►
From YouTube: Technical Oversight Committee 2021/03/19
Description
Istio's Technical Oversight Committee for March 19th, 2021.
Topics:
- Zoom for meetings vs. Google Meet - WGs decide
- Discussion of the new istio.io website and how we plan to switch over
- Preview discussion of whether to merge some working groups together
A
D
A
E
A
E
G
A
A
F
A
C
A
A
J
A
A
E
E
E
A
Yeah-
and
I
guess
brian
I
mean-
and
everyone
else
in
this
call
does
that
satisfy
the
concern,
or
would
you
still
like
to
propose
as
a
switch
to
zoom
for
other
readings?
Now
that
sounds
great
to
me.
Would
anybody
else
like
to
propose
zoom
for
other
meetings
like
custom
backgrounds
that
are
more
interesting,
high
priority.
L
E
A
K
So
so,
quick,
quick
follow-up
question,
louis
about
the
thing
that
you
mentioned
with
craig
that
has
been
like:
we've
had
things
on
the
agenda
that
says
we
like
create
a
new
istio.io
org
like
like
a
new
new
dasher
or
a
new
new
org.
Yes,
this
is
that
is
that
what
is
going
to
happen
in
the
in
the
plan.
E
A
I
A
E
E
L
Well,
I
don't
know
if
I
want
to
lead
the
discussion,
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
what
the
what
the
answer
is.
I
know
there's
a
bunch
of
pr's
out
there
in
the
istio.io
channel,
and
so
if
people
want
to
look
at
what
the
new
pages
are
going
to
look
like
you
can
you
can
click
on
the
deploy
details
and
see
that,
but
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
what
the
plan
is
going
forward.
L
L
G
The
current
code
is
already
available
to
see
in
preview
mode
and
it
will
be
available
in
preliminary
after
the
code
gets
merged
to
master,
and
after
that,
whatever
issues
come
up,
the
idea
is
to
keep
fixing
it.
I
think
there
is
kind
of
a
resource
constraint
on
getting
this
merged,
as
the
work
is
being
done
by
a
vendor
and
craig
and
few
other
folks.
P
A
P
B
L
E
E
A
So
sorry,
let
me
so
so
I
think
craig
we
were
just
catching
up
on
this
vendor
who
was
working
on
the
site,
winking
out
of
existence
and
the
proposal
that,
let's
just
merge,
what
they've
done
as
is,
but
we
do
anticipate
there'll,
be
a
small
number
of
issues
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
enough
people
to
fix
them.
Are
you
one
of
those
people
and
I
love
the
mic
by
the
way.
Q
Thank
you.
I
am
one
of
the
people
for
content,
but
I'm
not
one
of
the
people
for
css
and
back-end
stuff,
so
that
will
be
a
lot
of
what
we
have.
We
could
do
with
some
design
assets
or
so,
and
we
may
be
able
to
get
some
people
to
help
with
that.
But,
for
example,
we've
resized
things
some
of
the
table
layouts
are
not
the
same
as
they
used
to
be
having
some
web
dev
people
available
to
fix
that
kind
of
thing,
dark
mode
may
or
may
not
work.
Q
Worry
about
only
the
people
on
this
call
being
the
people
that
fixing
this
like.
I
would
like
to
think
that
someone
involved
in
this
deal
commercially
has
a
web
developer
on
staff
or
someone
who
might
be
able
to
spend
five
hours
a
week,
fixing
this
and
it's
not
just
up
until
110,
it's
like
who
will
maintain
and
make
changes
to
the
site.
Who
is
the
new
martin
going
forward.
E
Q
G
G
Q
We've
gone,
we've
gone
through
and
we've
tested
a
bunch
of
stuff
throughout,
so
I
would
say
that
is:
there
are
probably
two
classes
of
issues
there
are.
I
don't
like
the
colors,
which
we
can
go
back
and
revise,
and
then
I
we
can't
see
something
something
doesn't
work
from
a
css
perspective
or
the
docs
don't
align
the
way
they
used
to
so
like
I
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
it
wouldn't
be
embarrassing
content
not
written
notwithstanding.
L
L
The
1.10
branch
which
goes
to
istio-
and
you
know,
like
my
big
concern,
is
we've
had
a
lot
of
a
lack
of
manual
testing
in
the
past,
which
is
why
we
try
to
go
the
automated
testing
and
I'm
just
afraid
that
we
won't
see
a
lot
of
testing
on
preliminary
to
uncover
problems
before
it
goes
live
in
istio
and
I'm
just
worried
that
we'll
see
a
lot
of
problems
at
that
point.
I
don't
know
that
we
will.
I
only
have
a
couple
of
minor
complaints
right
now,
but
I
just
wanted.
L
Q
A
Q
A
Q
B
B
B
Q
Q
Q
Familiar
the
the
point
of
this
is
mostly
the
the
front
content,
so
the
advocacy
stuff
the
about
the
project
and
so
on.
There
are
css
changes
to
the
docs
to
make
them
look
like
the
rest
of
the
site.
Obviously,
that
I'm
sure
is
the
area
that's
most
important
to
this
group
and
also
some
of
the
content,
which
is
on
the
current
site,
which
we
deemed
irrelevant
for
the
primary
audience.
Q
So
information
on
how
to
contribute
to
the
docs,
for
example,
which
is
currently
on
the
website
we're
going
to
move
that
to
github,
because
the
average
potential
I
might
use
this
to
my
company
person
doesn't
need
to
see
that
in
the
general
about
menu.
So
there
are
a
bunch
of
that
kind
of
stuff
where
things
will
be
moved
around
and
a
lot
of
that
work
has
not
been
done
yet,
but
we
can
make
sure
that
it's
still
visible,
and
that
will
happen
quite
quickly.
C
H
G
All
right,
so
I
think,
in
my
opinion,
josh,
if
you
are
still
trying
to
figure
out
the
value
of
the
new
layout,
I
think
it
was
approved
by
steering.
So
I
think
you
can
come
to
us
that
that
way,
at
least
you'll
be
convinced
from
the
value
pro
whether
that
makes
sense
or
not
for
anyone
else
who
is
technically
worried
about
how
things
will
look.
In
my
opinion,
a
reasonable
way
to
approach.
G
A
Q
Q
The
vendor
is
wrapping
up
today
and
so
they're
going
to
merge
their
pr
or
if
you
say
we
won't
accept
that,
then
they
won't,
but
if
they
do
merge
it,
then
what
I
would
like
to
see
is
that
the
commentary
on
the
new
site
starts
being
issues
on
the
site
rather
than
comments
on
the
pr,
and
that
will
make
it
a
lot
easier
to
track
them,
because,
right
now
each
pi
has
a
different
preview,
and
that
makes
it
very
hard
for
us
like.
There
are
comments
that
were
on
one
because
things
were
fixed
in
another.
L
As
I
say,
there
is
no
doc's
working
group.
As
you
know,
there's
there
was
a
proposal
to
have
a
a
I
free
what
they're
called,
but
in
terms
of
an
actual
doc
group
I
mean
there
is
still
some
people
that
are
doing
some
of
the
infrastructure
like
handling
tests
like
I've
been
doing
that,
but
in
terms
of
a
lot
of
the
content.
L
E
Right
just
be
clear
that
the
charter,
the
belk's
working
group,
is
no
longer
to
generate
content
right
like
it's.
It's
much
more
narrow
now,
like
eric
described
it
like
david
helps
with
the
website.
Admin,
brian
and
others
are
chipping
in
eric,
is
helping
like
with
reviews,
but
there's
a
a
pool
of
content.
Reviewers
that
were
supposed
to
be
brought
in
like
has
that
happened.
A
So
is
this
a
is
this
an
ask
that
we
bring
up
to
the
working
group
leads
in
the
next
working
group?
Lead
meeting
to
basically
say:
are
you?
Are
you
willing
to
you
know
we
can
merge
this
site?
Update
and
working
groups
will
fix
their
any
missing
content
and,
and
then
the
overall
working
group
will,
the
docs
working
group
will
fix.
You
know
minor
css
and
other
site
issues.
Is
that
the
proposal
like
do
we
just
ask
them
to
do
that
and
then,
if
they
agree,
then
we
go
forward.
E
A
Okay,
but
but
we
have
a
decision
here,
like
you
know,
if
we
crowdsource,
we
have
ambiguous
ownership,
we
may
actually
have
a
broken
site.
I
would
feel
more
comfortable
if
we
had
this
remnant
of
the
docs
work
group,
saying
that
at
least
they
had
the
bandwidth
for
fixing
some
of
these
css
issues
and
other
format,
issues.
E
So
I
think
that's
a
change
in
the
process
so
like
on
the
old
side,
we
were
crowd
sourcing
right,
so
I
don't
want
to
give
the
impression
right
the
only
material
difference
now
is.
We
have
a
revision
that
we
choose
to
commit
to
or
not
because
we
think
it
has
incremental
value,
and
then
we
go
back
to
the
old
process
of
collective
fixing.
Stuff
that's
broken
as
it
gets
found.
D
B
B
Should
we
also
look
at
you
know,
doesn't
have
any
missing
contents.
At
least.
The
last
thing
I
want
to
see
is
missing
contents
from
our
existing
documentation,
because
I
know
in
the
early
release
of
istio,
when
we
removed
like
deep
dive
to
mutual
tis
over
usable
super
offsets
when
the
contents
were
gone,
because
I
think
those
are
super
important
to
many
of
our
users.
B
R
B
A
Q
None
of
the
content
that's
currently
on
there,
especially
in
terms
of
say
markdown
files
has
been
removed.
So
while
there
are
a
few
things
which
are
currently
not
exposed
in
the
new
ui,
the
content
still
exists
and
in
the
case
of
anything
that
doesn't
get
exposed
in
the
new
ui,
it
still
exists
in
the
archive.
Q
I
agree
that
in
a
perfect
world
a
the
vendor
would
still
be
engaged
and
b
the
pr
wouldn't
merge
until
it
was
fully
complete.
The
thinking
I
believe,
with
our
open
source
office
who
have
contracted
the
vendor,
is
that
today
it's
on
them
to
make
sure
that
the
pr
will
merge
cleanly.
If
we
say
right,
they
just
stop
work
on
it
now,
and
their
branch
continues
to
be
maintained.
R
Q
A
H
H
E
A
A
Q
E
Right
yeah,
the
issue
there.
We
were
already
in
crowdsourcing
mode
right
so
like
I
want
to
be
clear
with
everybody
like
previously
with
the
site.
If
there
was
an
issue,
somebody
filed
an
issue
and
it
may
or
may
not
have
gotten
fixed
depending
on
who
you
felt
like
they
had
been
with
and
enough
itch
to
scratch.
E
G
So,
from
my
point
of
view,
I
am
having
difficulty
understanding
the
level
of
brokenness
here.
Just
being
honest,
it
looks
like
craig
is
saying
there
might
be
a
few
incomplete
pages,
but
all
the
content
is
there,
but
I'm
guessing
that's
not
verified
all
the
content
that
was
in
the
old
site
is
there.
If
that's
the
case,
somebody
has
to
do
the
due
diligence
to
figure
that
piece
out,
because
that's
a
regression
for
our
customer
for
our
users.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Some
of
these
things
we
need
to
re-add
and
some
of
them
we
are
deliberately
thinking
about
moving
off
the
site
and
putting
on
like
the
github
wiki
for
the
istio.io
repository
should
have
the
how
to
contribute
documentation,
not
the
not
on
the
side.
Manda's
question
vulnerability
info
is
still
there.
I
believe
feature
status.
Definitely,
yes,
that's
a
hard
requirement.
Q
Manda's
question
old
versions
gets
archived
and
the
one
nine
site
will
look
like
it
does
today,
and
there
are
links
at
the
bottom
of
the
new
one
to
access
previous
versions,
but
there
is
still
realistically,
there
are
still
another
couple
of
weeks
worth
of
vendor
work.
To
fix
a
lot
of
these
little
things
would
have
been
lovely
if
we
can
get
access
to
either
a
vendor
like
you,
you
could
quite
legitimately
go
back
to
google
ospo
and
say
merging
today.
B
Yeah,
I
think,
knowing
what's
being
removed,
is
going
to
be
very
critical
for
us
to
make
the
decision
right,
because
each
of
us
have
saying
to
say
this
content
is
really
important.
That
content
is
really
important
to
me.
I
I'm
totally
happy
with
the
new
site,
but
the
first
criteria
is,
I
don't
want
important
content
to
be
gone.
All
users
have
to
go
to
like
one
nine
to
look
at
the
contents.
B
And
also,
the
other
comment
I
would
make
is
for
some
of
the
pages
that's
still
working
in
progress,
or
it
might
be
better,
not
have
them
in
the
manual
just
type
them
in
the
menu,
because
when
you
go
there,
if
there's
not
enough
content
or
if
the
content
are
not,
you
know
filled
out
I'd
rather
not
have
them
in
the
menu.
So.
Q
Yeah
that
that's
easy,
that's
an
easy
workaround.
Another
semi-easy
work
around
is
obviously
things
like
the
feature
status
page.
It
is
my
opinion
that
that
should
be
under
the
hierarchy
of
the
slash
docs,
rather
than
the
slash
about,
and
that's
why
that
doesn't
exist
in
the
nice
user-facing
design
that
you
see
today,
but
no
one
has
done
that
work
yet.
A
A
A
Q
I
reckon
that
david
and
I
could
probably
have
a
10
minute
chat
and
solve
much
of
this,
like.
I
think
that
there
is
at
least
in
the
short
term
like,
even
though
it's
not
the
right
answer.
We
can
take
the
content
which
is
going
out
of
the
about
hierarchy,
move
it
to
docs,
ensure
there's
a
redirect,
and
then
it's
visible.
It's
where
it
used
to
be
url,
wise
and
we'll.
A
Q
Out
the
moving
it
properly
later
on,
but
you're
redirecting
to
the
old
site,
no
we're
redirecting
I'm
talking
about
pages
that
used
to
be
slash
about
slash,
feature
status
and
making
them
slash.
Docs
feature
status,
okay,
which
is
simply
because
the
menu
the
new
menu
for
about
doesn't
want
to
have
a
hundred
thousand
irrelevant
things
for
new
users.
A
Q
A
G
N
B
N
E
Q
E
E
E
N
N
A
E
B
G
A
A
A
A
That's
awesome,
that's
so
cool!
This
is
a
thing
by
the
way
that
you
know
during
the
the
age
of
covet.
You
know
all
googlers
periodically,
like
maybe
every
every
other
month,
something
like
that.
Maybe
every
three
months.
You
know
we're
getting
this
this
day
off
extra
days
off
and
they're
always
on
fridays,
so
it
is
leading
us
to
not
participate
in
some
toc
meetings,
because
we
also
want
to
take
advantage
of
these
days
off.
Should
we?
What
should
we
do
about.
A
I
mean
the
bind
that
we're
in
as
googlers
and
the
toc
is.
Is
we
don't
want
to
just
show
up
and
say,
hey
we're,
google,
and
we
have
this
internal
thing.
Let's
move
the
toc
to
accommodate
google,
but
we
also
don't
want
to
put
pressure
on
other
googlers
to
attend
this
meeting
on
on
days
off
by
attending
it
ourselves
we're
kind
of
in
a
bind.
A
E
A
A
A
B
A
E
K
Wait
wait.
Wait,
wait,
wait.
I
think
I
think
it's
it's
important
for
for
us
to
use
the
seven
minutes
to
at
least
introduce
that
topic
and
get
people
thinking
so
that
when
we
skip
the
next
meeting
like
there
will
be
some
yeah
like
we.
We
want
the
whole
community
to
think
about
this,
so
I
think
it's,
it's
probably
a
good
use
of
those
seven
minutes.
A
A
I
I
think
all
right,
let
let
me
proxy
for
nate
and
then
somebody
else
can
do.
I
think
nate's
concern
was
that
multi-cluster
needs
to
be
something
that
everyone
on
networking
deeply
embraces
everything.
Should
everything
in
networking
should
be
done
from
a
multi-cluster
perspective
right
now,
it's
in
environments,
multi-cluster
at
a
minimum,
should
move
over
to
networking.
Then
the
question
is:
is
there
enough
left-hand
environments.
T
E
T
T
A
So
can
we
get
confirmation
from
other
people
on
so
costs,
so
I
think
we
need
to
consider
all
the
tracks.
You
know
all
the
things
all
the
responsibilities
of
environments
today
and
make
sure
that
it's
appropriate
to
move
them
to
networking,
and
I
think
constant
is
saying
that
for
vms
and
multi-tenancy
we
could
move
them
because
there's
not
much
work
remaining.
E
R
M
O
M
E
Talked
about
right,
like
we
haven't,
said,
like
who's
going
to
be
leads
in
which
like,
if
we
do
the
302
model
like
you're
right
and
I'd
like
if
they're
clearly
like
install
concerns
for
multi-star
and
people,
should
care
about
them
and
there
should
be
appropriate,
leads
for
those
topics.
But
is
that
as
a
thematic
division
of
labor?
Is
that
split
a
more
accurate,
more
reasonable
representation.
E
That's
the
goal
right
I
mean
the
goal
of
working
groups
is
to
kind
of
organize
around
the
attention
to
make
sure
that
the
right
people
are
there
and
maybe
what
we're
seeing
is
that
the
locus
of
attention
and
environments
has
just
drifted
away
into
other
things,
and
we
need
to
think
about
recomposing.
The
themes.
M
So
when,
when
people
in
other
work
groups
open
an
issue,
they
tag
it
as
environments,
if
it's
related
to
several
different
things,
the
the
various
helm
stuff,
the
various
install
command
line,
stuff
multi-cluster,
is
confusing
because
it's
not
quite
sure
if
the
install
of
the
multi-cluster
failed
or
if
it's
not
doing
the
right
thing.
Once
it's
been
installed.
K
Okay,
that's
that's
different,
though
than
so
that
is
slightly
different
right,
like
the
the
tagging.
That's
that's
actually
an
external
concern
when
someone
you're
talking
about
when
someone
else
from
outside
opens
an
issue,
they
should
be
directed
correctly.
I
I
don't
think
those
two
have
to
be
linked.
E
D
A
A
I
I
know
a
lot
of
the
people
who
are
working
on
the
vm
stuff
are
really
in
the
security
working
group,
so
that
wouldn't
make
sense
yeah.
Okay,
how
about
I
clean
this
up
into
a
you
know?
Kind
of
basically
this
is
a
second
I'm
taking
a
like
a
logging
file
system
append
up
and
then
thing.
I
need
to
kind
of
compact
this
into
a
proposal
and
I'll
put
on
the
agenda
for
next
next
week
to
discuss
with
when
she
brings
this
back
up.