►
From YouTube: CNCF TOC Meeting 06-14-2022
Description
CNCF TOC Meeting 06-14-2022
B
D
C
D
I
was
just
gonna
say
the
idea
looks
good,
it's
more
like
a
discovery
thing
to
see
what's
running
in
which
cluster,
but
I
agree
also
because,
like
one
contributor,
basically
has
all
the
commits
and
there's
a
second
one
that
starts
to
pick
up,
but
it's
been
like
all.
The
rest
is
very
small
contributions.
E
Yeah
very
young,
but
it
seems
like
a
well-situated
project
and
I
can
see
a
need
for
it
in
the
space.
The
only
concern
that
I
have
is
around
the
resource,
editing
capabilities
and
the
access
control
associated
with
that
because
originally
reading
through
the
documentation
sounds
like
it's
read
only
so
it's
stateless
checks,
I'm
providing
that
information
back
but
later
on.
E
B
D
F
Yeah
this
makes
sense,
one
person
may
have
done
the
heavy
lifting
and
the
other
person
has
more
than
10
of
the
commits.
Although
I
haven't
looked
at
lines
of
code
in
real
code
right,
but
there
are
some
other
people
coming
along
and
it,
like
others,
have
said
it's
a
legitimate
use
case.
I
didn't
realize.
I
guess
I
need
to
go
look
deeper
about
the
editing
capabilities.
I
only
went
through
the
viewing
capabilities,
which
is
where
I'd
seen
the
need
so
yeah.
F
B
B
G
G
G
A
B
D
E
B
I
Actually,
I
was
I
was
thinking
if
there
is
a
possibility
for
them
to
collaborate
with
one
of
the
community,
seeks
more
closely
and
maybe
have
a
cap
around
it
and
enhance
to
bring
this
overall,
rather
than
just
having
as
an
independent
project,
I'm
trying
to
understand
how
it
will
survive
as
well,
because
looking
at
the
road
maps,
I
can
see
that
he
has
support
from
the
cluster.
That's
great
but
like
what's
next,
because
I
feel
like
it's
going
to
struggle
to
to
have
extra
enhancements
to
itself
as
a
project.
F
D
B
E
B
A
B
D
Yeah
I
had
a
couple
of
questions
like
like.
Clearly,
the
project
is
seems
popular
and
has
traction
there's,
but
there's
two
parts:
one
is
that
they
mention
a
specification
for
open
cost
and
then
the
implementation-
and
it's
it's
also
not
clear
if
open
cost
is
the
full
good
cost
or
if
it's
like
a
bit
of
good
cost.
That
was
the
only
question
I
had
is
like.
What's
the
relationship
with
cost
moving
forward,
and
is
there
anything
being
kept
only
into
cost?
That
is
not
an
open
cost?
I
think
things
like
this.
E
B
C
E
So
that's
actually
a
good
good
thing
to
call
out
since
the
since
this
project
both
includes
a
specification
and
a
reference
implementation.
The
intent
is
to
keep
them
as
a
singular
project
correct
instead
of
breaking
them
apart,
because
we
have,
I
think
we
have
a
little
bit
of
both
within
the
foundation
where
we
have
just
a
spec,
that's
its
own
project
and
then
a
separate
one
as
a
reference
implementation
and,
in
other
cases,
they're
merged.
B
F
D
I
So
I
had
one
question
in
regards
to
the
management
of
the
project
because
kind
of
it
separated
from
cost
initially
and
a
lot
of
community
members
and
what
like
of
contacts
they
refer
to
keep
cost.
Do
we
want
that
to
be
separate
like
to
be
open
cost
only,
and
it
has
like
its
own
management
community
rather
than
allocating
that
or
for
it
to
follow
under
a
company
overall.
I
I
I
C
I
B
B
B
They'll
review
the
recording
anyway,
so
it
should
be
fine.
Okay,
we
can
move
on
yeah
iraqi
mesh
is
the
next
one.
We
are
on
five
iraqi
mesh
so
who
is
able
to
talk
about
araki
mesh
lots
of
networking
stuff
here,
and
they
were
talking
about
an
envoy
doesn't
really
want
to
deal
with
non-http
protocols,
so
they
want
to
do
more
of
those.
F
E
E
F
I
D
B
F
Well,
you
know
if
we
think
of
it
as
an
extension
on
top
of
istio
or
something
that
works
with
it.
Other
projects
that
only
work
with
kubernetes
and
say
don't
work
with
one
of
the
other
schedulers
out
there.
We
don't
tell
them
that
they
need
to
go
work
with
two
schedulers,
so
when
it
comes
to
something
that
kind
of
extends
or
adds
on
to
something.
F
I
I
think
this
calls
under
like
from
my
perspective,
I
feel
like
they
should
be
on
the
project
roadmap,
because
it's
it's
in
their
interest
to
grow
their
use
cases
and
adoption.
So
I
presume,
if
there's
going
to
be
more
interest
in
other
integrations,
I
think
they
should
prioritize
that,
but
I
don't
think
it
should
fall
under
us
if
they
don't
do
that.
Like
inevitably
like
it's
going
to
happen
that
they
will
fade
away
within
the
landscape
or
they're
just
going
to
survive
on
the
few
use
cases.
B
D
Yeah,
I
agree
I
just
wanted
to
add
like
I
mentioned
earlier,
but
I
do
think
the
project
is
very
cool
like
adding
non-http
or
grpc
support,
but
they
do
mention
that
the
added
value
is
to
like
be
the
top
player
without
integrating
with
one
solution.
So
it's
kind
of
fair
to
say
that
they
should
look
at
other
service
mesh
implementations
as
well.
D
C
I
Am
happy
to
kind
of
vote
on
it
like
because
I'm
a
bit
concerned
about
emily's
comment
on
like
which
they
should
streamline
the
contributions
it
shouldn't
be
gatekeeped
by
one
person.
So
if
the
caveat
is
that
the
contributing
guidelines
are
gonna,
be
updated,
I'm
gonna
I'm
happy
to
vote
on
it.
Otherwise,
I'm
happy
to
kind
of
maybe
rethink
this
a
bit.
B
B
B
Yeah
we
got
it
okay,
so
the
next
one
is
curve
curve
came
to
us
before
and
we
sent
it
to
six
storage
attack.
Storage
rather
and
the
tax
storage
came
back
with
the
recommendation
to
accept
it,
as
you
know,
a
sandbox
project,
so
I
think
they
are
okay
with
it.
If
they
are
okay
with
it,
I
think
we
should
be
okay
with
it
too,
but
let's
just
go
through
the
usual
things
and
make
sure
that
things
are
okay,.
C
B
B
C
B
C
F
Yeah
because
they
it
looks
like
they're
vendoring
in
the
outside
tools,
which
means
they're
distributing
and,
and
they
have
it
it's
not
like
in
their
environment.
They
just
go
and
install
it
right
and
use
what's
already
existing,
because
there
are
certain
rules
around
exception
if
it's
included
in
your
distro
and
how
that
happens.
C
D
D
B
Usually,
we
work
through
this,
the
processes
that
we
have
with
annual
reviews,
and
things
like
that,
where
we
tone
down
what
people
are
claiming
and
make
them
play
fair
with
each
other,
you
know
propose
some
benchmarks
or
something
where
both
of
them
can
you
know
multiple
projects
can
run
the
same
benchmarks
and
say
something
about
it.
I
guess.
I
B
A
B
B
F
D
F
It's
configuring,
its
configuration
management
around
feature
flags
for
your
application,
and
the
system
they
have
here
is
it
looks
like
it's
pluggable
and
it's
spec
based.
So
while
they've
got
a
reference,
implementation
and
sdks
to
work
with
it,
they
also
have
a
spec.
So
you
can
swap
out
things
in
the
background,
and
here
they
compare
to
some
others.
So
if
you
go
look
at
something
like
flagsmith
they're
doing
that
same
kind
of
thing
of
the
the
feature
flag,
stuff,
okay,.
F
And
this
is
an
open
source,
one
built
around
kubernetes
and
cloud
native
technologies
where
the
other
ones,
if
you
start
looking
at
them
like
flagsmith
and
cloudbees
you're,
looking
at
things
that
are
either
proprietary
or
outside
of
the
cloud
native
architectures,
okay,
that's
their
their
their
differentiators
to
say
it's
built
on
the
cloud
native
stuff,
rather
than
the
proprietary
or
just
stuff.
Outside
of
that.
E
F
The
operator
is
a
way
of
having
kind
of
that
reference
implementation,
and
then
how
is
it
connected
up
to
the
things
in
your
cluster?
Okay,
right?
It's
it's
they're,
using
cloud
native
technologies.
How
do
you
get
this
stuff
inside
of
kubernetes
and
specify
your
fly
configurations
using
kubernetes
stuff.
D
B
Yes,
it
passes
yeah,
let's
go
to
cube
warden
now.
Q
warden
is
policy
engine
web
assembly
similar
to
what
oppa
does,
I
guess,
distributed
using
regular
container
registries,
and
so
the
difference
is
oppa
is
regular.
Only
and
here
they
are
saying
you
can
use
wasm
and
you
can
use
any
language
of
your
choice
that
wasn't
supports.
E
E
E
B
E
F
I
So
so
one
of
my
questions
here
is
like
it
might
not
be
something
for
for
sandbox
review,
but
in
the
future
I
see
like
a
lot
of
components
being
part
of
keyboarding
going
back
to
operator
hub.
Actually
it
was
what
was
the
project
called?
We
actually
had
to
split
it
up.
The
hub
itself
was
a
standalone
project
that
we
voted
on
with
operator
sdk.
That
was
the
one
being
a
separate
in
the
future
as
well.
So
I
presume
like
once
some
of
the
these
consolidations
are
going
to
happen.
I
B
So
here
one
one
observation
here
is
all
of
these
are
from
q
wardens
itself,
and
if
you
look
at
the
you
know
url
for
the
container
image,
they
are
also
keyword
and
slash
policies.
So
I
there
is
no
third
party
that
has
added
their
own
stuff
here.
I
guess
this
is
just
a
way
for
them
to
show
a
ui
where
people
can
pick
things
up
from
easily.
B
L
Well
in
the
operator,
sdk
and
operator
hub
were
separated
out
because
the
operator
sdk
could
be
used
and
then
those
assets
not
hosted
within
operator
hub,
if
you
wanted
to
so
there
was
also
some
legality
around
the
hosting
that
the
two
needed
to
be
separated
katie.
So
I
think
it's
a
great
like
parallel
to
this,
but
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
different
in
this,
offering
that
we
don't
have
the
the
weirdness
when
all
these
assets
just
feed
into
that.
F
H
E
Overall,
they
have
a
contributing
file,
decent
content,
no
community
meetups.
They
have
a
security
markdown
file,
which
is
the
first
one
out
of
the
ones
we've
reviewed,
but
it's
a
template,
so
it
doesn't
really
help
and
there's
one
primary
contributor.
It's
super
early
doesn't
look
like
there's
been
a
ton
of
activity.
F
C
D
D
C
E
C
B
E
It's
a
tool,
it's
a
tool
stack
builder,
it
marico
is
the
company
behind
it,
and
devstream
is
one
of
their
two
open
source
offerings
that
they
have.
They
have
good
documentation,
a
good
roadmap,
consistent
contributions,
two
main
contributors,
community
meetups
and
a
slack,
and
they
also
have
security
files
as
well,
which
is
nice.
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
F
B
C
C
B
D
I
I
Another
thing
which
I
was
kind
of
observed
is
that
the
issues
at
the
moment
they're
not
very
well
managed
they
don't
have
descriptions
they
open
by
contributors,
but
it
only
has
the
title
of
the
issue
and
that's
pretty
much
it,
which
makes
it
very
difficult
for
inviting
for
our
contributors
from
the
outside.
So
I
would
like
to
see
a
better
management
of
that
as
well,
so.
B
B
L
And
I
like
the
idea
of
it,
and
I
mean,
and
to
your
point
katie
about
your
feedback.
I
don't
know
that
we
typically
expect
timelines
for
sample
box,
though
it's
like
yeah,
is
there
anything
blocking
it
and
does
it
have
potential
of
something
more
fully
formed
that
we
would
want
it
to
go
into
incubation?
I
think
it
does
fill
a
void
today
that
it's
difficult
to
manage
these
things
across
cloud
providers.
E
L
E
They
also
mention
using
contour
as
the
ingress
service
and
given
the
email
messaging
that
we
got
earlier
about
contour,
that
might
be
a
potential
issue
for
them
to
be
successful.
Moving
forward,
I
overall
I'm
not
comfortable
with
the
lack
of
clarity
and
what
it
is
that
they're
hoping
to
accomplish
or
how
they're
actually
going
to
go
about
it
and
what
all
this
request
entails.
B
I
Is
there
been
a
tag
they
they
spoke
with?
Maybe
this
is
the
thing,
but
maybe
maybe
that's
going
to
clarify
a
bit
of
the
message
in
the
topic
because,
like
as
emily
mentioned
like,
if
you
bring
this
to
a
vote,
I
would
kind
of
hold
myself
because
I
don't
have
enough
clarity.
Like
generally
I
I
am
not
clear
where
exactly
we
put
this
project
within
the
landscape,
so.