►
From YouTube: Knative Steering Committee Meeting - September 17, 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).
A
All
right
recording
has
become
so
thanks
everybody
for
joining
us
for
this
very
early
morning
on
the
pacific
coast
edition
of
the
k-native
steering
meeting,
I
know
we're
continuing
the
conversation
from
tuesday
sorry
days
this
week
have
been
really
tricky
for
me.
I
think
ron.
Do
you
want
to
kind
of
fill
us
in
on
where
we
are.
B
Yeah,
so
when
we
last
left
off,
we
had
we
were
looking
at
a
google
doc,
and
I
want
to
thank
evan.
I
don't
see
him
on
on
my
grid,
but
I
think
he's
here.
B
I
want
to
thank
evan
for
turning
it
into
a
pr
very
quickly
which
has
allowed
all
of
us
to
incorporate.
I
think
the
main
topics
of
conversation
and
comments
that
were
on
the
google
doc
have
now
also
migrated
into
pr
comments.
B
I
am
not
100
sure
I
did
not
do
a
careful
qa
of
that,
but
I
I'm
guessing
that
everyone
who
has
a
topic
they
care
about
they've,
they've
added
as
a
comment.
There
are
quite
a
few
of
them.
I've
I've
read
through
most
of
them
and
we
have
a
couple
things.
We
need
to
do
number
one.
I
think
it's
about
four
weeks
ago
that
pr
214
came
up.
We
as
a
team
agreed
that
we
wanted
to
take
time
to
consider
it
over
a
four-week
period
and
and
and
bring
it
to
a
convergence.
B
So
we
need
to.
We
need
to
start
to
converge
and-
and
I'm
very
much
motivated
to
do
that,
so
that
the
entire
community
can
settle
on
a
on
a
way
to
govern
k-native
and
we
can
go
work
on
software.
I
see
paul's
nodding
because
I
do
see
paul.
I
don't
know
if
you
wanted
to
make
a
comment.
B
So
that's
that's
the
spirit
in
which
I
I
want
to
answer
some
questions
and
and
get
us
going
to,
and
I
think
ben
said
this
a
couple
weeks
ago
like
hey,
can
we
can
we
get
back
to
focusing
on
what
we
need
for
our
for
our
our
software
paul.
C
Yeah,
so
I
I'm
happy
to
go
and
close
214,
as
my
own
sense
of
the
conversation
is
that
it's
not
centered
around
277.
C
I'll
just
go
and
do
that
now,
and
you
know
the
nice
thing
about
git
is
it's
all
in
there
we
can
get
whatever
back,
but
I'll
go
ahead
and
close
it
for
the
moment,
so
the
yeah,
the
I
think.
As
far
as
my
own
couple
things
I
want
to
mention,
I
as
far
as
277
goes
like,
I
think,
the
probably
the
most
important
details
to
sort
out
our
how
the
trademark
committee
is
composed.
D
C
I
think
is
one
that
brenda
raised
and
like
one
one
thing
that
I
think
is
important
is
to
be
able
to
model
like
over.
Maybe
one
year
or
18
months
say
that
we
have.
C
We
have
some
folks
from
vendors
that
aren't
engaging
right,
now,
begin
to
engage
and
like
play
that
movie
forward
12
18
months
and
see
how
maybe
the
composition
of
like
any
of
these
committees
can
change
just
so
we
all
are
like
on
the
same
page,
around
those
exercises
and
as
far
as
277,
I
think
those
are
my
my
main
thoughts.
One
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
put
out
there
before
we
probably
switched
the
conversation
onto
277
is
that
you
know
we
we
had
identified
yesterday.
C
I
think
it
was
as
like
we'd
like
to
drive
things
to
a
resolution,
but
since
we've
had
so
much
progress
this
week,
I
I
would
like
to
like
at
least
give
one
more
week
for
things
to
settle.
I
do
think
that,
like
probably
this,
this
whole
arc
has
folks
that
maybe
like
a
heightened
emotional
charge-
and
I
one
of
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
to
do-
is
give
us
all
a
chance
to
take
a
breath.
Think
carefully
about
stuff.
C
You
know:
we've
we've
done
a
lot
of
work
to
get
here
and
also
want
to
give
some
time
for
folks
that
may
be
on
the
periphery
of
these
discussions
or
monitoring
them
to
give
thought
to
what
is
in
277.
So
I
think
that's
that's
what
I
wanted
to
say
if
that
makes
sense,.
B
I
I
think,
that's
reasonable
as
long
as
the
participants
here
are
all
comfortable
with
that
I
mean
we
made
just
I'm
just
making
sure
that
we're
doing
that,
because
that's
what
everybody
wants,
as
opposed
to
anything
else,
because
we
made
we
made
everybody
a
promise
that
we
won't
take
them
through
this
long
process.
That's
all
I
know
everybody's
got
proposal
fatigue
so
so
I
I
think,
you're
your
your
suggestion
is
totally
rational
and
this
is
supposed
to
be
a
proposal
for
for
the
community.
B
So
let's,
let's
do
that
as
long
as
you
know,
people
like
jules
and
shock
and
all
the
people
who
are
participating
in
this
conversation-
they're
not
saying,
oh
god,
don't
keep
this
dragging
on.
F
E
B
Yeah,
okay!
Yes,
I
I
think
paul's
suggestion
is
quite
reasonable.
Just
so
we
can
dot
our
eyes
and
cross
our
t's
and
get
all
the
details
right
and
make
sure
that
we're
happy
with
them
yeah
yeah
scott.
I,
like
scott's,
suggestion
of
time-bound
living
again.
I
think
we
should
figure
out
which
of
wednesday
or
thursday
is
a
good
time
to
meet
next
week.
B
I
humbly
suggest
that
we
make
it
a
30-minute
meeting,
because
by
then
we
should
have
things
settled.
We
should
identify
the
things
that
are
truly
important
to
us
to
talk
about,
live
as
opposed
to
some
of
the
open
questions,
so
that
we
start
to
prioritize
what
helps
us
converge,
but
I'm
only
saying
that
in
the
interest
of
convergence
not
stifling
conversation.
C
Yeah,
plus
one
and
in
terms
of
day
of
week,
the
perception
that
I've
had
is
that
thursday
is
is
more
workable
for
folks
on
steering
committee.
So
I'm
totally
cool
thursday.
B
Yep
scott's
suggestion.
Thank
you
very
much,
we'll
we'll
aim
for
some
time,
thursday.
Hopefully
my
yeah,
I
I've
got
one
little
thing
I
gotta
adjust
but
I'll
make
it
work.
F
Okay,
sorry,
unfortunately,
my
schedule
is
not
so
regular.
I
can
make
either
day
work,
but
I
don't
have
a
need
for
it
to
be
thursday
next
week.
Wednesday
is
slightly
better,
but
maybe
we
can.
B
The
end
of
the
day,
yeah
wednesday,
is
a
hard
no-go
for
me
for
some
personal
reasons,
so,
okay
thursday,
it
is
then
sold.
B
Okay,
let's
see
I
was
taking
notes,
as
you
were
speaking
paul
composition
of
the
committee
was
one
topic
and
core
scope
was
the
other.
Those
were
the
two
top
priorities
shall
we
just
take
them
in
that
order.
B
Yeah
I
wish
I
I
don't
know
if
evan's
on
yet
the
reason
I
was
I
when
we
had
a
public
meeting
around
functions
a
couple
of
months
ago
we
had
a
conversation.
There
was
also
a
comment
from
I
think
it
was
from
brenda
around
or
no
actually
was
from
you
paul
around
giving
a
sentence
or
two
about
the
notion
of
giving
a
one
or
two
sentence,
description
of
extensions.
B
We
had
a
conversation
around
sandbox,
extensions
and
core
and
I
vaguely
recall
evan
capturing
the
definition
in
one
or
two
sentences.
In
those
notes
I
was
madly
scrambling
to
try
to
find
those,
but
couldn't-
and
so
I
was
hoping
we
could
lift
those
up.
B
And
I
saw
mia's
comment
that
evan
is
probably
about
five
or
ten
minutes
away.
G
B
To
me,
core
was
serving
eventing
in
our
in
our
api
surface,
our
present
api
surface
and
extensions.
I
added
a
comment
I
think,
just
as
this
meeting
was
starting
was.
B
I
was
trying
to
capture
what
it
what
it
could
be,
but
items
that
we've
identified
would
be
perhaps
part
of
the
default
distribution
that
are
not
in
sandbox,
we're
not
still
trying
to
figure
out
how
they
would
work
and
and
whether
they
make
sense
as
part
of
the
project
but
make
it
into
the
default
distribution,
but
are
themselves
not
yet
part
of
core.
B
As
as
the
conversation
we
had
around
functions,
where
extensions
would
include
something
like
functions
as
a
distinction
from
core
and
it
and
part
of
the
flow
that
I
think
was
in
one
of
evan's
multiple
documents
was
it
something
would
move
from
extensions
when
it's
an
initial
idea.
That
say,
for
example,
velay
brings,
as
you
know,
for
teapots.
B
It
then
would
move
into
extensions
as
we
get
more
work
in
a
working
group
on
it
have
something
that's
working.
We
have
it
in
the
default
distribution
as
that
gets
wide
adoption
and-
and
we
all
agree
that
we
want
to
extend
the
scope
of
core
to
add
it
there
we
could
or
could
not,
that
that
could
go
either
way.
So
that's
the
I
don't
know
if
I'm
answering
your
question
brenda,
so
let
me
pause
and
let
you.
G
B
Yeah,
I
would
love
some
help
in
turning
that
for
sentence
or
five
sentence
ramble
into
something.
Some
tight
language.
H
Hey
there's
a
question
so
ron
you've
said
default
distribution
a
couple
times,
and
I
was
just
wondering
what
you
meant
by
that,
because
k
native
is
just
a
collection
of
things
that
can
be
installed
into
a
cluster
and
so
like
to
to
a
person.
That's
trying
to
integrate
with
this
serving
might
not
look
that
much
different
than
things
in
sandbox.
B
Right
and
I
think
at
some
point
we
we
may
want
to
somehow
characterize
the
moral
equivalent
of
a
default
distribution
such
that
it's
clear
to
someone
what
they're
getting
I
mean
that
way:
they're,
not
just
randomly
picking
from
any
item
in
the
collection
of
things
in
the
sandbox,
and
so
I
didn't
mean
that
we
would
actually
create
an
rpm
that
is
the
default
distro.
C
Yeah
I
so
I
had
a
a
write-up
of
something
that
I
think
is
very
similar
to
what
you're
referring
to
ron,
which
is
like
a
and
villa.
I
think
this
is
something
that,
like
before
I
wrote
it
down.
C
You
kind
of
had
this
idea
for
a
while
of
when
we
say
like
the
moral
equivalent,
like
basically
a
first-time
user-friendly
characterization
of
what
we
think
the
core
things
that
are
are
probably
also
represented
in
the
conformance
suite,
or
at
least
the
conformance
suite
for
the
core
that
you
can
like
begin
to
crawl,
walk
and
start
to
run
with
that
has
sort
of
been
back
burnered.
But
I
think,
is
essentially
what
we're
all
like
describing
if
that
makes
sense.
Scott
yeah.
H
Yeah,
okay,
I
would
assume
that
the
conformance
suite
would
there
would
be
a
set
of
components
and
that
gets
run
against
and
that
thing
conforms
or
not.
But
it
kind
of
sounds
like
there's
a
registration
process
and
maybe
certification
or
something
in
the
long
term.
B
Well,
I
hope
it's
not
as
heavyweight
as
what
the
words
you
used
make.
It
sound
very
heavyweight,
and
I
hope
that
it
isn't
that.
But
I
I
also
hope
that
people
don't
need
to
go
to
the
conformance
suite,
to
figure
out
components
to
set
up
and
which
ones
are
still
early
like
in
the
sandbox.
So.
B
Actually,
I
I
like
the
way
that
that
paul,
you
phrased
it
in
that
it's
about
how
do
we
help
someone
get
started?
What
we
think
is
are
the
initial
components
that
are
good
for
a
good
first
experience
for
the
customer
and
by
the
way,
I
think,
that's
distinct
from
what's
in
core,
because
we
might
conclude
that
there
is
that
extensions
plus
core
is
actually
the
set
of
things
that
would
give
users
the
best
experience
as
we've
as
we
in
the
future
add
components
that
sit
on
top
of
the
core
that
help
improve.
B
That
customer
experience
that
perhaps
add
some
extra
layers
of
abstraction
over
time.
That
makes
some
things
easier.
So
so
that
was
my
intent
in
describing
a
default.
I
Yeah
and
yeah
the
the
original
goal
for
that
was
hey.
I
have
heard
about
this
k
native
thing.
It
sounds
sweet,
but
how
do
I
taste
it
and
it
shouldn't
be
required
like
step
one.
It's
like
go
build
your
own
cluster
set
up
all
these
different
things
and
so
forth.
So
that
was
kind
of
the
original
idea
for
that,
and
I
I
do
think
that
if
a
user
comes
in
and
they
have
to
start
installing
various
pieces
and
understand
how
do
you
get
them
and
everything
else,
we
don't
make
it
super
easy.
B
Yes,
he's
yeah.
A
C
Brenda
I
think
this
was
originally
something
you
raised.
Does
it
need
more
discussion
here,
or
are
we
aligned
enough
that?
Okay,
so
maybe
maybe
we
can?
We
can
work
offline
on
plumbing
that
into
the
dock?
I
think
it
will
be
important
to
represent
in
the
dock,
because
the
more
specificity
that
we
bring
around
that
allows
just
a
higher
quality
reasoning
to
happen
around
that
dock.
A
So
I'm
wondering
if
it's,
if
we're
at
a
point
where
it's
good
to
kind
of
start,
doing
a
work
in
progress
of
like
here's,
the
file
that
explains
the
steering
committee
and
here's
the
file
that
explains
the
trademark
committee
and
if,
if
that
would
be
easier,
scott
volunteers
for
the
markdown
committee,
if
that
would
be
easier
just
for
like
some
of
the
feedback-
and
you
know,
especially
in
thinking
about
like
making
it
easy
to
install
when
you're
faced
with
like
a
10-page
pr,
it
might
be
easier
if
people
are
breaking
it
down
and
can
be
a
little
more.
A
You
know
concrete
in
some
of
the
examples.
Like
you
said.
A
B
I
I
think
what
what
I,
what
I
heard
april,
is
some
form
of
even
an
faq
for
some
of
the
common
way
common
ways
that
somebody
looking
at,
for
example,
rmd
might
have.
I
would
suggest
that
we
in
the
interest
of
converging,
let's
converge
first
and
then
we
can
assign
some
folks
to
write
those
up,
but
I
I
would
like
to
get
to
a
resolution
and
not
have
this
nice,
but
totally.
A
Fair,
I
will
volunteer
to
start
doing
some
of
that
and
I'll
make
scott
help
me
because
he
apparently
really
likes
the
markdown.
I
don't
know.
H
I
I
wonder,
I
wonder
if
the
community
repo
should
do
houses,
so
they
could
be
working
progress,
branch
and
then
the
main
branch
is
like
the
latest
release
or
something,
and
that
might
help
collaboration
in
the
repo,
and
you
can
have
multiple
many
little
prs
iterate
and
not
and
not
have
it
be
like
the
law
once
it
hits
the
repo
there's.
D
H
C
C
So
may
I
suggest
an
exercise
that
we
can
use
to
explore
this,
and
mostly,
I
just
want
to
make
a
joke
with
the
name
of
the
vendor.
We're
going
to
talk
about
which
I
suggest
as
the
velay
icos
teapot
concern,
which
we
can
just
call
the
concern
for
short
or
the
vatc.
C
So
say
that
vatc
is
like
we're
all
in
on
this
k
native
thing
and
we
care
about
the
mark
and
they
start
vat
is
a
tax,
but
that's
not
what
we're
talking
about
dave
so
say
they.
They
begin
to
make
substantial
contributions.
C
I
think
alex
you
had
a
comment
in
the
the
the
pr
for
have
the
the
trademark
committee
or
the
ktc
be
maintained
at
the
same
cadence
as
steering.
So
that
would
be
like
once
per
year
and
I
think
say
it's
starting
from
october.
2020
sounds
like
in
october
2021
something
happens
to
maintain
the
composition
of
that
committee.
F
So
the
process
I
was
imagining
was
that
the
committee
itself
would
would
meet
and
review
who
the
who
the
vendor
stakeholders
are
and
add
vendors
to
the
committee.
So
the
vatc
would
get
added
to
the
committee
based
on
their
exemplary
contribution
to
the
teapots
extension
and
they're
interested
in
building
products.
On
top
of
k,
native
and
there'd
be
now
there'd
be
four
seats
with
each
seat.
Having
a
veto
would
be
the
likely
outcome.
You
know
over
time.
F
I
could
imagine
the
trademark
committee
might
get
more
creative
or
there
might
be
a
need
for
some
vendor
to
step
back
from
the
committee,
because
they're
no
longer
engaged
in
the
project,
but
but
I
would
expect
you
know
in
the
successful
mode
this
committee
would
slowly
grow
over
time.
I
I'm
imagining
that
there
won't
be
very
fast
composition
changes
here,
but
in
in
some
eventual
future
you
know
you
can
imagine
it
being
fairly
different
than
it
is
today.
A
F
A
I
would
suggest
that
we
change
just
again
in
the
nature
of
being
really
explicit.
Like
we
say
for
the
2020
year,
we're
gonna
do
xyz
well
20
20
years
almost
over
so
but
you
know
maybe
we're
saying
the
2020
2021
here
or
whatever,
but
just
to
make
it.
I
think,
especially
for
something
like
trademark.
We
should
have
some
stability
there,
and
so,
let's
just
make
it
really
clear
that,
like
it'll,
be
you
know
reevaluated
in
2021,
basically
for
who
should
be
added.
Essentially,
if
anyone
not
a
guarantee.
C
So
yeah
and
yeah,
and
in
when,
when
we're
counting
those
contributions
like
here
is
here's
the
thing
that
always
like
my
brain
always
has
trouble
with
when
we
count
contributions
is
there's,
there's
contributions
that
are
easy
to
count
and
get
there's
contributions
that
are,
that
are
much
harder
to
count
that
don't
surface
into
get
or
don't
service
in
into
something
that
gives
us
like.
A
built-in
accounting
mechanism
like
cloud
spend,
like
you
know,
presence
and
influence
in
meetings
that
shifts
things
but
doesn't
surface
into
get.
C
Do
folks
have
any
ideas
around
on
on
on
like
what
what
a
rubric
might
be
to
to
to
count
those,
I
won't
say
algorithm,
because
that's
very
quantitative,
so
maybe.
A
I
will
say
every
project
struggles
with
this
and
I
think
there
are
a
number,
a
numer
wow.
I
really
need
coffee,
numerous
different
projects
and
areas
like
the
chaos
project
that
are
trying
to
create
some
sort
of
you
know,
calculation
method,
it's
kind
of
like
if
you
get
it
great
you'll
make
a
ton
of
money,
but
until
then
I
think
that
this
is
kind
of
how
I'm
envisioning
it
is.
You
know,
you've
got
the
three
large.
You
know
four
contributors
that
are
on
the
trademark
committee.
A
If
we're
reviewing
this
next
year-
and
I
think
it's
this-
these
people
get
together
and
say
you
know
all
right.
We
recognize
that
xyz,
I'm
sorry
is
it
a?
I
can't
even
remember
the
name.
I
apologize,
not
bat,
but
the
same
acronym.
Thank
you.
Vatc.
C
F
A
Get
together
and
say
like
okay,
the
concern
has,
you
know,
done
a
great
job
with,
like
you
know,
being
active
in
the
community
and
presenting
at
every
conference
and
spreading
the
word
native,
but
the
code
doesn't
show
it
like
one
of
the
things
in
the
the
pr.
Is
that
it's
the
trademark
committee?
That's
ultimately
determining
who
to
add.
A
A
You
know
a
mathematical
calculation,
it's
a
this
group
of
people,
you
know
looking
at
it
and
who's
who's
involved,
considering
all
of
those
factors
and
then
extending
the
invite.
I
I
realize
that
you
know
we.
We
want
to
have
as
much
stuff
firm
as
possible.
It's
just
that
there
is
no
standard
for
kind
of
like
how
you
measure
those
those
extra
contributions,
and
I
agree
with
you
they're
incredibly
important
and
many
people
do
a
lot
for
a
project
and
don't
code.
I
just
don't
know
of
any
way
so
yeah.
A
I
think
it
is
kind
of
a
it's
a
trust
factor
in
the
trademark
committee
to
do
that,
and
then
I
also
think
that
absolutely
evan,
I
think
the
the
rationale
absolutely
would
be
explained
always.
I
would
fully
expect
that
and
I
also
think
that,
along
the
same
lines
like,
I
would
fully
expect
the
community
to
push
back
on
the
trademark
committee
and
be
like:
why
haven't?
Why
doesn't
zo
and
zoe
get
a
seat?
You
know
like
I
fully
that's
totally
valid,
and
I
would
expect
that
any
project.
E
So
the
for
the
toc
election
process,
I
think
there's
like
a
contribution
thing
and
then
there's
like
an.
E
D
E
Got
criteria
and
then
we
say
we
know
these
aren't
perfect.
If
you
qualify,
then
by
consensus
of
the
trademark
committee,
you
know
we
can
override
that
yeah.
A
Absolutely
I
think
we've
got
that
in
place
for,
like
you
said,
for
voting
and
other
criteria.
You
know,
I
don't
think
it's
hard
for
any
for
the
concern
to
you
know
kind
of
make
their
make
their
proposal
for,
like
all.
B
B
A
Also
say
like
not
that
we
want
to
go
through
this
process
again
but,
like
you
know,
I
always
say
that
all
governance
is
a
living
document
and
like
it
constantly
evolves
as
the
community
evolves.
So
you
know
we're
we're
looking
to
we
kind
of
have
to
pick
a
starting
point
and
you
know
modify
as
it
goes
on,
but
it's
kind
of
like
what?
What
can
we
do
to
settle
some
of
the
open
questions
and
then,
like
ron
said,
you
know,
get
back
to
doing
great
software.
C
Yeah,
so
I
I
like,
I
like
the
application
of
the
exception
process.
C
This
is
this
is
actually
like
one
of
the
key
details
that
we're
discussing
right
now
that
I
think
is
going
to
be
important
to
to
to
have
defined
so
that
like
if
there
are
folks
that
are
you
know,
waiting
to
see
how
this
all
shakes
out
before
they
engage
like
I'd
like
them
to
be
able
to
make
a
make
a
call
about
whether
they
think
it
it
gets
the
job
done
for
them,
so
yeah
yeah.
I
I
think
I
think
we
can.
C
We
can
just
say,
there's
an
action
item
in
the
air,
maybe
to
like
incorporate
the
exception
concept
into
how
that
committee's
composed.
Sorry,
just
reading
evan's
evan's
thing
does
that
sound
okay
to
everybody.
B
C
Yeah,
so
the
the
the
the
action
item
is
to
plumb
in
the
concept
of
this
is
how
we'll
count
contributions,
and
this
is
sort
of
the
golden
path,
and
we
recognize
that
the
golden
path
is
not
capable
of
of
covering
all
scenarios,
so
there's
an
exception
process
so
that
you
know,
as
we
approach
that
milestone
in
october
2021,
that,
like
the
the
concern,
if
they've
influenced
things
a
lot
and
done
a
lot
of
contributions
that
just
don't
surface
in
a
way,
that's
easy
to
count
can
articulate
in
writing.
B
D
One
other
thing
that
was
in
discussion
that
I
didn't
get
into
the
pr
was
size
of
the
trademark
committee.
B
Yep,
I
think
that
the
pr
as
it
stands
has
an
initial
size
of
three,
but,
as
a
couple
of
the
comments
hinted
at,
that
is
not
a
constant
expected
to
be
a
constant
number.
B
B
My
my
inclination
is
threshold
not
proportional,
because
proportional
would
wind
up
keeping
the
committee
at
a
certain
number.
So
so
I
would
go
with
threshold
over
proportional,
as
as
our
project
and
community
grows,
that
threshold
would
mean
six
eight
members
and,
and
that
would
be
fantastic.
That
would
actually
be
good
news
for
all
of
us.
F
It
maybe
depends
exactly
what
you
mean
by
veto
power.
I
think
the
ktc
as
we've
defined.
It
is
well
structured
to
enable
the
community
to
influence
how
it
advises
the
trademark
holder
and
that
advice
will
carry
a
lot
of
weight,
and
so
I
think
in
practice
they
essentially
do
have
quotable
vital
power.
But
if
we
talk
letter
of
the
law,
you
know
nobody
can
dictate
to
the
trademark
owner
what
they
do
with
the
thing
they
own
they
own
it
that's
how
ownership
works.
B
Right,
I
hear
you
scott
and,
and
I
I
mirror
that
desire
and
ultimately
yeah
go
ahead,
alex.
F
Thank
you
familiar
with
the
istio
situation,
but
in
terms
of
the
ouc,
I
think
we
would
all
want
to
see
a
track
record
of
success
and
goodness
that
we
were
bought
into
before
the
trademark
committee
would
want
to
recommend
that,
and
so
you
know,
we
can
all
just
relax
and
go
drive
our
own
destiny
and
kind
of
eat.
Our
popcorn
and
watch
what
happens.
G
G
I
know
that
was
one
of
the
things
we
had
to
do
from
tuesday,
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that's
captured
down
somewhere.
A
Yeah
we
can
clarify
it
more
in
the
pr.
I
don't
know.
If
you
have
thoughts
evan
it's
I
mean
it
says,
like
the
committee
will
review
the
composition
manually
and
update,
so
I
mean-
and
it
also
says,
like
only
the
committee-
can
decide
it's
all
the
committee
basically,
so
we
can
make
it
more
clear
if
maybe-
but
I
think
that's
that's
already
in
the.
D
Pr
you
know,
I
think,
that
a
bunch
of
the
discussion
that
we
had
here
should
go
into
the
pr.
I
didn't
know
what
the
what
the
actual
values
that
we
decided
on
there
were
so
rather
than
anchoring
the
community
on
some
words
that
I
jotted
down
in
five
minutes.
I
left
it
deliberately
vague,
but
the
fact
that
we're
talking
about
it's
a
threshold
and
so
the
number
of
members
may
change
over
time
and
that
non-code
contributions
there's
an
accession
process
that
could
mean
that
you
could
get
in
there.
D
Even
if
you're,
you
know,
I
give
a
hypothetical
looking
at
dev
stats
of
like
say,
5,
000
or
10
000
contributions.
If
you
were
like,
if
it
was,
the
bar
was
10
000,
you
were
like
9
000
and
you'd
done
a
bunch
of
other.
You
know
intangible
stuff,
I
could
imagine
you
know
being
like.
Oh
yes,
you
get
bumped
over
because
x
and
y
and
z,
it's
a
longer
size
if
it's
a
threshold
as
opposed
to
a
oh,
if
you
get
in
someone
else,
gets
out.
C
I
just
want
to
recognize
carlos
you.
You
pointed
out
we're
not
taking
notes
in
the
agenda
doc.
I
pulled
it
up,
I'm
going
to
try
to
get
notes
for
key
things
that
we've
put
that
we've
spoken
into
that
dock,
so
if
other
folks
could
give
a
hand
and
make
sure
that
those
are
accurately
presented.
I
would
appreciate
it
thanks
for
pointing
that
out.
Carlos.
D
D
D
C
I
think
I
am
failing
to
remember
the
first
action
item.
The
second
one
was
plumb
in
the
concept
of
exception
for
eligibility
for
ktc
representation.
I'm
sorry
I'm
failing
at
this
moment.
Oh
clarified
course
yeah
yeah,.
B
There
we
go
and
then
and
the
most
important
before
that
we'll
go,
make
some
edits
offline
towards
a
30-minute
meeting
next
thursday,
as
it
will
be
called
the
scott
meeting
to
converge
to
complete
the
convergence.
C
Oh,
please
go
ahead.
Scott.
B
C
The
another
thing
that
I
I'm
realizing
that
I
had
I
put
a
comment
in
that
I
thought
it
would
be
good
to
discuss,
is
there's
two
things.
One
is,
it
seems
like
the
ktc
has
basically
an
obligation
to
review
prs
that
affect
the
the
characterization
of
core,
but
probably
more
frequently
affect
api
surface
in
projects
that
are
part
of
the
core
and
affect
changes
to
the
conformance
suite.
C
So
things
that
affect
the
suite
in
order
to
do
that,
it
seems
like
there
has
to
be
like
ideally
folks
that
are
on
ktc
are
active
in
the
community
as
individuals
so
that
they
have
the
context
and
the
familiarity
with
the
processes
around
those
things.
I
think
it
will
be
meaningful
to
characterize
those
in
in
the
the
content
that
eventually
goes
into
the
repo
and
like
what
what
responsibility
does
the
ktc
have
in
terms
of
turnaround
on
on
those
pr's
and
stuff?
C
Like
that,
do
we
have
any
thoughts
about
that
folks
like
want
to
share.
F
Well,
one
suggestion
that
I
I
thought
you
had
made,
but
maybe
it
was
someone
else
that
was
made
on
tuesday
was
that
maybe
this
doesn't
need
to
be
done
on
a
blow-by-blow
pr
by
pr
basis,
but
maybe
on
a
release
basis
or
something
like
that
where
the
goal
of
the
ktc
is
just
to
approve
the
shape
of
the
of
the
next
release.
Now
I
think
that
the
there's
danger
there,
but
I
overall
like
that
approach.
F
F
So
that's
no
good,
so
it
has
to
be
maybe
a
little
bit
finer
grained,
but
the
idea
of
like
sort
of
staying
out
of
the
way
of
the
day-to-day
operation
of
the
project
and
enabling
the
ktc
to
provide
their
their
oversight
on
a
course
or
grain
schedule
seemed
good
to
me
and
then,
in
terms
of
the
ktc
members,
definitely
have
to
be
competent
to
actually
go
in
and
look
at
things
and
comment
and
stuff
like
that.
F
C
Think
what
I
tried
to
characterize
on
tuesday
was
the
notion
that
I
think
the
the
release
boundary
is
what
drastically
raises
the
energetic
bar,
if,
like
something
slipped
past
that
someone
on
or
one
of
the
vendors
represented
on
the
committee
is
like.
Oh,
that
actually
is
is
something
that
we'd
prefer
to
veto.
I
think
I
think
the
the
release
boundary
is
like
when
those
things
kind
of
crystallize
or
solidify.
C
Ideally,
that's
like
an
exceptional
case,
so
I
I
I
think
the
default
mode
is
is
best
if
it's
responsive
to
individual
prs,
but
I
I
view,
like
the
the
the
boundary
of
a
possible
reverb
being
the
release
boundary.
If
that
makes
sense,.
D
As
a
sort
of
alternate
way
that
the
ktc
could
manage
a
lot
of
this
without
necessarily
needing
to
get
into
the
pr
level
still
having
you
know
authority
to
do
so
if
they
needed
to
would
be
to
have
kind
of
a
set
of
questions
that
they
ask,
so
I've
worked
with
max
ross.
You
know
at
google
who,
for
every
launch,
has
like
three
questions.
D
It's
like
three
or
five
questions
that
he's
going
to
ask
for
that
launch,
and
you
know
what
they
are
ahead
of
time
and
it's
basically
like
is
this
potentially
going
to
hurt
any
of
our
existing
customers?
Is
you
know
one
of
those
questions,
and
so
you
know
how's,
the
worst
that
this
launch
could
go.
You
know
is
another.
You
know
as
an
example,
and
I
could
see
ktc
deciding
that
that's
the
right
set
of
you
know
questions
and
they
want
to
make
sure
that
you've.
D
You
know
that
you've
done
that
and
they
can
go
in
and
look
at
the
prs
if
they
need
to
verify,
but
they
really
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
hey
if
you've
added
this
to
conformance.
You
know
you
have
talked
to
these.
You
know
six
people,
you
know
six
technical
people
and
they've
all
said
yeah,
that's
a
good
idea
and
if
not
they'll
veto
it
and
say
you
got
to
go
talk
to
these
technical
people.
C
I
guess
another
permutation
that
could
potentially
work
is
if,
if
ktc
is
meeting
at
the
beginning
or
before
the
beginning
of
a
release
cycle
and
looking
at
road
map
items
and
saying
this
one,
we
act
this
one.
We
act
this
one.
We
act
this
one.
We
can't
act
right
now
because
the
like
it
hinges
a
lot
on
the
details
and
maybe
what
is
in
the
road
map,
isn't
specific
enough
to
make
a
determination
on
and
this
one
we
knack
like.
C
Maybe
maybe
there's
a
way
to
do
this,
like
before
any
development
happens
or
before
before
that,
like
critical
emotional
point
in
development
is
reached,
so
that
folks
can
have
a
sense
of
certainty
as
they're
working
on
these
things
versus
after
after
we've
already
nurtured
the
baby
in
the
pr
having
to
approach
ktc.
F
I'm
not
sure
if
this
works
the
same
for
all
manner
of
changes
like
for
some
things
like,
let's
say,
a
minor
change,
the
api
shape.
What
you're
saying
sounds
totally
reasonable
to
me.
Paul
that
you
know
could
get
act
quite
early
before
there's
any
development,
but
I
mean
I
really
don't
want
the
ktc
to
be
able
to
stifle
innovation
in
the
project.
F
F
So
there
are
going
to
be
cases
where
you're
going
to
have
a
group,
that's
invested
in
in
their
thing
and
we've,
given
them
the
license
to
experiment
via
the
toc
and
they've
gone
and
experimented
at
some
point
the
toc
has
flipped
from
this
is
an
experiment
to
this
is
something
we
like
and
then
now
suddenly
it
becomes
a
matter
of
discussion
about
whether
it's
an
extension
or
a
core
thing
and
that
winds
up
going
to
the
tmc.
But
I
don't
want
to
stop
that
so
for
things
that
are
kind
of
more
routine.
F
C
Yeah
and-
and
I
I
I
can
and
affirm
what
you're
saying
it
seems
like
the
probably
like
the
things
that
take
the
most
consideration
are
additions
to
the
course
scope
right
rather
than
features
in
existing
api
surface
and
my
own
personal
subjective
opinion
as
an
individual.
Is
that,
like
I,
I
think
that
that
even
the
notion
of
core
sometimes
makes
weird
incentives.
C
There's
a
lot
of
like
everybody,
has
their
different
context
and
open
source
for
like
what
does
that
even
mean
and
like
what
emotions
have
they
felt
around
it
in
the
past.
So
I'm,
my
own
personal
disposition
is
like
let
a
thousand
flowers
bloom,
but
I
we.
We
definitely
have
to
act
that
there
is
a
like
a
strong
desire
in
the
community
for
a
process
to
make
things
part
of
core.
So
that's
just
kind
of
the
balance
that
the
the
ktc
will
have
to
strike.
F
Right
right
I
mean,
I
think,
on
tuesday,
evan
asked
people
to
come
up
with
a
different
name
for
core
and
I'm
not
sure
anybody
proposed
any
different
names
in
the
pr,
but
actually,
I
think
naming
could
matter
here
to
sort
of
get
away
from
some
potential
baggage
around
the
word
yeah.
I
definitely
don't
want
to
make
core
the
target
that
everybody
aspires
to
get
into.
I
think
that's
ultimately
bad
for
bad
for
our
project.
D
D
D
C
Yeah
and-
and
I
I'm
with
you
evan-
I
think
maybe
my
own
characterization
of
that
would
be
that
extensions
seem
like
it.
It
should
be
fine
for
an
extension
to
have
a
conformant
suite
so
whether
or
not
that
extension
is
in
any
kind
of
essential
grouping
that
we
say
is
aligned
with
the
mark
that
if
many
vendors
want
to
make
a
product
that
incorporates
that
extension,
it
can
have
its
own
conformance
suite
to
establish
that
those
different
offerings
are
interoperable.
D
Well
and
carlos
makes
an
interesting
point
that
there
might
be
some
vendors
who
only
want
to
offer
one
of
the
components
I
could
imagine,
for
example,
confluent
might
want
to
only
sell
you,
canadian
eventing,
and
they
may
not
want
to
sell
you
serving
because
they
sell
you
a
eventing
product,
that's
built
on
kafka
and
they
don't
have
a
compute
thing
at
all,
but
I
also
think
that's
something
that
the
ktc
should
figure
out.
D
E
So
I
really
like
that.
I
think
that
is
the
right
thing
to
do,
and
the
only
thing
I
worry
about
is:
if
we
don't
have
core,
then
we
don't
have
not
core
so
with
core
the
nice
thing.
Is
we
it's
very
clear?
E
It
doesn't
apply
to
extensions
right,
but
if,
if
there's
a
set
of
things
that
are
and
aren't
controlled
by
the
ktc,
if
you
see
what
I
mean,
who
decides
which
new
thing
does
and
doesn't
need
approval
from
the
ktc
if
there
isn't
a
core
word
that
it
is
or
isn't
in?
F
Can
imagine
a
world
that
sounds
a
lot
like
this,
but
maybe
it's
not
quite
the
same,
so
maybe
I'll
share
it
and
see
if
it
matches
up
or
not
like.
Let's
say
we
have
the
k
native
mark
and
canadian,
the
king
of
corresponds
to
a
canadian
core
whatever.
That
is,
let's
call
that
for
now
serving
and
eventing
and
then
there's
a
new
thing
that
that
we
want
to
have
let's
say
functions.
F
All
it
needs
to
do
is
approve
that
derivative
mark
and
say
yeah
and
that's
going
to
be
controlled
by
whoever
controls
the
that
functions,
performance
suite,
which
is
not
necessarily
the
ktc,
but
a
separate
extensions
thing
right.
So
if
that
sounds
like
what
you're
saying,
I
think
that's
that's
executable.
D
So
that
it's
consistent
in
terms
of
policies
and
so
forth
on
things
like
conformance,
but
I
would
expect
that
you
know
functions
if
it's
the
example
would
be
responsible
for
implementing
the
conformance
suite.
But
then
it
would
still
go
through
the
rest
of
the
ktc
process.
F
E
Interesting,
I
mean
just
to
say
this
out
loud
right
that
that
means
we've
made
the
ktc
more
powerful
in
the
last
two
minutes,
which
may
well
be
fine.
Given
the
ktc
is
much
more
representative
and
you
know
whatever
now,
but
it's
interesting
well.
F
I
don't,
I
don't
think
we
have
to
fault
like.
I
think
this
is
something
we
can
do.
We
don't
think
we
have
to
decide
it
our
priority,
but
to
sort
of
riff
on
what
I
agree
with
that.
F
You
know
the
it
is
possible
that
there
could
be
inter-vendor
conflicts
as
a
result
of
putting
it
all
in
the
case,
whereas
it's
just
a
drive
mark
that
the
functions
group
has
control
over
there's
less
room
for
that.
So
that's
what
I
meant
by
as
long
as
it
doesn't
create
conflict,
I'm
comfortable
with
this
going
to
the
ktc
fair
enough.
I
think,
like.
I
think
we
might
need
to
work
something
different.
E
And-
and
I
I
I
think
I
think
paraphrasing
evan's
point-
I
think
it
makes
sense-
is
that
we
can
kind
of
the
kcc
always
has
the
ability
to
delegate
out.
So
maybe
we
just
say
well,
ktc
owns
it
by
default
and
if
the
kcc
wants
to
delegate
its
control
to
a
derivative
mark
for
functions
and
avoid
any
conflicts,
you
know
one
vendor
says
I'm
not
going
to
do
functions.
I
don't
really
care
about
it.
We'll
devolve
that
down.
C
Okay,
so
we're
we're
about
at
time.
I
think
we
have.
I
think
we
have
two
solid
ais
and
maybe
a
third
one
forming
in
the
accretion
disk,
but
the
first
two
clarifying
scope,
evan.
C
I
heard
you
put
your
hand
up
to
to
plumb
that
into-
and
I
think
that's
fine,
but
I'd
I'd,
like
maybe
alex,
run
or
april,
to
affirm
the
changes
that
evan
makes,
and
I
will
I
will
take
the
second
one
which
my
poor
brain
can't
even
remember
that
one,
the
exception,
mechanics
and
I'll
just
ask
for
a
similar
affirmation
on
on
that
one
as
we
we
plumb
it
in
there
you're.
D
Yes
and
we'll
get
cla
bot
worked
out
at
some
point
and
or
just
ignore,
ignore
and
rewrite
all
the
history
and
you
know,
beat
the
boss,
they
could
all
be
april.
Don't
worry,
I
want
to
make.
B
B
This
has
been
a
hard
process
and-
and
I
am
confident
that
it'll
be
good
for
the
community
and
for
the
project,
and
I
look
forward
to
converging
the
thing
that
I
think
we
can
all
do
is
work
through
the
comments
and
start
to
be
aggressive
about
closing
them.
If
this
is
something
that
you
think
should
hold
up,
ratification
then
leave
it
there.
B
Don't
I'm
not
asking
to
unnecessarily
close
things,
but
if
some
things
are
not
the
most
important,
let's,
let's
move
on
and
let's
let's
get
to
convergence,
I
think
we
all
want
that
and
because
I'm
hearing
it
here
and
I'm
seeing
lots
of
thumbs
up
on
the
screen.
So
let's
let's
go
close
this
out.
C
D
C
I
think
it's
it's
in
our
best
interest
to
to
close
out
the
action
items
from
today,
so
that
so
that
we
can
get
the
highest
quality
payload
for
folks
on
the
periphery
to
to
think
over.
That's
a
very
meaningful
signal
that
I'd
that
I
really
like
to
get
so
and
and
I'll
just
echo
your
thanks
ron
to
like
all
my
colleagues
on
steering
and
all
of
my
open
source
colleagues
in
our
community
thanks
a
lot
for
everybody's
participation
in
this.