►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2023-05-09
Description
Sandbox Review Meeting from 2023-05-09
B
Right,
thanks
to
you,
see
members
for
joining
us
today,
so
we're
we've
got
a
bunch
of
projects
lined
up
in
the
upcoming
portion
that
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
today.
However,
I
did
want
to
take
a
few
moments
this
morning
and
talk
about
sandbox
what
it
is,
what
it
means
we've
been
getting
a
lot
more
questions
and
the
queue
for
sandbox
applications
as
well
as
sandbox
projects,
is
getting
quite
long,
so
I
wanted
to
kind
of
come
back
to
what
is
the
sandbox
and
what
is
the
intent
of
it.
B
So
that's
kind
of
the
background
associated
with
why
sandbox
and
the
reason
why
I
wanted
to
bring
it
up
is
because
we've
been
seeing
a
lot
more
applications
of
projects
come
in
that
provide
just
a
slightly
different
take
on
existing
spaces
within
the
ecosystem.
So
there's
not
a
lot
of
experimentation,
necessarily
that's
warranted
further.
Rather,
it's
just
a
different
approach
that
they
may
be
taking,
provides
different
value.
Different
feature
set,
that's
not
necessarily
bad,
but
something
that
we
should
be
considering
as
we're
reviewing
these.
B
We
want
to
provide
a
collaborative
home
and
environment
for
projects
that
are
coming
in
that
we
believe
are
set
up
to
successfully
turn
into
highly
mature
projects,
and
we've
had
discussions
in
the
past
about
well,
it's
Cloud
native
there's
a
need,
but
we're
not
necessarily
going
to
see
it
fully
go
the
way
of
kubernetes
or
some
of
our
other
graduated
projects
have,
but
it's
still
necessary
within
the
ecosystem.
So
try
to
keep
a
lot
of
this
in
mind,
as
we
have
any
conversations
about
the
projects,
considerations
for
where
they're
headed.
What
does
a
road
map?
B
C
I
have
a
observation,
so
sometimes
I
see
the
project.
The
scope
is
very,
it's
it's
narrow,
it's
small,
so
the
chunks
of
it
becoming
you
know
much
I
mean
build
a
large,
build
a
good
community
and
also
become
very
you
know,
a
mature
project.
It's
not
very
I
think
that
that's
a
plus
one
thing
may
not
be,
as
I
could
may
not
have
a
good
potential
how
we
should
deal
with
that.
B
D
E
E
You
know,
maturity
and,
and
now
I
I
am
curious.
Initially
I,
it
wasn't
something
I
think
I
would
ever
consider,
but
the
more
I
look
at
the
value,
we're
providing
and
the
feedback
from
the
community
is.
Is
this
level
providing
even
the
the
value
that
people
believe
that
it
should
be?
We've
always
struggled
with
that
right
and,
and
is
it
preventing
us
from
being
able
to
nurture
and
care
for
the
projects
that
are
in
incubation
and
graduation
stage,
because
I'd,
like
everyone
to
kind
of
consider
those
things.
G
I
mean
I,
haven't
thought
about
the
last
part,
but
is
it
providing
the
value
that
people
expect
at
sandbox
and
I
think
you
know
as
I
look
through
some
of
these
applications,
the
value
that
I
think
some
folks
expect
isn't
what
we've
documented
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
us
communicating
or
that
or
not,
because
if
you
look
at
this,
you
know
it's
projects
that
weren't
experimentation
right.
It's
for
things
that
need
say
a
you
know:
vendor
neutral
home
right.
G
You
got
a
couple
of
vendors
or
a
few
vendors
who
want
to
work
on
something
and
it's
in
that
early
stage,
but
they
need
a
place
to
go.
Do
it
together?
It's
for
things
like
that
and,
as
I
repeatedly
read
what
people
are
asking
for,
they're
like
it
will
bring
a
community
to
us,
but
it
doesn't
we'll
be
able
to
get
advertising
essentially,
so
you
know
we'll
be
more
seen
not
at
the
sandbox
level
and
so
somewhere.
There
is
a
mismatch
between
what
they're
looking
for
and
what
the
cncf
provides.
D
You
know
cleaning
up
governance,
which
is
work
on
their
end
and-
and
you
know,
maybe
an
opportunity
like
to
participate
in
like
a
project,
Pavilion,
Booth
or
something
you
know
something
or
office
hours
at
kubecon
right
depending
what
we
offer
at
the
time.
So
it's
generally
not
too
much
of
stuff
that
sandbox
projects
necessarily
get,
but
I
do
think
people
find
that
valuable
and
just
like
being
being
part
of
a
larger
area
where
it's
seen
as
a
place
to
collaborate
openly
with
you
know,
companies,
vendors
and
all
that
stuff.
D
So
that's
kind
of
my
observation
there
and
then
on
the
I
think
to
Kathy's
Point
earlier
it's
like.
If
you
look
at
the
projects
you
have
like
stuff,
that
is
like
higher
up
the
stack
in
some
ways
like
things
that
don't
really
depend
on
kubernetes,
but
are
kind
of
part
of
our.
You
know,
March
up
the
stack,
whether
it's
observability
or
things
like
backstage.
You
know,
which
you
know
could
be
easily
used
without
kubernetes
and
then
stuff.
D
That's
like
maybe
really
low
right,
whether
it's
like
ebpf
or
even
kernel,
you
know
level
which
historically,
we
didn't
really
have
in
in
cncf,
because
we
could
kind
of
consider
that
stuff,
almost
out
of
scope.
So
it's
kind
of
like
a
an
expanding
of
scope
from
like
the
top
and
a
little
bit
of
the
bottom.
If
that
makes,
if
that
makes
sense,.
F
Yeah
I
was
gonna,
say
I
think
administratively
sandbox
is
actually
kind
of
a
burden
because,
as
as
it
represents
a
pretty
significant
pipeline
of
projects
that
are
coming
in,
there's
a
lot
of
due
diligence,
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
more
work.
There
involved
I
think
that
isn't
represented
necessarily
by
that
statement
and
I
think
the
question
becomes
like:
where
should
the
beginning
of
that
work?
Sit?
F
B
Chris
had
asked
about
work
for
whom
the
project
or
cncf
and
I
think
it's
a
balance
between
mostly
on
the
project
side,
as
well
as
the
tags
in
the
TOC
and
anyone
else.
That's
interested
in
the
project.
I
think
this
is
an
important
call
and
I
was
talking
with
someone
about
this
yesterday
is
that
we
spend
a
fair
amount
of
time
looking
over
the
applications,
researching
and
understanding
these
projects.
B
C
A
Can
D
cloaking
come
on
in
so
we
had
a
discussion
about
this
at
kubecon
around
how
that
was
actually
going
to
work.
I've
got
some
logistic
kind
of
details
running
in
place
right
now
for
how
that
would
work
more
directly,
but
not
yet
ready
for
final
review,
so
we're
kind
of
working
through
some
pieces
around
like
how
exactly
we
would
distinguish
like
which
project
Falls
in
your
which
tag
so
watch
that
space
for
more
tracking
towards
being
able
to
have
that
be
a
June
work
stream,
yeah.
E
Could
we
be
best
taking
this
rigor,
we
have
around
sandbox
and
doing
that.
Instead
for
incubation
and
graduation
and
a
more
efficient
use
of
our
time
and
that
projects
that
want
to
get
visibility
and
grow,
their
Community
are
simply
put
to
the
tags
is
on
their
agenda
to
present,
because
that's
that's
really
what
they're
getting
out
of
it
that
they
want
to
grow
the
community,
that's
the
great
place
to
grow
it,
and
then
there
is
no
formality
and
the
other
things
like
governance
that
you
mentioned.
Chris
neutrality.
B
B
C
I
went
through
this,
so
I
I
think
I
posted
some
questions
and
it
gives
you
some
something
called
the
ones
consensus
particle
I
would
like
to
know.
What's
the
difference
between
that
between
that
particle
and
the
raft
and
the
axis
you
know
which
are
more
commonly
now
and
that's
one
question
right,
because
I
I
I
think
we
need
to
understand
that
you
know
what
the
what
differentiates
value
does.
It
add
I
think
it
gives
some
I
think
theme
also
for
similar
questions,
but
still
the
answer.
I
think
you
know
it's.
C
B
C
B
See
as
far
as
the
information
around
the
protocol
and
the
differences,
this
one
that
you
called
out
I
had
I
did
not
find
any
information
on
it.
I
think
it's
up
to
the
project
to
make
sure
that
that
it
becomes
available
through
them
for
other
individuals
that
have
questions
about
it.
Overall,
though,
how
do
we
feel
about
the
project
in
its
current
state?
It's
roadmap
that
it
has
whether
or
not
this
is
an
area
of
the
ecosystem,
where
we
need
to
see
more
changes
in
development.
I
I
It's
not
entire
I
mean
it's
not
entirely
clear
to
me
what
you
know
if
we
have
a
strong
enough
ecosystem
for
maintaining
these
projects,
given
our
issues
with
NCD,
so
I'm
a
you
know
a
little
bit
concerned
about
our
ability
to
sustain
contributors
to
these
projects,
but
they
are
foundational
and
in
in
terms
of
what
we're
doing
in
Cloud
natives.
So
I
think
that
I
think
it's
in
Skype
but
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
about
yeah.
H
So
they
do
have
some
blog
posts
that
talk
about
how
the
protocol
is
different
than
draft
and
taxes,
but
then
I
don't
think
they
have
documentation
around
it.
So
this
could
be
one
feedback
from
us
second
thing
around
maintainer
so
like
they
only
have
three
contributors
who
have
had
significant
contributions.
H
So
I
was
like
kind
of
adding
on
to
what
Justin
said.
I
think
it
might
be
worthwhile
if
they've
invested
more
time
and
like
growing
the
number
of
contributors,
improving
their
documentation,
maturity
overall
and
then
maybe
consider
applying
to
the
sandbox
again.
They
also
presented
at
dark
storage
recently,
but
I
really
haven't
I,
haven't
heard
any
recommendations
from
tax
division
this,
so
maybe
we
go
back
and
ask
tax
dollars
what
they
thought
as
well.
F
G
Matt,
well,
you
know,
I
was
looking
at
their
reason
for
it
right,
because
it's
a
project
that
could
stand
on
its
own.
It
doesn't
need
to
be
here,
and
one
of
the
things
is
they're.
Looking
for
support,
such
as
legal
assistance
with
you
know,
with
aspects
of
potential
IP
and
trademark
issues.
No
I
I
have
no
idea
what
this
is,
but
they're,
not
asking
for
some
of
the
normal,
hey,
we'll
think
we'll
get
a
bigger,
stronger,
Community
or
we're
going
to
get
marketing
out
of
it.
B
Yep,
a
second
everything
that's
been
said
so
far,
I
think
the
patent
issues,
if
those,
if
that's
actually
what
they
are.
Some
of
the
other
concerns,
there's
interesting
phrasing
within
ycncf
and
the
benefit
to
it,
but
I
also
want
to
Echo
Justin's
Point
around
SCD
and
the
current
challenges
that
we
have
in
that
space.
So
I
think
for
us.
This
one
is
one
that
we
need
to
be
a
little
bit
more
deliberate
and
thoughtful
of.
Is
there
someone
that
is
willing
to
point
some
of
these
questions
back
to
the
project?
B
H
A
I
I
It's
not
it's
not
clear.
It's
not
clear
to
me
that
it's
that
fun,
the
difference
is
a
really
fundamental.
That
was
my
kind
of
issue.
I
mean
there.
You
know
there
are
some
there's
some
Nuance,
but
is
it
really
a
big
difference
enough
difference
to
make
to
build
a
community
around
it
assumed?
A
question
mark
is
a
single
company
project
because
largely
I
think
as
far
as
I
can
tell
they
and
they
didn't
specifically
State.
There
are
some
clarifying
questions
about
who
actually
owns
it
right
now,
but.
H
B
G
You
know
I
I'm,
looking
at
it
and
they're
one
of
those
who
are
you
know:
they're
seeking
visibility
and
Community
adoption
right
and
they're.
Looking
for
you
know,
guidance
around
the
whole
Community
thing
and
that's
not
something
that
we
give
out
really
at
sandbox.
Our
community
is
something
you
need
to
go
build
on
your
own,
so
I
think
by
joining
the
sandbox
I
think
they
may
end
up
being
a
bit
disappointed
by
not
getting
support
on
these
things
of
ycncf
and
so
that
that's
the
whole
thing.
H
B
B
I
would
also
like
to
highlight
that
they
state
that
they
are
production
ready.
However,
the
project
doesn't
seem
to
have
enough
maturity
around
the
rest
of
it
to
kind
of
Warrant
that
fully
fledged
highly
mature,
very
stable
lots
of
adoption,
which
is
why
it's
applying
for
sandbox
and
Duffy
I.
Think
your
point
of
you
mean
CD
Foundation,.
B
That
one
moves
too.
Thank
you,
yep
Cube,
service,
stack,
Cube
service
stack,
provides
a
complete
set
of
devops
solutions
and
a
lot
of
observability
capabilities.
If
you've
checked
out
their
repo,
they
have
a
ton
of
sub
projects
within
it.
All
of
those
who
would
like
to
start
the
discussion
on
this
one.
B
Okay,
I
can
very
similar
story
to
the
last
one.
It
looks
like
there
is
one
maintainer
that
is
contributing
most
of
the
code
Pace
as
they
self-identified.
So
there's
not
a
really
good
there's,
not
a
lot
of
different
perspectives,
I'm
coming
into
the
project
they're
also
applying,
because
they
believe
the
cncf
is
going
to
endorse
their
maturity
and
provide
them
with
the
community
to
get
contributors
beyond
that
there
there's
not
much
else
here.
B
Their
reasoning
and
benefit
to
the
landscape
is
fairly
straightforward.
I,
don't
really
see
anything,
that's
new
and
unique
anything
that
is
significantly
profound.
That
would
impact
the
ecosystem
in
a
way
that
continues
to
move
this
forward.
It
certainly
is
nice
to
have
a
centralized
service
for
a
lot
of
the
observability
needs
that
are
coming
out
of
different
end
users
and
adopters
in
this
space,
but
I'm,
not
100
sure
this
is
going
to
to
meet
all
of
those
needs
or
that
those
needs
are
well
documented
for
the
project
to
be
successful.
C
Yeah
I
think
I
I
feel
the
same
way.
It
looks
like
this
party,
it
covers
you
know
and,
as
you
described
covers
a
wide
range
of
functionalities,
but
I
do
not
see
you
know
what
is
what
is
the
depreciation?
Well,
what
is
a
real
personality
is
going
to
develop
yeah.
It's
not
clearly.
You
know
documented.
B
E
I
think
we
need
to
say
no
I
mean
I
think
that
the
amount
of
work
to
get
it
into
a
state
that
we
would
feel
comfortable
just
from
a
legal
standpoint
is
possibly
insurmountable
and
it
doesn't
add
a
lot
of
value.
You
know
it's
it's
again,
just
a
slight
Swizzle,
so
I
I
just
think
it's
not
appropriate
for
what
we're
looking
for
in
the
foundation.
G
B
C
E
E
B
So
I'm
gonna
highlight
again
they're
looking
for
cncf
to
demonstrate
the
maturity
of
cute
Marine
through
their
sandbox
application,
and
since
it
is
more
solution
oriented
it's
not
necessarily
a
project.
I,
don't
know
that
accepting
it
into
sandbox
is
going
to
make
a
significant
amount
of
difference
to
their
adoption.
B
Yeah
I
I
would
agree,
I
think
I,
don't
know
what
the
right
special
interest
group
in
kubernetes
maybe,
but
that
it
would
probably
be
beneficial
for
the
project
to
socialize
with
one
of
those
sigs
to
get
more
adoption,
but
I
think
if
anyone
else
disagrees.
Just
let
me
know
we
can
move
this
one
to
a
vote
as
well.
B
C
G
Others,
you
know
it
gets
into
the
whole
multi-vendor
Space.
One
of
the
things
that
we
want
is
for
multiple
vendors
to
be
able
to
work
together
under
something
and
having
those
multiple
vendors.
We
already
see
that
in
the
application,
so
that
is
one
of
the
things
that
I
like
about.
It
is
giving
them
that
vendor
neutral
home
yep.
E
Also
think
it
works
to
try
to
standardize
things
across
these
vendors,
which
is
nice
in
this
space,
because
sustainability
is
quickly
becoming
like
enforceable
in
the
UK
and
so
having
you
know,
it's
kind
of
like
emissions
for
cars,
I
guess
I
think
about
that
where
it
was
measured
completely
different.
You
know,
working
together
in
a
vendoral
neutral
place,
to
establish
what
a
standard
would
be
for.
Measuring
these
things
to
be
compliant
is
pretty
important,
so
yeah
supportive
of.
B
B
I
B
Very
early
stage,
they
have
some
ideas
on
where
they're
headed
they're
pretty
large
level
on
their
road
map.
They're
doing
things
slightly
different,
but
I
don't
know
that
it's
really
novel
or
unique
enough.
I
think
the
the
project
needs
to
probably
spend
a
little
bit
more
time
on
refining
where
they're
headed
and
what
what
the
differences
that
they're
going
to
be
providing
within
the
ecosystem.
G
I
mean
again,
if
I
look
at
their,
why
the
cncf
right
the
cncf
will
increase
the
visibility
of
the
project
to
track
more
users
and
contributors
and
help
us
continually
improve
and
make
logging
more
widely
applicable
and
I.
Think
those
are
all
things
they're
not
going
to
get
out
of
the
sandbox,
and
so
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
mismatch.
Yeah.
C
B
E
Yeah
I
just
think
it
would
be
something
that
would
be
better
communicated
through
the
observability
work
group.
You
know
like
I,
I,
guess,
there's
a
lot
of
different
solutions
in
the
space
and
I'm,
not
sure
how
novel,
just
at
first
blush
that
it
is
so
okay
and
confirm
the
other
statements
that
were
made
around
the
value
as
well
are.
F
B
Yep,
it's
the
open
source
implementation
of
the
multi
cluster
service,
which
is
still
very
early
in
Sig,
multi-cluster
I,
believe
that
is
under
Alpha.
However
Erie
Canal
says
this
is
part
of
their
commercial
offering
and
the
the
kep
itself
is
not
very
old
and
dependent
on
the
maturity
of
the
topology
API.
So
I
think
there
is
a
lot
of
things
that
still
need
to
happen
in
this
space.
B
B
All
right
next
up
is
Slim.
Toolkits
slim
toolkit,
also
known
as
Docker
slim,
provides
a
way
to
inspect
optimize
slim
and
debug
containers
quick
highlight
on
this
one.
There
is
some
identity
and
naming
concerns
associated
with
the
project.
Dims
previously
had
an
exchange
with
the
applicant
around
that,
so
this
will
likely
need
to
be
turned
over
for
some
trademark
and
IP
questions
associated
with
the
project.
I
It's
been
around
for
a
long
time.
It's
widely
used
under
its
previous
name,
which
would
have
been
even
less
acceptable.
So
generally
I
think
you
know
I
think
you
know
I
know
the
people
are
crazy
at
their
their
good,
Community,
stewards
and
I
think
it
would.
It
would
seem
to
you,
know,
kind
of
fit
and
I.
I
But
it's
also
for
it's
also
for
observing,
what's
inside
the
condition,
because
what
they
found
was
that
people
couldn't
slim
down
contains
without
understanding
what
what
the
slimming
process
was
doing
and
what
was
in
their
containers
in
the
first
place.
So
it's
not
real
I.
Don't
think
it's
really
a
a
run
time
for
either
that
clearly
it's
a
little
bit,
that's
what
I
mean
by
it's
difficult
to
know
where
to
fit
it
in
terms
of
tag.
It.
C
C
I
B
E
A
G
I
yeah
they're
gonna
have
to
make
a
bunch
of
changes
to
get
to
incubation
I,
don't
think
they've
got
a
governance,
it's
very
heavy
on
one
developer
and
so
they're
going
to
need
to
make
some
changes
there.
I
don't
think
it's
ready
on
a
quick
glance
at
it
for
incubation
and
what
we're
looking
for
these
days.
So
do
we
tell
them
to
clean
those
things
up
and
bring
it
back
for
incubation,
we
always
say
come
into
the
sandbox
and
start
working
towards
incubation.
F
B
B
For
me,
I
think
this
is
incredibly
useful.
I've
talked
to
a
lot
of
security
engineers
and
software
Engineers
that
are
tired
of
getting
bad
vulnerability
scans
back
from
their
running
environment,
so
anything
that
helps
clean
up
those
vulnerable
images
that
are
cached
on
disk
would
be
ideal.
However,
it's
not
something
that's
top
of
mind
for
a
lot
of
people.
I
can't
see
a
lot
of
widespread
adoption,
but
I
do
see
this
as
a
space
where
individuals
that
are
already
invested
and
interested
in
reducing
some
of
those
reports
that
come
to
them
could
provide
value.
E
D
And
sometimes
it's
not
necessarily
A
blocker,
because
you
know
when
Cloud
custodian
came
in,
they
were
only
AWS
based,
but
they
had
aspirations
to
support.
Other
clouds
like
as
long
as
that
was
clear,
if
that,
if
this
actually
fell
in
that
case,
I
think
it
would
be
okay
at
the
sandbox
level,
but
I
I
haven't
dived
into
this
one.
Yet.
C
C
J
J
F
The
other
thing
that's
tricky
about
this
is
like
the
growth
of
the
project
thing
right,
so
this
is
like
a
very
specific
use
case.
It
solves
this
is
a
kind
of
falls
into
the
solution
bucket
right,
like
while
I
think
this
is
valuable.
I,
don't
know
how
I
don't
know
it.
I
don't
know
that
it
would
be
able
to
really
grow
Beyond
its
current
scope
to
or
or
adopt
a
wide
enough
audience
that
that
current
scope
would
make
it
a
successful
project.
B
I
think
Ricardo
has
a
good
point
on
the
direction
of
the
project
and
and
Duffy.
You
do
as
well
like
it's
solution,
oriented
right
now,
there's
still
an
outstanding
question
associated
with
what
happens
to
those
running
workloads
like
we've
gone
through
and
we've
cleaned
up
all
those
vulnerable
images
that
are
cached
great,
but
then
what
so
I
think
there's
opportunity
for
a
future
direction
of
the
project
if
they're
considering
all
of
those
challenges
that
come
with
it,
but
as
it
exists
today,
I'm
not
sure,
but
it's
in
a
good
place.
C
C
J
J
G
B
So
that
that's
thanks
Matt
for
kicking
me
off
that
was
going
to
be.
My
question
is
based
off
of
the
discussion
that
we're
having
right
now
and
some
of
the
questions
that
are
coming
up
around
like
where
it's
currently
at
in
its
application,
where
we
could
see
it
going
in
some
of
the
considerations
that
aren't
currently
architected
for
it.
J
B
All
right
moving
on
to
headlamp,
it's
a
fully
featured
and
extensible
kubernetes
dashboard
they're,
specifically
looking
for
a
vendor
neutral
home,
but
don't
necessarily
provide
a
lot
of
background
or
information
where
they're
experiencing
any
challenges,
because
they
lack
that
but
I'm
curious.
What
other
folks
feel
about
the
project?
It's
relatively
straightforward.
There
are
existing
kubernetes
uis
that
exist
within
the
ecosystem
and
even
outside
of
the
ecosystem.
This
one
has
a
slightly
different
take
on
extensibility,
though.
G
D
B
G
You
know
I
I,
look
at
this
and
I
think:
okay,
there
there's
there's
a
number
of
dashboards
out
there.
Some
are
proprietary,
some
are
you
know,
they've
been
making
changes,
it
would
be
really
nice
to
have
one.
That's
always
going
to
be
freely
and
totally
open.
We
have
a
bit
of
that
in
the
kubernetes
dashboard,
but
I
haven't
looked
at
that
in
a
long
time,
but
they
did
have
some
trouble
getting.
You
know
enough
contributors
and
things
like
that
I
like
that.
G
This
is
both
a
desktop
app
and
you
can
run
it
as
a
server,
because
people
are
really
looking
for
that
as
a
desktop
app
these
days
and
having
one
that's
totally
free
and
open
I
really
like
that,
but
they've
also
been
around
for
a
while
and
been
somewhat
successful.
The
thing
that
catches,
my
attention
is
their
interest
in
a
vendor
neutral
home
and
are
they
looking
for
multiple
vendors
and
people
to
start
working
on
it?
There?
That's
the
one
big
thing
that
catches
to
me
that
says:
maybe
this
does
belong
in
the
cncf.
F
G
F
This
is
generally
the
sentiment
that
a
lot
of
the
Kindle
projects
are
going
to
come
to
us
with
because
they're
in
a
situation
where
not,
they
are
now
part
of
Microsoft
and
so
for
their
projects
to
continue
to
work
in
an
open
source
environment.
They're
concerned
that,
because
it's
a
Microsoft
Project
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
get
they're
going
to
be
able
to
like
pull
other
people
into
it
rather
than
if
it
were
a
cncf
project.
The
people
behind
can
vote
would
push
forward
would
be
more
open
to
the
idea.
B
B
B
G
I
I
think
we
should
probably
ask
questions
around
it
right,
like
their
their
reason
for
the
cncf
is
community
adoption
and
contributions.
I
think
there's
a
mismatch.
There
then
there's
obviously
the
kubernetes
versions.
They
don't
support.
I'm
sure
we've
got
other
questions.
We
should
probably
ask
them.
E
B
Well,
like
I,
so
while
I
think
they
could
benefit
from
someone
working
closely
with
them
to
provide
more
robust
set
of
information,
I
think,
given
the
amount
of
time
commitments
that
we
already
have
and
the
level
of
effort
that
it
would
be
to
bring
this
up
to
an
appropriate
level
of
content
for
a
proper
application
review.
I,
don't
know
that
it's
worth
our
time
or
energy
right
now.
How
do
others
feel.
F
B
G
Actually
seeing
that
sandbox
is
interesting
because
I
think
they're
one
of
those
ones
that
may
be
on
the
fast
track
to
something
like
incubation
once
they
figure
out
their
governance
and
everything
they've
got
multiple
people,
so
it
fits
the
vendor
neutral
home.
So
for
me
it
looks
like
it's
something
that
fits.
B
Yep
I
completely
agree.
I'll.
Add
on
to
that,
however,
that
their
last
release
looks
like
May
of
2022
and
they're
not
doing
any
more
active
development
based
off
of
the
information
they
have
here
and
within
their
repository
they're
contrib.
Their
contributions
are
on
the
decline
and
that
might
be
because
of
where
they're
currently
housed.
They
did
make
mention
that
they've
been
approached
by
cncf,
maintainers
and
contributors
through
those
projects
that
Matt
called
out
but
I
haven't.
B
We
haven't
really
seen
anything
happen
as
a
result
of
those
discussions,
at
least
looking
at
the
Project's
repository
so
sounds
like
we
really
feel
like
they
should
be
incubating,
but
there
might
be
some
potential
health
and
sustainability
concerns
associated
with
the
project
coming
in
anyone
else.
I.
G
H
G
Yeah,
there
is
one
thing
that
we
probably
need
to
address
and
that
it
is
MPL
version
two
on
its
license
came
out
under
Mozilla
makes
sense
and
they
have
over
100
contributors
over
time.
So
what
does
the
licensing
mean
to
the
cncf
as
well?
I
think
it's
I'm,
you
know
functionally
bring
them
into
sandbox
and
seeing
if
they
can
breathe
life
back
into
this
I'm
good
with
it's
there's
licensing
and
things
like
that
and
I'm,
not
sure
how
those
all
work
out.