►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2021-04-20
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2021-04-20
A
B
B
C
A
A
D
I
think
we
just
have
one
main
topic:
should
we
get
started
since
we
have
a
few
people
who
have
time
pressure
yeah,
so
normal
rules
apply
anti-trust,
you
made
it
here
and
amy
will
take
a
register
right.
Okay.
So
our
main
item
on
the
agenda
is
we've
been
talking
a
little
bit
amongst
the
tse
about
ways
of
streamlining
the
incubation
process.
So
I
think
we're
at
a
good
point
now,
where
we
could
open
up
that
discussion,
get
feedback
from
the
the
broader
community
on
on
what
we're
proposing
here.
D
D
So
currently,
the
process
looks
like
this:
that's
the
diagram
that
I
pulled
out
of
the
the
process
documentation
on
github
and
if
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
our
first
issue
is
that
we
have
these
two
phases
where
theoretically,
the
toc
are
spending
time.
Reviewing
some
information,
that's
actually
fairly
similar.
You
know
if
we,
if
we
look
at
a
sig
recommendation,
it's
supposed
to
be
much
lighter
weight
than
the
due
diligence
document,
but
in
practice
a
lot
of
thought
often
seems
to
have
gone
into.
That
document
seems
like
having
two
phases
where
we're
looking.
D
D
Next
slide,
highlighting
the
fact
that
we
have
an
overlap
between
the
material
that
that
gets
presented
in
the
project
proposal.
Some
project
proposals
are,
you
know,
pretty
bare
minimum
and
others
are
much
much
much
more
detailed,
but
essentially
they're
starting
to
go
down
the
road
of
why
that
project
feels
that
it
they're
ready
for
incubation.
So
quite
often
it's
got
a
lot
of
information
about
the
project,
a
lot
of
information
about
why
they?
Why
and
how
they're
meeting
the
the
criteria?
D
Often
that's
duplicated
in
the
sig
presentation,
the
sig
presentation
of
the
due
diligence
there's
just
a
ton
of
overlapping
all
these
things.
So
we
have
some
ideas
for
trying
to
to
rationalize
this.
D
I
guess
another
problem
that
we've
seen
before
and
move
on
is
that
it's
not
always
obvious
who
owns
the
process,
a
project
that
isn't
necessarily
seeing
progress,
doesn't
necessarily
know
who
to
talk
to.
D
I
think
that's
going
to
add
a
lot
of
advantages
which
we'll
talk
about
in
a
minute.
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
having
got
that
incubation
sponsor,
you
know
in
the
front
of
the
process,
we
no
longer
need
to
sort
of
assign
them
in
the
middle
of
the
process.
D
Next
slide,
then
we
have
these
two
bits
of
documentation
that
seem
very
very
similar,
so
we
could
combine
those
into
one
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide
and
just
have
one
set
of
you
know
it's
all
the
same
content,
but
you
know
we
don't
need
to
come
up
with
it
in
two
different
phases.
Consider
it
all
to
be
part
of
due
diligence
and
then
next
slide
that,
because
we
have
the
incubation
sponsor
stepping
forward
at
the
beginning
of
this
process,
they
can
coordinate
with
the
sig.
D
They
can
work
with
the
sig
and
the
projects
to
figure
out
who's
doing
what
parts
of
the
due
diligence
they
can
be
doing
the
user
interviews
in
parallel
at
the
same
same
time
as
the
the
presentation
is
happening.
Hopefully
parallelizing.
This
can
can
speed
things
along
a
bit
plus
having
that
toc
sponsor
involved
right
from
the
beginning
means
there's
a
clear
person
who
owns
the
process
and
who
owns
making
sure
it
doesn't
just
get
stuck
dragging
on
forever,
so
yeah
next
slide.
D
I
tried
to
sum
up
what
I
think
we
think
are
the
kind
of
highlights
and
improvements
for
this.
Essentially
a
single
point
of
contact
for
the
project,
who's
driving
the
incubation
process.
Who
can
do
all
the
coordination
with
cigs
that
trc
sponsor?
Is
they
already
are
the
person
who
is
supposed
to
decide
when
the
due
diligence
is
ready
for
the
toc
and
the
broader
community
to
to
look
at
they're
already
the
person
who
basically
assesses
whether
the
the
discussion
is
over
and
whether
it's
ready
to
time
ready
to
call
for
a
vote?
D
D
I
think
we
can
also
make
it
clearer
to
projects
who
apply,
but
then
mean
we
already
have
the
situation
that
if
a
toc
sponsor
doesn't
step
forward,
they
they're
not
gonna,
get
to
a
vote.
I
think
by
having
that
sponsor
right
at
the
beginning
of
the
process.
We
don't
have
this
situation
where
the
project's
done.
A
lot
of
work.
They've
worked
with
the
sig,
they
think
they're
really
on
route,
and
then
it
bogs
down
because
there
isn't
a
toc
member
who's
got
the
enthusiasm
to
to
push
it
through.
D
So
I
think
that
that
should
help
projects
get
a
clearer
answer
on
whether
they're
likely
to
get
through
this
process
and
hopefully
with
one
person
kind
of
owning
it
they'll
get
a
clearer
answer
on
how
long
that
process
might
take.
D
So
I
hope
that
kind
of
describes
what
it
is
that
that
we're
proposing
here.
I
would
love
feedback
questions
concerns.
What
have
we
missed
in
coming
up
with
this
streamline
process
you
know,
are
we
are
we
gonna
lose
any
benefits
from
the
current
process
open
to
you.
C
I
like
the
idea
of
having
a
sponsor
engaged
from
the
get-go.
I
know
there
are
several
projects
that
went
through
due
diligence
or
just
you
know,
extensive
sid
review
that
there
you
could
never
find
a
sponsor,
and
I
think
that
was
very
frustrating
to
many
projects.
So
having
that
initial
interest
and
support
at
the
beginning
at
least
gives
them
an
idea
of
what
they
need
to
be
able
to
provide
as
part
of
the
due
diligence,
so
I'm
in
full
support
of
it
right.
C
The
only
caveat-
I
guess
I
would
say
is
there
are
occasions
where,
on
the
toc
we
don't
have
the
expertise,
subject
matter
expertise
to
be
able
to
understand
it,
it
would
just
require
maybe
more
heavy
lifting
on
the
toc
if
it's
an
area
that
isn't
well
represented
today.
But
I
think
today
we
don't
have
that
problem,
but
I
know
in
the
past
that
has
been
a
concern
where
the
sig
was
able
to
provide
more
insight
than
maybe
the
toc
members
had.
D
D
I
did
put
something
in
the
wording
of
the
pr
to
suggest
that
if
it
kind
of
sits
there
in
a
state,
for
I
can't
remember
a
certain
amount
of
time,
the
the
project
could
request
to
come
to
the
toc
meeting
and
talk
about
themselves,
because
perhaps
they
could
clarify,
like
you
know,
maybe
even
drum
up
some
enthusiasm
amongst
us.
D
A
couple
of
comments
coming
in
katie,
saying
positive
things,
josh
also
saying
positive
things.
We
were
recruiting
sponsors
at
the
beginning
anyway,
so
it's
great
to
make
that
official.
I
think
that's
also
true.
A
lot
of
projects
have
been
reaching
out
to
to
try
and
find
sponsors
early
in
the
process,
because
it's
helpful
so
katie
asking.
Are
there
any
differences
for
a
project
that
would
like
to
go
straight
to
incubation,
not
a
sandbox
project?
At
the
moment,
I
don't
believe
so.
E
Just
just
a
quick
question:
I
actually
think
this
is
really
positive
too.
But
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
put
the
sick
presentation
in
there
was
because
I
think
the
projects
were
having
a
challenge
trying
to
make
their
case
of
the
sort
of
project
present
without
doing
a
presentation
to
anybody
and
kind
of
just
hoping
for
a
toc
member
to
kind
of
pick
up
the
battle
and
I'm
kind
of
wondering,
if
maybe
the
toc
sponsor.
E
Maybe
maybe
there
might
be
a
sort
of
simple
process
where
the
toc
liaison
for
the
sake
with
attends
all
of
the
project
presentations
and
then
that
way
they
could
automatically
become
sponsors.
Once
they've
seen.
The
presentation,
perhaps
because
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
otherwise
are-
are
we
kind
of
creating
a
process
where
the
project
have
to
make
their
case
to
find
a
sponsor
and
then
have
to
make
their
case
again
to
the
sig,
which
seems
like
another
duplication.
D
D
You
know
we
want
that
kind
of
discussion
and
sigs
looking
at
projects
just
out
of
interest
without
the
necessarily
being
an
associated
like
proposal
behind
it,
and
I
think
so
in
in
this
proposal
we're
not
saying
that
the
sig
presentation
goes
away,
but
we're
saying
that
can
happen
in
parallel
and
I
suppose
your
concern
is
that
without
the
sig
presentation
happening
first,
there
might
not
be
enough
information
for
the
tsp
to
know
whether
it's
interesting.
E
D
I
think
kind
of
related
to
this
josh
is
suggesting
what
about
having
a
sig
lead
co-sponsor
when
there
isn't
enough
toc
expertise
which
I
think
is
totally
totally
doable,
because
the
toc
sponsor
already
kind
of
has
the
ability
to
delegate
whatever
parts
of
the
due
diligence
they
want
to
delegate
so
actually
recruiting
some
support
from
us,
and
maybe
if
a
sig
lead
is
super
enthusiastic
about
our
project,
they
can
come
to
the
toc
and
say
I
really
think
you
should
be
looking
at
this
project
seriously,
because
it's
awesome.
I
think
that
that
should
be.
F
Yeah,
I
think
alex's
concern
is
so
for
those
of
us
who
work
for
large
vendors
who've
been
involved
in
the
cncf
for
a
long
time.
It's
relatively
easy
for
us
to
figure
out
doc
sponsors,
but
if
somebody
who's,
a
brand
new
organization
is
bringing
a
new
project
to
the
cncf,
that's
that's
been
in
sandbox
without
having
the
sig
presentation.
First,
how
do
they
find
the
toc
sponsor.
D
D
Katie
asking
do
we
still
keep
the
toc
lios
on
for
hc?
Yes,
yes,
this
doesn't
affect
the
tc
liaisons
at
all,
and
actually
this
is
a
great
point.
The
toc
liaisons
can
have
conversations
about
these
proposals
for
sure,
maybe
that's
actually
worth
adding
into
the
process
to
say
you
know
if
a
trc
incubation
sponsor
doesn't
immediately
step
forward
the
that,
in
that
liaison
discussion
with
the
relevant
sig,
they
can,
you
know,
ask
for
an
opinion.
D
Is
this
our
scopes
or
is
it
case
by
case
basis
determined
by
the
sponsor?
I
think
it
really
is
case-by-case
basis
determined.
So
in
reality,
sometimes
we
get
projects
that
come
in
that
are
so
obviously
great
and
you
know
maybe
we
need
to
check
some
things
about
the
the
really.
The
kind
of
canonical
example
of
this
was
fcd
right
when
ncd
like
joined
the
cncf
it
was
already
in
use
by,
like
I,
don't
know
what
percentage
huge
percentage
of
kubernetes
deployments.
D
So
it
will.
It
was
a
very
known
project
to
everybody
on
the
toc
and
then
at
the
other
end
of
the
scale
there
can
be
projects
that
come
along
are
completely
unknown
to
us,
and
so,
if,
if
we
have
prior
knowledge,
because
you
know
we're
out
there
in
in
the
world,
maybe
we
we're
in
a
better
position
to
sort
of
make
decisions.
Maybe
there
are
other
projects
where
we
really
need
to
lean
more
heavily
on
the
sig?
I
don't
think
there's
a
sort
of
one-size-fits-all
answer
to
that.
D
That
might
help
avoid
some
of
the
scenarios
we've
we've
seen
where
I
think
we've
had
a
couple
of
cases
where
six
haven't
been
quite
sure.
I
think
you
know
whether
maybe
they're
leaning
towards
saying
a
no
or
maybe
as
a
sig
they're
a
bit
split,
and
they
don't
quite
know
how
to
communicate
that,
but
having
a
sponsor
who
can
kind
of
work
through
that
with
them,
maybe
makes
that.
D
It's
actually
just
crossed
my
mind
as
you're
saying
that
perhaps
we
should
make
it
explicit
that
the
sponsor
can't
be
somebody
who's.
I
think
we
would
avoid
this
anyway,
but
perhaps
we
should
explicitly
say
the
sponsor
can't
be
somebody
who's
got
a
interest
in
that
project.
You
know
it
can't
be
from
the
same
organization,
because
that
would
be
the
obvious
kind
of
reason
why
someone.
H
I
J
Yeah
from
six
security
perspective,
at
least
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
we're
trying
to
say
that
you
know
that
is
kind
of
like
if
you're
going
through
incubation.
This
is
what
the
sick
is
going
to
do
in
terms
of
evaluating
and
providing
recommendations,
so
that
we,
you
know,
try
and
keep
it
as
consistent
as
possible
across
recommendations.
But
I
think,
with
the
recommendations
varying
is
a
bit
difficult
to
to
kind
of
say
that
every
every
single
project
that
goes
through
incubation
needs
to
have
this
level
of
evaluation
of
security,
for
example,.
D
Sig
security
is
a
special
case
here,
because
you
do
the
recommendations
for
kind
of
how
can
how
should
this
project
address
security
concerns
or
what
security
concerns
might
you
have,
which
is
a
slightly
special
role
for
sig
security,
and
I
think
we
should
have
that
regardless,
because
you
know
whenever
we
bring
in
a
project
into
well,
particularly
into
incubation
stage.
I
think
it's
important
to
try
and
get
that
input
on
whether
there
are
any
security
concerns
that
need
to
be
addressed.
D
K
K
D
That
that's
all
fine
at
the
point
where
they
kind
of
start
saying
we
want
to
join
the
cncf.
They
need
to
go
through
the
proposal
process,
so
you
know,
I
hope
everyone
would
point
them
at
kind
of
here's
the
process
documentation
here
are.
You
know
people
to
talk
to
like
like
amy
and
chris.
If,
if
there
are
kind
of
concerns
about
how
to
go
through
that
process,
yeah,
I
don't
think
we
need
anything
super
formal.
There.
D
D
Well,
yeah,
I
mean
I
guess
that
if
a
project
is
having
a
positive
interaction
with
the
seg,
you
know
they're
getting
a
good
experience
with
this
thing.
Maybe
that
makes
them
think
you
know
warmly
towards
the
cncf
and
they
want
to
apply
and
they
want
to
become
part
of
the
foundation.
That's
all
a
good
thing.
They
obviously
have
to
go
through
the
process
to
become
part
of
the
cnc.
E
Liz
one
one
one
quick
clarifying
thing:
oh
I'm
just
going
to
mention
this
because
I
don't
think
we
answered
it.
The
the
whole
point
of
setting
up
the
six
is
the
way
we
did
initially
was
because
the
toc
couldn't
see
all
the
project
presentations
it
wanted
to
see
and
on
the
other
hand,
it
couldn't
make
decisions
as
to
whether
to
sponsor
a
project
or
not
without
seeing
the
presentation.
So
the
whole
idea
was
presented
the
sick
so
that
there
was
there
was
like
a
three-hour
step,
and
I'm
you
know
I
I
do
agree.
E
It
would
have
a
clear
point.
Having
a
clear
point
of
contact
with
the
doc
sponsor
at
the
beginning
is
obviously
great,
but
I
I'm
sort
of
wary
of
the
fact
that
we're
just
going
to
go
back
to
the
the
same
problem
we
had
before,
where
you
know
until
the
project
makes
a
presentation
there
isn't
enough
information
for
a
sponsor
to
step
up
potentially
and
without
a
sponsor.
They
don't
get
to
do
the
rest
of
the
process.
D
D
You
know,
irrespective
of
the
of
the
process,
and
that
could
mean
that
they've
just
done
a
presentation,
you
know,
and
the
presentation
is
what
led
them
to
think.
Oh,
you
know
I
want
to
do
incubation
now,
because
I
got
such
good
feedback.
You
know
positive
feedback.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
go
through
the
process
of
doing
another
presentation
just
for
the
sake
of
it.
I
think
some
of
the
problems
that
we
had
with
presentations
in
the
old
days
was
that
we'd
spend
a
lot
of
time
collectively.
D
Looking
at
presentations,
you
know
and
attending
presentations
about
projects
where
the
presentation
was
mostly
telling
us
things
that
we
could
read
from
the
readme
and
it
that
didn't
feel
like
a
hugely
productive
use
of
time,
and
I
think,
maybe
having
a
smaller
audience.
That
was
more
expert
and
that
could
kind
of
start
asking
more
interesting.
Questions
improves
the
quality
of
the
presentations
and
make
those
it
makes
us
better
use
the
time.
D
D
There's
no
reason
why
this
sig
and
the
and
the
project
can't
agree
to
do
a
presentation
regardless
and
then,
if
that
turns
out
to
be
inspiring
enough
and
useful
enough
to
use
you
know,
we
don't
want
to
be
just
scheduling
presentations
for
the
for
the
sake
of
process.
We
should
be
doing
them
because
they're
useful
elena
said
yeah.
L
Great
liz,
the
only
other
thing
I
can
say
is:
if
there
hasn't
been
a
presentation,
then
the
toc,
sponsor,
as
the
first
order
of
business
would
say,
go
make
a
presentation
to
the
six,
so
at
least
it'll
be
useful
as
like
a
social
gathering
where
people
get
to
know
each
other.
So
you
know
it
will
help
smoothen
things
over
the
longer
time.
Right.
I
D
Actually,
the
biggest
thing
is
this:
this
issue
of
projects
getting
stuck
in
cigs,
where
you
know
their
reason
to
use
it.
I
think
we
need
to
optimize
for
the
case
where
we've
got
an
amazing
project
where
the
toc
already
is
pretty
enthusiastic.
You
know
we
it's
not
a
done
deal,
but
there's
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
sentiment
that
that's
a
good
project
and
the
cases
we
I
don't
want
to
let
down
the
other
cases,
but
I
feel
like
that
because
we
can
always
we
can
always
adapt
like
we.
D
There
are
never
any
rules
that
say
you
can't
do
something,
but
I
think
we
need
to
just
try
and
streamline
for
the
for
the
good
case
where
we
do
have
a
pretty
clear
or
you
know
a
case
worse
I
mean,
I
think,
a
sponsor
probably
goes
into
sponsoring
thinking
that
they're
going
to
vote.
Yes,
you
know
they
probably
don't
go
into
it
thinking.
D
F
Every
project
that
we
currently
have
but
like
I'm
looking
at
a
couple
of
management
projects
and
we
don't
have
a
sig
for
cluster
management.
F
D
D
I
think
that
could
be
part
of
a
you
know.
I'd
hope
that,
in
a
presentation
there
would
be
kind
of
talking
about
that
somewhat.
They
definitely
it's.
It's
part
of
the
information
that
we
require
projects
to
to
suggest.
D
Lee
saying
we
want
to
exercise
caution
in
creating
a
fast
track
to
favorite
projects.
I
actually
disagree
with
that.
I
think
that
there
are
projects
that
are
so
good
and
that
we
want
to
get
into
the
cncf
that
are
kind
of
no-brainers.
D
You
know
projects
unfortunately,
aren't
all
created
equal
and
you
know
some.
Sometimes
there
are
projects
that
folks
in
the
toc
are
really
excited
about
and
other
times
there
are
projects
that
we're
kind
of
like,
and
I
think
we
should
be
able
to
speed
things
along
if
they're.
If
everybody
is,
you
know
big
fans
of
those
projects,
it's
still
a
vote
right.
It's
not
like.
H
Okay,
you
know
yeah
yeah,
that
there's
logic
in
that
the
to
reflect
on
the
ramifications
of
that,
though,
for
how
that
feels
for
others
or
just
the
the
gosh.
What's
the
right
word,
the
how
that
looks
to
other
people.
H
H
That's
totally
I
yeah
totally
totally.
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense
like
especially
if
you
like,
actually
couching
part
of
that.
Well,
no
one
said
fast
track
other
than
me,
but
I
don't
want
to
use
it
too
much,
but
like
couching
part
of
that
consideration
in
context
of
there's,
no,
that
each
of
the
projects
are
can
be
processed
parallelly
through
them.
Yeah
like
like
it
was
that
they
weren't
being
held
at
the
same
standard.
H
But
but
in
fact,
if
they're
held
to
the
same
process
but
but
but
yeah,
it's
not
a
fifo.
So.
I
Yep
and
the
recommend
that
the
guidance
is
more
for
the
addressing
the
issue
of
six,
not
having
or
the
tlc
being
like
a
bottleneck.
So
if
the
cigs
have
some
of
the
guidance
for
how
not
to
you
know
how
to
kind
of
address
some
of
the
questions
that
tlc
has,
maybe
there
won't
be
as
much
of
a
bottleneck.
D
I
think
part
of
the
what
I'm
really
hoping
that
this
once
by
having
a
sponsor
who's
kind
of
keen
on
making
this
happen.
We
can
you
know,
that's
a
person
who
will
talk
to
the
sig
to
make
sure
that
they're
getting
the
information
they
need
and
that
they
seek
and
know
who
to
talk
to
about
that
project
and
yeah,
because.
L
D
Yeah-
and
I
think
we
should
still
do
the
thing
that,
when
we're
approached
by
a
project,
I
don't
even
know
if
we've
got
this
written
down
anywhere,
we
should
do.
But,
generally
speaking,
when
a
tsu
member
gets
approached
by
a
project,
you
know
that's
fine,
you
know
projects
should
be
allowed
to
come
and
talk
and
ask
for
advice
yeah,
but
we
should
share
that
like
so,
we
need
to
talk
to
each
other
yeah,
exactly
yeah.
I
D
You're,
absolutely
right
we
have
we
have.
We
did
used
to
have
that
problem
where
a
project
would
come
along
and
then
talk
to
somebody
and
that
person
would
say
well,
you
know
what
don't
think
you're
quite
ready,
and
these
are
my
concerns
and
they
just
go
on
to
the
next
person
and
they
wouldn't
mention
the
concerns
and
then
yeah.
E
Just
just
just
a
thought
is
it:
is
it
worth
having
a
like
a
similar
clearing
process
of
the
tac
can
to
the
to
the
process
you
use
for
sandbox.
So
the
tac
can
make
this
a
group
every
few
weeks
and
kind
of
just
figure
out
who
the
sponsor
should
be
for
any
incubation
projects
that
are
in
the
pipeline
or
that
have
applied,
and
then
that
way
you
can
make
the
determination,
then,
whether
you
need
more
info
or
need
a
project
presentation
or
whether
you
know
it's.
D
A
In
the
past,
I've
put
like
the
votes
that
are
currently
out
because,
frankly,
if
I
put
all
things
that
are
out
there
for
like
everything
coming
in
for
incubation,
it
would
be
a
very
long
slide.
But
I
think
that
might
actually
be
compelling
at
some
points
to
be
able
to
say,
look,
look
how
all
of
these
things
are
out
there
yeah.
A
A
I'm
thinking
about
is
like
I
want
a
way
for
people
to
be
able
to
come
and
see
this
and
like
put
comments
in
there
and
if
I
leave
it
like
a
slide
deck,
that
kind
of,
like
you
know,
only
rises
once
a
month.
That's
not
as
meaningful,
so
I'll.
Think
about
like
how
how
to
be
able
to
make
this
both
transparent
and
available
for
people
to
be
able
to
come
in
and
say,
hey,
I'm
willing
to
sponsor
this
project.
Here's
how
this
moves
forward.
D
L
D
Good
question
I
was
just
going
to
say:
how
quickly
can
we
type
it
in
and
then
cornelius
said,
the
diagrams
are
really
helpful
and
they're,
not
part
of
the
pr
yeah.
I
should
add
them
in.
B
Yeah
is
this
something
we
have
to
vote
on?
I
think
we
should
yes.
Yes,
that's
what
I'm
thinking
as
well,
don't
think
we're
quora
are.
A
A
lot
easier
to
track
an
email
anyways.
So
how
about
this
liz?
If
you
update
the
the
pr
and
then
let
me
know
when
it's
updated,
I
can
put
this
out
for
a
vote,
sounds
good
to
me.
Cool.
D
All
right,
thank
you,
everyone.
I
think
that
was
pretty
pretty
productive
and
we've
come
up
with
some
useful
additions
and
clarifications
so
fabulous.
Has
anyone
got
any
other
business?
They
would
like
to
raise.