►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting - 2018-01-16
Description
Join us for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon in Barcelona May 20 - 23, Shanghai June 24 - 26, and San Diego November 18 - 21! Learn more at https://kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects.
A
B
C
C
D
E
We'll
get
started
about
five
paths.
Give
me
I
shared
the
TSC
stuck
on
slacken
and
the
chat
so
for
folks
who
haven't
seen
it
yet.
E
Right
now
is
it's
been
brian,
camille
or
solomon
on.
I
haven't
seen
them
yet.
E
E
F
E
F
F
There
we
go
all
right,
so
thank
you,
everybody
for
turning
up
today
and
hoping
to
be
fairly
efficient,
because
we've
got
a
few
project
reviews
and
updates
to
go
through
just
skipping
straight
ahead
to
slide
number
three,
which
is
the
sorry
slide
number
six,
which
is
the
toc
elections.
Is
it
done
or
Chris
is
gonna?
Just
walk
us
through
what's
happening
that.
C
Why
don't
I?
Do
it?
Just
briefly,
so
folks
will
recall
that
the
Charter
was
put
together
two
years
ago
that
lays
out
that
the
how
the
TOC
is
elected
and
somewhat
oddly
all
of
the
original
members
were
given
three-year
terms,
but
then
are
supposed
to
have
one
year,
alternating
or
two
year,
alternating
staggered
terms
going
forward,
and
so
we
put
together
a
schedule
that
makes
that
happen
starting
next
year.
But
the
key
piece
of
slide
six
here
is
that
we
have
Sam.
C
C
So
my
I
believe
right
now
that
both
Brian,
Graham
and
and
Solomon
are
interested
to
run
again
or
to
the
two
to
be
Renata
nated.
But
it's
really
just
up
to
the
other,
70
or
C
members
about
how
they
want
to
do
it.
F
F
I'm
typing,
please
or
gold
need
so
there's
a
lot
of
confusion
around
what
it
means
to
be
a
CN
CF
project
at
the
moment,
because
we've
got
three
tiers
inception
incubation
and
graduation
and
graduation
is
something
that
projects
are
going
to
do
soon,
but
in
particular
has
been
confusing
around
inception,
because
a
lot
of
very
new
projects
have
come
in
and
I
believe
that
you
know
not.
Every
single
person
in
the
community
necessarily
feels
that
those
projects
are
of
equal
merit.
So
this
course
this
is
caused
a
lot
of
complaint
and
concern.
F
But
unfortunately,
as
a
side-effect
of
that,
there
has
been
as
perception
created
that
Inception
projects
are
equal
status.
The
incubation
projects
I
had
many
conversations
with
people,
some
of
whom
were,
quite
frankly,
quite
angry
about
the
behavior
of
certain
people
and
projects,
often
resting
on
completeness
understandings
about
the
status
of
these
inception
projects.
So
you
know
that
is
an
anti-pattern.
It's
causing
discomfort
within
the
community
and
also
broader
confusion
with
non
CN
CF
projects
is
for
me,
a
big
problem
that
we
need
to
solve.
F
I
also
don't
want
people
to
think
that
you
know
once
you're
an
inception
project,
then
its
job
done
and
everybody
and
congratulate
you
and
give
you
thirty
million
dollars.
If
you
see
money
or
whatever,
it
is
you're.
Looking
for
I'm
afraid
that
you
know
using
inception
to
get
VC.
Money
is
also
a
bit
of
an
ante
patent
as
well.
So
there
are
some
actions
that
we
need
to
take
about
this.
We
really
need
to
fix
the
perception
dan.
F
C
That
we're
going
to
separate
out
the
14
projects
and
so
that
you
can
see
which
are
graduated
incubated
in
reception
and,
probably
you
know,
sizes
of
logos,
kind
of
thing:
we've
graduated,
the
biggest
so
I
mean
there's
much
more
ambitious
efforts
for
the
website
underway,
there's
a
whole
redo
for
it.
There's
a
bunch
of
marketing
material.
That's
gonna
explain
how
the
40
projects
fit
together,
hopefully
more
soon
and
and
the
water
you
want
to
choose
them
on,
but
the
the
most
immediate
response
to
your
concerns
is
I.
F
Sure
I
mean
you
need
to
say
pretty
clearly
that
inception
projects
may
get
pruned,
because
we
expect
some.
We
expect
some
of
them
to
fail.
I
mean
I,
think
that
is
built
into
the
system.
Okay,
and
there
is
a
an
annual
review.
I,
don't
know
how
many
people
aware
of
this
yeah.
Again
most
of
my
conversations
in
Austin
many
people
are
not
an
annual
review
which
can
lead
to
an
inception
project,
essentially
getting
it
booted,
which.
H
F
I
mean
I
think
just
in
general
do
have
a
look
at
the
operating
principles,
the
DD
guidelines
and
the
graduation
criteria,
and
by
the
way,
if
you
can't
find
those
things,
that's
also
a
problem,
and
you
need
to
tell
Dan
and
Chris
that
you're
struggling
to
locate
them
on
the
website.
That's
been
a
problem
with
some
of
our
materials
which
have
been
created
more
of
us
on
the
fly,
but
we
can
sort
it
down.
F
A
Don't
know
how
this
correlates
with
your
discussions
Alex,
but
the
my
perception
is
that
that
the
the
criteria
are
actually
fairly
clear.
It's
just
that
the
marketing
around
being
a
CNC,
a
project
or
not,
is
not
sufficiently
clear
on
the
fact
that
there
are
these
different
levels
and
what
exactly
they
mean.
So
that
sounds
to
me
like
where
the
problem
lies.
I
hope.
F
G
G
Can
we
also
get
a
handle
on
some
of
the
bad
behavior?
That's
happening,
cuz
that
to
me,
is
actually
the
actual
fundamental
problem.
We
should
be
allowed
to
have
a
fake
tent
that
has
some
nuance
to
it.
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
societal
value
in
that
in
terms
of
having
more
CNCs
project
rather
than
fewer,
but
that
does
rely
on
on
a
lack
of
bad
behavior
run
the
since
yeah
terms
of
using
that,
as
as
a
legend
others.
So
could
we
understand
where
that
bad
behavior
is
coming
from
and
rectify
it?
Well.
F
I've
got
one
number
nine
on
the
slide,
which
he
may
not
be
able
to
see
Brian,
as
were
probably
dialed
in
from
from
the
streets.
But
you
know
there
was
some
complaints
about
people
kind
of
accidentally
on
purpose
falling
over
into
the
world
of
marketing,
talk
around
their
TOC
presentations
and
due
diligence
documents
and
really
kind
of
getting
over
their
skis
in
terms
of
how
they
were
describing
their
project,
and
you
know
that
really
is
not
necessary
or
desirable.
F
It
causes
a
lot
of
ill
feeling,
especially
amongst
other
people
whose
project
may
be
more
advanced
or
you
know
better
in
those
areas.
It
feels
like
a
land
grab,
sometimes
if
you're
not
in
the
project,
that's
kind
of
in
question-
and
this
is
one
of
the
core
issues
that
arose
in
what
one
of
the
TOC
members
amusingly
calls
storage
gate.
So
you
know
we
we
think
we
must.
F
G
So
that's
at
least
I
mean
cuz.
We
and
we
had
the
same
objections
to
the
presentations
that
came
through.
So
at
least
it's
something
that
we're
all
probably
aware,
but
I
think
we
do
need
to
continue
to
make
those
make
it
clear.
What
we're
looking
for
in
terms
of
the
excited
I
think
we've
seen
the
same
thing
and
these
kind
of
grandiose
claims
and
grandiose
claims
are
counterproductive
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
So
alright.
F
F
And
if
you
see
anyone
doing
this
kind
of
stuff,
just
just
let
me
and
press
them
down
we'll
have
a
quiet
word
with
the
people.
What
I
found
personally
in
these
conversations
is
often
people
aren't
meaning
to
do
this
or
not
realizing
what
they're
actually
doing,
perhaps
as
much
as
we
might
think.
You
know
they're
very
enthusiastic
about
their
project.
They
feel
that
they're,
you
know
in
a
spotlight
for
a
key
moment
and
they
just
get
ahead
of
themselves,
and
the
message
back
has
simply
been
look.
F
G
And
also
because
we,
because
we're
not
kingmakers,
we're
not
looking
for
the
best
we're
not
looking
for
superlatives,
we're
not
looking
for
even
necessarily
novelty
we're
looking
for
something
that
is
useful,
pragmatic
and
has
a
functional
community
community
and
fits
within
our
other
goals.
I
think
maybe
educating
people
about
what
we
are
and
are
not
looking
for.
You
know,
actually
don't
need
you
to
be
penicillin
to
be.
Sncf
are
cool,
okay,.
B
E
A
A
C
F
Okay,
so
a
couple
of
other
examples:
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
deal
with
this
today,
but
there
were
some
questions
around
you
know
what
is
the
purpose
and
exit
strategy
for
working
groups?
You
know
what
are
they
actually
doing?
I
think
different
work
groups
have
different
assumptions
there.
So
that's
her
to-do
item
for
us
I
guess
soon
and
in
terms
of
why
why
do
prospective
projects
actually
exist
at
all?
F
J
F
Let
me
hang
on.
Let
me
give
two
examples.
So
one
example
is
is
rook
where
there
was
a
lot
of
tension
around
whether
or
not
wrote
quote,
unquote
could
or
could
not
work
with
another
storage
project
and
SEF,
and
there
was
so
much
confusion
around
this.
That
I
think
the
route
guys
kind
of
felt
pushed
into
saying.
F
G
And
I
would
say
just
an
old
card
that
I
think
both
rook
and
the
TAS
are
fundamentally
sound
technologies,
where
we
ended
up
tripping
on
the
fact
that
they
were
not
necessarily
not
maliciously,
but
it
advertently
may
be
misrepresenting
or
over
representing
the
problems.
They
were
solving
and
that's
what
we
want
to.
So
we
want
the
description
of
the
problem
being
solved
to
match,
what's
actually
being
solved,
as
in
both
those
cases,
they're,
fundamentally
good
technologies
and
as
soon
as
you
kind
of
understood
what
they
actually
did,
I'd
my
pin
anyway.
G
F
K
Thing
we
had
talked
about
previously
was
creating
some
documentation
somewhere
about
what
scenes
yes
is
doing
for
all
the
projects
currently,
so
we
have
some
sense
of
what,
whether
the
needs
that
the
projects
are
being
met
by
pairing
up.
You
know
what
did
the
project
ask
for,
and
what
are
we
actually
doing
for
them?
Is
that
underway,
yeah.
E
K
E
So
so
I
think
some
of
the
requests
are
actually
captured
within
the
Service
Desk
in
terms
of
what
we're
actually
working
on
for
projects,
but
that
may
not
cover
some
tasks
like
me,
meeting
monthly
with
projects
that
figure
out
what's
going
on,
if
that
makes
sense,
so
so
I
think
what
you're
asking
for
is
something
more
than
we
currently
have.
Okay,.
E
Yeah,
that's
what
we
generally
require
now
moving
forward
and-
and
it's
been
working
out
pretty
well
I
think
we
have.
You
know:
40
40,
50
tickets,
already
in
the
Service
Desk,
so
people
projects
have
been
using
it
I'm,
not
sure
if
all
projects
are
fully
aware,
but
it's
definitely
being
used.
So
hopefully
this
year
it
gets
picked
up
more.
A
I
mean
that
case
suppose,
once
a
quarter
in
our
case,
maybe
it's
once
a
year
or
less
often
than
that,
and
then
I
mean
that
the
metrics
obviously
don't
tell
the
whole
story,
but
at
least
they
give
you
a
basis
for
comparing
projects
against
each
other
and
saying
this
one
looks
more
healthy
than
that.
One,
let's
dig
under
the
covers,
or
not
that
that
works
extremely
well
in
some
places.
E
L
E
A
E
C
Can
I
just
make
a
quick
pitch
I?
Think
everybody
here
is
familiar
with
the
dev
stats
work
that
CN
CF
has
been
funding
I
just
pasted
it
in
the
link
for
kubernetes
DEP
stats
at
the
bottom
of
zoom.
But
if
you
scroll
down
to
the
bottom
of
that
page,
you
can
see
that
we're
actually
up
to
covering
the
first
eight
of
our
projects
now
so
through
container
D
and
we're
hoping
to
get
the
other
six
done
in
the
next
month
or
so.
C
And
so
this
is
a
ton
of
statistics
pulled
from
github
in
kind
of
an
interesting
way
and
I
won't
go
through
it
all.
But
maybe
we
could
even
have
a
TOC
presentation
on
it
in
another
month
or
two,
but
this
is
providing
a
bunch
of
statistics
that
that
does
provide
some
health
information.
The
other
thing
that
I'll
say
is
that
CF
CF
is
going
to
produce
our
first
ever
annual
report
on
2017,
hopefully
in
the
next
month
that
will
provide
a
bunch
of
data
about
what
CF
is
doing
and
also
how
our
projects
are
going.
F
Cool,
so
yes,
this
is
an
area
which
is
under
development
and
if
you
are
interested
in
acting
as
a
toc
contributor,
all
capitalized,
please
let
me
and
Chris
and
Dan
and
Solomon
know
we're
going
to
try
and
bring
some
folks
together
to
do
something
useful
hearing,
including
some
of
the
things
that
were
mentioned.
It's
going
to
be
an
ongoing
thing,
all
right
so
now
onto
slide
10.
If
we
can
try
and
do
sort
of
five
to
seven
minutes
for
each
of
these
projects,
I
think
we'll
be
in
great
shape.
K
K
There
are
kind
of
two
patterns
that
we
see.
One
is
people
not
using
authentication
and
authorization
within
their
network
and
just
relying
on
firewalls
at
the
perimeter
and
in
mini
cloud
native
scenarios,
with
lots
and
lots
of
micro
services
running
together
in
the
same
infrastructure
that
doesn't
really
work
so
well.
You
also
lose
a
lot
of
information
about
what
the
applications
are
are
doing.
So
it's
not
just
security
that
you
lose,
but
it's
its
controls,
like
rate
limiting
its
observability
other
things
like
that.
K
K
So
spiffy
is
a
very
early
stage
project,
but
if
you
watched
the
github
pull
request
for
the
proposal
at
all,
you
may
have
seen
that
there
is
a
large
amount
of
enthusiasm
from
a
broad
variety
of
companies
and
people,
including
a
number
that
are
our
considers
or
user
or
will
will
be
user
entities,
so
not
vendors.
That
would
be
like
cloud
providers
or
or
the
company,
that's
actually
developing
spiffy,
but
companies
that
really
see
a
need
for
this
in
their
environments.
K
So
there
has
been
some
amount
of
discussion
on
technical
issues
and
the
spiffy
e
inspired
scheme
have
made
themselves
available
through
office
hours
to
answer
questions
I,
guess
at
this
time,
I
would
like
to
know
if
there
are
any
other
questions
in
concern.
This
would
be
in
a
Inception
level
project.
So
you
know
I,
don't
think
there
are
claims
about
people
using
it
in
production,
yet
and
I
wouldn't
expect
that.
K
K
K
I
just
do
want
to
point
out
one
more
thing,
which
is
with
spiffy
and
with
OPA,
which
is
next
one
thing:
that's
really
important
is
interoperability,
that's
what
really
is
going
to
make
it
shine
and
they
are
both.
Projects
are
integrating
with
a
number
of
other
projects,
but
you
know
in
terms
of
how
seen
CF
could
help
with
that.
We
have
seen
a
positive
natural
tendency
of
other
scenes.
You
have
projects
integrating
with
each
other
and
also
with
things
like
the
certification,
conformance
certification
effort
initiated
for
kubernetes
I.
K
F
Okay,
you
know
I
fully
agree
with
the
statement
about
interoperability.
That's
going
to
be
very
important,
so
unless
anybody
on
the
TOC
objects,
I
think
we
can
ask
Chris
to
commence
the
voting
process,
with
the
proviso
that
you
let
everybody
know
that
this
is,
if
you're
a
contributor
religious
in
the
community,
this
rule
is
your
last
chance
to
scream
out
loud
on
the
github
issue.
If
you
have
objections
here,
we'll
feel
that
we
miss
something
cool
will
do.
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay.
Can
we
move
on
to
OPA
sponsor
Ken.
D
Good
morning,
so,
OPA
similarly
has
had
some
great
conversation
on
the
proposal.
Turin
and
Tristan.
Both
then
respond
to
so
I
think
all
the
questions
that
were
raised
kind
of
similar
to
what
Brian
was
just
describing
right,
there's
a
lot
of
interoperability,
going
on
with
different
projects
and
Netflix
and
with
within
some
of
the
different
other
projects
that
they're,
supporting
and
working
with
today,
and
so
I
think
you
know,
I
think
it's
ready
for
the
TOC
to
vote.
D
I
know
the
OPA
team
is
supportive
of
you
know,
being
involved
in
heavily
contributing
and
working
with
the
community
and
so
from
from
both
the
project
standpoint
and
from
from
my
perspective,
I
think
it's
ready
to
go
forward
with
the
bowden
having
a
policy
effort
that
the
CN
CF
is
is
14
onto
other
projects
to
consumer
work.
What
I
think
is
a
really
strong
maturity
level
for
us
to
attain
so
I'm
a
big
big
fan
of
going
forward
any
questions
so.
K
Previously
there
were
some
questions
about
what
OPA
actually
is
and
how
it
works.
I
did
post
some
links
to
some
examples.
I
don't
know
if
there
are
still
questions
about
that
to
help
clarify
and
people
minds
what
OPA
actually
is
or
what
role
it
fills,
and
it
does
use
a
domain-specific
language
for
configuring,
the
rules
and
they're
actually
making
some
changes
to
that
language
to
make
it
more
consistent
with
another
language
called
a
common
expression
language.
K
But
you
know
a
common
pattern.
Is
people
build
hard-coded
rules
with
their
own
concrete
schema
and
O's
become
more
and
more
complicated
and
unwieldy
and
I
cover?
Nettie's
itself
has
even
done
that.
That's
usually
how
people
start
and
then
OPA.
You
know
kind
of
skips
that
goes
to
the
next
step
to
a
more
expressive
policy
language.
It's
not
a
Turing
complete
language.
There
was
some
discussion
about
that.
You
know
it's
not
a
replacement
for
a
full
programming
language.
It's
intended
to
be
somewhat
restricted,
but
I
think
those
were
the
primary
questions.
D
F
Okay,
so
once
again,
TOC
show
of
house:
does
anybody
strongly
object
to
proceeding
to
a
vote?
I
see,
there's
a
remark
from
Kapil
on
the
on
the
chat
saying
you
know:
do
we
have
enough
community
and
contributors
I
think
bill?
The
answer
is
for
inception:
IP
a
qualifies,
although
it
is
very,
very
early,
but
it
wouldn't
qualify
for
incubation,
so
eto
see
a
show
of
hands.
Does
anyone
object
to
putting
this
to
vote
stage?
F
F
All
right
Chris
can
you?
Can
you
initiate
that
as
well?
Please
and
again,
we
do
want
people
who
are
in
the
community
folks,
like
Kapil,
raising
questions
here
to
get
a
chance
to
to
put
in
the
last
thoughts
before
as
the
vetting
process
is
happening.
So
do
please
advertise
that
as
well,
especially
with
these
projects,
spiffy
and
OPA
I
think
they're,
particularly
important,
because
I
said
you
will
do.
Thank
you.
K
Yeah
the
tests
first
presented
last
spring,
so
I've
had
a
while
to
think
about
it.
It
is
I
think
the
terminology
we
landed
on
was
storage,
middleware,
it
orchestrates,
sharding
and
scaling
for
my
sequel.
I
posted
a
link
to
a
demo
that
was
presented
ads,
cuke
on
cloud
native
con
that
shows
the
tests
and
action,
so
you
can
do
things
like
add
replicas
and
they
automatically
load
their
state
and
then
receive
load
from
clients.
K
It
handles
failover
automatically
adds
a
effectively
a
control
plane
and
a
lot
of
instrumentation
and
monitoring
to
manage
the
my
sequel
instances.
It
uses
a
topology
server
to
keep
track
of
that
stores,
the
state
in
debt,
CD
and
well,
that's
one
of
this
key
toy
stores
can
store,
stayed
in
and
clients
interact
with
the
control
plane,
3G
RPC.
So
there
are
already
some
ties
to
some
other
related
projects
there.
It
has
quite
a
number
of
users,
I
think
there
were.
K
F
A
One
other
quick
question:
Brian
I've
heard
it
said,
and
this
is
not
my
opinion,
but
I've
heard
it
said
that
relational
databases,
like
my
sequel,
are
kind
of
not
considered
cloud
native
and
I
would
have
thought
that
such
a
question
might
come
up
in
the
review.
Did
anyone
raise
that
and
has
it
been
addressed
it?
A
K
Did
discuss
that
earlier
on
the
way
I
do
the
test?
Is
it's
a
bridge
to
cloud
native
from
people
who
started
with
sequel,
but
you
know
in
terms
of
what
cloud
cloud
if
we
look
at
cloud
native
attributes
like
being
able
to
operate
in
a
can
containerized
dynamically
scheduled
environment,
but
s
definitely
does
that
coping
with
failures
and
scaling
the
tests.
K
So
it's
the
it's
the
orchestration
part
that
it
does.
That
makes
it
be
able
to
operate
it,
not
in
that
cloud
native
fashion,
consumed
by
cloud
native
applications
I
in
sequel.
Its
itself
provides.
You
know
if
you
relax
some
of
the
semantics.
It
there's
no
reason
why
it
can't
be
used
by
cloud
native
I
would
say
you
know
it's
not
only
no
sequel,
you
just
have
to
ensure
that
you
actually
achieve
your
cloud
native
goals
and
I.
K
B
K
B
A
To
BK
I
agree
both
with
that
statement
and
what
Brian
said
I
I
think
we
just
need
to
bear
in
mind
that
there's
also
a
sort
of
a
public
perception
of
the
CN
CF
thing
here,
so
we
need
to
just
very
clearly
communicate
why
we
acknowledge
that
superficially.
This
may
look
kind
of
non
cloud
native,
but
here's
why
we
believe
it
is
and
have
accepted
it.
You
know
evaluated
accordingly.
B
M
M
C
M
Yeah
absolutely
and
it
fits
in
with
some
of
our
other,
like
some
of
the
other
tooling
we've
shared
for
us
around
ghost
and
Orchestrator
very
like
starting
to
climb
together
to
be
a
single
kind
of
ecosystem
for
MySQL
and
enabling
people
to
do
more
with
cunning
stateful
workloads
in
a
way.
That's
not
necessarily
massive
rated
up
servers
inside
people's
data
centers
and
taking
more
of
it's
ok
to
lose
than
approach.
Hey,
sorry
to
butt
in
everybody.
F
F
O
I'm
on
the
call
folks
hear
me
get
it:
okay,
so
speaking
of
data
or
storage,
orchestration
rook
as
a
storage
Orchestrator,
it's
a
controller
control
plan
for
running
storage
systems
on
container
orchestrators
focused
on
kubernetes
today,
so
the
rook
is
not
safe
or
Gluster
or
Mineo,
or
any
of
the
other
storage
systems
that
it
may
orchestrate.
But
today
it
has
a
strong.
O
O
So
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
around
rook
I.
Think
the
two
big
pieces
from
my
perspective
that
are
worth
calling
out
is
one
there's
been
a
focus
on
whether
or
not
you
really
wanted
to
see
something
like
rook
expand
beyond
SEF
before
we
would
consider
it
for
ciencia
I.
Think
mostly
that
discussion
has
died
down
and
I.
O
Don't
think
we
need
to
do
that
and
the
other
one
is
whether
or
not
rook
would
end
up
being
the
only
way
in
which
storage
systems
would
be
orchestrated
as
as
CN
CF
projects
and
I
think
both
as
the
testing
example
as
well
as
from
other
discussions
we've
had.
You
know,
the
answer
would
be
if
another
project
came
up
that
wanted
to
orchestrate
storage
systems
in
different
ways,
the
TSC
would
be
interested
and
willing
to
review
that
and
potentially
even
bring
it
into
the
CN
CF.
F
O
K
Am
fine
with
moving
to
a
vote?
I
do
want
to
point
out.
There
seemed
to
be
a
perception
among
some
in
the
storage
working
group
with
respect
to
process
that
the
storage
working
group
would
make
a
recommendation
before
it
came
to
a
vote.
So
I
disagree
with
that
as
the
process
or
at
least
as
a
required
process,
but
I
think
that
needs
to
be
worked
out
with
potentially
a
lot.
Definitely
the
storage
working
group
and
potentially
there
are
other
working
groups
as
well.
F
Agreed
yeah:
this
is
the
water
working
groups
for
aspect
and
I
think
the
working
groups
have
been
doing
good.
Ask
for
creation
like
and
clearing
the
landscape,
but
I
think
you
know
we
haven't
quite
got
clarity
on
this
particular
issue.
We're
running
out
of
time.
So
does
anyone
else
have
any
requests
for
Ben
to
respond?
Mike.
J
A
F
It
sounds
good,
so
I'm
going
to
say
a
few
words
about
Nats,
so
Derrick
has
just
done
an
update
on
the
Nats
document.
I
apologize.
This
is
not
in
github
yet,
but
we've
actually
found
the
Google
Docs
format
a
little
bit
more
useful
for
the
stage
of
interaction
we're
at.
So
what
are
the
issues
here?
I
mean
personally,
we
we've
works,
used
Nats
in
anger
and
I
extremely
happy
with
it
and
I'm
very
familiar
with
the
space
and
think
it's
a
great
project.
F
However,
I
think
what
we
need
to
do
in
the
DD
document
is
make
sure
that
everybody
else
has
an
understanding
of
you
know
what
messaging
is
for
would
keep
running
into
people
who
still
don't
know
that
what
is
unique
about
Nats
and
also
what
you
know,
what
trade-offs
does
it
make
that
meaning
might
be
better
than
other
projects
in
some
areas
and
just
skip
over
things
that
they
do
in
others?
So
Derek,
do
you
want
to
say
a
few
words
about
about
your
thoughts
on
on
next
steps?
L
L
Kind
of
normalize
that
process
that
Chris
highlighted
to
Alexis's
point,
though
I
think
some
of
the
early
feedback
on
the
doc
has
been
helpful
for
us
and
I
tried
to
interact
with
those
comments
this
morning
and
Colin
is
also
on
the
call
and
is
on
top
of
those
so
I
think
for
us.
The
next
steps
will
be
to
do
the
PR
get
some
of
the
comments
inside
of
the
PR
and
then
at
the
subsequent
meeting.
You
know
look
at
where
we
are
at
that
time.
I.
K
Have
a
request
which
is
I
actually
find?
What
is
messaging
issue
somewhat
surprising,
and
maybe
maybe
that
issue
does
exist.
I,
don't
doubt
that,
but
it
would
help
me
if
that
what
is
messaging
text,
which
is
voluminous,
we
moved
to
an
appendix
and
have
the
main
proposal
focus
on
things
like.
Why
is
this
cloud
native.
F
Mean
I
think
the
key
issue
in
that
is
that
it's
it's
trying
to
be
cloud
native.
It's
explicitly
not
trying
to
do
certain
things
that
Derek
is
called
enterprise,
messaging
and
I.
Think
it's
laying
that
out
very
very
clearly
would
be
extremely
helpful.
The
widest
messaging
exists:
why
is
it
different
from
networking
and
databases?
Unfortunately
does
come
up
with
with
with
some
people?
There
also
has
tons
of
confusion
about
the
difference
between
a
stream
and
the
queue
and
pub/sub
and
everything
else.
F
F
F
Speaking
personally,
I've
had
many
long
discussions
with
people
about
the
difference
we
sed
and
Nass,
and
these
other
things
so
anyway.
Okay,
so
Derek
will
move
it
into
github
with
you.
That
sounds
great
and
please
continue
to
give
feedback
there.
Everybody,
when
it's
in
github,
can
you
just
tell
everybody
on
the
CSU
have
to
COC
list
absolutely.
Thank
you
very
much
indeed.
Okay.
So
we've
just
got
time
for
William
and
Chris
to
do
the
last
section,
which
is
on
liccardi
inception
review.
P
So
I've
tried
just
to
put
a
whole
bunch
of
facts
up
on
the
screen
and
leave
the
marketing
stuff
to
a
minimum.
Although
that's
that's
quite
difficult
for
me
in
this
new
lifestyle
that
I
that
I
live
I
think
the
most
interesting
stuff,
from
my
perspective
at
least,
is
set
of
companies
that
are
using
link
or
D,
and
production
I've
tried
to
put
a
list
of
the
ones
who
have
kind
of
publicly
given
evidence
of
that
or
publicly
claimed.
P
We've
had
a
fair,
fair
amount,
coming,
especially
recently
from
the
community
and
I
put
a
couple
pull
request:
examples
there
of
non
buoyant
work,
making
it
into
linker
D
the
one
won
them
all
really
point
on
is
1719,
which
was
SoundCloud
originally
contributed,
SRV,
DNS
record
logic,
and
then
these
are
additions
to
their
modifications
to
that
code.
That
SoundCloud
is,
and
reviewing
is
kind
of
you
know
a
semi
informal,
maintain
ownership
of
that
subsystem
and
then
you
know
powers
of
Human
Genome
Project.
So
if
you
love
science,
you
love,
link
or
D
I.
K
K
K
P
Don't
think
it's
changing
substantially,
I
think
the
project
it's
so
linker
D
itself
has
the.
If
you
look
at
the
changes
that
we've
made,
the
the
changes
that
have
been
made
recently,
they're,
primarily
around
bug,
fixes
and
and
less
on
kind
of
adding
new
features,
but
I,
don't
think
that's
related
to
the
launch
of
conduit
I
think
that's
just
kind
of
where
the
project
is
and
it's
in
its
lifecycle.
A
Okay,
thanks
I
think
you're
also
useful
to
get
a
little
more
detail.
Maybe
it's
available
somewhere
on
the
those
companies
that
are
using
linker,
be
in
production,
for
what
exactly
are
they
using
it?
Presumably
Expedia
is
not
you
know
booking
flights
using
it,
but
maybe
doing
something
else
useful
to
get
a
little
bit
of
background
on
the
size
and
shape
of
the
projects
using
it.
Yes,.