►
From YouTube: CDF - SIG Events Meeting - 2021.11.30
Description
For more Continuous Delivery Foundation content, check out our blog: https://cd.foundation/blog/
B
A
A
C
C
A
D
A
C
A
I'm
just
happy
to
do
a
review
if
they,
if
you
want
some
some
help
in
that
area.
I
can't
guarantee
today
that
I
I
can't
spend
time
on
actually
creating
presentation,
but
I
can
probably
review
it,
but
we
shouldn't.
We
have
a
discussion
on
slack,
maybe
when
it's
when
it's
out
there,
so
we
can
have
more
decisions
on
how
to
proceed.
D
B
D
Yeah
I
I
would
still
claim
that
that
having
something
like
this
and
having
the
intention
to
present
something
is
a
good
focus
thing
getting
us
to
actually
push
through
some
stuff.
So
I
see
this
as
positive
and
I
think
they
mentioned
on
their
web
page
that
actual
presentations
would
be
pre-recorded,
but
the
q,
a
sessions
afterwards
would
be
live.
Something
like
that,
but
that's
quite
good.
C
C
As
far
as
I
know-
yes
yeah-
I
don't
know
if
they
have
anything
like
personal
photo
sessions
or
just
playing
discussion
rooms,
I've
always
been
to
presentations
there
I
mean
it
was
in
person,
it's
it's
nice
that
you
can
meet
the
people
in
the
discussions
and
the
corridors,
but
the
virtual
format
is
not
very
good
for
that.
So.
B
C
C
C
C
A
C
So
after
this,
then
we
will
start
committees
responsible
for
setting
up
the
election
process
and
scheduling
and
running
the
election
for
the
next
committees
and
set
up
the
charter
for
the
project
yeah.
So
it's
going
to
be
a
transition
process
and
defining
the
contribution
process
as
well
as
responsibility
of
the
nature
committee.
So
what
are
the
roles
for
the
contributors
to
the
project?
And
I
mean
this
is
probably
going
to
be
relatively
straightforward.
C
It's
a
relatively
small
community,
but
there
are
a
few
things
like
okay.
Do
we
want
to
see
la
enforcement,
for
instance,
and
the
code
of
contact
is
already
there.
Contact
is
already
there
thanks
to
steve,
and
initially
the
members
of
the
committee
would
be
responsible
for
responding
to
any
content
violations.
A
A
C
A
A
Maybe
related
to
that
is
I
mean
now
we
are
four
of
the
persons
there
are
in
europe
time
time
zone
and
one
is
in
western
america
if
it's
easier
to
find
a
time
slot.
If
we
should
discuss
these
things
more
regularly
or
more
frequently,
that
would
maybe
be
beneficial
to
to
be
able
to
have
it
in
day
times,
let's
say
in
european
time
zone,
but
maybe
that's
not
possible,
since
steve
is
in
the
distance
as
well.
A
A
C
Yeah,
I
don't
mind
either
way.
I
don't
feel
too
much
pressure
in
having
this
moving
sweetly
forward,
because
it's,
I
think
I
would
like
the
focus
of
the
group
to
be
on
actually
moving
forward
with
the
with
the
content
rather
than
the
governance
part.
But
so
I
wouldn't
mind
if
this
takes
a
bit
longer
on
my
side,
but.
E
Yeah,
if
you
look
at
how
open
telemetry
did
it,
they
had
it
set
up
very
specific,
like
how
long
the
initial
committee
and
governing
structures
are
in
place,
what
type
of
voting
structures
that
they
had.
So
I
think
they
have
to
find
it
pretty
well,
and
I
mean
they
have
like
really
put
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
in
defining
it.
E
I
think
you
need
at
least
half
a
year
realistically,
because,
usually
depending
on
how
you
structure
it,
you
might
want
to
put
in
there
that
only
people
can
be
there
for
governance
role
to
have
a
relevant
number
of
contributions
which,
depending
on
how
you
find
it
like
20
contributions,
which
might
either
be
pr
or
dogs
or
whatever
it
is
so
they're
willing
to
run,
and
you
have
to
give
people
time
to
actually
reach
that
level.
So,
if
you
would
do
it
in
two
or
three
months,
it
would
be
very
hard
to
make
this
possible.
E
However,
if
you
give
them
six
months,
you
would
assume
that
most
people
actually
get
a
fair
chance
to
contribute
to
a
level
level
where
they
would
be
eligible
to
also
participate
in
in
this
kind
of
like
voting
activity,
and
they
refill
their
prerequisites,
because
what
you
usually
want
to
avoid
honestly
is
to
just
people
saying
I
want
to
be
on
a
governance
board
and
they
have
never
done
anything
with
the
approach
and
not
really
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
it.
I'm
trying
to
find
them.
A
E
E
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
what
is
so
important
and
is
really
the
outreach
program
like
how
do
we
get
more
people
like
to
join
in
like
gitlab
others,
who
should
be
part
of
this
and
really
actively
engage
with
them?
I
think
that
would
be
super
important
to
really
ensure
that
you
have
the
the
proper
momentum
on
the
on
the
project.
E
E
That's
also
why,
like
posting,
the
open,
telemetry
one,
you
usually
have
an
overlap
like
how
many
people
of
the
bootstrap
committee
you
keep
in
there,
because
you
don't
want
to
always
vote
the
the
entire
committee,
because
you
want
to
have
some
continuation,
if
you
would
do
say
annual
or
b
annual
votes,
then
more
or
less
always
the
people
changes,
and
it
would
have
no
continuation
in
there.
That's
where
there's
always
usually
a
couple
of
seats
up
for
voting.
E
Initially,
it's
just
adding
people
to
the
initial
bootstrapping
committee
and
then
it's
it's
greatly.
People
not
having
their
turn
at
that
term
ending,
but
obviously
they
can
run
again
if
they
really
want
to.
So
that's
why
yeah?
That's
what
I
find
the
one
that
opened
telemetry
with
the
users.
I
think
it's
pretty
similar
to
what
kubernetes
uses
as
well.
I
think
that's
where
the
original,
how
we
do
it
as
well.
Also
sorry.
A
C
C
Writing
this
pack.
What
is
the
architecture
or
the
design
principles?
And
I
think
it's
a
very
good
document
to
have,
because
then
we
can
capture
there.
The
kind
of
discussion
we
are
having
in
this
meeting
about
the
different
type
of
events
that
we
want.
We
want
to
have
links
and
not
links.
Do
we
want
to
have
context
and
all
the
kind,
those
kind
of
discussions?
I
think
it's
good
to
capture
them
in
this
primary
document.
Now
they
are
just
stops,
but
I
think
it's
good
to
have
them
in
the
repo.
C
A
Yeah-
it's
great,
I
guess
just
one
comment
that
maybe
is
that
I
mean
the
owner
of
the
railway-
is
currently
me
and
you
andrea,
and
I
think
we
added
someone
else
right,
but
we
should
probably
have
that,
but
that's
also
for
the
sikh
to
discuss.
I
guess,
but
the
booster
committee
should
be
probably
owners
of
this
repo,
but
we
can
talk
about
that
more
in
the
segment.
I
guess
yeah.
C
C
D
Steve
had
a
use
case
in
mind.
I
think
we
documented
it
on
the
previous
meeting,
something
like
jenkins,
building
jenkins
containerizing
handing
over
to
I
don't
remember
it
was
argo
or
something
to
do
something
and
then
doing
something
happen.
Yeah
you
have
it
there
so
docker
build
signature,
deploy
and
approval
gate.
It's
like
line
60,
yeah,
60.
D
B
Yeah
I
mean
that
could
be
a
use
case.
I'm
going
to
be
pretty
defined
that
the
thing
I
like
we
use
in
4ks
was
that
it
was
pretty
defined
on
on
what
they
needed
in
order
to
to
produce
their
metrics.
So
basically,
you
already
had
kind
of
like
we
need
this
information,
so
we
could
just
match
it.
So
that
was
why
I
was
thought
it
was
a
good
idea.
D
Yeah
because
I
believe
the
four
keys
use
case
is
very
different
from
this
jenkins
use
case,
for
instance,
because
in
the
four
case,
if
I
don't
remember
entirely
wrong,
that
would
be
more
akin
to
like
collecting,
metrics
and
stuff
like
that,
which
you
could
also
do
in
an
event-based
system
or
with
an
event
protocol,
but
it
wouldn't
be
like
driving
a
pipeline
like
this,
so
being
able
to
show
both.
Those
use
cases,
at
least
in
theory,
would
help,
show
the
width
or
breadth
of
what
you
can
do
with
the
event-based
ci
cd.
B
E
And
one
other
use
case
for
me
still
that
remediation
use
case,
which
is
also
actually
part
of
four
keys,
because
if
you
remember
when
we
had
the
four
keys
discussion,
we
also
had
all
the
topics
in
there
like
mean
time
to
resolution.
So
we
need
to
know
that
a
currently
deployed
version
of
a
software
is
having
an
issue.
That's
like
the
problem.
C
C
B
C
C
Yeah
yeah
personally,
I
also
like
what
eric
was
saying
that
it's
a
different
kind
of
scenario
from
the
previous
use
poc.
So
it's
not
driving
the
pipeline
through
components,
but
it's
getting
events
from
multiple
components
and
makes
sense
of
them
across
components.
So
it's
it's
an
interesting,
it's
a
different!
A
C
A
C
E
E
I'm
also
fine.
If
we
say,
let's
merge
everything
over
which
we
have
right
now
to
have
a
state
from
which
we
can
work
and
then
starting
to
work
from
it
or
we
say
well,
let's
try
to
get
it
into
the
very
first
version
which
regrettably
merge
over.
So
this
is
more
a
procedural
question.
How
you
want
to
address
this.
B
B
E
E
C
Yes,
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
issues
that
we
need
to
address
and
a
lot
of
changes
that
we
need
to
make.
So
I
I
agree
that
so
my
fault
was,
let's,
let's
at
least
have
a
base
version
in,
and
so
we
can
then
start
doing
incremental
changes.
So
if
that's
okay
with
you
always-
and
we
can-
you
can
manage
this
and
yeah.
It
sounds
great,
get
consistency
on
the
naming
for
the
events
and
identify.
E
E
I
think
we
have
currently
a
note
in
there
that
matthew
only
changed
that
request.
That
says:
okay,
this
is
currently
work
in
progress
which
it
actually
is
by
the
events
sick,
which
actually
should
be
removed
as
a
wording.
So
you're
welcome
to
join
the
work
and
discussion.
I
would
actually
say
you
shouldn't
actually
yet
implement
this.
I
think
we
should
give
it
like.
Maybe
then
also
an
official
version
number,
potentially,
I
think
of
how
we
can
have
like
this
is
like
version
0.01
or
at
least
take
it.
C
E
C
Okay,
yeah,
I
will
update
the
qr
accordingly.
Yeah
makes
sense
yeah.
I
need
to
update
that
read
me
anyways,
which
I
have
not
done
to
do
at
the
link
to
it
and
yeah
another
comment
and
I
think
yeah
as
soon
as
we
we
start
having
something
that
we
think
we
can
release.
We
should
probably
defining
policies
as
well
in
terms
of
versioning
and
stability
of
the
spec
and
yeah,
so
that,
if
someone
implements
it,
you
know
what
to
expect.
A
A
E
Yeah
do
do
we
have
to
barrier.
Do
we
plan
to
have
a
versioning
md
in
there
to
describe
our
versioning
scheme
because
I'm
right
now
just
bluntly
honestly,
taking
stuff
over
from
open
telemetry,
which
has
in
the
like,
obviously
december,
but
also
like
alpha
beta
and
where
we
say
alpha
has
low
guarantees
very
high
likely
to
change
beta
first
people
starting
to
actively
implement
it
release
stable?
A
C
C
C
C
Indeed,
the
the
next
thing
that
I
had,
then
the
agenda
was
that
you're
going
through
the
discussions.
Do
we
want
to
do
that
or
I
mean?
Instead
we
could
start
working
on
a
roadmap
or
we
could
go
through
the
discussions
and
try
to
mark
what
what
we
think
we
need
to
decide
before.
We
can
do
it
here
that
one.
A
A
C
D
I
guess
in
general
the
the
discussions
that
lead
to
more
events
being
added
is
less
important
than
discussions
leading
to
what
we
already
have
here
being
changed
as
him
and
said.
We
should
should
at
least
try
to
make
sure
that
what
we
already
have
there,
we
we
don't
think
we
need
to
urgently
change
it.
D
And
maybe
I
misunderstood,
I
was
thinking
about
yeah.
Let's
comment
earlier,
the
like
prioritizing
discussions
that
lead
to
us
not
needing
to
make
backwards
incompatible
changes
later
on,
but
when
yeah,
when
it
comes
to
discussions,
I
guess
the
wiki
page
might
still
be
irrelevant.
If
we
want
to
look
at
something
right
now,.
D
D
D
A
D
They
so
say
that
that
we
have
a
a
production,
continuous
delivery
setup
and
we
get
the
teams
building
software
and
we
get
deliveries
from
suppliers,
and
we
want
to
push
all
that
through
to
get
into
the
the
actual
car.
That's
what
we
call
the
production
environment,
everything
that
is
involved
all
the
services,
all
the
servers,
all
the
test,
environments
or
test
rigs.
All
that
stuff
production,
then
separately.
We
have
a
development
environment
where
we
like
test
new
test
cases
and
test
new
ways
of
of
working
with
continuous
delivery.
D
B
So
maybe
you
want
to
define
your
whole
environment
and
you
want
to
define
the
the
other
environments
inside
of
it,
because
you
might
want
to
point
to
okay.
This
test
case
was
run
on
on
this
specific
environment,
which
might
be
a
hardware
or
something
so
you
might
want
that.
But
you
also
want
to
show
that.
D
A
C
C
C
C
B
B
Yeah,
I
think
it
was
added
there
to
as
the
remaining
people
coming
from
like
a
cloud
or
out
of
the
client
out
here
and
there
it
makes
sense
to
actually
you
know
that
you're
you
all
you
deploy
something
and
you
create
an
environment
that
is
a
runnable
image
or
something
and
deploy
it.
So
that's
why
they
wanted
to
have
environment.
I
guess.
C
Okay,
oh
it's
five!
Already,
okay,
I
guess
very
time
I
hope
this
was
was
useful.
Maybe
next
time
we
can
try
and
bring
some
thoughts
on
how
to
ensure
that
the
discussion
is
yeah.
If
we
feel
that
this
the
structure
of
meeting
is
working
or
if
we
yeah
how
we
can
focus
the
discussion
to
make
sure
we
make
the
best
the
most
progress.