►
From YouTube: CDF TOC Meeting - 2021-09-14
Description
For more Continuous Delivery Foundation content, check out our blog: https://cd.foundation/blog/
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
The
only
links
that
are
updated,
oleg
are
jenkins
and
ortillius,
and
I
think,
if
screwdrivers
planning
on
participating,
if
you
have
a
url,
that
you
can
send
over
to
me
with
the
instructions
on
how
the
community
can
get
involved
in
your
in
in
whatever
you're
doing
for
hacktoberfest,
send
that
over
to
me.
So
I
can
link
it
but
yeah.
So
far.
It's
only
been
jenkins
and
ortelius.
A
So
yeah
it
would
be
nice
if
we
could
do
something,
but
I
guess
we
are
going
to
announce
it
anyway
and
yeah.
Probably,
we
need
to
adjust
announcements
for
projects
that
do
not
participate
or
maybe
create
a
placeholder,
because
I'm
pretty
sure
that
picton
or
shipwright
have
a
lot
of
newcomer
friendly
issues
same
for
spinnakers
or
jenkins,
so
maybe
for
the
projects
that
don't
have
a
landing
page.
We
could
just
link
newcomer
friendly
issues.
F
A
C
I
mean
as
soon
as
it's
ready
as
soon
as
the
community
are
ready
with
like,
like
I
said,
kind
of
like
how
ortillius
did
it
or
how
the
jenkins
community
did
it
that
they
created
like
a
blog
with
instructions
on
like
what
kind
of
tickets
where
to
find
the
tickets,
how
to
get
started
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
those
are
really
two
good
examples.
So
take
a
look
at
that
when
you're
ready
just
send
me
the
link
over
and
I'll
update
it
on
our
page.
A
G
Yeah
yeah,
I
don't
know
that
we
have
much
to
say
on
this
one.
So
the
only
thing
tracy
came
back
with
a
potential
date
in
2022
from
the
third
party
that
would
perform
the
security
audit,
so
we
we
plan
to
discuss
it
actually
in
a
meeting
after
this,
the
government
support
whether
this
is
fine
and
we
want
to
try
to
push
for
an
earlier
date.
A
G
Yeah
yeah
so
just
to
to
give
a
complete
picture
of
what
happens
till
now.
So
we
had
an
initial
meeting
with
the
folks
from
forget
their
name.
Sorry
trace
of
it.
That's
the
name
of
the
company
and
yeah,
so
we
discussed
about
what
it
would
look
like
and
yeah,
so
tracer
b
just
went
back
and
looked
at
their
schedule
and
they
proposed
2022
for
starting
the
process.
G
A
D
So
we
have,
we
have
done
both.
We
do
have
an
internal
paranoid
teams
who
are
responsible
for
security
for
the
entire
enterprise
organization
and
they
constantly
bring
in
third
party.
It
doesn't,
I
don't
recall,
quite
out
of
my
head,
what
were
the
names
but
because
this
is
something
which
is
used
internally
for
or
yahoo
application
bills
and
all
the
it's
being
audited
heavily
I'll
I'll
see
what
I
can
do
to
get
some
of
these
reports
in
public.
A
Yeah,
if
you
could
get
that
it
would
be
nice
yeah,
because
of
course,
it's
so
important
to
do
the
pattern
and
we
eventually
for
the
graduated
stage.
Of
course,
we
will
need
to
reintroduce
the
security
audit
requirement,
like
cncf
does
so
getting
information
and
experiences,
for
that
would
be
useful
yeah.
I
agree.
A
A
E
So
I
can.
I
responded
on
the
mailing
list
and
I
can
summarize
maybe
the
the
points
in
there
one
one
of
them.
I
don't
remember
which
order
they
were
in.
One
of
them
was
you're,
saying
reintroduce
the
stage
I
don't
think
cv.
Cdf
has
ever
had
a
sandbox
stage.
I,
but
I
don't
know
for
sure,
because
I
don't
know
how
far
back
the
history.
I
don't
know
the
history
all
the
way
back
so.
A
E
Yeah,
that's,
okay
and
if
it
wasn't
removed,
then
at
some
point
during
the
creation
of
the
process,
somebody
somewhere
must
have
said
you
know.
Cncf
has
sandbox,
but
cdf
won't
I'd
like
to
understand
a
bit
more
where
that
decision
came
from.
For
my
for
my
part,
we
recently
went
through
this
with
shipwright
and
didn't
find
the
process
to
be
terribly
difficult
or,
or
you
know
cumbersome.
So
I
don't.
I
I
personally
don't
have
the
feedback
that
the
current
stages
are
too
hard.
E
If
we're
getting
information
from
people
saying
like
I
would
you
know,
I
would
contribute
this
project,
but
the
the
requirements
are
too
high.
That
would
definitely
be
useful
to
steer
the
to
steer
the
conversation.
Do
we
have
projects
like
beating
down
the
door
but
unable
to
meet
the
incubating
requirements.
A
E
E
These
requirements
are
enough
to
stop
people
from
ever
reaching
out,
but
I
guess
I'm
asking
if,
if
anybody
knows,
if
we
suddenly
had
a
sandbox
stage
tomorrow,
would
you
donate
something
like?
Would
you
the
the
person
listening
to
this?
Whoever
it
is
have
something
that
could
could
meet
those
requirements
and
join.
A
Yeah,
so
we
have
a
few
projects
which
potentially
could
join
so,
for
example,
in
jenkins,
we
have
update
cli,
which
is
spin-off
project.
It
would
technically
we
discussed
it
with
maintainers.
They
would
be
interested
to
have
it
a
part
of
cdf,
but
it
doesn't
qualify
the
requirement
right
now,
because
there
are
just
two
independent
users,
not
three,
then
a
half
a
number
of
committers
I
do
adopt
with
three
or
four
contributors
qualifies
as
healthy
number,
ongoing
flow
of
commits
yeah.
It
does
and.
A
Clear
virginians,
yeah,
but
yeah.
The
main
question
is
here
is
adoption
because
for
projects
it
might
be
difficult
to
get
initial
adoption,
and
this
is
actually
where
this
tf
could
help.
So
if
we
had
a
sandbox
status,
so
the
project
gets
unboxed,
probably
it
gets
some
assistance
from
my
cdf
marketing
team
adopts
well
gets
adopted
by
some
users.
They
either
get
feedback
or
they
get
active
users.
In
any
case
it
might
be
available
for
us
yeah.
A
A
E
H
One
of
the
things
I
would
probably
recommend,
instead
of
doing
the
sandbox,
is
that
we
change
the
wording
here
on
the
incubation
stage,
where
it
says,
must
achieve
all
these
requirements
to
must
achieve
these
requirements
and
you
can
get
exceptions
from
the
toc
to
move
forward
outside
of
the
those
requirements.
So,
like
you're,
saying
two
independent
end
users
versus
three
and
they've
met
everything
else.
I
think
where
the
toc
could
go
ahead
and
vote
to
say
that
they
that
that
is
good
enough
to
get
by.
H
E
A
H
Okay,
so
what
was
happening
when
the
cncf
first
started-
and
it
was
really
just
coming
out-
you
know,
and
they
had
just
the
incubating
and
the
graduated
stages,
and
what
was
happening
was
they
were
letting
the
bar
to
get
into
incubating
stage
was
pretty
low
and
people
were
just
submitting
projects
without
any.
You
know
not
a
good
number
of
committers.
H
It
was
pretty.
You
know,
I
would
call
them
like
weak
projects,
and
what
would
happen
is
they
would
try
to
get
into
the
incubating
stage
of
the
cncf,
so
they
could
then
go
get
vc
funding,
so
it's
all
around
vcs,
looking
at
cncf
projects
and
going
and
picking
those
to
go
ahead
and
fund
them
as
part
of
the
process.
H
So
what
they
ended
up
doing
was
they
ended
up
raising
the
bar
a
little
bit
higher
on
the
incubating
stage
and
then
to
still
get
the
people
to
join.
They
created
the
sandbox
world,
because
what
they're
trying
to
do
is
trying
to
distinguish
to
vcs
that
this
is
a
sandbox
project
versus
an
incubated
project,
which
is
the
incubated
projects
were
more
serious
than
somebody
just
trying
to
troll
around
for
money.
A
E
So
I've-
actually
you
mentioned
earlier-
that
there
are
duplicate,
that
this
information
is
duplicated,
and
I
thought
this
actually
looked
wrong
because
shipwright
does
not
have
shipwright
does
not
meet
these
requirements.
We
do
meet
the
requirements
in
the
project.
Lifecycle,
documentation
which
is
duplicated
and
and
inconsistent.
E
Shipwright
doesn't
have
three
contributors
we
have
two
and
but
but
the,
but
the
incubation
requirements
are
like
sort
of
like
you
were
describing
for
sandbox
two
people
on
toc
approve
it
there's
a
steady
flow
of
commits.
It's
generally
looks
like
a
you
know,
a
healthy
project
it
adheres
to
the
ip
policy,
has
a
code
of
conduct.
Things
like
that.
I
think
these
are
the
requirements
that
shipwright
meets.
It
has
met,
is
meeting,
and
I
think
that
is
a
that.
E
This
reads
to
me
like
a
lower
bar
than
the
one
in
the
other
doc.
I
wonder
if
this
is
a
documentation
issue
that
we
should
just
deprecate
and
remove,
or
at
least
align
these
two
ducts
together
and
if,
in
the
process,
we
make
the
incubation
stage
more
like
this
version
and
less
like
the
other
version,
then
the
bar
will
be
lower
without
having
to
invent
a
new
stage
and
lower
without
having
to
lower
it.
E
H
And
one
thing,
just
in
general
that
I
think
is
a
a
misnomer
when
you
become
a
project
that
all
of
a
sudden
you're
going
to
get
people
wanting
to
contribute
that
just
doesn't
happen,
you
really
have
to
go
out
and
do
the
grassroots
and
reach
out
to
people
and
and
get
them
to
join.
That's
what
we
found
from
the
ortilla
side,
starting
up
from
scratch
that
people,
just
because
you
got
your
name
on
under
the
cdf,
doesn't
mean
you
all
suddenly
have
another
50
contributors.
A
A
Well,
we
briefly
discussed
it
with
tracy
when
we
had
this
sync
up.
So
what
was
my
proposal
for
that
that
sandbox
projects,
basically
yeah
and
onboarded
to
cdf
they
can
get
basic
assistance,
like
let's
say,
retweets,
etc,
but
at
the
same
time
I
wouldn't
expect
them
to
be
a
key
player
in
any
outreach
program,
so
yeah
social
media.
Maybe,
but
if
you
talk
about
any
bigger
problem
program,
you
rather
need
to
be
an
intuitive
project.
C
C
I
mean,
I
think,
if
I
think
of
it,
if
a
project
is
part
of
the
cd
foundation,
it's
gonna,
I
don't,
I
don't
think
it'll
differentiate
the
treatment
to
get
from
other
projects,
so
we'll
try
to
we'll
try
to
do
whatever
we
can
to
support
it.
Just
like
we've
been,
you
know
doing
with
all
of
the
other
projects
yeah,
so
I
wouldn't
make
any
change
there.
E
E
The
historical
context
of
the
cncf
sandbox
issue
is,
I
think,
really
useful,
because
we
we
don't
have
that
problem.
We
don't
seem
to
have
the
the
problem
that
cncf
sandbox
was
was
invented
to
solve.
So
if
we
were
to
create
a
sandbox
stage,
we
would
need
to
have
some
reason
for
it.
If
the
reason
for
it
is
some
different
reason
for
it,
if
the
reason
for
it
is
the
existing
incubating
bar
is
too
high,
we
can
just
lower
that
bar
in
in
ways
that
are
helpful.
E
It
sounds
like
there
isn't
even
a
clear
idea
among
us
what
the
bar
is
like
there's
at
least
two
bars,
and
maybe
three
so
so
resolving
that
seems
useful
and
would
probably
help
like
you
know.
If,
if
we
can't
tell
what
the
bar
is,
then
some
project
off
the
street
can't
tell
what
the
bar
is
so,
maybe
even
just
resolving
this
would
make
the
bar
easier
to
clear
and
more
projects
would
be
interested
in
it.
I
don't
know
if,
like
if
update
cli
is
meets
these
requirements.
A
If
there
are
other
projects,
this
requirement
seems
to
be
quite
good
in
this
regards
because
it
doesn't
have
strong
metrics
with
regards
to
adoption
or
contributors.
So
two
sponsors,
but
the
rest
is
just
demonstrating
something
well
just
demonstrative
potential.
It's
not
like
you
have
to
have
three
end
users
or
whatever
so
for
for
me.
If
we
just
said
that
this
project,
myself,
indeed
the
source
of
truth
and
the
got
rid
of
conflicts,
it
would
have
been
fine
for
projects.
A
The
only
question
that
remains
how
we
distinguish
thing
projects
in
combining
stage,
because,
let's
say
we
have
update
cli,
just
as
a
nice
example
with
a
few
contributors
and
we
have
spinnaker,
which
is
an
established
project.
But
to
be
honest,
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
going
towards
graduation
at
the
moment.
A
E
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
possible
to
to
write
down
general
guidance
for
how
to
handle
all
projects
like
like
the
update,
cli
versus
spinnaker
being
in
the
same
stage
problem.
I
don't
think
there's
a
way
to
resolve
it
with
you
know,
mark
down
in
a
repo.
I
think
the
only
way
to
resolve
it
is
to
keep
talking
about
it
and
meeting
and
figuring
out
what
to
do
with
it.
So
I
don't
know
that
adding
a
third
stage
helps
resolve
any
any
like
conflict
between.
E
H
I
think
it
was
screwdriver
as
our
template
and
I'm
sure
jason
you
you
copied
yours
from
somebody
else.
So
that's
where
that's
kind
of
propagating
in
that
markdown.
You
know
it's
like
who's
you'll
see
down
there,
who's
your
toc
sponsor
those
type
of
things.
This
is
just
a
repeat
of.
What's
in
the
the
process
life
cycle,
whatever
the
other
one
was
so
I
think
we
need
to
just
combine
these
three
and
make
sure
we're
consistent
and
start
there.
E
Yeah,
I
think,
probably
I
think,
you're
also
highlighting
we
should
probably
have
a
proposal.
An
explicit
proposal
template
that
yeah
that,
instead
of
because
I
did,
I
copied
hortelia
rather
than
make
people
figure
out
how
to
do
that,
just
create
a
a
template
and
go
from
there,
but
that
would
that
would
be
another
way
that
makes
incubating
proposing
incubating
projects
easier
for
folks
that
are
interested
in
doing
that.
H
A
H
E
I
mean
I
have
a
being
from
tecton.
I
have
a
long
history
of
knowing
of
the
cdf.
I
don't.
I
don't
know
how
somebody
who
doesn't
know
about
it
would
learn
about
it
to
know
to
propose
the
project,
but
basically
because
we
have
such
a
relationship
with
tecton,
both
in
terms
of
people
and
technically
it
seemed
like
a
natural
fit.
E
People
in
the
shipwright
community
wanted
to
donate
to
some
foundation,
because
it's
you
know
currently
being
contributed
to
by
two
different
companies
and
we'd
love,
third
and
fourth
and
fifth,
and
we
knew
that
like
foundation.
Ownership
would
be
important
for
that.
So
there
was
a
brief
brief
conversation
about
cncf,
but
I
think
it
was
from
the
beginning,
like
cbf
is
the
home
for
this.
E
Accepted
us,
so
thank
you
but
yeah.
I
don't.
I
don't
know
in
general
how
how
a
project
I
mean
it
sounds
like
update,
update
cli
has
a
similar
relationship
already
with
jenkins,
so
that
is
a
natural
fit
and
a
a
natural.
You
know
segway
introduction
to
to
cdf.
I
don't
know
how
something
you
know
off
in
the
world
that
exists
that
doesn't
already
have
a
pre-existing
relationship,
how
they
would
come
to
cdf.
A
A
negotiation
with
cbf
members,
mostly
because
yeah
we
know
that
there
are
companies
like
harness
which
has
drawn
the
first,
the
cdf
member.
So
we
as
a
cdf
governor's
board.
You
see
patrice
committee.
We
could
talk
with
them,
offer
what
if
drone
joins
cdf,
maybe
not,
but
it's
a
viable
discussion
and
taking
the
number
of
cdf
members
by
now.
It
could
be
quite
a
good
onboarding
pipeline
and
there's
clear
value
for
cdf
members
to
have
their
project
here,
because
it
can
be
win-win
collaboration.
H
H
A
Captain
is
rather
specific
because
well
yeah,
it's
about
captain
events
so
well.
Captain
events
is
a
part
of
captain
at
the
moment
it's
more
of
a
generic
representation
where
first
year,
events,
so
it
can
be
considered
a
separate
project
and
for
me,
it's
rather
politically
to
resolve
because
cncfcdf
relations
and
other
things,
but
it
doesn't
seem
like
to
be
a
problem
process
wise
because
yeah
there
is
this
process.
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
So
I
added
a
topic
for
including
naming
initiative
again
just
to
see
whether
we
could
proceed
with
it
because
yeah
there
was
a
proposal
on
the
table
for
quite
a
while.
We
discussed
it
at
the
toc
meetings
twice.
There
was
no
particular
position.
There
were
some
concerns
about
whether
it
maps
to
particular
seek
like
best
practices
which
we
can
probably
remove,
but
for
the
rest
it
seemed
that
everyone
was
a
kiwis
going
forward.
E
A
This
is
one
of
two
here
or
whatever,
but
yeah
before
anyway.
Okay,
so
we
can
discuss
a
group
user
experience
of
groups
a
year
later,
but
yeah,
I
definitely
suggest
to
vote
but
yeah.
Maybe
it's
a
question.
We
need
to
figure
out
later,
because
this
link
is
what
is
referenced
from
the
ftlc
repository
and
since
we
have
issues
with
navigating
it
on
our
own
but
yeah
for
others,
it
might
be
even
bigger
problem.
A
G
G
G
We
had
a
podcast
episode
that
bought
the
citycon
2021,
where
the
presentation
foster
and
then
for
the
pc.
Specifically,
it
was
presented
by
my
research
captain
user
group,
and
we
have
a
couple
of
upcoming
talks.
One
is
that
devops
word
and
one
at
coupon
2021,
and
also
we
have
a
slot
that
is
via
proof
of
cubicon
2021.
G
In
terms
of
the
vocabulary
meeting
what
we
worked
on,
we
created
kind
of
four
buckets
for
events,
so
core
events,
source
code
version
events,
ci
events
and
cd
events.
This
is
not
meant
as
an
exhaustive
list.
It's
just
that
we
wanted
to
contain,
not
containers
but
contain
any
daily
limit
initial
scope
and
focus
on
these
four
packets,
and
then
we
might
have
more
events
in
markets
in
future.
G
And
this
is
the
kind
of
logical
diagram
of
the
pse
that
we
built
and
we
use
tactile
and
captain.
There
is
a
flavor
of
this
plc.
I
think
with
jenkins
as
well
and
in
this
case
yeah.
So
we
use
captain
as
an
orchestrator.
We
use
tekton
to
run
a
build
and
the
deployed
pipeline,
and
the
cool
thing
is
that
we
have
canadian
events
in
the
middle.
That
is
act
as
a
broker
for
events
and
the
events
that
are
on
the
broker
are
only
cd
events.
G
You
could
build
application
to
view,
monitor
measure
your
workflow
across
platforms,
because
you
get
the
consistent
type
of
events
on
the
different
platform.
So
the
idea
that
we
are
trying
to
demonstrate
with
this
boost
of
concept
as
long
as
you
change
your
application
or
you
have
an
adapter
layer
for
your
application
to
go
into
a
common
format,
then
you
don't
have
to
do
all
the
one-to-one
integration
with
the
different
platforms,
so
you
don't
have
to
integrate
techno
with
captain
and
text
or
jenkins
and
so
forth.
G
G
G
And
in
terms
of
deliverables,
so
we
have
the
protocols
pack,
which
is
made
of
the
share
vocabulary
and
the
binding
to
cloud
events,
and
we
are
planning
to
make
a
new
project
for
this.
So
with
its
own
github
organization
and
one
project
within
the
spec,
and
then
we
would
have
the
bindings
and
the
sdks
and
everything
in
the
same
arc.
G
The
name
is
work
in
progress.
We
have
a
few
ideas
like
cd
events,
life
cycle
events,
it's
very
liked
because
it's
not
specific
to
cd
and
more
generic.
Also,
we
have
some
proposal
name
more
like
same
years,
which
takes
from
greek
for
messages.
I
believe
so,
once
we
have
the
name,
we
can
create
the
project.
G
And
an
initial
sdk
was
created,
it's
limited
it's
for
go
and
it
was
developed
for
the
plc,
but
it's
not
complete,
so
we
need
contributions
there
and
we
have
a
few
projects
already
able
to
produce
this
event
that
we're
specifying
and
one
is
the
tecton
cloud
events
controller.
The
other
one
is
jenkins.
This
was
a
gsoc
project
as
you're,
probably
aware,
and
also
captain
is
interested
in
implementing
native
support.
For
this
form
of
events
I
mean
today
is
quite
draft
still.
There
is
definitely
interest
in
the
community
yeah.
H
G
G
G
It
just
defines
like
how
much
common
semantic
events
for
application
in
the
cd
cicd
space
and
then
one
of
the
bindings
we
or
the
first
binding
that
we
we're
working
with
is
cloud
events,
but
we
want
to
make
keep
the
two
things
separated
because
we
don't
want
to
say
we
are
restricted
to
cloud
events.
We
are
not
restricted
to
cloud
native
or
kubernetes
specifically,
so
we
can
imagine
use
case
where,
in
future
we
can
mine
this
very
same
vocabulary
to
other
kind
of
transports
and
kind
of
environments.
A
D
H
There's
there's
a
discussion
that
we
have
going
on
that
has
to
deal
with
the
federation
of
events,
so,
for
example,
and
we've
identified
a
list
of
like
repositories
that
we
have
to
deal
with.
So
let's
say
you
take
a
python
module
and
you
upload
the
new
version
to
pi
pi
that
should
trigger
event
for
everybody
to
that's
listening
to.
Let
them
know
that
they
may
need
to
go
ahead
and
rebuild
all
their
their
docker
containers,
because
there's
a
new
version
of
the
python
module.
D
A
I
started
exploring
what
I
could
just
through
live
events
through
open
telemetry,
because
I
have
a
docker
compose
based
setup,
and
I
was
thinking
that
I
could
actually
reuse
jenkins
cloud
events
plugin,
so
maybe
a
routing
through
open,
telemetry
traceability
would
be
one
of
the
ways
to
make
it
more.
Generic.
A
Well,
that's
another
question
whether
you
can
get
a
traceability
after
that,
because
insidious
metadata
but
yeah
in
principle
having
cloud
events
and
open
telemetry
integrated
between
each
other,
it's
floating
around
anyway,
but
right
now
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
case.
So
let's
see
okay.
So
thanks
for
the
summary.
G
D
G
The
other
thing
isaac
was
the
the
sponsor
for
the
seek,
and
it's
not
part
of
the
toc
anymore.
So
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
select
a
new
sponsor,
I'm
not
sure
how
it
works
for
the
sake,
if
there
needs
to
be
a
sponsor
at
the
time
of
creation
or
you
need
a
sponsor
in
general,
okay,
so
I'd
be
happy
to
to
be
a
sponsor.
A
G
H
A
H
A
H
H
A
H
A
Okay
and
yeah,
probably
we
could
make
infrastructure
theme
for
the
next
meeting,
because
there
are
other
requests
like
transferring
kws
account.
Also
jenkins
x
was
interested
in
transferring
the
gcp
infrastructure
to
the
cdf
officially,
so
maybe
you
could
just
match
everything
and
focus
the
most
of
the
serc
meeting
on
this
infrastructure
matters.