►
From YouTube: CDF TOC Meeting - Feb 1, 2022
Description
For more Continuous Delivery Foundation content, check out our blog: https://cd.foundation/blog/
A
A
A
Okay,
so
then
welcome
to
february
so
and
thanks
for
joining
the
meeting
today,
we
don't
have
so
many
topics
on
the
agenda.
So
there
is
a
proposal
to
apply
for
hackmd
sponsorship
and
maybe
to
transfer,
see
tf2c
and
other
channels
to
hackamd.
A
Then
there
is
new
proposal
from
24
software
supply
chain,
special
interest
group
and
the
general
review
for
tc
roadmap.
Do
you
have
any
other
topics
you
would
like
to
discuss
today.
A
So
yeah
regarding
applications
to
how
comedy
so
would
you
like
to
describe
this
stuff.
E
Yeah,
as
most
of
you
know,
hackmd
is
was
a
fully
open
source
service
where
communities
could
go
and
you
know,
use
it
for
collaborative
editing
for
keeping
minutes
of
meeting
or
agendas
or
other
documents
that
would
help
commit
to.
You
know,
have
a
collaborative
editing
and
the
service
was
fully
free
until
end
of
last
year
and
I
think,
being
of
disney.
This
year
they
introduced
some
kind
of
subscription
model,
and
that
brings
up
limits.
E
As
you
know,
most
of
our
special
interest
groups
are
heavily
using
hack,
md,
like
c
interoperability
is
using
that
one
sig
events,
I
believe
it
is
using
like
md,
seek
best
practices
and
not
just
for
agenda
but
other
sig
documents
or
other
types
of
documents.
Community
collaboration
and
when
I
read
the
information
on
hackmd,
it
looks
like
they
have
a
non-profit
sponsorship,
tire
which
is
like
community
plan,
and
this
issue
is
about
cdf
looking
for
possibilities
to
get
the
sponsorship
for
cdf
community.
E
So
we
can
continue
using
icamd
for
our
community
collaborative
editing
purposes,
and
I
think
I
shared
this
with
sig
events
as
well,
and
I
see
andrea
there
like.
We
can
of
course,
look
at
fully
open
source
tools,
but
then
that
requires
us
to
migrate
to
other
places.
So
that's
kind
of
a
topic
for
us
to
discuss.
If
we
should,
you
know
continue
using
md
or
look
for
other
places.
A
There
is
one
potential
obstacle
with
that,
so
I'm
not
sure.
What's
the
current
state
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
when
we
are
transferring
trademarks
of
jenkins
to
the
foundation,
we
had
obstacles
because,
legally
speaking,
the
canadian
liberty
foundation
is
not
non-profit
according
to
u.s
laws.
Well,
there
are
multiple
categories
of
non-profits
and
the
cdf
wasn't
that
category
that
would
be
eligible
for
such
kinds
of
operations,
so
they
we
still
need
to
verify
eligibility.
F
A
There
were
some
issues
with
legal
entities.
Well,
in
this
case
the
problem
was
also
with
a
trademark
because
we
will
transfer
from
spi.
I
believe
it's
543c
or
something
like
that
yeah.
A
I
didn't
recall
tax
policies
for
all
of
that
in
the
united
states,
but
yeah
there
was
a
problem
that
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
transfer
the
trademark
to
the
linux
foundation,
legal
entity
and
that's
why
jenkins
trademark
is
owned
by
another
legal
entity
called
lf
charities,
which
is
also
under
the
umbrella
of
the
linux
foundation,
but
it's
another
legal
industry
and
how
it
would
be
handled
by
a
hakamd
team.
No
idea
well
asking
is
free
for
in
any
case,.
E
But
yeah
the
issue
is
logged
in
foundation
backlog
so
kara.
If
you
you
know,
if
you
have
more
information,
the
issue
is
there
and
then
like.
I
think
we
could
still
survive
for
a
couple
of
more
weeks
by
limiting
number
of
comments
we
are
pushing
to
our
repos,
but
after
the
first
half
of
the
year,
then
we
may
get
stuck
with
the
limit
or
we
may
hit
the
limit.
F
Oh
wait.
Thank
you
for
launching
this
fatih.
I
my
instinct
is
that
we
should
could
be
able
to
conform
for
for
this
program.
I
will
look
into
what
the
non-profit
status
of
the
cdf
is
like.
What
is
the
legal
coding
for
it
if
it's
a
503
or
or
what
not
but
I'll,
find
that
out
and
circle
back
on
the
issue.
Thank
you.
Fatsy.
A
Thanks,
so
there
is
an
opportunity,
in
the
worst
case,
to
just
give
seed
leaders
etc
paid
accounts,
maybe
even
as
a
temporary
solution,
because
if
it's
five
dollars
per
month,
I
think
we
can
afford
it
for
some
time.
A
E
Yeah,
maybe
if
someone
is
thinking
like,
why
are
we
using
hack
md,
but
not
google
docs?
We
actually
started
using
on
google
docs
with
sig
interval,
but
then
we
had
participants
from
south
east
asia
with
great
for
firewall
and
so
on,
which
kind
of
blocks
google
service
access.
So
that's
why
we
moved
to
hecamb.
E
E
Yeah
just
some
kind
of
background.
You
know
we
all
probably
are
aware
of
all
these
discussions
happening
in
different
communities
and
across
industry
and
with
the
engagement
from
government
organizations,
regulatory
bodies,
standards,
organizations
and
so
on.
The
supply
chain
has
become
one
of
the
critical
issues
that
are
relevant
to
open
source
communities
and
there
are
different
communities
who
are
trying
to
contribute
to
improving
security
circuit
posture
of
of
source
projects
as
well.
E
As
you
know,
commercial
software
as
well,
and
one
of
the
I
think,
most
recent
communities
that
actually
started
a
lot
of
work
in
this
domain
is
open,
ssf,
open
source
security
foundation
and
that
community
has
lots
of
working
groups
and
they
are
looking
to
bring
in
new
projects
to
have
this
security
of
supply
chain
and
in
parallel
that
and
maybe
even
before,
open
ssf
was
launched
in
different
groups
in
continental
foundation.
We
start
talking
about
this
topic
as
well,
but
without
calling
it
software
supply
chain
explicitly,
for
example,
in
interoperability,
especially
in
telescope.
E
We
start
talking
about
standardized
metadata
and
interfaces
and
standardized
metadata
discussions
brought
us
into
software
bill
of
materials
topic.
So
we
actually
start
talking
about
these
things
without
you
know,
naming
things
properly.
In
addition
to
that
again
in
special
interest
group
interval,
we
start
talking
about
policy
driven
continuous
delivery
as
well
to
ensure
how
we
can
employ.
You
know,
guardrails,
to
make
sure
the
cicd
pipelines
we
are
established
and
running,
have
means
to
ensure
quality,
security
and
integrity
and
those
type
of
things
over
time.
E
E
For
a
few
of
us
saying,
okay,
special
interest
group
interability
has
been
looking
these
topics,
but
the
group
was
looking
to
to
these
topics
from
technology
perspective
like
how
the
ci
cd
organization
systems
or
technologies
interact
with
each
other,
how
these
systems
could
interact
with
external
systems
like
police
frameworks
or
the
frameworks
or
tools
that
help
with
signing
artifacts
and
so
on,
but
our
focus
within
intervention
was
more
oriented
towards
how
these
systems
could
interact
with
each
other
from
technological
perspective,
mainly
even
though
we
had
some
discussions
around
how
they
could
be
employed
by
organizations
or
communities
as
well
and
based
on
these
observations.
E
Few
of
us
start
talking
on
opening
up.
This
discussion
encounters
their
foundation
as
well,
because,
as
you
know,
continues,
their
foundation
is
home
to
most
popular
cic
technologies
such
as
jenkins,
tecton,
jenkins,
x,
spinnaker,
screwdriver,
and
see
the
events
lately,
and
the
thing
is
another
thing.
This
kind
of
personally
disturbed
me
is
like
I
have
been
taking
part
in
open,
ssf
conversations
as
well,
especially
joining
security,
tooling
working
group,
and
I
failed
the
focus
on
ci
cd
aspects
in
that
group.
They
talk
about
tools.
E
They
talk
about
how
those
tools
could
help
people,
you
know,
have
the
improved
security
and
compliance
and
so
on,
but
I
couldn't
see
any
explicit
mention
to
ci
cd
in
that
group.
In
addition
to
that,
and
if
you
read
the
blog
post
coming
from
open
ssf,
they
also
didn't
highlight
ci
cd
as
one
of
the
things
they
talk
about
build
packaging
deployment
and
so
on,
but
there
wasn't
again
an
explicit
call
out
to
ci
cd,
and
that
was
again
my
personal
reason
why
I
reached
that
few
of
cdf
committee
members
and
start
discussing
about
okay.
E
Should
we
start
talking
about
supply
chain
topic
within
context,
their
foundation
as
well,
because
there
is
no
grouping
contains
their
foundation.
Currently,
there
is
no
active
grouping.
Countries
that
are
foundation
currently
looks
at
software
supply
chain.
In
the
past.
Some
of
you
will
remember.
We
had
six
securities
specialized
group
security,
but
that
group
has
been
dormant
for
a
while
and
it
has
been
archived
and
these
topics
pop
up
under
different
specialties
groups
such
as
interoperability,
and
that
is
not
really
actually
the
focus
of
that
group.
E
If
we
think
interval
from
most
basic
perspective
and
adding
that
concern
on
top
of
existing
concerns,
is
that
maybe
we
should
propose
this
next
special
interest
group
software
supply
chain
to
conduct
their
foundation
to
restart
these
discussions,
to
find
who
is
interested
in
taking
part
in
these?
E
These
discussions,
how
we
can
contribute
to
other
efforts
from
cicd
perspective
and
how
we
can
make
cicd
a
first
class
concern
for
the
communities
they
are
working
with,
that
are
working
with
supply
chain
issues
and
those
we
have
the
proposal
here
and,
as
you
see,
we
highlighted
our
approach
to
how
we
intend
to
work
with
this
topic.
If
this
specialized
group
gets
created,
the
first
approach
is
obviously
like:
we
need
to
study
different
aspects
of
supply
chain
by
looking
from
ci
cd
domain.
E
That
is
what
we
have
been
doing
in
interoperability
by
looking
at
interoperability
topic
from
cic
domain.
In
this
group
we
want
to
look
at
software
supply
chain
aspects
from
cic
domain
and
it's
not
limited
to
security.
Only.
It
is
about
security,
compliance
and
integrity
of
supply
chain,
and
there
may
be
other
areas
we
may
identify.
E
One
of
the
ideas
we
have
is
to
actually
create
some
sample
pipelines
and
have
some
basic
sample,
git
repositories,
building
artifacts
signing
artifacts,
getting
those
artifacts
deployed
to
some
kind
of
environment
to
see
what
kind
of
activities
could
help
improving
the
status
with
the
supply
chain,
which
could
start
on
developer
workstation
by
running
some
kind
of
static
analysis,
jobs
and
then
taking
it
through.
You
know
container
which
builds
signing
and
so
on.
So
that
is
the
other
important
aspect
we
want
to
highlight
in
this
proposal,
and
final
aspect
is
like.
E
Obviously
there
are
lots
of
projects
and
communities
are
looking
into
this
topic,
and
I
mentioned
one
of
them
open
ssf
and
they
are
home
to
various
open
source
projects
and
they
are
looking
to
bringing
new
projects
to
the
community
as
well.
Our
intention
is
not
to
duplicate
the
work,
but
actually
contribute
that
broader
effort
from
cicd
perspective.
So
when
different
communities
take
conversations
around
supply
chain,
the
cic
topic
is
not
neglected.
E
So
that
is
basically
the
idea
and
before
I
ask,
if
anyone
have
any
comments
and
questions,
I've
seen
two
comments.
One
from
I
think
terry,
you
put
a
comment
about
like
the
difference
between
interoperability
and
this
proposition,
and
the
other
comment
was
from
all
like
you:
whether
we
should
revive
seek
security
and
rename
this
proposal
security.
E
I
replied
those
comments,
but
just
to
reiterate
what
I
replied
there
as
in
case
of
specialized
inter
group.
Internality
again,
I
was
part
of,
and
I
am
still
part
of
special
interest
group
interviews.
E
Then
our
concern
was
around
terminology
standardized,
metadata
and
interface,
and
that
is
still
the
concern
for
interviews,
because
interpretable
is
about
like
metadata
interfaces,
but
over
time,
and
because
of
the
discussions
happening
within
open
source
communities,
our
focus
shifted
to
supply
chain
as
well,
which
is
natural,
because
when
you
start
dealing
with
some
topics,
you
may
find
yourself
in
other
topics.
E
But
again
in
interval
t
seek.
We
started
looking
to
how
the
ci,
cd
technologies
or
orchestration
systems
could
interact
with
other
systems
like
seek
store
or
police
agents
and
so
on.
So
that
kind
of
looks
at
this
topic.
The
supply
chain
topic
from
technological
aspect,
but
the
new
6
aims
to
look
at
the
supply
chain,
topic
from
practice,
aspect
or
methodology,
aspect
or
activities
like
what
kind
of
activities
organizations
employ
to
improve
the
status
of
their
supply
chains
and
what
else
is
out
there.
E
Helping
with
such
you
know
needs,
and
I
am
sure
we
will
hit
similar
questions.
We
have
in
discussion
with
the
interoperability
as
well,
but
again
that
technological
aspects
or
interpretable
aspects
should
be
discussed
interpreter,
while
supply
chain
looks
at
how
the
best
practices
could
be
employed
and
how
the
methodologies
could
help
improving
the
state
of
supply
chain.
Again,
I
also
mentioned
like
best
practice.
This
is
the
other
relation.
We
also
have
six
best
practices
in
under
cdf,
and
this
group
supply
chain
group
should
look
into
opportunities.
E
We
could
follow
the
footsteps
of
seed
events
and
come
up
with
a
new
sick
proposal,
perhaps
looking
into
security
aspects
of
supply
chain.
So
that's
why
we
didn't
propose
the
new
sig
s6
security,
but
we
propose
it
a
bit
broader
with
the
purpose
that
we
should
start
talking
about
this
topic
under
cd
foundation
and
take
part
in
exiting
conversations,
because
ci
cd
is
important,
enabler
to
supply
chain
itself.
E
A
We
definitely
have
time
so
for
me,
general,
I'm
in
favor
of
creating
sick.
A
If
there
are
contributors
for
interested
to
keep
it
running,
yes,
there
might
be
a
lot
of
overlaps
or,
let's
call
them
opportunities
for
collaboration
with
other
instances
and
projects,
because
for
me,
for
example,
one
of
the
questions
would
be
whether
this
seek
eventually
would
focus
on
the
spd
executive
system
and
then
maybe
it
would
be
better
to
actually
start
a
branch
in
open
ssf.
E
It's
like
the
s1
topic
in
itself
is
a
candidate
topic
discussed
under
this
sick
and
spdx
will
probably
be
the
one
of
the
you
know,
frameworks
or
standards.
We
will
potentially
look
in
in
addition
to
maybe
cyclone
dx,
I
don't
know
I
I
don't
want
to
speculate
much,
but
yes,
s
bomb
as
a
topic
is
highlighted
in
the
proposal
as
well.
I
believe
yeah.
E
But
yeah
the
idea
is
again
just
to
iterate
just
to
start
this
conversation
within
cdf
community
and
see
if
we
have
interest
from
within
cd
foundation,
community
and
obviously
like.
If
we
don't
get
enough
attraction
or
traction
talk,
will
we
not
fight?
And
if
we
you
know,
if
you
can't
make
contribution
to
domain,
then
yeah.
We
we
take
that
discussion.
E
C
So
I
certainly
think
that
this
is
a
a
useful
topic
for
us
to
be
talking
about.
C
My
concerns
really
were
around
the
the
feeling
that
creating
lots
of
separate
silos
for
different
aspects
of
the
continuous
delivery
problem
doesn't
really
align
very
well
with
the
the
ethos
of
continuous
delivery
and
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
that
we're
going
to
end
up
with
a
lot
of
separate
independent
work
streams
that
are
not
communicating
well
with
each
other
and
are
either
diverging
or
duplicating
a
lot
of
effort.
C
So
it
would
be
good
to
just
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
how
we're
going
to
align
these
pieces
of
work,
and
you
know
how
we
we
stay
away
from
a
situation
where
we've
got
two
streams,
one
which
is
talking
about
how
to
interoperate
with
ci
cd
systems
and
then
another
one,
which
is
how
to
interoperate
with
things
securely,
because
we
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we're
presenting
a
consistent
view
to
everyone
who
wants
to
consume
this
information
and
make
sure
that
we
are
structuring
ourselves
in
such
a
way
that
the
output
that
we're
creating
is
a
coherent
piece
of
work.
C
That
that
is
actually
going
to
add
value
is
that
that
classic
adage
about
you,
you
end
up
building
the
systems
that
align
to
the
structure
of
your
organization.
E
Okay
like
but
the
the
past
experience
like.
I
think
we
have
a
good
example
again.
Andrea.
Sorry,
like,
I
think
this
is
a
good
thing.
I
always
point
to
see
the
events
and
because,
like
if
you
remember,
cd
events
was
actually
formed
as
a
work
stream
under
c
interval
t
and
then
it
got
moved
to
its
own
siege.
But
if
you
read
cd
via
safe
site,
for
example,
it
clearly
highlights
that
seed
events
is
an
event
protocol
to
tackle
it
interval
dance
on.
E
I
don't
remember
exactly
how
it
was
worth,
but
even
though
cd
man's
left
special
test
group
interval
then
became
its
own,
seek,
we
didn't,
you
know,
lose
the
connection
between
two
seeks,
even
though
interrogatory
is
above
sig
events.
If
you
look
at
that
way-
and
I
think
the
community
we
have
here
like-
I
think
we
are
all
as
a
group
as
a
community
trying
to
contribute
domain
make
and
to
make
our
users
lives
better
or
our
organization's
lives.
E
Better
or
other
projects
lives
better,
and
that
gives
me
again
that
encourages
me
that
we
will
not
actually
lose
connection
between
different
groups,
even
though
we
call
this
sig
x,
and
we
call
the
other
one
sig
y,
because
that's
kind
of
that
has
become
a
practice
within
the
community.
And
if
you
look
at
number
of
six
we
have
now,
I
think
we
have
six
interval,
six
events
and
six
best
practices
and
envelopes,
and
I
believe
we
all
conflict
with
each
other
pretty
well.
E
For
example,
some
of
the
topics
that
was
discussed
with
internality
actually
taken
by
best
practice.
Sensing
interval
didn't
continue
on
those
topics
such
as
like
terminology
of
general
cd
terms,
for
example,
but
that
didn't
that
didn't
stop
us
from
working
with
sick
best
practice,
even
though
that
wasn't
the
main
concern
for
seeding
turbot.
E
So
that's
kind
of
again
that
is
kind
of
my
thinking
when
it
comes
to.
If
we
have
a
risk
that
we
all
start
creating
new
groups
and
those
groups
start
doing
things
without
talking
to
each
other.
But
again
I
don't
see
that
happening
in
cd
foundation.
The
other
topic
would
it
make
sense
to
continue
these
conversations
in
honors,
especially
there's
group
interpretative.
Perhaps
I
could
say
yes,
but
again
that
could
derail
this
interoperability
focus
from
actual
interoperability
to
practices
or
activities
one
could
employ
within
their
supply
chains.
E
So
that
kind
of
makes
me
think.
Okay,
if
you
talk
about
supply
chain
and
these
pipelines
under
internality,
what
about
the
internal
topics?
Who
will
be
talking
about
them?
If
we
don't
talk
them
on
the
internet
probabilities,
so
that
is
kind
of
how
I
think
when
it
comes
to
creating
a
new
siege
and
ensuring
these
six
work,
while
we
cheat
with
each
other
based
on
how
we
have
been
working
together
on
around
these
topics,
well,
again,
yeah.
I
agree
your
concern.
C
Yeah,
and
maybe
what
we
need
to
do
is
look
at
a
more
formal
structure
for
ensuring
that
all
this
information
is
continuously
integrated
together
into
a
view
that
everybody
holds,
because
the
challenge
is,
if
we,
if
we
require
everyone
to
attend
every
sig
in
order
to
keep
up
to
date
with,
what's
going
on,
then
you've
got
that
n
squared
problem
of
you
know
the
number
of
potential
communication
paths
that
are
going
to
crop
up.
C
So
I
think
this
is
something
we
need
to
think
about
in
general,
as
as,
as
we
start
to
take
on
more
pieces
of
work
and
start
to
get
involved
in
more
and
more
aspects
in
in
this
field.
It's
how
do
we
make
sure
that
we're
we're
not
losing
information
or
getting
you
know,
split
brained
about
what
we're
doing.
E
E
A
Yeah
speaking
of
that
today,
right
at
this
time
slot
there
is
a
cncftc
meeting
and
tags
do
quarterly
updates,
basically,
all
these
presentations
about
statuses,
so
yeah,
maybe
we
should
start
doing
the
same
with
all
the
six
and
projects,
maybe
yeah
but
yeah.
I
thought
like
that.
Actually,
toc
is
specifically
created
to
coordinate
all
these
activities,
so
we
can
ensure
that
communications
happen.
In
the
case
of
this
proposal,
we
have
two
toc
members
on
the
list.
Plus
we
have
cara
who
represents
the
foundation.
E
Yeah,
the
only
open
issue
is,
we
don't
have
talk
sponsor.
I
I
have
confidence
of
interest
in
this.
You
know
I
I
don't
want
to
put
myself
a
stock
sponsor
so
again
if
anyone
wants
to
sponsor
this
sake
from
talk,
please
state
your
interests
directly
on
the
pr
before
perhaps
talk
starts
voting,
because
this
could
become
as
a
question,
and
I
want
to
say
I
am
the
sponsor.
A
G
Yeah,
I
I
don't
think
having
party
as
a
sponsor
as
well
would
be
conflict.
But
if
it's
up
to
you,
if
you
think,
if
you
feel
it
might
be
a
complete
and
we
can
find
another
sponsor.
A
E
A
B
A
So
yeah,
I
think
that
so
to
summarize,
generally,
we
have
an
agreement
that
we
can
proceed
with
this
week.
Yeah.
We
definitely
need
to
put
some
work
in
alignment
on
communication.
Maybe
it
introduced
a
framework
on
the
tvc
level.
So
if
you
agree
that
we
do
let's
say
quarterly
sig
presentations,
then
I
think
it
wouldn't
hurt,
maybe
not
like
cncf
all
at
once,
but
just
haven't
agreed
slowed
but
yeah.
I
think
it
would
be
important,
regardless
of
the
ship
and
the
rest
yeah.
A
So
for
me
it's
definitely
a
reminder,
because
I
still
have
to
submit
the
recording
of
my
presentation.
So
I'm
doing
evaluation
of
open
source
icd
in
the
main
track,
and
you
will
be
also
doing
captain
and
jenkins
talks,
assuming
that
they
will
be
able
to
record
everything
in
time
which
is
currently
a
bit
of
struggle.
G
A
It
was
a
bit
strange
how
it
was
organized
this
year,
because
I
believe
there
was
no
public
call
for
applications
for
developer
tables.
The
same
time,
some
communities
were
contacted,
for
example,
jenkins
was
contacted
and
jenkins
decided
not
to
have
a
div
table
this
year,
but
I'm
not
sure.
What's
the
status
of
this
year.
F
We
don't
have
a
dev
table,
but
what
we
are
going
to
be
doing
it's
already
planned
is
to
be
doing
a
nice
shout
out
for
the
talks
from
our
community
on
twitter
and
just
encouraging.
You
know
just
letting
people
know
the
talks
are
happening,
we're
really
excited
about
them
and
encouraging
attendance.
So
I
think
both
yours
and
andrea's
talk
on
cloud
events
is
going
to
be
ncd.
Events
is
going
to
be
really
interesting,
so
very
excited
about
it,
the
other
well
I'll.
C
F
Con
early
bird
talk,
submissions
deadline
has
ended.
We
had
82
submissions.
So
that's
pretty
exciting.
That's
a
lot
of
talks
to
read,
but
it
should
be
so
far
so
good,
very,
very
nice.
Through
the
submissions,
the
cfp
is
still
open
until
the
18th
of
february.
So
please
keep
submitting
talks
to
cdcon
the
other
announcements
that
are
happening,
but
I
can
say
for
community
events.
As
you
know,
oleg
we
are
likely
to
affect
almost
certainly
it's
pencil.
Then
we
have
a
room
for
it.
F
Running
a
jenkins,
contributor
summit
and
alyssa
will
be
organizing
that
so
we're
very
happy
to
host
that.
In
addition,
we'll
also
be
doing
one
for
tekton,
contributor
summit
and
andrea
has
very
nicely
volunteered
to
help
organize
that.
So
beyond
that,
actually
we
we
are.
We
have
space,
and
so
I'm
just
putting
this
out
as
an
open
call.
If
other
projects
would
like
to
run
a
contributor
summit.
Please
do
contact
me
I'll
be
reaching
out
to
projects,
but
please
do
also
reach
out
to
me
that
that
helps
so.
D
Yeah,
that's
me
yeah,
maybe
jenkins
x,
can
do
something
about
that.
So
so
yeah
we
will
see.
A
Yeah,
so
for
gentle
sex
since
we're
talking
about
events,
if
anyone
is
going
to
cube
con,
I'm
a
contact
is
the
staff
of
the
jenkins
bar.
D
A
It
will
be
virtual,
but
right
now
it's
going
to
be
in
person
in
valencia.
You
never
know
the
current
situation.
D
A
D
A
Okay,
so
we
are
slowly
running
out
of
time,
let's
just
quickly
open
the
dashboard
what
we
have,
but
I
don't
think
there
are
many
updates
so
including
initiative.
Definitely
no
updates,
I
think
people
they
said
they
would
look
into
it.
We
haven't
received
any
response
and
we've
got
information
from
tracy
that
the
application
is
still
pending.
F
F
Beyond
that,
though,
my
own
bandwidth
or
you
know,
focus
is
shifting,
so
I
think
we
can
say
this
is
iteration
one
I've
cleaned
up
the
cdf
landscape.
That's
been
done.
I
don't
know
if
that
needs
to
sit
on
the
board,
just
because
I'm
not
sure
how
much
time
I'm
gonna
be
able
to
put
to
it
in
the
next
couple
months.
It's
not
you
know
by
like
all
these
things.
It's
always
a
work
in
progress,
so
you
know
the
issues
and
the
ability
to
make
prs.
Please
continue
to
do
so.
A
Okay,
thanks
for
driving
this
effort,
yeah
so
streamline,
simplify
projects
are
important.
I
guess
that
the
status
is
the
same.
We
need
to
regroup.
We
need
to
understand
what
do
we
do
with
full
ups
erased
the
tracy,
so
some
patenting
topics
etcetera
this
still
where
we
need
inputs
from
the
cdf
and
from
the
linux
foundation.
G
A
So
yeah,
I
heard
from
sincere
that
arc
security
audit
takes
a
lot
of
time
and
I
guess
then
that
is
the
same
right.
G
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
the
same,
but
it
might
be.
I
mean
there.
I
think,
a
couple
of
vendors
that
have
done
a
lot
of
the
projects
so
tectonics
with
parallel
bits,
which
is
the
same
one
was
done
at
city
and
kubernetes.
A
So
yeah,
basically
on
the
cncf
side,
they
just
finished
the
evaluation
of
one
project.
Then
they
have
argon
they
just
well,
not
just
they
started
it,
but
they
said
that
the
project
is
big,
so
it
may
take
quite
a
lot
of
time.
Then
yeah
there
is
captain
in
the
queue.
Also
that's
why
I
monitor
this
topic,
but
yeah.
I
guess
captain
picton
will
be
somewhere
around
the
same
time
frame
yeah,
let's
see
and
follow
other
items.
I
don't
think
there
is
another
specific
agenda.
Well,
except
cd.
A
Probably
not
but
yeah,
we
can
revise
this
topic
at
the
next
meeting.
So
at
some
point
I
was
thinking
whether
it
makes
sense
to
have
a
panel
to
discuss
whatever
strategy
you
see,
except
and
just
to
get
feedback
on
the
foundation,
but
yeah,
I'm
not
sure
whether
it's
the
right
venue
and
the
right
format.
So,
let's
see
and
yeah
basically
that's
it.
G
The
other
thing
is
maybe
what
we
mentioned
earlier
about
sick
presentations.
I
don't
know
if
it
makes
sense
to
have
an
item
in
the
roadmap
or
we
could
discuss
it
next
time.
Maybe
the
format
and
we
could
have-
I
don't
know
a
monthly
slot
or
something
where
she
could
present
their
work
or
well.
Something
like
that.
I
mean
in
in
tecton.
G
We
have
multiple
projects
that
they
work
independently,
but
they
also
need
some
coordinations
with
figures,
pipelines,
dashboard
and
so
forth,
and
that's
what
we're
thinking
of
having
like
a
monthly
slot
when
the
project
has
a
new
interesting
feature
to
demo
it
to
the
others,
so
that
everyone
stays
up
to
date.
What's
going
on
so.
A
Maybe
so
currently
we
have
four
active
six
trade,
best
practices,
interoperability,
events.
C
A
You
could
try
doing
that,
but
in
this
case
I'm
not
sure
whether
monthly
is
feasible
but
yeah.
What
we
could
do.
We
could
attend
the
video
over
six,
let's
say
in
march.
You
do
quarterly
update
and
we
dedicate
a
full
meeting
to
that
so
that
everything
does
the
presentation
and
we
facilitate
the
discussion
and
we
ask
sig
chairs
to
join
the
meeting
so
that
we
have
this
critical
mass
of
people
who
can
communicate
the
outcomes
to
the
rest.
C
Potentially,
I
think
we
have
tried
to
do
that
previously
and
it's
been
difficult
to
to
get
the
attendance
up,
so
we
may
want
to
have
a
think
about
other
alternative
mechanisms
by
which
we
can
get
the
the
parallel
six
to
be
communicating
with
each
other
effectively.
G
C
The
other
thing
we
could
potentially
consider
is
running
periodic
workshops
between
the
six
so
that
we
we
actively
put
people
together
sharing
you
know
the
components
that
they're
working
on
and
swapping
their
their
concerns.
G
A
I
don't
think
that
synchronous
communication
channel
is
going
to
work
reliably
because
you
send
email
et
cetera.
Then
nobody
really
looks
at
it
because
everyone
is
busy
so
easily.
We
should
try
getting
people
at
the
table,
given
that
it
might
be
difficult,
but
if
you
can
get
recorded
and
distributed
afterwards,
it
would
be
still
important.
A
So
my
suggestion
would
be
to
try
to
invite
people
to
see
what
happens
or
you
can
also
encourage
them
to
write
a
blog
post,
etc
about
sick
updates.
I
guess
cdf
website
would
benefit
from
this
content,
or
maybe
we
could
recover
monthly
asynchronous
second
project
updates,
so
in
the
beginning
of
the
cdf,
then
lawrence
was
reaching
out
to
everyone
asking
for
monthly
updates.
F
C
A
So
well,
event:
stick
has
been
basically
a
base
for
three
of
four
currently
running
six,
so
maybe
we
could
just
invite
everyone
and
best
practices
to
the
next
sequential
variability
meeting
so
that
you
could
have
some
communication
about
what's
going
on
there.
G
So
as
part
of
the
seek
events
meetings,
at
least
once
every
two
weeks,
we
we
have
a
section
in
the
agenda
that
is
always
updates
from
other
meetings
like
from
interoperability,
best
practices
and
from
the
toc,
and
often
we
have
at
least
one
of
us
in
the
meeting
that
has
been
in
this
other.
So
we
try
and
provide
this
kind
of
updates
already.
E
Yeah,
I
think,
if
from
interopsic
perspective,
I
think
again.
I
also
mentioned
this.
I
think
we
we
have
partitions
from
best
practices
and
events,
16
seed,
interrupt
meetings,
so
I
know
like
yeah
if
this
should
be
a
big
concern
for
us,
but
still
it
would
be
good
to
have
some
regular
sink
during
toc
meetings
to
make
sure
this
continues
happening.
F
Sig
does
this
it's
very
it's
very
efficient,
while
being
quite
low-key,
there
aren't.
You
know,
presentations
that
you
have
to
do,
but
it's
simply
the
attendees
who
are
involved
in
the
other.
F
Things
can
give
updates
on
what
those
things
are
doing
and
it's
it
just
works
very
well
because
we're
working
all
in
interrelated
areas,
but
we
have
so
much
in
common
with
the
work
that
we're
doing
and
it's
nice
to
keep
track
of
it
while
leaving
space
within
the
individual
sigs
for
focus
areas
so
that
that
works
quite
nicely,
and
I
would
imagine
in
the
trc
we
have
enough
individuals
from
all
the
sakes
that
we
could
do
this
and
have
it
be
just
simply
part
of
regular
toc
meetings
or
every
other
tlc
meeting.