and
I
have
changed.
The
vote
tallies
over
on
the
other
hand,
so
the
projects
that
are
needing
toc
review
were
actually
all
of
the
votes
today.
So
okay
and
quorum
has
been
effectively
changed
for
that
great.
B
Votes
currently
out,
we
have
cubed,
we
have
rook
and
we
have
a
tech
league
nomination
for
so
here's
the
links,
those
are
our
currently
open
votes.
There
are
some
other
pieces
that
kind
of
come
up
through
the
sig
updates,
and
I
will
let
the
sigs
do
that
more
directly,
but
those
are
the
big
ones
out
there.
B
B
E
That
was
the
awesomest
update
amy.
I
want
you
to
give
mine
to
okay
hi
everyone.
How
are
you
we
have
a
short
update
as
well
this
week
since
cubecom
was
last
week
and
a
ton
of
us
were
doing
maintainer
track
sessions
and
whatnot,
but
I
did
want
to
leave
a
couple
of
nuggets
on
the
on
the
slide,
particularly
yes,
our
survey
is
ongoing.
I've
been
getting
a
lot
of
questions
about
that.
E
The
survey
is
really
about
the
discovery
and
research
for
the
group.
It's
less
about,
like,
like
I
said,
pulse
on
cncf
kind
of
stuff.
We
obviously
have
had
a
lot
a
lot
of
governance
conversations
clearly
on
the
toc
mailing
list
with
the
steering
committee
plus.
We
also
have
dims
and
a
couple
other
people
working
on
this
badging
concept.
So,
instead
of
saying
like
hey,
you
have
to
have
a
a
steering
committee.
E
If
you
don't
meet
these
requirements,
that
really
would
just
display
what
they're
governed,
like
the
definition
of
their
governance,
similar
to,
like
you,
know,
all
their
security
compliance,
and
things
like
that.
You
see
that
you
see
on
reading
knees
so
that
the
end
user
can
make
the
decision
if
they
want,
and
good
news
is
that
today
I
think
in
a
few
hours,
looking
at
my
calendar
struggling
actually
in
a
few
hours,
the
governance
working
group
is
actually
meeting.
E
So
if
these
topics
are
of
interest
to
you-
and
you
want
to
discuss-
and
you
want
to
like-
and
you
have
a
couple
ideas-
please
come
that's
what
they're
there
for
it's
actually
a
very
healthy
size
group.
Now
I
think
it's
well
over
six
people
that
regularly
attend
that
that
love
governance,
so
we're
really
trying
to
get
out
the
the
recommendation
about
the
badging
as
soon
as
possible.
We
just
need
to
do
some
project
management
there
and
also
assign
some
folks
some
tasks
and
things
like
that.
E
So
still
a
good
time
to
come
in
maintainer
circle.
I
have
all
intentions
of
attempting
to
launch
at
least
the
first
birds
of
a
feather
idea
by
the
end
of
this
month.
The
birds
of
the
feather
would
bring
in
them.
Excuse
me
bring
in
maintainers
and
really
just
talk
about
what
they
kind
of
want
to
see
from
this.
E
I
have
several
ideas,
but
I
would
rather
mold
it
with
with
other
maintainers
and
what
they
want
to
see
and
then,
of
course,
the
list
of
proposed
topics
is
in
our
repo
and
the
contributor
strategy
repo.
If
you'd
like
to
see
kind
of
like.
What's
on
deck,
I'm
going
to
meet
with
cncf
amy,
that's
our
post.
It
hopefully
soon
to
talk
about
to
talk
about
how
we're
going
to
deliver
that
the
next
is
our
contributor
growth
group.
E
We've
had
a
lot
of
good
progress
with
collaboration
on
template
documents
there
for,
for
instance,
contributor
guide
and
things
like
that.
It's
about
to
get
pr
into
the
project
template
repo
we've
had
a
lot
of
awesome
contributors
help
us
out
with
that
we
actually
have
in
in
the
prq
right
now.
I
meant
to
link
it
on
the
on
the
deck
and
did
not
so
I
apologize.
E
We
actually
do
have
the
project,
the
project,
health
guidance
pr'ed
in
as
a
first
shot
from
dawn,
and
that
really
is
kind
of
working
on
the.
What
is
project
health
mean
because
people
take
y'all
really
literally
so
when
you're
writing
guidance
and
like
requirements
for
graduation
and
if
it
says
like,
must
show
positive
project
health.
A
lot
of
people
projects
are
asking
us.
E
What
does
project
health
even
mean
so
so
that
guidance
is
under
review
right
now
from
dawn
and
we'll
get
that
going
and
probably
by
the
next
toc
meeting,
we'll
have
something
something
to
give
folks.
E
Another
cool
thing
is
actually
had
a
project,
come
to
us
and
ask
us
for
help.
So
the
last
contributor
strategy
meeting
we
had,
we
had
several
maintainers
from
container
d
online
tldr.
Is
I
considered
this
project
to
be
kind
of
like
a
in
need
of
a
tier
two
contributor
documentation
strategy?
E
You
know
you
it's
kind
of
like
you
have
a
contributor
guide
now
what
you
know
you've
got
your
contributor
base
now
what
so
we're
working
with
them
on
kind
of
that
next
level
of
plans
and
strategy
for
their
contributor
community,
specifically
growing
their
reviewer
base,
so
that's
pretty
much
it
for
us
and
also
by
the
way
the
contributor
growth
group
is
also
meeting
later
this
afternoon.
E
I
think
that's
at
2
p.m,
pacific,
so
it
might
be
late
for
some
of
the
london
folks
on
the
call,
but
would
love
to
have
you
all
at
that
as
well.
That's
it.
D
I
guess
I
have
one
question:
I.
I
am
aware
that
there
have
been
some
discussions
around
the
steering
committee
proposal.
Well,
I've
been
on
holiday
and
I
have
not
read
everything,
but
what
the
current
state
is
actually
so
I
have
two
questions
related
to
that
one
is:
do
we
need
to
schedule
maybe
having
alexis
come
to
the
toc
and
talk
about
that
proposal
or
have
we
moved
on
beyond
that
point?.
E
I
feel
like
that
might
be
your
call.
Okay,.
E
D
Well,
I
I
guess
that
relates
to
my
second
question,
which
is,
I
mean
it
seems
like
there's
lots
of
activity
and
hopefully
some
recommendations.
You
know
coming
out
of
this
process.
Do
we
have
I,
I
guess
you
know
we
want
to
make
sure
we're
discussing
what
those
I
guess
at
some
point.
Are
you
going
to
present
those
back
to
us
or
give
us
things
to
review,
or
how
are
we
going
to
take
the
process
of
these
governance
recommendations
through
the
toc.
E
Yeah
and
that's
that's
ideal
like
what
you're
describing
is
ideally
what
we
wanted
to
do.
We
wanted
to
collaborate
on
a
document
together
and
then,
together
as
a
sig,
and
give
you
all
recommendations
on
you
know
either
potential
changes
to
the
requirements
and
kind
of
go
from
there.
So
I
think
our
group,
our
crew,
just
kind
of
wants
to
talk
about
it
more
honestly
because,
like
I
said
before,
with
the
project
health
stuff,
I
feel
like
people
take
you
all
really
literally.
E
So
if
it's
like,
if
your
bullet
on
the
graduation
requirement
is
open,
governance
or
steering
committee,
people
are
gonna
be
like.
Let's
just
do
the
steering
steering
committee,
it
is,
and
then
we
have
like
50
steering
committees
and
it's
like
do
we
really
do?
We
really
need,
like
all
this
project,
stuff
sharing
committee?
E
So
from
our
perspective,
I
feel
like
we
just
needed
more
holistic
guidance
and
not
necessarily
like
just
throwing
out
the
like
one
potential
solution
which
for
nas
by
the
way,
sounds
wonderful,
so
like
so
from
our
from
our
standpoint
like
it,
it
sounds
like
it
sounds
like
it's.
It's
a
great
solution
for
for
one
party
or
your
project,
rather
and
but
not
necessarily
like
a
graduation
requirement.
E
If
that
makes
any
sense
and
that's
why
we're
kind
of
pushing
the
we're
pushing
dimz's
idea
about
badging,
because
then
that
puts
the
it
puts
the
power
in
the
end
user
to
make
those
decisions
and
then
also
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
force
the
project
to
like
make
their
governance
into
this
box
that
we're
giving.
E
So
that's
that's
a
lot
of
our
take.
I
can't
speak
for
everyone
in
our
crew.
Obviously,
like
I
said
this
is
a
hot
topic,
but
I
feel
like
from
a
just
a
an
overall
summary
perspective.
I
think
that's
kind
of
where
we
are
so.
E
I
think
alexis
also
thinks
that,
like
because
we're
saying
no-
and
I
say
that
in
quotes,
you
know
because
we're
saying
no
to
steering
we're
not
necessarily
saying
no
to
steering
we're
just
saying
no
to
like
giving
everybody
the
guidance
of
have
to
have
a
syrian
committee.
If
you
don't
meet
these
requirements,
so
I
think
that's
kind
of
what
the
discrepancy
is.
D
That
that
all
sounds
good,
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
yeah.
As
I
said,
I'm
not
up
to
speed
with
exactly
what's
happened
in
the
last
week
on
that
discussion,
but
I
think
you
know
tlc
when
we've
talked
about
it
before
felt
like
well,
there's
plenty
of
scope.
For
you
know
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
incentivizing
the
right
things
that
we're
not
inadvertently
incentivizing
the
wrong
things.
So
I
think,
having
more
thought
on
that
before
we
have
a
proposal
is
fabulous
and
william's
got
any
questions
for
contributor.
D
Okay,
we're
gonna
go
back
to
app
delivery.
A
C
Hello-
everyone
sorry
for
being
late,
but
we
also
have
harry
here,
there's
not
a
lot
of
updates
really
from
our
side.
I'm
letting
harry
speak
about
like
a
couple
of
them
as
well,
mostly
because
our
meetings
were
cancelled.
The
recent
one
is
due
to
kubecon.
C
Overall,
we
consider
we
have
a
bit
of
a
slower
progress
on
the
current
working
groups
right
now
in
air
gap
and
the
operator
definition
and
are
currently
working
on
re-engaging
people
again
like
moving
it
into
the
main
meetings
and
seeing
that
we
get
a
bit
more
momentum
there,
there
was
a
session
that
we
had
kubecon.
C
Obviously
I
just
heard
that
from
harry
that
we
have
now
approached
it
for
review,
so
flagger
seems
to
be
in
the
next
one
to
review
and
overall
the
work
that
we
also
didn't
make
progress,
but
we
will
share
more
progress
on
is
this
is
the
landscape
for
for
app
delivery.
C
So
the
idea
is
to
have
like
a
tab.
This
will
have
application
management
and
delivery.
The
main
reason
is
that,
currently,
everything
is
like
stuffed
into
like
this
one
bucket,
which
feels
kind
of
weird,
as
we
have
many
different
items
that
people
are
looking
for,
whether
it's
application
definition
delivery
like
operation
side
even
for
operator
frameworks
and
the
way
to
build
operators.
We
have
a
couple
of
options
which
is
currently
all
stuff
like
into
this
one
bucket,
but
no
concrete
proposal
here.
F
Yes,
so
so,
basically,
we
are
approaching
more
new
projects
to
president
president
in
the
sick
meeting,
for
example,
flagger,
which
is
a
progressive
delivery
system
on
kubernetes.
F
So
we
are
inviting
stakeholders
to
give
us
a
presentation
to
community
to
let
people
know
more
about
that
project,
so
that
project
is
not
part
of
cnc
for
now,
but
we
are
yeah,
we
are
looking
at
it,
so
this
is
something
we
are
doing,
and
we
are
also
approaching
some
other
project
to
see
the
possibility
if
they
want
to
engage
more
with
the
things
that
I'm
seeing
theory
are
very
happy
to
become
the
bridge
between
these
projects
and
between
the
projects
within
that
community.
F
C
For
myself
yeah,
this
is
yeah.
A
good
point
from
here
is
a
with
trunks
or
taking
this
more
proactive
approach
to
invite
projects
that
kind
of
fall
in
our
like
area
and
ask
them
to
present
not
saying
you
have
to
join
the
cncf
with
your
it,
but
just
sharing
more
that's
what
they're
working
on
with
the
community.
C
D
G
Good,
oh,
that
sandbox
review
is,
is
timely,
potentially
for
some
of
the
discussions
that
we
have
inside
of
sig
network.
So
we
have
a
little
bit
of
a
similar
story,
a
bit
of
a
recap
of
some
things
that
we
were
doing
before
kubecon
and
we
canceled
our
meeting
week
of
kubecon
but
did
get
some
good
participation
at
kubecon
during
our
deep
dive,
which
is
which
is
good.
G
G
G
Speaking
of
other
topics,
there
is
an
annual
review
up
for
network
service
mesh.
I
think
elena
and
ed,
or
maybe
coordinating
on
that
one.
I
think
ed
is
speaking
of
health.
G
I
think
he's
either
mentally
or
physically
or
maybe
both
still
recovering
from
kubecon,
but
but
the
annual
review
for
nsm
is
up
and
available
for
people
to
look
at
there's
a
an
ambassador
due
diligence
in
flight
there's
there's
a
dock
out
there
that
is
labeled
with
public
preview,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
we've
gotten
to
that
point
just
yet
so
there's
active
due
diligence
going
on
on
ambassador.
G
That's
that's
what
we've
got
going
on.
I
think
I
mean
that's,
we're
really
going
to
be
getting
the
service
mesh
working
group
up
and
going
hopefully
in
earnest
in
the
same
sig
network
venue
for
the
first
time
this
week.
So
we'll
keep
our
fingers
crossed
for
a
lot
of
engagement.
There.
H
H
So
in
our
last
meeting
we
had
a
presentation
from
the
tinkerbell
project
and
that's
basically
bare
metal
provisioning,
and
that
was
a
pretty
good
presentation
and
they're
interested,
maybe
in
applying
for
something
in
the
cncf.
Maybe,
but
they
don't
know
yet
when
so
that
may
happen
in
the
future,
in
we've
been
reaching
out
to
some
other
communities
and
projects
as
well.
H
H
H
So
I'm
just
taking
them
in
in
the
github
issue
that
we
opened,
then
in
the
ar
a
I
ops
space,
there's
a
couple
of
projects,
cube
flow,
also
open,
a
github
issue
and
a
very
popular
project
and
in
you
know,
serving
machine
learning
models
and
doing
the
learning
part
which
falls
within
the
scope
of
the
sig.
H
So
hopefully
we
get
some
participation,
participation
from
them
and
another
project
is
seldom
core
also
interested
in
presenting,
but
they
they
haven't
scheduled
a
meeting
yet
so
so
a
lot
of
you
know
reaching
out
to
different
projects.
So
hopefully
we
get.
You
know
presentations
scheduled
for
our
next
meetings.
H
So
as
far
as
the
working
group
container
orchestrated
device
working
group,
we
didn't
have
any
major
updates,
also
everybody
busy
with
kubecon
and
existing
projects.
We
have
quay
that
are
still
in
progress
in
incubation,
so
no
new
updates
there.
So
hopefully
we
get
more
traction
there
and
you
know
moves
moves
forward
so
that
he
goes
ahead
with
the
vote
so
yeah
and
I
think
those
are
all
the
updates
and
any
yeah
any
questions.
H
For
at
uc,
sponsor.
A
J
All
right,
hey,
this
is
brandon,
so
pretty
quick
updates.
I
think
the
first
one
is
around
oppa.
We
recommended
oppa
for
graduation.
This
is
based
on
the
the
review
we
did
with
them
earlier
this
year
and
we
followed
up
with
the
maintainers
just
to
make
sure
nothing.
Much
has
changed
in
terms
of
security,
so
we've
recommended
them
for
graduation
from
the
securities
perspective,
the
big
event
that
we
had
was
cognitive
security
day.
This
was
the
kotokita
event
with
kubecon,
which
was
a
huge
success.
J
Thank
you.
Everyone
for,
for
helping
out
with
this
we
saw
about
almost
400
people
in
the
the
channel.
There
was
a
good
discussion,
especially
for
one
of
the
talks
called
new
paradigms
from
the
era
of
security,
which
was
kind
of
mapping.
J
You
know
cia
to
to
distribute
the
cognitive
concepts.
We
are
going
ahead
with
cloud
native
security
day
for
coupon
na
in
november
and
we'll
be
opening
cfp
for
that
soon.
J
So,
as
usual,
six
security
events
as
well.
This
will
be
happening.
We
have
a
couple
things
kind
of
in
the
pipeline.
We
are,
we
have
a
security
assessment
of
keycop,
which
is
almost
done.
We
are
also
working
on
the
cncf
white
paper,
which
we
should
have
quite
a
bit
of
content,
at
least
for
the
next
round
of
updates.
J
D
I
guess
I
I
sort
of
have
a
a
question
and
it
might
be
a
bit
of
a
rhetorical
question
and
it's
more
for
other
cigs,
but
rather
than
security.
I'm
just
wondering
if,
based
on
you
know
the
the
interaction
that
security
are
having
with
the
security
day,
whether
that's
you
know
something
that
other
sigs.
D
You
know
whether
doing
events
like
that
is
a
good
way
of
engaging
with
the
community.
G
I
I
think
it
is
yeah
just
just
on
the
storage
side.
We
we,
we
had
previously
organized
cloud
native
storage
days,
which
were
which
had
really
good
attendance
when
we
were
doing
the
in-person
events,
but
it
kind
of
we
didn't.
I
guess
we
didn't
have
the
manpower
to
materialize
it
for,
as
for
the
virtual
event,
this
time
around,
but
it's
we're
definitely
hoping
to
to
restart.
I
J
H
Yeah,
I
think
it's
a
great
idea
and
it
will
get
more
participation
and
more
excitement
about
the
the
sig
and
all
the
different
projects
and
the
technology.
So,
but
I
think
security
was
there.
First
and
they've
been
successful
at
it.
So
I
think
maybe
it
would
be
great
to
try
with
some
of
the
other
six
as
well.
D
I'm
guessing
it's,
you
know
a
significant
amount
of
work
to
put
together
the
the
program
and
and
to
hold
those
events.
So
you
know
I'm.
I
D
K
A
All
right
which,
which
is
the
next
one
up,
is
it
storage,
hello,
storage,.
I
Hello,
okay,
so
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
projects
on
on
our
plate.
For
the
moment,
we've
got
praviga
we're
we're
still
looking
for
a
tic
sponsor
to
work
with
us
on
the
due
diligence
where
we
discussed,
which
is
discussed
in
the
sig,
call
a
couple
of
weeks
back
and
we've
allocated
a
tech
lead
so
who
can
work
on
it?
I
But
it's
probably
towards
the
end
of
september,
beginning
of
october,
that
we
would
look
to
to
schedule
this
due
diligence
work
with
the
aim
of
having
it
done
by
the
end
of
october.
I
So
if,
if
somebody
from
the
toc
wants
to
wants
to
work
with
us
on
that,
please
raise
our
hands.
I
We
think
that
pravigra
is
a
particularly
interesting
project
and
would
fill
a
new
gap
sort
of
in
the
storage
landscape
for
the
cncf.
I
We're
also
beginning
the
review
for
open
ebs,
currently
a
sandbox
project
who
have
made
a
proposal
to
move
to
incubation.
There
are
a
few
things
that
that
we
need
to
review
with
with
the
project
team
and
that's
ongoing.
I
There
are
the
tikv
and
rook
votes
which
are
ongoing,
which
I
believe
should
just
be
about
done
now,
and
we
had
a
presentation
from
the
perez
project,
which
is
a
project
that's
considering
sandbox,
which
is
which
is
worth
looking
at,
and
also
the
data
set
lifecycle
framework,
which
is
an
abstraction
methods
for
for
providing
different
data
sets
in
in
kubernetes
environments
and
their
caching
of
those
data
sets
specifically
for
research
type
use
cases.
But
I
think
I
think
the
the
the
scope
could
be
more
generic
too.
I
So
so
that's
particularly
interesting
and
they've
just
submitted
the
sandbox
request.
The
presentation
recordings
for
the
sig
are
linked
there.
If,
if
anybody
in
the
toc
wants
to
once
have
a
look
there
and
then
finally,
we
reviewed
and
discussed
the
performance
and
benchmarking
white
paper.
I
We
expect
to
have
that
published
for
for
final
review
shortly
and
just
you
know
a
quick
nod
to
to
all
of
the
work
that
happened
at
cubecon.
So
thanks
for
all
of
that
and
we're-
and
we
had
a
good-
we
had
a
good
session,
a
good
succession
there
and
some
good
q
a
which
was
which
was
really
good,
which
also
resulted
in
some
good
feedback
and
and
add-ons
to
some
of
the
landscape
and
performing
performance
and
benchmarking
white
paper
docs,
which
was
really
really
useful
too.
I
So
we
got
some
some
new
sig
attendees
as
a
result
and
that's
it
for
storage.