►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting - 04 -26- 2022
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting - 04 -26- 2022
B
B
C
So
I
know
that
they
went
back
and
addressed
the
feedback.
Okay,
and
it
does
work
with
just
vanilla
kubernetes.
I'm
not
sure
that
that
message
got
sent
out
because
I
personally
communicated
to
them.
They
need
to
go
through
the
same
process
as
everyone
else.
We
don't
currently
have
a
process
for
rapid
resubmissions
and
I
thought
they
would
get
bumped
down
to
the
you
know
bottom
of
the
list.
C
D
B
D
B
B
B
B
B
E
D
D
F
So
their
contributor
guide
is
how
to
set
it
up
locally
and
not
necessarily
mechanisms
for
contributing
back
to
the
project.
Their
roadmap
only
has
a
few
items
on
it.
It's
not
associated
with
any
of
their
issues,
so
there's
no
clear
way
to
understand
how
far
they're
progressing
in
the
completion
of
those
other
than
an
in-progress
state.
At
some
initiative
or
higher
level,
they
don't
have
regular
meetings
for
a
community.
They
have
office
hours,
but
that's
about
it
and
a
mailing
list.
F
So
I
guess
my
my
question
then,
is
if
the
intent
is
to
get
the
project
to
be
more
experimental
and
get
folks
attention,
if
there
isn't
any
mechanism
for
a
potential
contributor
to
learn
how
to
contribute
to
the
project
or
how
to
start
in
that
community?
How
do
we
expect
the
project
to
be
successful,
yeah.
B
C
No,
it
was
emily
yeah,
I
think,
that's
reasonable.
I
think
we
should
be
prescriptive
about
that.
If
we're
questioning
ourselves,
whether
or
not
that's
a
baseline
requirement
or
just
part
of
their
journey
to
incubation,
because
I
do
concur
with
emily's
point
if
they
want
to
grow
the
community,
but
you
can't
be
part
of
that
community,
it
kind
of
negates
the
education.
C
H
G
C
H
B
I
D
B
Okay,
let's,
let's
see
what
they
say
here
right
we're
strong
believers
would
like
to
get
more
exposure.
We
believe
cnn
neutral
project
to
further
flourish
and
we
would
like
to
have
an
increasing
project,
low
barrier
to
contribution
and
adoption
that
this
year,
cncf
provides.
So
they
want
to
do
the
work
once
they
begin
here.
That's
what
they're
saying
and
the
question
is:
are
we
willing
to
do
that.
E
Well,
if
this
this
is
work
that
they
don't
need
from
the
cncf
to
try
to
ask
for
contributions
and
make
it
easy
for
people
to
come
on
board
to
right
and
if
they
really
want
that,
then
why
don't
they
start
doing
it
now?
Why
do
they
have
to
wait
for
it
to
come
into
the
cncf
to
ask
for
contributions?
That's
not
one
of
our
benefits
right
the
benefit
of
joining
the
cncf
isn't
now
you
can
get
contributions
from
others
right.
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
Yeah
so
basically
build
a
community
a
little
bit
more.
You
know
start
doing
things
that
in
before
they
apply
next.
Thank
you
so
container
structure
test.
This
is
a
submission
from
google
folks
they
have.
Actually,
you
know,
there's
nobody
working
on
it
anymore,
so
they
want
to.
They
want
us
to
take
that.
Take
this
over.
B
Yeah
that
needs
to
be
defined
need
help
with
this.
I'm
not
aware
of
any
so
it's
one
person
trying
to
you
know
shift
it
to
us
widely
used.
Google
maintain
sole
ownership
clean
way
to
this
is
worse
than
the
previous
one.
Do
we
all
agree
so
so
we're
gonna?
Let's
call
for
a
vote
and
say
no
officially,
okay,
oh
amy,
didn't
start
the
thing
but
hold.
B
E
E
I
mean
I've
got
opinions
on
it
right
as
far
as
their
experiment
is
going
most
of
their
documentation
targets,
people
like
operators
and
those
operating
it
which
doesn't
really
target
the
end
users
who
are
going
to
create
the
functions,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
they're
really
going
after
their
target
audience.
But
then
again,
this
is
just
me
judging
the
way
they're
trying
to
get
there.
K
B
E
D
D
B
G
F
I
think
their
approach
is
interesting,
especially
focusing
on
operators,
particularly
since
the
majority
of
our
projects
have
heavily
focused
on
developers
and
I've
seen
a
lot
more
use
cases,
particularly
as
of
late
for
serverless
capabilities,
as
it
relates
to
the
operational
deployment
and
production
of
services,
maintenance,
monitoring.
All
of
that
so
they're
in
my
mind.
I
see
them
kind
of
in
alignment
with
that
and
they've
started
to
realize
and
maybe
the
rest
of
the
community.
It
has
as
well
because
they're
so
young
with
so
much
attention
and
activity.
B
You
so
next
one
is
teller.
There
are
actually
two
line
items
for
taylor.
This
is
duplicate,
it's
from
spectral,
ops
and
what
ended
up
happening
was
spectral
ops
got
bought
out
by
somebody
else
checkpoint,
and
this
happened
in
the
fir
q1
sometime
a
couple
of
months
ago,
a
month
or
two
ago,
and
this
changed
because
of
that.
B
A
B
F
B
F
F
There
they're
somewhat
active.
They
are
not
the
most
active,
but
it
looks
like
they've
taken
the
time
to
actually
think
through
all
the
potential,
not
necessarily
competition
in
the
space
but
other
cncf
projects
that
they
can
integrate
with,
as
well
as
commercial
solutions
that
they
could
potentially
integrate
with.
So
they
under,
I
feel
like
they
understand
their
space
relatively
well,
and
that
there
is
an
appetite
for
this.
G
G
D
D
We
don't
want
to
be
in
a
situation
where
it's
a
single
company
product
that
isn't
you
know,
for
example,
isn't
shipping
features
into
open
source
because
they
compete
with
the
commercial
thing?
If
it's
a,
if
it's
a
anyone
can
host
it
on
the
same
yeah?
That's
absolutely
fine,
but
it's
just
trying
to
understand
it.
It's
like
if
it's
a
hashicorp
fault
situation
where
it's
it
wouldn't
be
acceptable
as
a
cncf
project.
B
B
C
E
Of
yeah,
the
thing
I
really
want
to
know
is:
is
this
open
core
where
you've
got
a
core
set
that
you've
open
sourced
and
then
you've
got
a
bunch
of
additional
functionality
and
you're
selling
it
through
it?
But
you're
not
going
to
upstream
features
right
because
you
keep
it
in
your
proprietary
version
and
then
you
don't
allow
that
stuff
into
the
upstream
community?
D
E
D
It
yes,
why
we
need
to
be
clear
and
in
most
cases
it's
all
with
the
projects.
We've
had
is
very
straightforward,
that
you
know
people
are
selling
the
upstream
directly
or
they
and
their
commercial
products
are
usually
adjacent
in
a
clearly
defined
way,
and
so
there's
no
conflict.
So
we
we
we
haven't
had
so.
D
F
E
B
D
D
B
B
E
D
B
B
B
B
F
So
I
like
this
project
for
one
its
ability
to
manage
multiple
clusters,
essentially
is
one.
I
have
some
potential
concerns
about
how
they're
going
about
doing
that,
and
it's
not
entirely
clear
from
their
documentation
so
like
as
they
move
forward.
I
think
having
a
security
review
at
a
much
later
date,
when
they're
slightly
more
mature,
would
be
truly
beneficial.
B
D
A
F
C
B
F
B
F
F
B
F
F
B
B
B
D
D
B
F
E
B
E
C
E
F
F
F
F
B
E
A
B
A
D
B
Yes,
let's
just
finish
this
one:
this
is
very
easy.
Basically,
what
we
need
to
tell
them
is
to
go
talk
to
kubernetes
sig
release
and
then
come
back
because
it's
you
know
it's.
It's
essentially
taking
the
community
supported
from
one
year
to
longer
time
frame,
and
so
let
them
find
out
if
there
is
any
opportunity
to
work
with
the
kubernetes
sig
release.
Folks,
thank
you
yeah
and
this
one
then
one
after
that
capc
we
should
tell
them
to
go
talk
to
c
cluster
lifecycle.
B
They
already
have
things
in
progress
on
the
kubernetes
side.
I
don't
know
why
they
ended
up.
Maybe
they
did
it
here
first
and
then
they
went
to
talk
to
communities
folks,
so
basically
yeah.
We
can
tell
them
to
go.
Continue
the
conversation
there
and
come
back
to
us
if
those
things
don't
work.
Okay,.