►
From YouTube: Knative public Steering committee meeting - Aug 19, 2020
Description
This is the recording of the first public Knative Steering committee meeting, where the PR 214 was discussed (https://github.com/knative/community/pull/214)
A
Oh
sorry,
now
I
have
to
do
my
pitch
again.
Okay,
welcome
everyone
to
our
first
publicative
steering
meeting.
This
is
our
first
time
doing
it.
So
thank
you
all
for
joining.
This
is
a
pretty
large
group.
So
just
a
reminder
about
meeting
etiquette
and
everything
if
you
have
something
to
add
I'll,
do
my
best
to
kind
of
moderate
the
conversation
here,
but
if
you
have
something
to
add
just
throw
it
in
the
chat
and
we
can
just
make
sure
that
your
comments
and
questions
are
addressed
yeah.
A
C
I
think
that
I
think
we
opened
it
about
exactly
a
week
ago,
and
I
saw
that
many
of
you
have
had
comments
about
it,
but
I
wanted
to
contextualize
the
key
points
of
it
for
the
recording
and
for
folks
that
may
not
have
heard
it
it's.
I
don't
remember
how
many
lines
are
in
the
pr,
but
we
won't
include
every
detail
here,
just
five
key
points,
which
is
that
the
proposal
is
for
steering
seats
being
held
by
individuals
as
opposed
to
by
vendors.
C
A
sure
thing:
sorry,
maybe
the
audio
came
through
a
little
muddled.
The
fourth
point
was
that
there
will
be
seven
sorry
there
are
seven
seats
on
steering
and
that
the
proposal
is
for
five
of
those
to
be
to
for
contributors,
people
that
helped
to
build
the
project
and
the
other
two
are
for
end
users.
So,
for
example,
an
end
user
is
somebody
that
works
for
a
company
that
consumes
the
project
rather
than
sells
a
product
based
around
it.
C
F
F
I
also
remembered
another
question
that
I
had
in
mind,
which
was
I
saw
in
a
previous
document,
which
was,
I
think
there
were
two
different
opinions
of
whether
the
student
committee
work
is
advisory
and
the
toc
is
the
one
who's
actually
doing
most
of
the
most
of
the
decisions,
or
personally
I
was
seeing
it
that
a
steering
committee
has
a
higher
strategic
role
in
the
project,
while
toc
is
more
involved
in
the
technical
and
cross
projects,
tactical
decisions
or
something.
So,
can
you
clarify
more
on
this
advisory
versus
more
involved
in
strategic.
C
D
H
A
I
Well,
I
was
about
to
mumble
something
but
yeah
having
been
on
the
tlc
and
and
having
seen
what
some
of
the
sc
conversations
happen,
early
on
and
so
forth,
and
everything
else.
While
you
might
argue
that
I
don't
even
have
the
technical
jobs,
I
definitely
don't
have
the
skill
set
that
is
necessary
to
be
participating
in
the
steering,
nor
necessarily
the
interest
there
as
well,
and
I
think
that
it
would
be.
I
I
would.
I
would
propose
that
that
we
address
the
sc
composition
first,
because
I
know
it's
been
talked
about
for
quite
a
long
time
and
folks
have
expressed
some
concerns
about
it
and
then
then
we
can
go
and
tackle
the
second
part
to
go
ahead
and
figure
out
if
there
is
indeed
overlap
or
whatever.
But
that's
just
my
personal
experience
and
and
just
wanted
to
share.
C
Yeah,
I
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
any
other,
any
other
thoughts
on
the
generalities.
Sorry
I
move
around.
I
realize
I've
actually
got
my
camera
turned
on
now,
but
I
still
move
around
yeah.
Any
any
other
comments
that
folks
have
about
the
the
generalities
key
points
of
the
proposal.
Is
it?
Is
it
the
direction
you
want
things
to
go?
Do
folks
want
things
to
be
different.
C
F
Yeah
yeah.
Basically,
I
wanted
to
know
the
context,
because
it
was
a
little
bit
confusing
for
me
to
see
that
there
are
kind
of
like
two
different
opinions
about
the
essence
of
the
steering
committee,
whether
it's
out
of
advisory
or
it's
actual
steering.
So
I
wanted
to
know
yeah.
What's
what's
the
context?
What's
the
background
that,
since
this
is
the
first
public
meeting.
C
F
If
it
was
advisory,
I
would
believe
that
a
toc
would
have
acted
differently
and
would
have
said,
let's
hear
opinions,
but
then
we
will.
We
are
the
people
who,
with
the
final
say
in
this.
I
think
these
are
two
different
modes
totally,
because
at
some
points
for
it
was
very
clear.
This
is
a
steering
committee
decision
and
if
people
say
now,
no
that
was
only
advisory.
H
So
my
recollection
of
something
famas
said
during
one
of
the
you
know:
toc
joint
steering
meetings
that
we
have
was
that
effectively
for
gaps
in
sort
of
preparative
ownership.
It
fell
back
on
steering
but
steering
sort
of
backstopped
the
student
decision
making
gaps
in
the
government's
governance
documentation
that
consistent
with
what
other
folks
remember.
C
Yeah
and
the
I
don't
think
this
has
been
especially
well
defined
in
the
past.
I
think
that
we
have
an
opportunity,
while
we're
talking
about
this,
to
clarify
that
it's
sort
of
entangled.
You
know
with
the
question
that
I
think
sort
of
surfaces
this
into
this
conversation
around
the
around
the
scope
and
how
will
we
add
things
to
the
scope?
E
In
in
terms
of
like
you
know,
association
club
society,
constitutions
that
I've
seen
over
time,
the
most
common
pattern
is
that
you
have
a
sorry
most
common
pat,
you
have
is
like
a
management
committee
that
has
you
know
all
the
powers
delegated
to
it,
and
then
it
in
turn
sort
of
passes
its
power
out
through
a
sort
of
a
a
regulatory
framework.
What's
interesting
about
the
effectively
the
constitution.
E
C
A
A
J
J
There
you
go
so
I
I
mean
thank
you
brenda
for
for
reading
it.
What
I'm,
what
I'm
wondering
is
like.
So
what
what
are
the
main
goal,
because
I
I
agree
that
you
know
making
the
steering
committee
technical
is
important,
but
vida's
point
is
also
very
good.
You
want
people
that
actually
want
to
spend
the
time
doing
it,
so
I
always
wondered.
J
What's
the
goal
for
you
know
the
changes
and
I
think
the
diversification
avoiding
one
company
to
have
a
lot
of
power,
and
things
like
this
are
the
important
things
and
if
that's
the
goal,
then
you
know
it
doesn't
matter
who's
there.
We
should
just
try
to
achieve
that
goal.
So,
in
other
words,
like
you,
we
don't
want
out
of
the
five
seats.
Let's
say:
there's
five
seats
that
three
of
them
come
from
one
company,
whether
or
not
those
people
are
brilliant.
J
C
I
think
the
second
one
is
probably
easier
to
answer
than
the
first,
at
least
in
terms
of
wall
clock
time
needed.
So
what
I'd
expect
is
that
we
arrive
at
a
consensus
on
steering
or
or
we
have
a
vote
and
we
merge
or
we
don't
merge
the
pr
and
that's
how
we
consider
it
to
be
adopted
or
not.
The
the
the
first
question
is
a
little
bit
more
detailed,
let's
say
so.
C
I
see
it
as
being
very
important
that
people
feel
that
the
project
is
governed
in
a
way
that
is
representative
of
the
community,
so
that
individual
involvement
is
very
important
to
that.
Individuals
demonstrate
the
things
that
make
them
eligible
and
make
them
desirable
to
be
part
of
steering
by
the
work
they
do
in
the
community
after
that
layer.
C
There's
the
question
of
there's
the
question
of
having
having
a
balance
of
power
and
that's
where
the
the
vendor
majority
principle
comes
in,
and
what
we
have
in
the
proposal
now
is
that
I
think
it.
I
think
it
says
no
more
than
two
seats
occupied
on
steering
by
employees
of
the
same
vendor,
and
that
is
to
ensure
that
that
no
vendor
exerts
an
outsized
control
over
things
at
the
steering
level
and
that
steering
decisions
are
are
made
by.
C
A
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
for
me
it's
a
lot
of
around
the
responsibility
of
steering
is
like
growing
and
evolving
this
community
and
there's
a
ton
we
can
do
there
and
I
think,
in
order
to
you
know,
do
that
role
effectively.
You
need
to
understand,
like
the
nitty-gritty
details
of
the
community,
like
what's
working,
what's
not
working
with
our
current
community
structure
and
etc.
A
C
G
Yeah,
I
can
do
so.
I
suppose
what
I'm
wondering,
what's
not
really
clear
to
me,
is
whether
having
separate
groups
for
the
steering
committee
in
the
toc
is
based
on
authority
or
ability
like
I
don't
know,
if
it's,
if
it's
a
thing
where
we're
having
another
layer
of
people
to
approve
things
or
sign
things
off.
C
C
D
No
just
to
be
clear,
the
reason
I'm
mentioning
this
stuff
is
simply
because
I
I
don't
like
extra
process,
extra
bureaucracy
and
stuff,
and
I
just
don't
feel
like
with
that
bigger
group
to
warrant
it
and
I'd
like
to
to
keep
most
of
those
discussions
to
a
minimum
as
possible,
just
focus
on
the
code,
and
one
way
to
do
that
is
to
reduce
layers.
So
that's
the
reason,
motivation
here,
it's
not
because
I
think
something's
necessarily
wrong.
It's
just
I
like
I
just
like
pin
processes.
C
C
E
I
think
that's
one
of
the
advantages
of
the
changes
being
proposed
actually
is
that
by
changing
the
formulation
from
seats
being
held
by
vendors,
to
seats
being
held
by
individuals
and
adding
machinery
that
allows
individuals
to
be
pushed
up
and
based
on
election
results
that
that
won't
happen
again.
Hopefully.
A
M
A
A
F
C
A
K
C
C
M
So
certainly,
I'm
not
ready
the
way
this
came
to
light.
I
think,
as
I
saw
in
some
agenda
doc
or
some
email,
a
note
from
brenda
that
wasn't
getting
any
traction
about
how
we
should
close
this
issue,
and
I
brought
it
up
as
an
agenda
for
the
joint
steering
toc
meeting
that
very
day
and
then
also
as
an
agenda
item
for
the
steering
committee
that
same
week
and
we
started
having
some
discussions.
M
Paul
brenda
and
I
sort
of
went
off
as
a
splinter
of
the
steering
committee
to
go
and
try
to
put
together
a
bunch
of
thoughts
around
this.
It
became
pretty
clear
that
we
were
coming
at
it
from
very
different
angles
in
our
discussion,
and
so
unfortunately,
just
after
that
I
went
off
on
two
weeks
vacation
and
I'm
just
back
from
my
two
weeks,
vacation
and
digging
out
of
a
small
backlog
of
a
few
thousand
emails.
M
And
here
I
am
at
the
public
meeting
having
this
discussion.
So
the
the
I
think
paul
was
careful
to
clarify
that
this
proposal
didn't
come
from
steering
committee,
but
came
from
a
subgroup
of
it
and
there
will
be,
I
think,
a
need
for
a
lot
more
discussion
and
understanding
of
the
proposal
and
its
intent
and
its
impact
before
we
could
actually
close
on
on
the
decision,
but
the
to
try
to
go
back
to
amit's
question.
You
know
the
reason
this
is
a
topic
of
discussion.
M
Right
now
is
because
brenda
had
raised
it
and
it
seemed
stillborn,
and
I
tried
to
get
it
to
have
some
discussion
and
that
initiated
sort
of
a
fresh
round
of
conversation
around
it.
From
my
point
of
view,
some
of
the
opinions
here
are
really
interesting.
It's
always
good
to
hear
everybody's
perspective,
the
existing
charter,
as
it's
written,
bearing
in
mind
I'm
coming
into
it
as
an
outsider.
M
These
things
seem
to
be
spelled
out
quite
plainly
in
black
and
white
in
the
existing
charter
to
me
so
figuring
out
how
to
clarify
that.
So
we
understand
how
it
is
that
steering
parcels
out
its
power
and
how
those
powers
are
being
executed
in
practice.
It's
something
that
I
guess
I
need
more
context
on.
I
think
jacques
had
said
earlier
in
the
meeting
that
typically,
this
is
how
it's
done.
You
have
an
executive
body
that
delegates
its
power
out
to
the
sub
bodies,
and
that
looks
like
exactly
the
structure
that's
currently
in
place.
E
Yeah
my
observation
there
was
that
that
was
a
typical
structure.
What
was
interesting
about
this
one
was
that
the
toc
is
a
constitutional
body
rather
than
a
regulatory
body
like
it.
It
flowed
from
the
structure
of
the
documents
that
define
the
project
governance
rather
than
from
a
decision
by
the
steering
committee,
and
I
think
that's
where
a
lot
of
the
sort
of
the
confusion
and
and
and
continuing
debate
comes
from
is
that
it
has
a
constitutional
standing.
C
F
A
I'm
so
eager
to
make
progress
on
this
issue.
I
think
it's
crazy
that
the
initially
opened
in
2019-
and
it's
not
closed,
like
that.
That
is
unacceptable
in
my
head,
very
candidly
speaking,
so
I
I
would
honestly
prefer
to
make
a
decision
and
progress
on
this
sooner
than
a
month
from
now
that
that's
kind
of
my
take,
I
I
think
you
know
from
our
last
community
meeting
to
giving
everyone
a
heads
up
like
this
has
been
a
topic,
a
sore
topic
for
a
long
time
already.
C
D
Yeah
I
like
the
idea
of
going
faster,
rather
than
slower
people
who
who
have
how
I
say
this
right.
People
who
have
the
most
or
people
who
should
have
the
most
voice
in
this
should
already
understand.
What's
going
on
because
they're
part
of
the
community,
if
people
need
more
time
than
a
week
because
they
need
to
gather
the
information,
then
chances
are
they're,
not
part
of
the
community,
and
they
shouldn't
be
really
influencing
our
decision.
M
C
N
Paul,
I
would
agree
with
that
that
we
owe
taking
something
that,
as
brenda
put,
has
been
languishing
for
eight
nine
months,
maybe
even
longer,
we
should
bring
it
to
closure,
it's
just
that
is
a
little
a
little
longer
than
it
should
be.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
it
right,
and
so
I've
been
listening,
careful
carefully,
trying
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
what's
going
on,
because
I
yeah
I
too
am
very
new
to
the
community
and
want
to
be
careful
with
the
changes
we
make.
N
K
N
Good,
we
have
focus
on
it
now.
Let's
go
understand
all
the
details,
work
through
it
just
like
any
other
design
dock
and
get
it
done,
but
I
think
you
know
putting
an
arbitrary
deadline
on
it.
Wow,
looking
good
in
good
faith,
I
want
to
focus
on
it
and
and
get
it
resolved,
putting
a
a
one
week.
One
month
deadline,
I
I
think,
is
somewhat
arbitrary.
A
M
As
far
as
I
would
know
brenda
the
time
that
you
raised,
it
was
the
first
time
that
you
raised
it.
Since
I
was
on
committee
and
that
week
I
took
action
and
spent
two
hours
with
you
and
paul
discussing
it
on
video
chat.
We
need
to
record
those
meetings
and
use
that
record
to
create
meeting
notes
that
we
would
have
a
common
understanding
of
our
two
hours
worth
of
discussion.
I
haven't
seen
the
meeting
notes,
yet
I
don't
yet
have
access
to
the
videos
I'm
trying
to
make
progress.
M
I
can't
give
you
more
than
the
two
hours
I
gave
that
week.
I
then
went
on
vacation
for
two
weeks
and
now
I'm
in
this
meeting.
So
it's
not.
I
don't
believe
that
I'm
not
making
an
effort
to
push
this
ahead
as
fast
as
I
can.
As
soon
as
I
saw
you
raise
the
issue
and
it
get
no
traction.
So
the
effort
employment.
C
We
we
have
to
find
a
way
to
agree
on
how
we're
going
to
do
this.
So
that
means
that
we
need
to
agree
when
we're
going
to
when
we're
going
to
have
a
resolution
one
way
or
the
other.
I.
I
am
not
comfortable
with
an
open-ended
situation,
because
I
have
been
on
steering
for
quite
a
while,
and
I
feel
like
I'm
in
a
position
where
I
owe
a
debt.
That's
overdue.
C
K
No,
I
I
think
we
are
we're
all
in
agreement.
I
mean
this
has
been.
If
you
really
go
back
to
the
origins
of
this
question,
it's
probably
more
than
a
year
more
one
and
a
half
years,
maybe
even
two-
I
don't
know
exactly
anymore,
but
it's
been
around
for
a
long
long
time
and
I
think
for
for
this
project
to
move
forward
in
a
healthy
state.
I
C
D
So
villa
kind
of
stole
a
little
my
thunder
there
again
I
apologize
like
I
said,
I'm
being
a
call,
I'm
not
caught
up
on
all
the
activity
on
that
particular
pr.
So
I
don't
know
for
sure
whether
ron
or
alex
or
anybody
else
from
from
google
had
a
chance
to
comment
on
there.
But
to
me
one
of
those
two
guys
on
the
call
said
you
know
like
any
pr:
let's
discuss
it
and
all
the
other
stuff.
D
Well,
let's
get
some
activity
in
the
pr
itself
from
the
google
side
to
understand
what
specific
things
in
the
pr
they
have
concerns
with
and
out
there
relatively
quickly,
because
without
hearing
comments
in
the
pr
itself,
it's
very
we're
kind
of
talking
the
abstract
and
I'd
rather
see
more
concrete
commentary
on
the
issue.
I'm
sorry
on
the
pr
directly.
K
C
I
I
think
that
I'd
prefer
to
have
the
remaining
discussion
be
done
publicly.
I
I
really
do
not
like
being
in
situations
where
we
say
we're
going
to
do
something
and
we
disappear
and
nothing
materializes.
So
I
think
for
me
to
feel
comfortable
personally
that
we
need
to
do
the
remaining
talk
in
public,
michael
brenda.
Anybody
else,
opinions
about
that.
A
C
M
I
don't
know
I
don't.
I
don't
actually
think
it's
a
helpful
thing
to
go
from
a
steering
committee.
That's
operated
in
private
for
the
entire
life
of
the
project
to
bringing
this
issue
as
a
thing
that
requires
all
public
meetings
of
the
future.
But
if
that's
what
all
the
other
steering
committee
members
want,
you
know
I
can.
I
can
live
with
that.
M
D
Well,
but
that,
but
also
goes
back
to
the
asynchronous
nature
of
commenting
on
the
pr
right.
We
shouldn't
to
be
honest.
I'd
be
a
little
sad
if,
between
now
and
next
week,
there
aren't
any
comments
on
the
pr
about
why
it's
a
bad
idea
right,
if
you,
if
we
get
those
comments
in
the
pr
itself,
maybe
we
could
do
some
adjusted
wording
to
make
people
happy
with
it,
but
not
hearing
anything
on
the
negative
side
until
next
week.
Is
it
isn't
very
productive
to
me?
We
need
to
work
yeah.
K
C
C
C
So,
let's,
let's
we've
got
a
few
minutes
here
remaining,
let's
close
this
out
in
the
absence
of
any
anyone
saying
otherwise
like
I'll
expect
that
we'll
have
a
public
meeting
next
week
where
we
can
continue
this.
If
folks
are
interested
in
a
working
session,
absolutely
like
feel
free
to
indicate
that
you'd
like
to
do
it
sooner
here
or
we'll,
we'll
call
for
it
in
in
the
pr
too.