►
From YouTube: Knative Public Steering Meeting - September 10, 2020
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).
B
C
C
I
had
just
wanted
to
close
out
discussion
on
on
the
pr
that
we
have
open.
We
we
wanted
to
bring
it
to
a
vote
in
our
next
meeting,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
weren't
any
like
outstanding
things
about
the
proposal
that
required
further
discussion
and
if,
if
there
aren't
I'm
happy
to
move
on
to
here,
you
know
hear
what
alex
and
ron
have
brought.
B
Well,
we
thought
it
would
be
really
valuable
to
spend
a
little
time
walking
through
some
hypothetical
conflict
scenarios.
So,
as
a
group,
we
can
either
identify
problems
with
the
narrowing
steering
committee,
scope
proposal
or
hopefully
become
much
more
comfortable
with
the
proposal,
and
so
as
a
quick
recap,
the
proposal
is
the
tightly
constrained.
B
B
They
bring
it
to
to
the
group
to
the
community
and
show
off
the
demo
because
they
want
to
get
approval
to
start
a
working
group
and
the
community
is
totally
free
to
define
the
process
for
this
and
the
way
that
we're
proposing
steering
would
work
steering
doesn't
get
to
define
what
happens
next
in
terms
of
how
working
groups
is
created
or
approved.
But
it
seems
pretty
reasonable
that
at
some
point
the
functions
working
group
proposal
will
come
across
the
desk
of
the
toc
and
the
toc
is
then
free
to
deny
our
support.
B
B
So,
as
I
think
various
people
in
the
community
have
previously
debated
or
proposed,
it
might
be
a
good
idea
to
for
the
community
to
create
a
step
outside
of
core
as
well,
so
that
not
every
innovative
effort
has
to
shoot
at
getting
into
core.
Perhaps
one
option
would
be
to
have
a
default
distribution,
which
is
what
you
get
when
you
first
go
and
start
kicking
the
tires
on
kinetic
or
perhaps
there's
another
thing
we
can
create,
which
is
like
a
way
that
you
can
extend,
k
native
without
actually
being
formally
part
of
core.
B
You
know
that
doesn't
currently
exist,
but
that
would
be
up
to
the
community
to
create
it
or
not.
I
like
the
idea
of
having
that
as
a
target,
because
I
think
if
we
set
up
that
the
two
steps
are
sandbox
and
core,
you
inherently
set
up
sort
of
adversarial
setup
with
all
the
people
who
want
to
innovate
in
the
project
that
they
have
to
get
into
core
in
order
to
accomplish
something
about
having
another
place,
that
things
can
land
and
be
sort
of
more
formally
part
of
the
project,
I
think,
is
valuable.
B
B
Now,
obviously,
in
the
real
world
there's
back
and
forth
discussions,
some
of
the
same
people
hold
seats
on
these
different
committees.
So
it's
not
like
the
steering
committee
would
be
taken
by
surprise
by
this
event,
but
at
some
point
functions
comes
to
steering
as
like.
Hey
here's
a
thing
we
want
to
add
to
core,
and
so
steering's
decision
here
has
a
few
implications.
B
They
if
they
decide
to
put
it
in
core
they're,
really
saying
that
vendors
who
support
the
project
need
to
sign
up
for
the
long-term
maintenance
of
functions
that
the
conformance
suite
needs
an
upgrade
path
for
people,
and
there
has
to
be
a
way
for
users.
The
marks
to
know
what
their
time
limit
is
to
meet
the
new
conformance
requirements
in
order
to
retain
their
usage
of
the
marks,
because
our
assumption
that
the
way
we'll
want
to
administer
the
marks
is
there'll
be
a
suite.
B
If
you
pass
it,
you
can
use
the
trademarks
and
if
you
don't
pass
it,
you
can't
use
the
trademarks,
but
now
we're
changing
that
conformance
suite.
So
we
have
to
have
some
system
to
let
people
come
along
with
that
change.
There
may
be
a
vendor
who
doesn't
want
to
conform
to
functions
but
we're
putting
it
in
the
core
and
they're
going
to
have
to
conform
to
maintain
what
they
have.
And
so
that's
that's
a
weighty
decision.
C
Can
we
just
checkpoint
here,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
I
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
information
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
heard
you
correctly
alex?
Is
that
okay
sure?
So
I?
What
I
heard
is,
let
me
see
if
I
can
walk
through
it
in
order,
there's
a
there's,
a
distinction
between
creating
a
working
group
as
like
an
exploratory
body
or
investigative
body
that
maybe
turns
into
like
a
body
that
maintains
a
piece
of
software.
C
And
if
I
heard
you
correctly,
you
view
that
as
a
decision
that
the
toc
makes
like
around
okaying.
The
working
group,
with
the
knowledge
that,
like
creating
a
working
group,
isn't
necessarily
endorsing
something
for
the
scope
or
endorsing
a
piece
of
software
that
that
working
group
would
eventually
create.
But
the
first
thing
I
heard
is:
is
decoupling
those
two
things
and
that
the
toc
has
approval
or
veto
on
creating
working
group?
Is
that
accurate.
B
Yeah,
that's
right,
and
I
mean
the
toc
and
in
general,
the
community
are
free
to
define
the
structure
we
think
works
best
here.
The
goal
is
to
support
innovation,
so
if,
for
some
reason
we
want
to
have
like
two
classes
of
working
groups,
an
innovation
group
in
a
working
group
to
distinguish
between
something
that
we
still
haven't
said
is
gonna
make
it
into
versus
something
that
we
know
is
a
permanent
part.
You
could
have
different
names
for
that
or
whatever
I'm
in
favor
personally
of
less
but
oxygen
last
process.
B
So
I'd
call
it
all
working
groups,
but
I
don't
really
get
a
say
in
that
because
I'm
not
on
the
toc.
So
that's
in
the
to
a
c
slash
communities
domain
to
figure
out
how
to
structure
that.
And
similarly
you
know
if
at
some
point
the
project
grows
to
a
size
where
we
feel
that
these
aren't
technical
decisions,
but
are
decisions
that
we
want
made
by
a
different
subcommittee.
We've
just
created
a
new
subcommittee
that
would
run
that,
whether
that
was
you
know
a
proposed
operations
committee
or
whatever
it
was.
B
That
means
that
consensus
based
decision
making
should
be
the
norm,
and
so
if
functions
comes
to
steering
and
let's
suppose
google
is
in
favor,
but
someone
else
on
steering
is
not
in
favor,
that's
not
consensus.
So,
while,
strictly
speaking
the
way
the
structure
is
set
up,
you
know
google
has
the
formal
veto.
It's
really
steering
that
has
the
veto
and,
if
steering
lives
by
the
principle,
that
voting
is
a
sign
that
things
aren't
working,
that
we
aren't
able
to
reach
consensus
that
we
aren't
able
to
find
good
solutions.
C
What
I,
what
I
heard
was
that
that
say
that
say
that
working
group
x
is
created
and
they
make
software
component
x
and
they
do
all
the
things
to
make
x
really
good
and
have
broad
appeal
that
they're,
if
if
they
want
to
well
there's
two
things
here,
one
is
that
I
heard
a
I
heard
a
principle
of
like
it's.
We
don't
want
there
to
be
an
incentive
to
to
legitimize
things
by
putting
them
into
the
course
so
like.
If
we
have
something.
C
That's
like
that's
useful,
but
not
in
core.
It's
it's
no
less
legitimate
than
something
that
isn't
core.
But
if
it
is
in
core
there's,
maybe
some
additional
expectations
around
it
has
a
representation
in
the
conformance.
Suite
has
a
representation
in
like
a
future
like
starter
default
distribution,
type
concept,
but
if,
if
working
group
x
wants
to
bring
their
piece
of
software
into
core,
I
I
heard
that
the
first
gate
to
pass
is
toc
and
then
the
second
gate
is
steering
and
at
both
of
those
there's,
a
absolute
veto
is
that
right.
B
That's
right
because
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
at
least
I
I
think
I
can
say
to
us.
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
us
to
have
a
world
where
you
know
steering
reviews
something
before
toc
has
blessed
it,
because
poc's
veto
is
binding
and
is
is
first
therefore
right
and
so
yeah
it's
the
first
gate
is
getting
by
toc.
B
Have
like
two
more
sentences
and
then
I'd
like
to
open
it
up,
and
we
can
go
through
the
chat
here.
So
the
last
two
sentences
are,
you
know
if
steering
supports
functions
being
added
to
the
core,
then
it
gets
added
and
the
trademark
users
are
notified
that
they
have
to
meet
new
requirements
to
continue
using
the
marks
and
if
steering,
doesn't
support,
functions
being
added,
they
can
be
to
it,
but
functions
could
still
be
sort
of
legitimized
to
use
your
word
by
putting
it
into
a
default
distribution.
B
Whatever
other
mechanisms
you
want
to
have
to
indicate
that
this
is
truly
like
a
thing
that
we
plan
to
support
as
a
project
long
term.
It
just
isn't
a
requirement
to
use
the
trademark,
and
you
know
vendors
should
expect
that
not
everywhere
where
they
go
or
customers
rather
should
expect
that
not
everywhere
where
they
go.
Will
the
vendor
necessarily
supply
the
k-native
functions
because
they're
not
required
to
in
order
to
conform?
D
B
It
was
actually
first
with
a
question
about
conformance,
and
so
maybe
we'll
do
evan's
questions
on
conformance
and
then
we'll
do
jules
question
on.
I
think
on
v2
I'm
happy
to
defer
to
jules
okay.
Well,
then
jules,
why
don't
you
go
ahead
and
express
it
verbally
for
everybody,
and
then
we
can
respond.
E
B
So
if
the
issue
is,
for
example,
that
we
have
vendor
stakeholders,
all
of
whom
would
like
a
veto,
we
could
create
a
vendor
subcommittee
of
veto
power
and
v2,
empowered
individuals
and
and
have
them
also
be
a
gate
to
approval
and
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
problem
and
so
that
basically
gives
every
vendor
veto
or
alternately.
If
we
think
certain
individuals
in
the
project
should
have
that
veto
power
as
individuals,
we
could
bless
them
or
if
we
want,
we
could
give
everybody
a
veto.
So
yes,
what
you're
right
it
you're
right.
B
E
D
D
E
F
B
So
there's
two
ways
I
can
imagine
that
happening.
The
first
way
is
that,
at
some
point
I
think
we
all
aspire
to
this
project
growing
big
enough
and
popular
enough
and
supported
by
enough
contributors
that
we're
all
in
agreement
that
we
should
move
it
into.
Some
kind
of
you
know
other
state
from
what
it's
in
now
I
I
hesitate
to
commit
to
what
that
state
would
be,
but
I
consider
that
a
very
far
future
state,
so
I
don't
want
to
hold
it
out.
B
It's
a
very,
like
near-term
possibility,
because
I
think
what
has
sort
of
shot
google
in
the
foot
in
the
past
has
been
saying
things
like
oh
yeah.
I
will
eventually
contribute
this
to
a
foundation.
I
think
that's
probably
still
true,
but
I
want
to
put
eventually
so
far
in
the
future
that
we
consider
that
a
fantasy,
because
I
think
that
that
that
sort
of
intent
has
been
over
interpreted
by
the
community.
B
Quite
simply
is
you
know
people
get
irritated
and
fork
the
project
there's
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
open
source
to
give
everybody
that
security
that
that
that
is
the
path
of
last
resort.
I
I
consider
that
a
terrible
vote
of
no
confidence
in
the
leadership
of
the
project,
but
that
is
the
other
pathway.
B
Well,
let
me
give
a
hypothetical,
so
I
personally
don't
want
this.
I
want
to
be
clear.
Okay,
let
me
be
clear.
I
personally
don't
want
this.
I
don't
know
if
google
might
someday
want
it,
but
let's
say
that
the
ouc
works
really
well
for
the
marks
that
it
holds
and
a
year
and
a
half
from
now
google's
like
the
ouc
is
awesome.
B
So
since
the
whole
point
of
this
veto
is
around
protecting
what
it
means
to
be
conformant
and
what
it
means
to
use
the
marks.
When
that,
when
the
marks
are
no
longer
held
by
google,
it
doesn't
make
sense
for
google
to
hold
that
v2
anymore,
and
so
whatever
governance
option
that
ouc
offers
us
would
be
what
we
would
accept
at
that
point,
if
we
thought
that
was
the
right
thing.
G
Yeah
so
some
of
the
structures
you
talked
about,
implied,
potentially
governance
changes
to
make
the
everyone
gets
a
veto,
be
more
accurate.
That
feels
like
another
piece
of
that.
First
govern
the
trademarks
piece
is
govern
yourselves,
so
you
know
the
rules.
If
there
were,
if
there
were
a
change
that
gave
everyone
on
steering
a
practical
veto,
would
that
be
one
of
your
proposals?
G
G
D
G
D
Evan,
I
don't
think
the
intent
was
exactly
that
it
was
an
expression
of.
We
would
like
the
steering
committee
for
the
three
items
that
the
steering
committee
is
responsible
for
to
achieve
consensus
and
we
think
that's
a
functioning,
a
well-functioning
steering
committee
and
and
that
vote
should
be
a
last
resort
at
all
costs.
G
Okay,
my
second
question
was
getting
off
of
the
governance
question
almost
entirely
alex
gave
a
bunch
of
hypotheticals
about
granting
explicit
permission
to
use
the
k-native
trademark,
based
on
a
conformance
suite
right
and
you
and
I
talked
yesterday,
and
I
suggested
this
might
actually
be
a
more
practical
way
to
protect
google's
investments,
but
so
far
steering
hasn't
under
the
current
rule.
Steering
could
charter
a
working
group
or
something
to
work
on
answering
a
bunch
of
these
conformance
questions
that
hasn't
currently
happened,
but
is
that
something
that
you're
proposing.
B
Go
ahead,
go
ahead,
alex
I
spoke
last
so
we're
gonna
say
the
same
thing.
I'll
bet.
I
do
think
that
the
right
way
to
administer
the
marks
is
through
a
conformance
suite,
but
it
was
my
assumption
that
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
spearheaded
by
the
toc
or
by
the
community.
If,
if
no
one
else
does
it,
then?
Yes,
I
think
steering
should
stop
and
step
up
and
try
to
make
that
happen
under
the
proposed
restricted
steering
definition.
B
That's
actually
not
steering's
role
steering
doesn't
get
to
propose
a
new
working
group
so
like
the
way
I
would
actually
want
this
to
work
is
that
you
know
everybody
understands
that
we,
or
hopefully
everybody
agrees.
First
of
all
that
having
conformance
is
the
right
way
to
administer
the
marks
and
then
therefore,
it's
a
priority
to
create
a
conformance
suite
and
then
understand
what
it
means
to
keep
it
stable
and
then
make
that
the
the
way
that
we
do
it.
B
The
fact
that
we
don't
have
conformance
now,
I
think,
is
just
a
missing
piece
we
haven't
gotten
to,
and
so
hopefully
that's
something
we
can
get
to,
but
maybe
as
a
potentially
side
thing.
If
there
are
people
who
feel
like
that's
the
wrong
way
to
decide
who
gets
the
marks,
they
should
probably
speak
up
now
or
get
us
on
email
or
something,
because
that
would
be
a
surprise
to
me.
I
think
that
I.
G
H
So
I
just
want
to
add
to
that
that
we
had
said
steering
had
agreed.
Like
I
don't
know,
time
has
no
meaning
anymore
months
ago
that
we
would
create
a
working
group
to
work
on
that
conformance
process
and
address
some
of
your
issues
by
the
end
of
the
year.
It
was
kind
of
a
like.
We
know
this
is
the
thing,
but
like
we
have
no,
you
know
we
don't
have
the
resources
to
do
it
right
now
so,
but
it
was
so.
H
I
I'm
just
throwing
that
out
there
of
like
the
questions
and
the
stuff
that
you
have
and
that
you're
thinking
of
like
I
think
we
had
previously
discussed
that
we
would,
you
know,
put
a
working
group
together
and
I
think
you're
exactly
right
that
that's
a
working
group
that
would
consist
of
people
that
aren't
necessarily
on
toc
or
steering
or
whatever
it's
like.
You
know.
I
think
it's
it's
a
good
project,
for
you
know
all
sorts
of
different
users
to
be
part
of.
So
that's
just
my
yes
and
maybe.
C
I
I
B
I
don't
think
so,
but
neither
do
I
think
that
all
those
other
more
important
needs
are
the
purview
of
stealing
that
all
those
things
you're
talking
about,
which
I
think
are
way
more
important
than
this,
and
I
expressed
my
view
in
our
first
public
meeting
that
we
shouldn't
have
public
meetings
on
this,
because
I
felt
it
would
waste
the
team's
time
on
things
that
are
not
worthy
of
having
the
whole
team
involved.
You
know
all
those
things
can
be
done
in
parallel
or
irrelevant
to
this
decision.
B
This
decision
doesn't
affect
the
community's
ability
to
create
an
operations
working
group
to
drive
conferences
or
do
marketing.
It
doesn't
affect
the
community's
ability
to
go
and
start
new
working
groups
and
try
new,
innovative
things.
It
doesn't
affect
our
ability
to
move
the
project
forward.
This
is
if
we
want
to
have
a
trademark
that
underlies
our
open
source
project,
and
we
want
that
trademark
to
be
the
google
owned
mark.
This
is
the
solution
to
making
that
have
a
well-defined
process
that
everybody
understands
and
knows
how
to
get
access
to
that
mark.
B
If
we
don't
want
the
mark,
we
just
fork
and
work
off
the
fork,
or
we
can
just
ignore
this
discussion
and
let
you
know
let
those
steering
monkey
mugs
do
whatever
the
hell
they
want.
We
don't
need
to
spend
50
people's
time
debating
how
the
trademarks
work,
because
I
agree
with
you
benjamin.
It
is
not
the
most
important
thing,
but
that
is
what
we're
doing
for
the
moment.
C
Can
I
offer
a
way
to
slim
down
the
problem
space
here?
I
think
I
think
putting
powers
in
the
project
into
the
hands
of
the
community
around
reducing
the
scope
of
steering,
like
I
think
that
makes
sense.
It
means
that
we
can.
We
can
have
more
folks
working
on
more
things
that
are
important
instead
of
like
fixing
the
bandwidth
available
to
the
people
that
aren't
steering
I.
C
So
let
me
offer
a
hypothetical
here
so
say
that
modular
the
details-
and
I
think,
there's
plenty
right
but
modular
the
details
say
that
we
did
reduce
the
scope
of
steering
to
what
you
all
have
proposed
and
we
use
the
model
that
is
in
the
community.
214
proposal
for
determining
how
steering
is
composed
is:
is
that
operable.
B
I
don't
think
the
model
that's
proposed
in
the
pr
fits
with
these
responsibilities
of
steering.
If
we
wanted
to
do
something
like
create
a
new,
a
new
steering
that
was
composed
that
way,
who's
whose
job
was
fit
for
the
purpose
of,
for
example,
having
customers
on
the
board,
then
that
would
make
sense.
We
want
to
take
the
existing
steering
and
call
it
the
board
and
make
a
new
steering,
which
is
this
community
elected
thing.
That
is
like
an
operations
committee
slash,
you
know,
marketing,
slash
events,
type,
focus
or
community
building
type
focus.
B
We
could
do
that,
but
the
for
example,
picking
on
the
customer's
element,
specifically
having
customers
who
can
vote
on
whether
or
not
something
should
be
in
the
conformance,
suite
and
control
who
can
use
the
marks
that
doesn't
make
sense
to
me.
You
don't
go
and
ask
your
customers
what
the
what
the
trademark
is
or
what
should
define,
who
gets
to
use
the
trademark.
That
is
virtually
strictly
a
vendor,
slash,
trademark,
owner
type
concern,
and
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
include
stakeholders
who
don't
really
have
a
state.
C
A
B
Advising
on
trademark,
it's
still
like,
ultimately
the
case
just
as
within
any
of
our
organizations
when
we
want
something
done
that
involves
legal
approval.
We
within
our
organizations
form
a
group
that
makes
a
proposal
to
legal
and
hopefully
get
legal
to
approve
or
rubber
stamp
it,
but
then
sometimes
there's
legal
advice
that
modifies
it
steering
as
a
whole
would
play
that
role
and
would,
for
example,
be
the
group
that
would
at
some
point
advise
google
that
oh,
the
trademark
should
be
donated
to
the
ouc
or
some
other
change
like
that.
B
That
would
change
this
whole
structure.
We're
talking
about
so
the
other
members
of
steering
that
are
non-googlers
would
be
responsible
for
having
a
voice
in
when
to
do
that,
and
then.
Lastly,
just
as
google
takes
on
an
obligation
to
try
to
make
sure
that
the
conformance
suite
works,
that
these
things
are
long-term
maintained,
the
other
members
of
steering
have
a
say
in
what
goes
into
the
scope
of
core,
because
they
too
are
taking.
B
On
that
responsibility,
so,
in
our
hypothetical
functions
being
added
to
core
we'd,
really
like
the
reassurance
that
all
the
all
the
people
who
are
signing
up
for
the
long-term
job
of
maintaining
the
core
and
maintaining
the
conformance
suite
are
aware
of
what
they're
getting
into
and
have
a
voice
in
whether
they're
signed
up
for
that
or
not.
So
that
would
be
the
role.
C
C
So
if
I,
if
I
think
about,
however,
steering
is
composed,
say
that
steering
wants
to
add,
let's
call
it
component
x
to
core
that,
like,
ultimately,
since
google
is
the
trademark
holder.
Currently
that
steering
is
really
advising
the
the
steering,
isn't
necessarily
deciding
to
add
that
to
the
core
they're
deciding
to
advise
the
holder
of
the
trademark,
which
is
google
about
their
desire
to
add
that
to
the
core
and
google
has
an
essential
veto
over
that
currently
because
they
hold
the
mark.
C
So
here's
why
I'm
confused
is
I
don't
understand
what
google
would
lose
by
allowing
compositions
of
steering
where,
like
google
may
not
even
have
any
representation,
because
they
have
an
essential
veto
as
the
holder
of
the
mark?
It
did.
I
misunderstand
something
and
if
I
did
I'd
love
to
know
what
I.
D
D
No,
I
I
just
wanted
to
understand
that,
but
I
guess
it
would
mean,
would
be
sea
level,
veto,
steering
level
veto
and,
if
steering
all
agreed
on
something,
but
it
still
didn't
meet
with
google's
needs,
it
would
be
yet
another
level
of
veto
is.
Is
that
what
you
you?
That's
what
you're
saying
paul
right
and
so
correct?
Why.
D
C
I
think
that's,
I
think
that
is.
Let
me
put
it
to
you
this
way.
I
think
that
that
so
here's
a
scenario
I'm
thinking
about
is
like
toc
says
yeah
we
want
to
add
it
steering,
says
yeah,
we
want
to
add
it.
Google,
trade,
google,
I
don't
know
what
part
of
google
but
like
in
in
whoever
it
is,
that's
going
to
make
it
feel
the
yeah.
D
Make
it
simple:
it's
it's
wrong.
At
google,
it's
ronnie
google
who's
product
manager
over
at
you
know
a
product
set
that
you
know
to
to
to
get
back
to
what
benjamin
was
saying,
because
I
thought
that
that's
it
that's
the
one
comment
I
agree
more
than
anything
else.
I
care
about
the
thousands
of
customers
and
so
ron
says.
No.
I
don't
want
to
add
this
to
the
scope,
because
that
doesn't
make
sense
for
my
customers.
D
C
To
finish
yeah,
I
want
to
finish
the
the
example
so
say
that
say
that
to
says
toc
says
we
want
to
add
component
x
to
core
steering
says
we
want
to
add
component
x
to
core
when
it
goes
through
the
trademark
holder.
They
have
a
veto
opportunity
there
and
that
could
happen
whether
or
not
google
had
representation
on
steering
like
we
might
get
into
that
scenario.
C
If
I
it's
not
clear
what
google
loses,
if
we,
if
we
have
like
a
hybrid
approach
of
decompose,
the
responsibilities
of
steering
and
empower
the
community
right,
but
also
have
steering
be
elected
and
from
the
community
and
determine
according
to
the
mechanics
that
we
have
in
the
proposal,
it's
not
clear
what
yeah
I
I
think,
yeah.
I
think.
B
The
people
who
we
put
on
steering
are
still
going
to
be,
if
nothing
else,
the
managers
of
the
engineers
who
are
investing
their
lives
in
the
project
and
they
have
a
vested
interest
in
the
single
project.
Music
festival.
Steering
if
we
want
steering,
have
a
voice
and
have
influence
with
google's
legal
department
and
steering
consists
of
you
know
four
googlers
and
three
vendor
seats
as
it
is
today.
Then
all
those
people
have
a
voice
in
where
this
goes
and
we
have
real
teeth.
B
When
we
advise
legal,
because
there's
a
lot
of
control
for
google
already
implicit
there
imagine
a
world
where
there's
no
googler
on
steering
we
compose
steering
out
of
all
elected
seats
and
no
googler
steps
up
for
the
election
and
there's
no
google
at
all,
and
that
group
has
to
go
to
google
legal
to
get
them
to
approve
something.
Do
you
think
that
body
is
really
going
to
have
a
voice?
B
Will
the
project
actually
be
able
to
drive
the
changes
it
wants?
If
the
change
we
want
is
to
donate
the
trademark,
will
you
see
will
be
able
to
do
that
is
you're
just
setting
it
up?
So
this
is
a
lame
duck
body
that
can't
actually
drive
the
decisions
or
where
there's
a
single
rogue
product
manager,
whose
name
is
ron
at
google
who's
decided
his
customers
are
special
and
they
need
something
different
than
what
you
want.
D
E
F
F
I
think
alex
is
right
in
that
google
legal
folks
would
do
their
fiduciary
photo
sharing
yeah
fiduciary
duty,
as
as
lawyers
working
on
behalf
of
google,
to
defend
its
interests
to
the
best
of
their
abilities.
I
think
that's
fine.
The
thing
to
bear
in
mind,
though,
is
that
google
is
within
its
rights
essentially
to
covenant.
That
trademark,
like
donating
to
foundation,
is
one
very
explicit
way
of
doing
that,
because
it
creates
a
separate
legal
ownership,
but
it
can
also
basically
bind
itself
publicly.
F
F
To
be
made
that
we
have
a
de
facto
unincorporated
association,
we
have
rules,
we
have
voting
procedures,
we
have
things
that
we
coordinate
on.
You
can
create
an
unincorporated
association
by
saying
george.
Let's
start
a
tv
watching
club
like
it
just
happens
from
the
fact
and
that,
typically
speaking,
since
it's
an
incorporated
that
has
no
legal
personality,
and
so
any
property
that's
associated
with
that
group
is
held
on
trust
by
someone.
Usually
the
legal
owner.
F
F
It
could
be
made
an
argument
that,
as
a
trustee
or
that
you
have
created
a
trusty
relationship,
you
never
have
to
say
I'm
a
trustee
to
be
a
trustee.
It
arises
from
the
facts
of
the
situation
and
if
google
has
created
a
trustee
relationship
with
the
rest
of
the
community,
that's
a
problem
for
you.
Your
legal
position,
changes
from
being
the
absolute
undisputed
owner
able
to
dispose
of
the
property.
F
However,
you
please
to
trust
the
relationship
in
which
you
are
a
fiduciary
duty
to
the
community,
which
means
you
cannot
put
your
interests
ahead
of
the
people
on
whose
behalf
you
hold
the
trust.
Does
that
make
sense
again,
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
and
this
is
not
legal
advice.
It's
for
entertainment
purposes
only,
but
I
would
caution
I
would
caution
against
taking
the
view
that
you
have
an
absolute
power
over
that
trust.
I
would
caution
that
your
actions
have
possibly
created
a
more
complex
legal
relationship
than
you
currently
envisage
in
this.
B
C
C
If
what
if
google
were
to
retain
like
two
permanent
seats
on
steering
and
the
rest
can
be
elected
and
and
that
way
we
address
the
the
adding
the
the
the
gravity
to
our
interactions
from
steering
when
we
make
recommendations
around
the
the
mark
to
google
legal
and
there's
like
there's
no
situation
where,
where
steering
would
make
a
decision
without
having
like
a
google
voice,
saying
like
hey,
this
is
what
the
lawyers
are
gonna
think,
so
we
should
tune
x,
y
and
z
thing
about
this.
Is
that
workable?
B
Because
to
me,
that's
what
adding
things
to
the
core
means
when
we
add
things
to
the
core
we're
committing
to
maintain
them
forever
and
we're
committing
that
their
requirement
for
getting
access
to
the
marks.
And
so
the
people
who
are
on
steering
should
should
have
those
powers
and
they
don't
need
more
than
those
powers
or
less
and
those
powers.
Don't
necessarily
correspond
to
people
who
chop
wouldn't
carry
water
on
the
project,
which
I
think
is
the
most
important
qualification
for
basically
every
other
role.
B
You
mean,
would
I
object
to
it.
I
mean
I
don't
think
that's
the
best
structure,
but
if,
if
it
was
the
case
that
everybody
else
felt,
that
was
a
far
better
structure
for
reasons
that
I
don't
perceive.
You
know
I
could
be
convinced
absolutely,
but
I
want
to
hear
a
real
reason
why
it
would
make
the
steering
committee
more
effective
to
help
convince
me,
because
I
don't
I'm
not
convinced
that
it
would
be
more
effective.
C
So
what
I'm
interested
in
in
doing
is
finding
a
way
to
to
to
bridge
the
viewpoints
here
in
a
way
that
means
that
we
don't
have
to
continue
having
these
conversations
and
that
the
community
feels
like
their
voice,
has
been
heard
and
like
there's
representation
at
the
steering
level.
So
I
think
the
value
add
of
finding
a
workable
solution
is
that
we
can.
We
can
put
this
matter
to
rest
and
we
can
move
on
and
we
can.
C
D
Me
too,
I
think,
you've
been
part
of
this
conversation
about
two
orders
of
magnitude
longer
than
I
have
so
I'm
beginning
to
empathize,
quite
a
bit
because
you
know
there
have
been
a
number
of
comments
around
these
weekly
shows.
If
you
will,
where
I,
I
think,
we're
trying
we're
all
trying
to
make
progress,
but
we
haven't
I
for
one.
D
I
personally
like
your
suggestion,
because
I
appreciate
that
it's
in
the
spirit
of
let's
find
a
way
to
move
forward,
so
that
alex
and
I
can
get
the
we
can
meet
the
requirements
that
we
have.
We
can
get
better
community
representation
in
the
leadership
of
the
project.
I
think
I
think
the
ultimate
goal
is
to
get
leaders
leadership
in
the
project
from
the
community
and,
if
you
think,
that's
a
way
to
bridge
that
gap,
I
think
we
should
consider
it.
D
I
I
think
what
that
starts
to
look
like
is
the
fact
that
we
we
need
a
steering
committee.
That
is
a
steering
committee
for
the
k-native
project
and
what
we're
what
we're
focusing
here
is
actually
the
the
new
definition
of
steering
where
maybe
google
has
two
votes,
but
the
veto
and
all
of
what
you're
talking
about
is
actually
more
acting
like
a
board
than
a
steering
committee.
D
More
than
anything
else,
and
and
that's
what
it
starts
to
look
like
to
me-
so,
for
example,
the
board
at
any
corporation
really
has
just
one
job
to
elect
and
fire
a
ceo
and
everything
else
is
actually
just
advisory.
So
anyway,
I
I
don't
want
to
get
in
into
a
tangent.
We
should
still
call
it
the
steering
committee,
but
that's
that's
the
thought
you
put
into
my
head
paul
as
as
you
were
describing
it.
I
think
I
I
have
some
follow-up
questions
for
you.
D
C
E
I
I
take
a
crack
at
the
reasoning
because
I
think
it's
kind
of
simple.
I
think
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
we
don't
want
a
steering
committee
that
only
has
google
on
it
and
I
think
from
what
I
understand
the
other
steering
committee
members
don't
want
to
do
it
anymore.
They
want
to
have
a
representative
steering
committee,
and
I
think
I've
heard
quite
a
few
of
them
say
that
they
would
like
to
hand
over
that
responsibility.
E
B
So
I
can,
I
can
expect
a
solution
where
we
have
a
bunch
of
elected
seats
on
steering
because
from
a
protecting
google's
requirements,
point
of
view
it
satisfies
those
things.
It
makes
me
sad
because
I
don't
think
it's
right
for
the
project,
but
maybe
I'm
wrong
about
that,
and
you
know
we
can
always
change
things
again
later.
If
we've
made
a
mistake,
we
don't
have
to
like
the
things
we
do
will
always
change
year
over
year.
So
I
don't
I
don't.
E
D
Can
we
call,
I
think,
yeah
so
so
the
community
is
extremely
frustrated
right
now
again
from
the
the
newbie
in
the
room.
The
community
is
extremely
frustrated.
It's
not
going
to
magically
just
in
one
week
be
happy.
What
I
like
about
your
suggestion
is
that
it's
attempting
to
find
a
way
to
start
building
some
trust
and
and
building
a
good
relationship
from
where
we're
at
now.
C
J
B
I
can
take
a
stab
at
either
modifying
the
existing
pr
or
making
it.
I
think
it
might
be
easier
to
make
a
new
pr
based
on
it
and
then
put
a
comparison
pr.
You
know
I
I
will
struggle
with
it
a
little
bit,
because
I
I'm
having
difficulty
understanding
the
value
of
the
elected
seats,
but
let
me
do
that.
A
B
K
K
I
think
right
now
the
community
needs
a
real
sign
of
goodwill
from
google,
an
actionable
non-talking
sign
of
goodwill,
and
if
that
sign
of
goodwill
takes
place,
it
might
tone
down
this
frustration
signal
from
the
community
and
I
think
that's
my
understanding
of
what
paul
was
talking
about.
So
it's
not
just
about
making
people
happy,
but
it's
in
the
best
interest
of
the
project
itself.
B
B
It
takes
away
all
of
the
existing
powers
of
steering
that
it
doesn't
need
and
gives
them
to
the
community,
and
it
focuses
steering
on
doing
only
the
things
that
are
essential
to
steering's
function
and
I
think
that's
that's
a
big
step
forward,
but
I
understand
that
other
people
don't
see
it
that
way,
and
so
you
know
it's.
Obviously
I
have
some
mistake.
My
point
of
view.
K
C
C
D
Exactly
right,
I
want
to
make
sure,
though,
that
it's
not
an
empty
gesture,
that
we
have
a
need
to
protect
the
scope
and
and
conformance
so
that
would
not
go
away,
but
at
the
same
time,
the
desire
for
community
elected
participation
in
that
final
process
is
meaningful
is.
Is
that
what
you're
saying.
K
K
G
Oh,
if
I
can
can
sort
of
summarize
my
feeling
on
this
right
now,
it
feels
like
the
community
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
trust
in
steering
for
two
reasons.
One
is
the
seats
and
governance
thing
that
we're
discussing
here,
and
the
other
is
that
historically,
steering
has
not
been
able
to
make
a
lot
of
progress,
and
so
it
feels
like
if
we
could
show
some
positive
progress
on
the
governance
and
then
delegate
hard
problems.
J
J
J
E
E
Google
needs
a
position
on
steering
because
it
owns
the
trademarks
and
therefore,
google's
legal
department
needs
to
approve
what
happens
to
trademark
and
therefore
all
the
problems
that's
easily
solved
right
and
that's
how
we're
solving
kubernetes
it
actually
was
how
it
was
solved
in
istio,
not
necessarily
the
foundation
I'd
personally
choose,
but
there
is
an
easy
solution.
The
trading
ones
could
be
donated
and
the
problem
goes
away.
B
B
It
frankly,
in
my
opinion,
what
we've
built
is
not
popular
enough.
It's
not
important
enough
and
it
is,
is
just
not
ready
yet
for
that
level
of
visibility.
We
have.
We
have
a
nice,
you
know
120
000
lines
of
golf
code
that
provides
some
good
value,
add
on
top
of
kubernetes,
but
it's
just
not
the
same
level
as
kubernetes
or
istio,
or
these
other
projects
that
have
been
established
and
have
a
ton
of
usage
we're
just
not
there
yet,
in
my
mind,.
L
So
that
kind
of
confuses
me,
because
I
would
think
that
if
it's
small,
it's
much
easier
for
google
to
say
hey
whatever
here
take
it,
I
give
it
to
this
foundation
and
foundation
runs
with
it.
I
don't
quite
understand
why
size
of
the
project
itself
is
in
any
way
like
related
to
if
we
donate
or
not.
If
anything,
I
would
think
google
would
try
to
hold
on
to
things
that
are
bigger
in
size
much
more
than
two
things
that
are
smaller
in
size.
B
Sorry,
I
think
the
project
needs
more
more
stewardship
when
it's
young
than
when
it's
established.
So
I
mean
I
don't
have
a
better
analogy
than
a
parenting
analogy.
I
guess
I
show
the
age
of
my
white
hair,
but
you
you
take
care
of
your
kids
more
when
they're
young,
when
they're
old
by
the
time
they're
teenagers
or
young
adults
they're,
making
their
own
decisions
they're
off
and
running
and
they're
established.
B
But
when
it's
in
the
early
stages
you
know
we
really
could
redefine
what
canada
is
quite
dramatically,
because
there's
it
doesn't
have
an
established
identity
yeah.
Well,
I
think
we're
on
our
way.
Don't
get
me
wrong.
I
think
a
lot
of
great
things
have
been
achieved,
but
there's
work
to
be
done
to
get
there
and
I
think
controlling
the
scope
of
what
the
brand
means
will
define
it
over
time.