►
From YouTube: Community Meeting, April 18, 2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Hey
today
is
April
18th.
This
is
the
kcp
community
meeting
I
know:
we've
got
some
light
attendants
today,
most
likely
because
of
kubecon
so
have
an
announcement
to
make
that
I
will
also
make
next
week,
which
is
that
we
are
shifting
some
of
our
Focus
over
at
Red
Hat
to
some
other
things.
A
So
we
are
still
extremely
committed
and
invested
in
kubernetes,
the
kubernetes
community,
the
surrounding
ecosystems,
but
unfortunately,
for
for
those
of
us
who've
been
working
on
kcp
we
are
like
red,
has
constantly
evaluating
what
we
invest
on
and
where
we
focus
and
for
this
calendar
year
we're
going
to
be
prioritizing
some
other
objectives,
and
that
means
that
kcp
won't
have
our
immediate
Focus.
A
Unfortunately,
so
those
of
us
who've,
been
working
on
kcp
are
going
to
be
shifting
to
other
areas,
but
we
firmly
believe
in
the
power
of
Open
Source
and
that
it
com,
the
power,
comes
from
the
community
and
it's
been
an
awesome
couple
of
years.
This
has
been
a
really
exciting
project
for
me
to
work
on
and
I.
Think
I
can
hopefully
speak
for
the
rest
of
the
folks
here
that
they
really
enjoyed
it
as
well.
A
So
we'd
like
to
extend
the
invitation
to
anybody
in
the
community
who's
interested
in
taking
stewardship
of
kcp
and
pushing
the
project
forward,
and
we
are
extremely
committed
and
interested
to
in
and
to
helping
transition
our
leadership
as
it's
been
for
the
past
couple
of
years
to
new
folks.
So
if
you
are
interested
or
know
folks
who
might
be
interested,
please
have
them
reach
out
to
me:
Stefan
Hall,
we're
available
on
slack
and
email,
obviously,
and
would
love
to
have
those
conversations
to
help
with
the
transition.
A
So
definitely
sad
news
for
for
me
personally,
I
think
for
the
team,
but
we
are
just
shifting
to
other
priorities
at
this
time.
Paul
is
there
anything
you
wanted
to
add.
B
A
C
Yes,
so
before
making
commitment,
let
me
just
start
by
observing
that
the
Edge
based
work
that
we're
doing
is
continuing
and
we
do
find
parts
of
kcp
useful
in
particular
kcp
core
we're
not
using
TMC
but
we're
using
kcp
core
and
I'm
curious.
Who
else
finds?
If
there
is
anybody
else
who
finds
kcp
core
useful?
That
would
like
to
continue
using
it.
C
That
would
be
might
be
a
basis
for
forming
some
Community
for
continued
stewardship
of
kcp
core
or
perhaps
you
know,
some
cut
down
version
of
that
I
think
for
the
edge
work.
We
don't
even
need
all
of
what's
in
kcp
core,
but
we
do
find
some
of
it
useful
and
I'm
curious.
If
there's
anybody
else
that
finds
it
useful.
D
D
A
E
Right
go
ahead:
Ezra
yeah,
I,
I,
I,
I
I
just
wanted
to
understand.
You
know
practically.
You
know
in
terms
of
the
procedure,
there
are
some
ongoing
tasks
that
some
of
them
are
kind
of.
You
know
owned
by
you
a
not
you
specifically
and
but
you
know
your
team,
for
example.
One
major
thing
is,
you
know
this
rebasing
to
126
and
so
on
so
is
there?
Is
there
a
list
of,
for
example,
items
you
can
say?
Oh,
we
are
committing
to
finish
that
or
if
there's
can
we
have
some?
E
E
A
Yeah
I
don't
actually
know
so.
I
did
get
the
126
rebase
to
a
partially
functioning
State
the
it
is
not
done
because
there's
just
there
have
to
be
some
PRS
that
get
merged
in
some
of
the
dependent
repos
like
the
cogener,
repo
or
the
client
go
repo
and
once
those
get
merged,
then
I,
there's
like
cascading
updates,
but
theoretically,
given
folks
time
to
review
and
approve
I
could
finish
that
out.
I,
don't
know
what
else
necessarily
we
could
really
fit
in
I
kind
of
leave
that
up
to
Paul
I
guess.
D
B
I
think
finishing:
the
rebates
would
probably
be
good
if
you
believe
it's
something
that
we
can
fit
into
the
April
time
frame.
I,
think
past
April
it'll
be
tough
and
up
to
the
prioritization
of
different
teams.
That
will
have
to
be
involved
as
we
make
transitions
within
Road
hat
I.
Think
David.
You
had
some
items
that
were
considered
stability
pieces
that
you
were
still
trying
to
to
get
committed
and
get
reviews
from
folks,
while
they're
in
kubecon
or
had
some
time
so
I
I.
B
E
Right
so
so
I
think
it's
a
good
idea.
I
think
Mike
mentioned
that
as
well.
We
can
come
up
and
there
are
two
kind
of
types
of
things
right.
One
is
actual,
you
know
technical
peers
and
so
on,
I
don't
have
immediatives,
but
the
other
one
and
they
think
and
you
actually
the
the
initial
kind
of
initiating
this
effort.
But
no
work
was
done
is
maybe
helping
with
some
stuff.
E
A
Yeah
but
I
would
be
happy
to
be
available
for
consultation
and,
if
you
all
rank
caps
and
would
like
review
time,
I
can
give
you
that
okay.
E
C
G
Just
two
words:
to
continue
on
what
Paul
said
about
the
TMC
side.
Mainly
I
was
able
to
get
matched
the
two
remaining
peers
about
sharding
the
sinker.
G
So
that's
that
was
I
think
that
the
most
critical
things
to
not
you
know
leave
the
TMC
repo
in
a
state
which
would
not
be
you
know,
final
or
at
least
stable,
and
there
are
other
pending
repairs
which
would
be
good
to
to
manage
I,
think
or
just
as
well
to
reach
a
state
where
you
know
things
are
consistent
and
there
are
no
pending
refactoring
work.
G
But
apart
from
that,
I
think
it's
it's
mainly.
It
I
mean
not
not
much
more
to
to
pending
things
here.
C
Right
so
I
wanted
to
add
a
couple
a
little
bit
of
additional
to
get
this
deep
pale
and
color
on
some
of
these
things.
So
in
terms
of
our
work
on
edgemc,
the
additional
thing
that
would
be
helpful
that
we
haven't
really
started
yet
is
developing
The
denaturing
View
that
we
talked
about
you
know
months
ago
and
agreed
would
be
part
of
the
plan
have
got
around
to
executing
on
that.
Yet
we
could
probably
use
some
help
understanding
how
views
are
built
in
kcp.
C
That's
a
fairly
short-term
thing.
I
I
do
think
that
the
rebase
to
126
would
be
helpful.
I
would
I
would
really
like
to
see
that
longer
term
in
terms
of
upstreaming
I
think
you
know
the
main
things
that
I'm
interested
in
is
you
know
two
things
a
one
which
was
we
talked
about
a
while
ago.
Was
the
generic
control
plane
I?
Think
I
tend
to
think
of
this
is
really
it's.
C
What's
upstreaming
that
is
really
about
refactoring
the
cube
API
server
right
to
expose
a
bigger
subset
of
its
functionality
as
a
library
that
can
be
used
by
other
main
programs.
Would
you
say
that's
fair.
A
I
think
it's
fair
I
would
encourage
you
not
to
word
it
that
way
in
the
cup,
because
the
API
Machinery
leads
have
strongly
indicated.
They
want
it
to
be
considered
new
built
from
the
ground
up
and
then
once
proven
it
could
be
swapped
in,
and
you
could
swap
out
the
the
stuff
from
the
cube
API
server
itself
to
use
the
the
new
library,
okay.
C
Okay,
yeah
sure
I
understand
that
as
a
cath,
but
the
the
desired
result
of
traveling.
That
path
is
that
the
Google
API
server
will
use
the
generic
control
plane
exactly
yes,
okay,
that
makes
sense
to
me.
Okay,
so
I
think
that
would
be
helpful,
but
even
more
helpful
to
us
in
our
work
on
edge.
Is
this
concept
that
you
guys
call
a
logical
clusters
Upstream
they
tend
to
call
them
super
namespaces.
C
I
know
there
was
an
attempt
to
oversell
them
Upstream
that
failed,
because
it
wasn't
oversell
it
was
attempt
to
sell
it
as
multi-tenancy,
which
it's
not
it's,
really
a
much
less.
It's
a
much
more
modest
thing
really,
which
is
a
a
higher
level
of
scoping
or
grouping
of
naming
it's
not
full
multi-tenancy.
It
doesn't
have
all
the
isolation
properties.
You
would
expect
from
the
word
multi-tenancy.
So
I
think
you
know
I'm
interested
in
you
know
going
Upstream
again
and
asking
you
know
with
properly
modest
ask
say:
Hey.
C
A
I
would
love
to
see
that
I
think
the
best
chance
of
success
there
is
to
go
to
a
variety
of
cigs
outside
of
API
machinery
and
get
backing
from
those
sigs
also
find
backers.
You
know
other
companies,
other
vendors,
other
users
who
can
demonstrate
very
specific
needs
and,
and
have
them
be.
You
know
real
needs,
not
just
theoretical
needs,
because
just
saying
we
need
this,
for
the
sake
of
having
one
extra
level
of
scoping
is
not,
in
my
opinion,
I,
don't
think
that's
going
to
that's.
A
A
E
Go
ahead,
Ezra
yeah
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
fully
agree
and
then
to
be
honest
about
this.
What
you
said
Mike
is
pretty
pretty
much
our
wishful
thinking
right
that
it
was
an
over
sale
previously
and
if
we
narrowed
the
scope,
it
will
be
easier
to
Upstream,
but
I
agree
with
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
you
know
it
will
be
so
easy
right.
It
may
be,
and.
E
D
A
All
right
so
yeah
I
can
work
on
getting
the
126
rebase
finished.
It's
a
bit.
Ironic
I,
guess
that
127
just
came
out
but
I
think
hopefully
going
from
126
to
127
would
be
easier
than
124
to
126.,
but
yeah
I
can
think
we're
getting
that
done.
Mj
go
ahead.
D
A
Yeah
so
the
we
run
CI
in
two
places:
GitHub
actions
and
the
openshift
prow
GitHub
actions,
assuming
we
Grant
the
appropriate
permissions.
You
know
we
as
part
of
a
transition.
Whatever
superpowers
we
have,
the
new
stewards
would
get,
and
so
you'd
have
full
control
over
GitHub
action.
So
there's
nothing
private
or
proprietary
there
other
than
what
GitHub
does
in
the
openshift
crow.
Everything
is
open,
source
config,
wise
in
the
openshift
release
repository
and
there's
the
only
Insight
you
don't
get
is
like.
A
If
something
goes
wrong
on
one
of
the
build
clusters,
we
have
an
internal
slack
Channel,
where
we
can
go
file,
an
issue
and
and
try
and
get
some
help,
but
like
I,
don't
have
any
access
into
those
clusters
more
than
than
any
of
you
do
necessarily,
which
is
basically
done.
So
you
know,
assuming
that
the
build
Farm
is
working.
The
way
that
it's
supposed
to
you
go
configure
things
in
the
openshift
release
repo.
A
A
Yeah
I
mean
everything
could
conceivably
go
back
to
GitHub
actions,
it's
just
slower
and
the
there's
some
ux
issues
like.
If
you
rerun
a
failed
job,
you
lose
the
the
artifacts
you
know.
So,
if
you,
if
it's
saving
off
all
of
the
log
files
and
the
yaml
and
whatever
is
produced
as
part
of
a
CI
run,
GitHub
actions
only
preserves
that
for
the
most
recent
run,
which
is
unfortunate,
hopefully
they'll
change
that
at
some
point,
but
other
than
that.
It's
really
just
like
a
speed
issue.
A
You
know
if
you
all,
are
interested
in
taking
over
or
know
people
who
would
please
reach
out.
I
will
we'll
have
this
same
discussion
next
week
when,
hopefully
there's
a
larger
audience
and
I
think
Paul
and
I
will
craft
something
and
send
to
the
mailing
lists
or
I
should
say
the
Google
Groups
and
the
slack
Channel.
Just
so
that's
out
there
today
as
well.
A
What
we're
discussing
right
now
is
our
first
public
discussion
of
the
matter.
D
F
E
F
A
Oh
fingers
crossed
they
can
survive.
So
thanks
thanks.
Everybody
for
you
know,
being
involved
and
being
part
of
this
community
and
I
hope
that
I
can
see
great
things
in
the
future,
and
I
will
hopefully
see
you
all
next
week
as
well.