►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 2023-07-18
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 2023-07-18
A
C
C
B
B
As
a
quick
reminder,
your
attendance
and
participation
in
these
meetings
means
that
you
comply
with
Linux
foundation's
Anti-Trust
policy
notice
if
you're
curious,
what
that
is
URL
is
on
the
slide
I'm
going
to
Endeavor
to
fulfill
the
role
of
presenter
in
Amy's
absence
today.
You're
here
you
know
the
meeting
Logistics.
B
We
have
several
Toc
members
present
here
today,
but
it
doesn't
look
like
we
have
everyone
and
I,
don't
think
we're
doing
any
sort
of
voting
so
that
we
would
need
Quorum.
So
this
is
going
to
be
a
discussion,
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
sandbox
annual
reviews,
how
annual
reviews
are
conducted.
What
should
the
evaluation
and
process
look
like
when
we're
considering
annual
reviews
for
sandbox
how
we
should
vote?
B
The
reason
why
this
is
coming
up
is,
as
you
all
know,
we
have
a
lot
of
sandbox
projects
and
they
are
to
submit
annual
reviews
to
the
TOC
at
least
annually,
and
as
a
result
of
that,
we
now
have
over
30
I.
Think
last
time,
I
checked.
We
have
35
open,
sandbox
reviews
in
the
past
when
we
had
about
10
or
12.
It
was
very
easy
for
the
TOC
members
to
either
pick
up
one
review.
B
It
engage
with
the
project
check
in
with
them
and
then
do
a
report
out
or
in
bulk
sitting
through
our
Toc
meeting,
reviewing
all
the
content
of
the
annual
reviews
and
then
doing
a
bulk
approval
of
them.
So
that's
kind
of
how
we've
done
it
in
the
past,
but
through
various
conversations
with
COC
and
tag
chairs
and
tag
members
we'd
like
to
returns
in
box
annual
reviews
to
the
tags.
B
We're
not
entirely
sure
what
the
process
looks
like
some
of
the
recommendations
include
when
a
tag
is
complete,
reviewing
a
Sandbox
annual
review
that
they
could
provide
a
comment
on
the
pr
and
any
concerns
that
show
up
as
part
of
that
review
go
to
the
TOC
liaison
for
remediation.
So
those
are
just
some
of
the
ideas.
B
Let
me
go
back
one
slide.
In
the
past
we
had
annual
reviews
that
were
that
were
executed
by
tags.
During
that
time,
there
wasn't
really
any
guidance
on
what
needed
to
happen
as
part
of
an
annual
review
process
by
a
tag
member
or
by
a
Toc
member,
and
in
fact
we
don't
have
this
clearly
documented.
Today
we
do
have
a
template
that
sandbox
projects
fill
in
when
they
submit
for
their
annual
review,
but
it's
not
necessarily
consistent
across
all
the
projects
that
are
completing
the
various
areas.
B
B
Today
we
could
probably
go
ahead
and
get
started
with
that.
So,
let's
figure
out,
let
me
go
back
a
slide,
so
there's
that
how
to
conduct
the
annual
review
and
evaluating
it
and
voting
it.
The
one
thing
I
didn't
include
in
here
clearly
I
should
have
is
the
alignment
of
a
project
to
a
particular
tag
or
a
domain
within
the
landscape
right
now,
the
way
the
annual
review
process
works
is
when
to
when
a
project
submits
an
annual
review.
B
They
are
not
affixing
a
label
for
the
corresponding
tab
that
they
belong
to,
and
this
is
an
ongoing
question
and
activity
that
the
TOC
engages
in
is
looking
at
a
project
figuring
out
what
the
appropriate
tag
is
figuring
out
where
they
are
in
the
landscape.
So
what
we've
done
this
go
around
is
go
through
and
assign
what
we
believe
to
be
the
correct
tag
for
each
project.
B
I'm
catching
up
on
chat,
real
quick
Josh
says
it
might
be:
make
this
easier
on
tags
to
have
projects
involved
in
the
tag
on
an
ongoing
basis.
Yep,
that's
part
of
the
design
behind
moving
the
annual
reviews
back
to
the
tags
present
their
latest
for
a
couple
times
a
year,
Bob
has
a
plus
one
on
having
the
tags
more
involved,
Chris
added
in
it's
a
work
in
progress,
adding
metadata
to
the
cncf
landscape,
so
things
will
be
Associated
properly
and
more
automated.
We
have
some
rough
mapping.
Nikita
has
posted
an
issue.
Thank
you.
B
Nikita
and
Richie
added
a
strong
opinion
that
we
need
to
have
good
guidance
for
the
tags
agreed,
so
sounds
like
everyone's
in
agreement.
We
can
move
these
to
the
tags.
We
need
to
ensure
that
we
have
enough
process
in
place
for
consistency
and
some
of
the
tags
Karina.
Thank
you
for
bringing
that
up
have
a
hard
time,
keeping
up
with
the
regular
duties
and
it
has
not
yet
been
resolved
across
all
the
tags,
so
we're
starting
to
put
additional
guidance
in
place
to
hopefully
assist
them
in
the
past.
B
If
I
recall
correctly
in
tag
chairs,
if
you've
been
around
a
lot
longer
than
me,
please
chime
in
when
annual
reviews
for
sandbox
projects
were
with
the
tags.
They
did
receive
some
additional
contributions
or
attention
from
projects
through
those
regular
engagements
because
the
projects
were
sent
into
the
tags,
but
since
they
were
moved
out,
we
started
to
see
a
drop
off
in
a
lot
of
that
catching
up
on
chat.
B
The
tag
labels
in
landscape
for
projects
has
an
ongoing
issue
associated
with
it,
and
Bob
mentioned
that
having
Lou
liaison
sit
with
the
leads
to
go
through
a
few
of
the
reviews,
so
they
have
an
idea
to
look
for
ETC
yep.
That
sounds
like
a
good
how
more
integration
with
the
tags
in
the
two
you
see
the
better
okay.
D
I
was
also
thinking
that
we
should
probably
have
like
a
to
Richie's
Point
guiding
checklist.
So
that's
the
review
done
arbitrary
across
tags
and
it's
all
consistent
and
I
know.
We've
talked
about
probably
doing
something
similar
for
the
due
diligence
process
that
the
doc
does
for
incubating
and
graduating
once,
and
maybe
we
should
do
like
for
the
annual
reviews
as
well.
So
the
checklist
would
happen.
B
B
We
do
have
several
tags
that
don't
operate
in
a
traditional
technical
domain,
as
we
see
here.
That's
laid
out
on
this
tag.
Contributor
strategy
and
Tech
environmental
sustainability
are
two
that
really
stand
out
as
examples
of
this,
but
you
can
also
see
that
we
have
some
projects
that
well,
we
have
some
tags
where
we
have
a
lot
of
projects
associated
with
them.
Tag
runtime
is,
is
a
really
good
example.
B
So
we
also
need
to
be
able
to
right
size,
even
though
a
project
may
be
associated
with
a
particular
tags
domain
area,
if
they're
overburdened
they
might,
we
might
need
to
shift
something
elsewhere
to
another
tag.
Ricardo.
Thank
you
for
the
catch
on
open
elb.
Let
me
make
that
change
here.
I'll
have
to
go
back
in
and
fix
the
label
on
the
issue.
If
a
Toc
member
would
like
to
be
able
to
do
that,
that
would
be
lovely
so
moving
back
to
the
how.
B
So,
based
off
of
previous
discussions
that
we've
had
with
the
tags
in
the
TOC
and
how
the
TOC
has
historically
reviewed
sandbox
projects,
we've
done
it
at
least
two
different
ways:
I
pulled
together
some
initial
discussion
areas
around
what
does
evaluating
a
Sandbox
project,
look
like
from
an
annual
review.
Thank
you.
Nikita,
look
like
there's
two
slides
of
this.
B
So
if
everyone
is
good,
I'd
like
to
kind
of
go
through
and
discuss
them
and
see
if
these
make
sense
and
then
also
see,
if
there's
anything
that
is
missing
or
if,
if
we
need
to
try
this
a
different
way,
so
the
first
one
is
long-term
planning.
A
lot
of
sandbox
projects
come
to
us
when
we
accept
them
into
the
cncf
with
a
road
map
or
some
indicator
of
what
it
is,
that
they're
doing.
B
D
B
Seeing
more
folks
interested
and
then
development
is
ongoing
and
Progressive
towards
version
releases
so
that
they're
starting
to
think
about
how
they're
going
to
cut
releases
they're
thinking
about
how
they're
doing
versioning,
because
one
of
the
requirements
that
we
have
is
that
they
are
versioning
their
releases
and
that
the
project
doesn't
actually
appear
to
be
in
maintenance
or
sustainment
mode.
So
we
see
some
activity
going
on.
It
looks
like
they're
making
incremental
progress
for
some
projects.
B
E
B
And
then
project
viability
around
are
they
experiencing
some
form
of
community
growth
and
development
associated
with
that
that
they're,
starting
to
balance
project
development
with
contributors
that
are
interested
individuals
that
are
filing
issues
or
PR's
to
improve
the
project
for
their
particular
needs?
We
also
want
to
see
more
project
governance
associated
with
them.
B
They
understand
where
they're
at
from
a
maturity
perspective.
They
understand
what
else
they
need
to
do
if
they're
progressing
towards
incubation
and
how
far
they
are
from
it,
and
they
know
whether
or
not
they
feel
that
they're
ready
for
it.
So
those
are
kind
of
the
couple
of
areas
that
I've
pulled
out
of
our
past
discussions
on
evaluating
sandbox
projects.
The
intent
is
not
necessarily
to
develop
this
as
a
checklist
more
as
a
procedure
around
how
we
look
at
them.
B
The
problem
with
some
of
the
checklists,
especially
with
sandbox
projects,
is
because
they
cross
multiple
domains.
What
may
look
appropriate
for
One
Security
project
is
not
necessarily
going
to
be
the
same
for
a
networking
project
depending
on
how
much
attention
or
novelty
they
have
and
how
interested
contributors
and
adopt
are
in
that
any
questions,
comments,
Editions
clarification.
F
B
That's
a
really
good
question,
so
we
have
an
archive
process.
That's
already
defined,
it's
very
lightweight,
my
expectation
or
kind
of
where
my
head
is
at,
and
thinking
about.
This
is
if
a
tag
were
to
review
a
project
during
annual
review
and
find
that
they
look
like
they're
in
maintenance
mode
or
there's
a
lot
less
activity.
They
don't
seem
healthy.
It's
it
looks
basically
like
the
project
is
due
for
an
archive
or
we're
not
receiving
a
lot
of
attention.
B
Unfortunately,
we
are
starting
to
see
projects
reach
a
level
of
comfort
with
the
level
that
they
are
currently
sitting
in,
and
that
could
be
for
any
number
of
reasons.
We
don't
actually
Define
when
an
appropriate
amount
of
time
is
for
a
project
to
remain
in
sandbox,
because
it
varies
greatly,
but
I'm
curious.
What
other
Toc
members
perspectives
and
opinions
are
on
that.
C
I
think
there's
probably
it's
probably
a
good
idea
to
codify
that
we
don't
have
to
have
everyone
growing
at
all
kinds.
As
long
as
there's
maintenance
going
on
and
people
are
happy
to
sit
at
a
certain
level
making
it
explicit
that
this
is
actually
an
option,
maybe
reduces
the
strain.
Of
course
they
don't
perceive
a
a
post
majority
to
have
to
progress.
B
Yep,
that's
another
good
example
in
concern
area,
so
it
sounds
like
whatever
it
is
that
we
decided
from
a
process
perspective.
We
need
to
ensure
that
there's
accountability
for
archival
and
initiating
that,
if
necessary,
and
then
making
sure
that
there
is
Clarity
and
expectations
that
projects
may
not
be
leaving
sandbox
within
a
year
or
two
years
it
could
be
longer.
D
So
this
is
one
of
the
things
that
we
look
at
when
we
look
at
incubation
and
I
think
it
should
be
okay
if
a
project
has
not
grown
significantly,
but
if
they
call
out
what
they're
trying
to
do
to
make
this
better,
probably
tax
can
provide
guidance
all
right
kind
of
rephrasing
in
terms
of
just
where
do
you
start
right
now?
What's
the
state
of
the
product?
More
of
how
can
you
grow
instead?
D
B
Have
we
received
annual
reports
for
all
sandbox
projects?
Not
yet
so
the
current
process
is
it's
one
year
from
when
they
were
accepted,
so
projects
will
submit
annual
reviews,
periodically
I
believe
one
of
the
cncf
Bots
I
think
it's
Sheriff.
If
your
Bob
correct
me
has
been
notifying
projects
that
they're
due
for
their
annual
review,
Chris.
G
Yeah
definitely
we
started
to
do
some
automation
here,
where
we're
basically
poking
projects
that
they
should
go,
submit
their
annual
review
and
we're
kind
of
basing
that,
based
on
metadata
in
the
landscape
that
sees
when
their
latest
review
is
so
it's
kind
of
a
new
little
process.
Slash
automation,
thing
that
we're
doing
that
will
hopefully
spread
and
notify
all
maintainers
that
this
is
happening,
that
they
should
have
the
right
metadata
in
their
landscape.
For
this
to
work,
it
should
be
definitely
improved.
They'll
be
easier
to
track
all
this.
Hopefully,.
D
H
H
B
Yep,
we're
gonna
ask
is
the
danger,
if
the
dangerous
higher
for
many
projects,
to
stand
back
in
sandbox?
Does
that
risk
attracting
contributors,
since
there
is
no
guarantee
that
they
would
mature
I,
don't
know
that
we've
necessarily
seen
a
lot
of
projects
in
sandbox
that
want
to
stay
there
forever,
because
it
does
take
them
quite
a
bit
of
time
in
some
cases
to
move
levels.
B
So
I
don't
know
that
we
have
enough
data
to
be
able
to
reason
around
whether
or
not
there's
any
risk
there,
but
so
far
from
what
I've
seen
based
off
of
the
backlog,
Cube
that
the
TOC
has
for
incubation
applications,
they
are
receiving
contributors.
There
is
some
progress
that's
being
made,
but
we
have
not
done
a
good
job,
clarifying
kind
of
expectations
for
steps
to
be
able
to
move
into
incubation.
B
We
have
the
criteria
defined,
but
I
still
think
that
there
is
a
gap
between
sandbox
application
and
actually
being
ready
for
incubation
that
the
tags
could
definitely
assist.
A
lot
of
our
projects
in
fulfilling
Bob
had
replied
around
Josh's
concern
around
motivation
for
having
enough
contributors
within
the
tags
to
be
able
to
take
on
annual
reviews.
Definitely
making
some
of
the
responsibility
here
would
help.
But
Josh,
would
you
like
to
add
anything
else.
B
I,
it's
a
valid
concern
and
actually
that's
oops
skipped
ahead,
a
few
slides
so
that
that's
actually
something
that
we
should
be
bringing
up
is
the
sandbox
reviews
are
not
to
have
the
same
intensity
that
we
do
for
incubation
or
graduation,
because
these
are
still
very
early
projects,
they're
still
experimental,
they're
still
trying
to
find
their
footing
in
the
ecosystem.
So,
ideally,
these
are
pretty
lightweight.
There
may
be
circumstances
I
can
foresee
where
a
tag
starts.
B
Looking
at
a
particular
project
starts
digging
in
and
sees
like
some
things
seem
to
be
missing
or
that
they're
not
making
as
much
project
as
one
would
expect,
given
the
amount
of
attention
that
particular
subdomain
area
is
receiving.
Those
in
my
mind,
would
be
conversations
with
you
see
Liaisons,
but
there
is
definitely
an
opportunity
here
for
us
to
try
to
both
leverage
annual
reviews
to
increase
the
contributors
and
the
members
within
the
tag
community
and
ecosystem
to
better
distribute
this
work
like
and
see.
B
Ricardo
added
in
that
maybe
using
something
like
sessionize
would
be
excellent
for
managing
a
lot
of
this.
That's
certainly
something
that
we
can
talk
to
the
foundation
staff
about
to
see
if
that
works
right
now,
they're
through
PRS
and
there
with
the
template
that
we
have,
it
does
give
us
some
information.
B
I
know
sessions
does
have
some
questions
from
a
reviewing
perspective
that
we
can
leverage
but
making
sure
that
we
have
consistent
information
as
well
as
we've
talked
in
the
past
about
automating
some
of
the
information
that
goes
into
a
Sandbox
annual
review
understanding.
What
are
the
dev
stats
associated
with
it,
whether
or
not
they've
made
changes
to
some
of
these
files
to
reduce
the
amount
of
content
that
project
maintainers
are
required
to
provide
over
and
over
and
over
again,
if
we
can
automate
it
where
possible,
that'd
be
ideal.
B
So
that's
something
that
we
can
definitely
look
at
I
would
prefer
that
we
do
a
more
manual
process.
First
before
we
we
look
to
automate
it
with
other
tooling
to
assist
it
because
it's
easier
to
iterate
on
manual
activities,
see
catching
up.
Okay,
so
sounds
like
we
have
a
lot
of
things
that
we
need
to
figure
out
still
Josh.
You
came
off
mute.
I
Yeah
I
just
was
gonna
share.
I
love
the
idea
of
giving
something
concrete
what
you
said
before
about
the
having
a
project
being
able
to
tell
people
hey.
This
is
how
you
contribute
you
review
it,
and
I
was
just
gonna.
Let's
say
like
we've
started
kind
of
doing
on
my
tag
and
maybe
we'll
create
an
issue
for
each
thing
and
guide
in
that
issue.
The
reviewer
and
the
project
along.
B
B
B
We
could
do
it
in
bulk
and
mass
so
providing
a
due
date
associated
with
them
or
periodic
like
every
twice
or
every
other
month
check
in
on
the
current
status
of
Android
reviews,
if
they're
placed
in
a
state
that
says
it's
been
recommended
by
the
tag
and
the
TOC
can
just
get
jump
on
a
call
and
provide
that
voting.
So
there's
a
few
different
options.
There
I'm
curious
if
TUC
members,
if
you
have
a
preference
based
off
of
the
new,
get
vote
that
we've
been
leveraging
and
past
sandbox
reviews.
I
Oh
one
thing
I'll
share
is
that
I
was
at
an
end
user
company
at
some
point
and
there
was
an
architecture
review
board
and
you
know
the
Enterprise,
Architects
or
people.
You
know
with
significant
expertise
were
on
the
board
and
we
would
assign
individuals
from
the
board
to
kind
of
Mentor
or
support
a
project,
and
then
you
know
when
they
came
to
present
to
the
ARB.
That
person
would
come
along
with
them.
I
Often
that
person
would
give
their
perspective
after
the
project
gave
like
say:
oh
I
evaluated
an
XYZ,
maybe
that's
an
approach
like
we
assign
it
to
the
tag.
The
tag
assigns
a
person
to
Shepherd
to
mentor
and
then
that
Mentor
comes
with
the
project
to
talk
to
present.
You
know
for
five
minutes
or
something.
B
B
I
H
H
I
B
J
Thanks
Emily
I
already
mentioned
this
to
you,
but
not
necessarily
The
Wider
group,
as
sandbox
projects
are
coming
in
for
review.
Can
we
put
as
part
of
the
process?
Is
there
another
project
that
it
could
be
integrated
with?
Is
there
how
do
we
drive
more
efficiencies
within
the
ecosystem
versus
asking
more
people
to
do
more?
H
B
So
let's
talk
next
steps,
then,
so
the
TOC
has
over
30
of
these
to
do.
How
do
tags
chairs
members
and
Toc
members
feel
about?
Let's
start
with
a
lightweight
process
for
right
now,
and
the
Liaisons
will
partner
up
with
their
corresponding
tags
to
to
review
jointly
some
of
these
projects.
It
can
be
async.
It
can
be
on
a
call.
However,
you
all
wish
to
manage
your
time.
Does
that
make
sense,
probably
for
these
first
35
that
we
have
I'm
seeing
some
head
knots?
B
Okay,
we
also
need
to
ensure
that
no
single
tag
is
overburdened
with
the
volume
share
of
the
annual
reviews.
Does
anyone
have
a
preference
or
a
recommendation
for
how
to
divide
this
up?
I
had
previously
gone
through
and
Loosely
assigned
Toc
members
and
there's
only
so
many
of
us
to
look
through
them,
and
we
need
to
ensure
that
it's
an
equal
distribution
among
everyone.
So
what
it?
How
do
you
all
feel
I'd
be
curious
to
hear
from
TAG
runtime
because
they
have
the
bulk
of
the
work.
F
Let's
see
if
we
can
get
more
help
from
the
other
tags,
but
but
yeah
you
know
we
can
get
started.
We
just
what
you
know
the
list
and
start
knocking
them
out,
one
by
one
and
okay
yeah,
but
but
I
think
tag
environment,
environmental
sustainability
offer
to
help.
So
maybe
we
guess
get
some
help
from
them.
C
C
B
E
G
B
B
So
let
me
catch
up
on
meeting
chat,
real
quick
stream,
G,
okay
and
then,
whether
or
not
members
outside
of
official
tags
in
Toc
could
be
invited
to
Shadow
to
understand
how
these
reviews
are
done.
You
can
volunteer
review
the
issues
created,
for
these
might
help
to
get
a
second
line
prepared
for
the
next
round.
Yep,
that's
fair,
I!
I!
Don't
see
that
as
being
a
problem
tag.
B
Membership
is
not
an
official
thing
that
you
have
to
apply
for
it's
more
about
participation
in
an
area
that
you're
interested
in
and
being
available
and
present
to
do
the
work.
So
that's
something
Krishna
if
you're
interested
in
doing
this
definitely
select
a
tag,
pick
a
domain
and
volunteer
to
assist
it's
a
learning
process
for
everyone,
especially
since
this
will
be
new
for
us
all
right.
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
I'm
going
to
take
the
action
to
go
through
and
try
to
rough
in
that
lightweight
framework.
B
If
there
is
another
tag,
member
or
to
see
a
member
or
Community
member
on
the
call
that
is
interested
in
participating
in
assisting
or
having
your
ideas
captured,
please
DM
me
and
suck
I'll
be
more
than
happy
to
take
your
assistance
and
then
once
we
have
that
done,
I'm
going
to
shoot
for
the
next
two
weeks.
I'll
share
that
out
in
the
public
Toc
channel
in
slack
and
on
the
mailing
list.
That
way,
we
can
propose
like
a
rough
timeline
for
how
we
want
to
get
started
with
this,
for
Vegas
should
be
storage.