►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting - 2019-06-04
Description
Join us for Kubernetes Forums Seoul, Sydney, Bengaluru and Delhi - learn more at kubecon.io
Don't miss KubeCon + CloudNativeCon 2020 events in Amsterdam March 30 - April 2, Shanghai July 28-30 and Boston November 17-20! Learn more at kubecon.io. The conference features presentations from developers and end users of Kubernetes, Prometheus, Envoy, and all of the other CNCF-hosted projects
B
We're
we're
five
past.
Let
me
do
a
quick
roll
call
here.
So
I
have
Alexis,
Joel
is
Matt,
Chang
is
Brendan.
Bryan
jefra
Michele
here
I,
miss
iris
Brian,
grant.
Okay
I,
see
Brian
cool
Jeff
for
Michelle
I,
don't
see
right
now,
okay,
but
we
have
six
way
of
quorum.
So
we're
good.
Let's
go
kick
it
off
to
Liz
for
the
agenda.
Okay,.
A
C
Yeah
I'm
Amy
schemata.
You
can
find
me
at
a
me
on
Twitter.
You
can
find
mate
Amy
at
Linux
Foundation.
My
focus
right
now
is
can
be
I'm
kind
of
the
building
where
the
SAG
is
building
out
our
project
services,
and
you
might
have
known
me
from
my
previous
role
at
redhead,
where
I
was
the
cluster
community
leading
so
came
on
big.
E
D
B
B
Sure
I'll
do
the
shameless
shakedown,
so
China's,
coming
up
in
a
few
weeks
a
little
bit
hard
to
believe
that
we're
doing
another
two
Khan
so
quickly,
but
I
hope
to
see
many
of
you
there.
It's
a
great
program,
final
kind
of
call,
for
you
know,
CFP
and
sponsorships
for
North.
America
are
open
and
we'll
close
in
about
a
month
from
now
on,
Jill
I
think
July
12
end
of
days.
B
B
You
know
the
TOC
call
not
only
toc
members,
but
also
community
members
on
this
call
to
kind
of
give
any
feedback
on
what
went
well,
what
would
you
like
to
see,
improve
and
and
so
on,
so
we
are
going
to
be
producing
a
transparency
report
and
I
think
we're
gonna
try
to
get
it
out
by
the
end
of
this
month.
That
will
basically,
you
know
fully
showcase.
You
know
what
people's
you
know.
F
Well
all
started:
could
you
know
me?
I
never
has
a
take
on
this
stuff.
Sure
I
got
three
things
so
number
one
I
think
it
felt
a
lot
less
bed
to
read
this
time
around
I
thought
was
really
good
there,
especially
the
keynotes
I,
think
we're
very
much
focused
on
users
and
use
use
cases
I.
Think
calling
out
sponsored
keynotes
helped
make
them
be
a
little
bit
less
sponsor
for.
B
G
B
E
I
think
also,
it
might
be
good
to
collect
the
ones
that
were
particularly
good
and
not
only
like
from.
Maybe
the
survey
content
has
that,
but
there
might
be
something
more
qualitative
like
I,
particularly
liked.
I've
I
have
personally
found
the
landscape
a
little
problematic
in
its
categories,
not
particularly
being
helpful
to
me.
However,
the
one
I
can't
remember
who
it
was
that
used
it
to
show
what
things
that
they
were
using
in
their
deployment
and
I
found
that
to
be
really
helpful.
E
Like
somebody's
actually
saying
we're
using
these
particular
things
in
these
buckets
and
that
I
don't
know,
I
found
that
format
to
be
appealing
informative,
also
revealing
of
things
that
companies
often
don't
tell
you,
and
so
that
kind
of
opening
up
and
sharing
things
that
are
not
about
their.
What
they're,
selling
or
providing
I
found,
particularly
just
like
Jenny.
E
It
felt
genuine
and
it
felt
educational,
and
it
was
also
a
great
call
back
to
the
landscape,
so
I
think
picking
out
some
formats
that
are
appealing
and
suggesting
that
they
pick
one
of
those
formats
or
propose
a
format
might
help.
Because
then,
the
format
leads
them
towards
presenting
something:
that's
educational
and
of
value,
as
opposed
to
a
pitch.
B
D
Mean
we
had
a
track
host
in
our
team
for
to
track,
so
he
was
a
little
bit.
He
felt
very
much
kind
of
in
the
background,
which
may
have
been
a
good
thing,
so
he
was
kind
of
unsure
what
the
track
hosts
were
supposed
to
do
so,
I
think
in
the
future
and
clearer
guidance
on
what
your
expectations
are
for.
Troncos
would
be
good.
Okay,.
F
So
I
mean
one
thing
that
I
think
on
the
track
host
thing:
I
think
it
might
be
worthwhile
to
explore
doubling
down
on
that
idea.
I
know
like
uconn,
which
is
different
from
cube
con,
because
this
isn't
confusing
at
all.
Like
actually
has
the
the
track
host
help
curate
the
talks
and
actually
sort
of
bring
speakers
in
and
it
creates.
E
And
I
think
it
out.
So
just
from
a
sig
perspective,
it
was
an
incredible
opportunity
to
of
gathering
people
together.
I
think
that
if
there
was
some
kind
of
a
I
didn't
think
about
this
in
advance,
but
some
kind
of
like
after
the
intros
and
deep
dives
a
space
for
people
to
overflow
to
it,
could
help
with
that
community
building
and
then
also
we
kind
of
retro
actively
are
pulling
together.
All
of
the
security
based
talks
and
I
wonder
whether
we
could
do
that.
E
You
know
in
advance
in
the
future
whether
whether
it
be
a
formal
track
or
not,
I
think
pulling
together.
A
thread
of
these
are
all
talk
along.
A
theme
could
really
help
people
with
maybe
some
spaces
that
are
allocated
towards
discussions
around
a
theme,
so
people
can
gather
I
think
that
would
be
really
helpful
because
it
was
kind
of
hard
to
connect
to
people
you
always
had
to
create
meeting
spots
and
miss
something
you
know
like
I.
Think
some
kind
of
less
formal
gathering
spaces
would
be
really
helpful.
H
On
the
topic
of
of
talks
themselves,
one
of
the
things
that
really
jumped
at
me
during
the
server
this
petitioner
summit
was
that
you
know
people
get
up
there
and
they
talk
about
what's
they
submitted
for
CFP.
So
basically,
what
people
want
to
talk
about,
because
sort
of
gets
pushed
on
to
the
community
and
it'd
be
really
nice.
If
there
was
some
way
if
we
could
sort
of
allow
that
to
be
sort
of
turned
around
and
allowed
the
community
to
tell
us
what
do
they
want
to
hear?
I
I
I
know,
there's
a
plus
and
minus
to
that
model
also,
but
I
feel
that
the
community
changes
every
six
months
and
I.
From
my
point
of
view,
I
see
that
the
community
again
I've
been
participating.
Q
Constance
one
point:
sorry
Dan
is
one
point
three
and
I've
noticed
now,
specifically
in
cube
con
Barcelona.
That
persistence
is
change,
is
something
that
people
are
looking
into
and
I
feel
that,
maybe
it's
something
that
we
can
talk
about
or
allow
them.
You
know
get
more
feedback
from
the
users
to
see
what
they
would
like
to
see.
B
K
Saying
the
very
last
day
in
the
kubernetes
storage
sig,
the
last
question
was
well
what
what
is
the
difference
between
the
SIG's
in
you
know:
CN
CF
and
this
cig,
and
that
was
a
bummer
that
that
was
the
very
last
day
of
the
conference.
The
very
last
question
you
know
where
people
could
have
gotten
involved
at
the
beginning,
so
I
don't
know.
If
maybe
we
could
have
like
a
want
to
be
involved
booth.
K
B
B
Ya
know
that
permeate
I
talked
to
the
Prometheus
maintainer
z--.
They
they
loved
it
and
just
like
non-stop
traffic,
which
sometimes
it's
challenging
as
a
maintainer
juggling
everything,
but
they
they
were
able
to
do
it
so
I
think
we're
gonna
expand
our
project
maintainer
boots
for
cube
con
San
Diego
is
the
plan
because
the
feedbacks
been
so
positive,
yeah.
K
G
K
E
G
B
Sure
to
reflect
a
little
bit
on
Joe's
point
earlier.
You
know
a
lot
of
people
have
expressed
there's
a
lot
to
get
done
in
day
zero
with
like
the
kubernetes
community.
You
know
you
know
immediate
or
contributor
meeting,
and
you
know
all
the
you
know
cloud
native
storage
day
if
that
was
spread
over
two
days.
Would
that
be
beneficial
for
folks
or
it's
just
like
two
days
of
just
a
lot
to
attend
to
because
it's
it's
there's.
B
F
So
one
thing
I
would
say:
Chris
is,
is
you
know,
there's
co-located
events
that
are
sponsored
by
companies
very
vendor
centric
correct
those
take
attention
in
time.
I
know
there
are
a
revenue
source,
but
they
also
take
time
and
attention
away
from
things
that
are
more
community
focused,
and
so,
if
we're
looking
to
slim
down
the
the
number
of
things
going
on
at
cube
con
so
that
it
actually
is
more
focused
on
the
projects
in
a
way
from
the
vendor
days,
you
know
on
that.
Monday
might
be,
might
be
a
good
way
to
go.
Yeah.
J
B
B
I
Is
the
one
of
the
things
that
I
feel
that
it
could
be
dangerous,
not
dangerous,
but
we're
to
be
careful
of
is
the
amount
of
time
we
allocate
to
CNCs
projects
themselves.
It
may
be
at
the
sandbox
level
at
the
at
the
next
levels.
Up
I
just
want
to
be
careful
with
with
those
types
of
talks
that
they
in
how
they
compare
to
as
a
normal
CFP
and
how
they
compete
with
each
other
I'm
concerned
that
there
may
be
more
introduction
to
projects
being
coming.
I
L
Yeah,
the
previous
TRC
actually
made
an
explicit
decision
not
to
promote
any
set
box
projects
at
all
and
I
think
we
should
stick
to
that,
or
at
least
officially
change
it
and
I.
Don't
think
that
is
actually
happening
in
practice.
We,
for
example,
had
a
sandbox
project
presented
on
a
at
a
keynote
presentation
and
so
I
think
the
this
TRC
should
make
a
clear
decision
whether
they're
gonna
stick
with
the
plan
to
not
actively
promote
sandbox
projects
and
if.
B
Yeah
I
think
I
think
giving
that
clear
feedback
to
the
program
committee
could
be
could
be
good
because
it
is
challenging.
Sometimes
if
you
had
a
sponsor
keynote
or
something
they
could
kind
of
choose
what
they
do.
I
don't
know
what
the
specific
context
was
in
this
case,
but
I
think
that's
clear
feedback.
The
t
s
you
could
give
to
an.
B
B
L
B
J
Think
we
have
this
constant
challenge
in
this
constant
compromise
between
you
know
the
levels
of
due
diligence
for
sandbox
projects
versus
the
amount
of
time
they
get
from
the
CNC
up
in
the
defense.
The
the
challenge
is:
if
we,
if
we
give
them
a
lot
of
airtime,
that's
the
fact
of
promoting
them,
and
you
know,
perhaps
putting
them
at
the
stage
where
they're
not
yet
ready
on
the
you
know,
cannot
shoot
packs
require
than
what
you
diligence.
B
Yeah
III
agree
I,
like
I've
always
said
like
on
the
keynote
stage
or
stuff
like
that.
There
should
be
no
sandbox
projects,
but
giving
them
like
an
intro
or
deep
dive
always
seemed
reasonable,
but
I
think
maybe
the
TOC
needs
have
a
discussion
on
on
kind
of
their
stance
on
this
and
maybe
come
back
with
a
statement
to
the
to
the
program
committee.
B
A
B
All
right
we're
about
almost
halfway
through
I,
think
we
should
try
to
go
to
yes,.
M
B
A
B
Oh
Storage
has
added
some
essentially
co-chairs
and
tech
leads
and
based
on
the
governance
process.
We
need
a
for
essentially
a
formal
vote,
but
we
have
quorum
on
the
TOC
today.
So
if
there's
no
opposition
for
Aaron
Boyd
to
take
an
additional
co-chair
role
and
Bradley
child's
for
the
tech
lead
role
for
six
storage,
then
you
know
we
could
kind
of
consider
that
approved
and
not
do
like
a
formal
email
vote.
B
J
So,
sir,
we're
doing
this
for
two
reasons:
one
the
we'd
we
had
a
bacon
co-chair
slots
and
Aaron
has
happened
during
and
I.
Think
here
she
is.
She
would
be
extremely
well-qualified
to
do
this
role
plus
she's
also,
you
know
very
well
known
in
the
community
and
similarly
Brandt
would
be
extremely
valuable
in
a
particular
lead
role
and
currently
co-chairs
the
the
crib
Anita's
storage
sig
as
well.
So
it
just
brings
a
lot
of
experience
to
the
team
and
helps
with
the
projects
that
we're
definitely
looking
at.
F
F
I
F
A
J
I
A
E
So
yeah
I
also
think
and
I
think
Amy
can
step
into
this
role,
but
it
would
be
great
to
actually
look
up
at
whether
we're
following
the
rules.
So
we
went
through
a
bunch
of
thrash,
more
iterations
in
getting
our
material
together
and
then
I
realized
yesterday
that
Dan
hadn't
pull
requested
himself
into
a
no
see
contributor,
so
I
think
like
let's
you
know
like
I,
think
everybody
that
was.
L
B
M
A
Right
and
we
had
a
great
suggestion,
what
came
to
me
through
Alexis
I
know
some
other
people
are
involved
Sara's
one
of
those
people
around
encouraging
diversity
by
using
the
six
as
a
nurturing
ground
to
get
more
underrepresented
groups
into
roles
within
those
six
I
think
has
an
awesome
idea.
Unless
anybody
has
any
kind
of
objections
to
that,
I
want
to
just
try
and
get
that
incorporated
into
the
sig
I
can't
we
called
it
the
process
or
charter
whatever
it
is.
A
N
A
Fantastic
and
I
think
maybe
in
the
interest
of
time
offline
I
would
like
to
request
that
co-chairs
from
storage
and
security
having
been
through
the
process
of
forming
your
SIG's.
If
you
have
feedback
on
the
process
more,
you
know.
If
there's
anything,
we
need
to
sign
up.
Let's
do
that
kind
of
sooner
rather
than
later.
So
let
us
know
all
right
and
I
think
there's
no
reason
why
we
have
to
only
form
one
sig
at
a
time
right.
So
if
anybody
else
is
out
there,
thinking
I
also
have
a
cig
that
I
want
to
form.
D
That
Michelle
and
I
will
be
trying
to
put
something
together
on
apps
and
app
delivery.
So
I
want
to
mention
this,
because
there
are
a
few
other
folks
who
are
involved
in
drafting
some
ideas
around
that
back
in
November
and
December.
So
if,
if
you
want
to
be
involved
in
this,
get
in
touch
with
me
or
Michelle
or
both
of
us
by
email,
please.
L
B
A
B
Are
he's
not,
but
the
issue
at
hand
was
basically,
as
our
projects
get
kind
of
more
to
carry.
You
have
to
develop
some
process
to
do
security,
disclosure
or
CVEs
and
so
on,
and
so
some
of
our
projects
have
gone
through
this
and
it
is
a
bit
of
a
somewhat
of
a
manual
process
to
get
an
actual
CBE,
ID
and
and
file.
Something
I
publicly
disclose
it.
So
we
started
a
kind
of
a
discussion
of
you
know
whether
it
makes
sense
for
C
and
C
F
to
kind
of
be.
B
You
know,
CNA,
which
kind
of
could
produce
these
IDs
or
use
other
tools
out
there.
You
know
I
think
the
discussions
been
a
little
bit
mixed,
also
just
I.
Think.
Last
week,
github
announced
a
bunch
of
kind
of
features
in
this
space.
That
kind
of
help
help
us
out
quite
a
bit.
I,
don't
know
if
people
have
any
strong
feelings
on
kind
of
where
we
should
go
with
this,
but
you
know:
I've
had
personally
a
lot
of
conversations
with
github
and
being
given
them
a
lot
of
feedback
on
kind
of
how
they
can
improve.
B
60,
disclosures
and
they've
been
taking
a
lot
of
that
to
heart
and
are
gonna
have
features
in
the
future
like
producing
CV
IDs.
So
you
know
it'd
be
a
decision
where
we
just
kind
of
continue
to
wait
for
github
and
work
with
them
to
make
sure
the
tools
work
for
us
or
you
know
we
could
do
something
else
so
I
don't
know
how
people
strongly
feel
about
this,
but
I
think
it's
it's
gotten
a
lot
better
with
their
new
tooling
announcements,
at
least
in
my
opinion,
I've.
A
B
Yeah
a
lot
of
them
either
there's
two
approaches,
one
they
will
just
go
through.
There
was
like
a
respective
company
that
can
produce
CNAs
like
you
know,
that
is
a
CNA
like
right
at
or
something
that
can
do
it
for
their
respective
projects.
Some
will
use
hacker
one
to
do
the
disclosure
process
and
create
the
CVE
ID
from
that,
so
those
are
kind
of,
or
some
will
just
do,
the
mitered
form.
Essentially
that
occur
the
equivalent
of
bath
to
create
the
ID.
A
B
B
And
okay,
I
mean
we
could
make
a
call
to
other
projects,
but
I.
Think
github
is
very
interested
in
solving
this
problem.
For
my
conversations
with
them,
at
least
on
the
ID
generation
part
in
the
future,
the
other
parts
are
just
notifying
all
your.
You
know
downstream.
Folks,
like
that's
just
a
hard
problem
in
general,
I,
don't
know
how
to
do
that
automatically.
A
B
B
A
I'm
happy
to
take
this
one
actually
yeah,
so
I
think
it's
been
pretty
public
over
the
last
few
days
that
you
know
rocket
is
being
kind
of
archived
by
Red,
Hat
and
personally,
I
would
like
us
to
well
take
a
vote
on
archiving
exercising
our
new
archiving
process
and
moving
rocket
into
the
CN
CF
archives
as
well.
I
have
reached
out
to
most
of
the
maintainer
and
I
would
say
the
general
feeling
is
at
that
is
from
what
they've
said
to
me.
I
think,
that's,
that's
the
right
move.
A
I
think
they
agree
that
it's
the
right
move
and
yeah.
So,
let's
open
that
up
for
discussion.
Any
thoughts
concerns
questions.
They
did
actually
raise
and
some
interesting
points
about
the
kind
of
wording
on
the
archiving
process
where
we
say
things
like
we're
not
going
to
take
service
desk
requests,
but
we're
also
going
to
support
transitional
documentation.
A
P
The
only
thing
about
the
process
that
I
thought
was
a
bit
weird
is:
it
doesn't
include
a
presentation
to
the
CNC
if,
even
if
that's
effectively
an
exit
interview,
I
think
there
ought
to
be
a
presentation
from
the
maintainer
is
about
what
went
right.
What
went
wrong
any
kind
of
potential
future
and
place
for
people
to
ask
questions,
because
at
the
moment,
as
a
at
least
two
weeks,
email
come
issue
discussion,
but
no
formal
presentation
do.
A
P
Mean
I
think
in
this
case
it's
relatively
straightforward,
and
but
there
could
be
cases
where
it's
where
it's
a
more
complicated
process
and
then
certainly
there
you
know
there
is
possible
discussions
about
other
people
in
might
once
take
over
the
project.
You
could
imagine
in
other
situations
it
might
be
even
more
complex,
I.
L
Was
gonna
raise
a
similar
question
and
don't
know
if
this
got
resolves,
but
there
was
some
some
question
as
to
where
the
IP
goes.
When
things
get
archived
I
think
Jerry
raised
the
question
and
then
the
counter
question
is:
you
know
what
happens
if
it
wants
to
come
out
of
archive?
Has
that
all
been
resolved
and
if
so,
what
is
the
final.
B
Decision
there,
the
default
it
lives
with
the
Linux
Foundation,
just
like
anything
in
ciencia
per
se.
If
there
is
a
desire
to
move
somewhere
else,
maybe
like
another
nonprofit,
we're
happy
to
support
it
as
long
as
the
project
wants
to
do
it,
it
could
never
go
to
like
a
for-profit
entity,
but,
like
hey
I,
don't
know,
maybe
I
want
to.
B
L
L
F
It
was
moving,
I
mean
just
one
thing
as
we
rolled
this
out.
You
know,
as
this
is
the
first
project,
that's
being
archived,
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
of
questions.
There's
going
to
be
a
like,
probably
some
press
around
it.
You
know
there
may
be
some
confusion.
I
think
we
just
got
to
be
ready
to
sort
of
like
you
know,
make
sure
that
we
can
clear
up
any
confusion.
Direct
people
to
the
right
folks
be
sort
of
authoritative
about
any
answer.
As
that
type
of
thing.
B
Yeah
I
think
we
don't
rush
this.
Let's,
let's
be
diligent,
do
it
do
it
slow
come
up
with.
You
know,
basically
get
everyone
on
the
same
page,
but
I
totally
agree
with
you
Jo.
Let's,
let's
not
rush
this
get
everything
documented,
get
a
fact
created
and
and
do
our
best
and
set
the
example
for
for
projects
moving
forward.
I.
A
B
B
A
A
That's
a
shame,
looks
like
she'd
made
some
really
great
points
here.
We
want
to
try
and
clarify
what
graduation
criteria
for
spec
projects,
in
particular,
I
think
this
has
been.
The
question
has
originally
been
raised
around
graduation
criteria
because
of
projects
like
TAF,
but
I
can
understand
for
other
projects
that
want
to
move
out.
The
sandbox
I
think
some
of
the
the
measures
will
be
the
same,
so
things
like.
What
do
we
mean
by
an
end-user.
H
Yes,
so
this
is,
this
is
Doug
from
the
cloud
events
perspective,
we're
very
interested
in
this.
There
were
actually
two
different
questions
that
popped
up,
because
we're
considering
going
from
sandbox
think
you
better
and
the
first
question,
which
is
the
easier
one
is:
is
there
a
requirement
that
the
spec
have
to
be
at
a
certain
level
right?
Can
it
be
alpha
or
beta,
or
does
it
have
to
be
1.0?
My
assumption
has
been
that
there
is
no
version
number
requirement
on
us,
but
I
wanted
a
clarification
from
the
TOC
on
that
first
and
then.
H
A
Yeah
I
think
to
that
first
point:
Michelle
made
a
very
good
statement
there
about
wanting
to
see
that
the
spec
is
stable
and
unambiguous.
I
feel
that,
taking
that
to
the
point
where
you
say
and
therefore
must
be
at
version
1.0
might
encourage
people
to
use
a
number
that
may
or
may
not
be
appropriate
to
the
actual
state
of
the
spec
right.
P
H
A
H
A
Actually,
I
think
there
is
also
the
point
about
stable
and
unambiguous
spec.
How
do
we
judge
I
mean
both
at
graduation
level
and
that
incubation
level
like
how
stable
and
well
I
guess
we'd
all
hope
that
any
spec
is
unambiguous,
I
guess
one
thing
we
could
do
is
we
could
ask
the
SIG's
to
you,
you
know,
or
you
know
the
appropriate
is
sake
to
review
it
and
decide
that
it
is
or
isn't
unambiguous,
and
we
could
also
be
looking
at
I.
Don't
know
time
since
last
change.
A
E
A
A
F
I
mean
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
know,
sandbox
incubation
is
about
the
fact
that
you
know
somebody
has
wide
participation
beyond
single
vendor.
It's
in
production
being
used
by
users
and
I.
Think
that's
same
like
that
in
general.
That's
what
we're
looking
for!
I
think
that
applies
to
specs.
Also
one
thing
we
might
want
to
explore
is
our
requirements
for
some
sort
of
test
suite
against
this
back
right,
because
that's
that's
one
way
to
start.
L
Was
under
the
impression
that
we
only
housed
specs
with
reference
implementations?
Is
that
true,
or
are
we
considering
being
a
home
to
specs
that
do
not
have
come
along
with
a
reference
implementation,
which
would
be
presumably
that
some
sort
of
test
suite
I,
don't
think
that's
mentioned
in
the
criteria.
F
L
Enough
fair
enough
I'm
just
not
sure
that
it's
possible
to
write
a
test
suite
against
a
spec
that
doesn't
have
a
reference
implementation,
but
yeah
I
would
I
would
encourage
us
to
to
mandate
a
reference
implementation
with
the
specs,
but
I.
Don't
know
what
that!
How
that
sits,
for
there
is
the
TOC
well.
F
F
H
Just
want
a
procedural
perspective,
because
I
know
this.
This
has
just
been
lingering
for
quite
a
while.
Now
would
it
be
all
great
topics,
but
it
would
be
possible
for
us
to
circle
back
around
to
the
end-user
discussion,
because
that's
the
one
topic
that
I
really
need
the
a
clarity
on
for
the
cloud
events
project
before
they
can
move
forward
on
whether
they
want
a
good
incubator
or
not
I
would
just
want
to
get
a
read
from
the
TOC
on
what
their
definition
of
end-user
means.
F
H
B
A
Know
that
that
is
a
problem,
that
tasks
are
braised
as
well.
Well,
I
think
they
do
have.
You
know
several
nameable
end
users
now,
but
you
know
there
would
be
a
number
where
that
becomes
hard,
but
I
think
yeah.
We
have
to
maybe
take
it
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
there.
B
Are
some
private
like
companies
that
don't
want
to
be,
and
if
that's
the
case,
maybe
for
like
the
case
of
tough,
maybe
that
you
privately
share
it
with?
Did
she
go
see
to
at
least
prove
that
there
are
end-users,
but
I
know
there's
some
sensitivities
about
work?
Tough
tough
is
being
used.
Okay
sounds
reasonable.
Thank
you.
F
One
other
thing
that
I'd
be
interested
in.
You
know
one
scenario
that
I'm
not
saying
this
is
happening,
but
just
thinking
about
this
problem
in
general
is
that
if
we
have
a
and
all
the
users
are
using
a
proprietary
implementation
and
then
the
open-source
implementation
of
that
spec
ends
up
being
sort
of
window
dressing
that
isn't
actually
used
in
production.
That
to
me
seems
like
an
anti-pattern
and
something
that
we
don't
want
to
support.
F
F
F
E
Also
think
we,
you
know,
I
want
to
think
about
like
if
you
have
two
vendors
who
each
say
that
they
implemented
in
their
end
users
use
it.
That
doesn't
mean
it's
actually
like
there's
different
ways
to
assert
that
you
conform
to
the
spec
right
like
so
just
because
you
have
a
test
suite
that
passes,
for
both
vendors
doesn't
mean
the
end.
Users
that
would
try
to
switch
vendors
would
be
able
to
write,
and
so
I
think
there
has
to
be
some.
E
You
know
and
I
would
encourage
that
the
project
themselves
has
to
assert
why
they
think
they're
fulfilling
this
criteria.
Not
just
ask
the
TOC
to
be
more
specific
about
the
criteria
like
elaborate
a
little
bit
and
then
we
can
like,
and
then
the
TOC
can
kind
of
evaluate,
like
okay,
here's
what
more
of
what
we'd
like
to
see
in
this
direction.
F
And
then
I
think
you
know
it's
worth
reiterating
that
there's
always
a
level
of
judgment
with
respect
to
the
TOC
in
these
things,
and
so
there
is
no
sort
of
like
if
you
check
all
the
boxes
and
like
everybody
hands
our
time
you
automatically
get
promoted
here.
I
think
that
you
know
these.
You
know
the
criteria.
There
are
a
guideline
I
think
it's
a
guideline
both
for
the
TOC
and
for
the
projects,
but
I,
you
know,
I,
don't
think
we're
trying
to
foresee
every
situation
and
every
you
know
every
possible
eventuality
here.
I.