►
From YouTube: Knative Public steering meeting - August 26, 2020
Description
August 26, 2020
A
B
C
A
C
D
I'm
happy
to
set
it
up
again,
even
if
we
don't
discuss
that
particular
topic,
you
know
if
it
works.
As
you
know,
another
forum
for
public
discussion
on
another
thread
of
things
I
know
so
I
was
looking
at
the
sort
of
list
of
folk
style.
Then
I
know
doug
had
missed
the
call
yesterday,
but
I
don't
see
him
dialed
in
I'm
here.
D
C
All
right,
the
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
make
made
sure
that
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
surfaced
in
our
meeting
today
from
yesterday
was,
I
think,
a
recognition
in
that
conversation
that
we
don't
feel
like.
We
know
exactly
the
best
final
state
to
get
to
for
how
we
would
vote
for
end
user
seats
and
for
who,
who
should
be
eligible
to
vote
and
in
terms
of
what
we
thought
we
should
do
about.
C
That
is
maybe
just
call
out
explicitly
that
we
recognize
it's
something
to
improve,
but
we
don't
need
to
block
on
it
right
now.
So
you
know
one
thing
that
I
that
I'd,
that
I'd
love
some
input
on
from
folks
that
are
here
today,
you
know
or
if
you're
watching
this
on
youtube
is
I'd,
love
to
know
examples
of
of
where
end
users
are
represented
well
in
open
source
governance.
C
I
think
I
think
that
would
be
great
if
folks
can
say
can
point
us
to
specific
things
that
they
have
done
or
that
they've
seen
work
well,
and
I
think
those
were
kind
of
my
two
big
ones
from
yesterday,
and
I
defer
you
know
if
anybody
has
has
extra
points.
They'd
want
to
make
on
top
of
those
two
high
level
ones.
F
But
at
some
point
the
the
the
road
map
and
that
that
impetus
has
to
start
switching
more
toward
the
end
users,
because
that's
gonna,
ideally
that's
gonna-
become
the
greater
percentage
of
people
developing
in
the
long
term.
So
kubernetes
certainly
has
opened
the
door
for
further
user
end-user
companies
to
be
part
of
the
steering
committee,
and
I
think
it's
actually
really
beneficial.
F
I
and
I
I
think,
making
an
explicit
like
customer
advisory
seat
in
the
steering
committee
is
also
something
that's
interesting.
I
don't
know
if
I
could
point
to
one
I
think
istio
might
be
going
toward
this
model.
I've
heard
of
other
other.
You
know.
Maintainer
seats,
like
linker
d,
has
has
a
in
their
maintainer
group.
Has
somebody
that's
an
end
user
as
well
in
the
maintaining
group,
so
those
that
ability
to
say
hey,
we
have
maybe
have
different
interests
that
are
more
end
user
focused,
I
think,
isn't.
C
Yeah
and
certainly
ack,
you
know
the
statements
that
you
made
jace
about
about
end
user
representation
in
cube.
If
I
remember
correctly
in
terms
of
the
mechanics
there
is,
there
is
not
a
distinction
made
in
cube
between
the
contributor
seats
and
and
user
seats,
they're
all
they're,
all
just
open
to
either
right
yeah
and
there's
the
same
criteria
applied
for
eligibility,
whether
you're
an
end
user
or
a
someone
that
is
a
developer
or
or
actively
contributing
as
your
primary
role
in
the
project
code.
F
No
and
that's,
I
think
that,
having
having
the
steering
tied
to
the
individual
and
not
necessarily
the
company,
I
mean
there
is
company
limits,
because
you
don't
want
somebody
gaming,
the
system
and
becoming
majority.
You
know
for
for
nefarious
purposes,
but
yeah
I
mean
as
a
as
an
end
user.
You
have
as
much
right
to
to
step
up
into
leadership
as
anyone
else,
and
that's
it's
a
really
powerful
thing
for
sure.
F
But
you
know
that
I
think
that
there's
certain
mechanics
there
that
depend
on
it
being
such
a
massive
community
and
such
large
adoption,
whereas
in
this
community
is
still,
you
know,
finance
finding
the
community
and
getting
the
word
out
and
growing.
So
I
think
that
being
explicit
and
maybe
having
some
mechanism
through
which
you
can
have
an
advisory
position
or
something
it
is,
is
definitely
something
that
I,
if
I
had
still
remain
on
the
steering
committee,
I
would
have
probably
pushed
for
because
I
think
it's
it's
super
valuable.
C
Yeah
and
and
just
for
context,
if
maybe
folks
are
watching
this
and
and
they
haven't,
read
the
proposal
yet
at
this
point
in
time
as
we're
recording
this
in
the
proposal,
there
are
five
of
seven
total
steering
seats
that
are
designated
as
contributor
seats
and
two
are
designated
as
end
user
seats.
So
we
do
have
in
our
current
current
proposal,
a
distinction
between
those
to
make
sure
that
we
have
some
degree
of
end
user
representation.
F
C
B
I
was
going
to
go
and
say
one
of
the
things
that
has
come
up
a
few
times
is
sort
of
kind
of
what
are
the
roles
and
scopes
of
t
steering,
committee
and
and
so
forth.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
folks
are
aware
of
the
backlog.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
there
might
be
some
visibility
into
some
of
the
things
that
I
know.
C
Absolutely
speaking,
you
know
in
terms
of
my
own
subjective
opinion,
I
think
that's
a
great
idea
and
in
general,
in
my
experience,
if
we
observe
a
regular
cadence
of
of
going
over
those
things
and
grooming
them
in
public,
it
helps
to
make
sure
that
they're
actually
accurate
too
just
my
opinion.
Anybody
else.
G
C
Yeah,
I'm
really
glad
you
brought
that
up
evan
and
I
think
that's
a
good
point
and
I'll.
This
is
also
jogging.
My
memory
that
another
thing
that
we
had
discussed
in
connection
with
that
as
a
possibility
would
be
having
like
a
working
group
or
other
body
within
the
project
where
vendors
could
explicitly
be
represented
as
a
point
of
that
body,
so
that
you
know,
maybe
that
might
give
vendors
that
want
to
participate
but
need
to
feel
like
they've
got
a
voice.
H
Yeah
well,
I
I
think
I
was
the
one
who
proposed
the
idea
of
like
a
vendor
representation
committee
or
council
or
whatever
you
wanted
to
call
it.
It
has
the
important
property
that
it
makes
very
clear
that
somebody
who
is
elected
to
steering
is
elected
as
individual
for
the
for
the
project,
because
there
is
an
accepted
forum
for
vendors
to
state
their
interest,
and
so
a
person
coming
into
the
committee
is
not
a
deputy
of
a
vendor
right.
They're,
not
deputized
by
the.
D
H
I
I
think
I
think
we
were
both.
I
I
was.
I
was
going
to
apologize
in
the
same
direction.
I
guess
I
guess
just
to
like
ask
the
question
out
loud,
because
it
just
feels
like
it's
worth
just
asking
it
out
loud
in
the
current
way
the
pr
is
laid
out.
We
have
a
nominated
section,
not
a
elected
section,
representative
section,
a
community,
you
know,
contribute
to
owns
the
seat
section
and
we
have
an
end
user
section.
I
So
it's
already
the
case
that
it's
not
a
fully
representative
body
right,
there's,
there's
already
part
of
it.
You
could
have
an
end
user
committee
right
separate
from
steering
and
just
consult
the
end
users.
What's
the
downside
of
having
some
proportion
of
the
seats
be
vendor
seats
in
the
same
way
that
some
end
users
use.
C
I
H
H
Second
goes
back
to
our
discussion
yesterday
about,
like
the
sussex
justices
principle
having
that
separation,
or
that
individual
focus
makes
it
easier
for
the
community
outside
the
community,
so
to
speak,
to
accept
the
legitimacy
of
canadian
one
of
the
things
that
talk
about
speaking
out
loud.
That
has
been
hard
for
canada
in
the
last
year
or
so
is
a
lot
of
folks
have
been
like
well,
it
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
trouble
there
and
I
don't
really
trust
the
motives
of
various
folks
involved
or
various
companies
involved
more
fairly.
I
Let
me
just
push
on
that
a
little.
I
feel
that
this
I
feel
like
there's.
Actually,
two
hesitations
people
have
about
k
native
one
is,
as
you
kind
of
state
is
kind
of
like.
Is
there
a
genuine
openness
etc
and
a
trust
in
the
people
behind
it?
You
know
that
it's
community
project
etc,
but
I
think
I
think
the
other
is
related,
but
not
quite
the
same,
which
is.
Is
there
a
stability
of
investment
in
it
right,
like?
I
Are
the
companies
behind
it
going
to
continue
to
be
behind
it,
and
I
think
we
want
to
not
solve
one
of
those
problems
to
detachment
of
the
other?
If
you
see
what
I
mean
and
just
to
just
push
one
one
extra
thing
in
that,
I
completely
get
the
idea
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
this
new
body
isn't
dominated
by
one
thing
and
isn't
vendor
dominated,
but
nothing
about
having
some
proportion
of
deceits
be
vendor
seats
requires
that
they
be
the
majority
of
the
seats.
H
Okay,
I
see
that
I
see
that
argument.
I
would
say,
however,
that
there
is
a
time
factor.
I
think
that
will
make
more
sense
say
in
a
year
after
we
do
the
current
roundup
reforms.
We
could
say:
okay,
we've
we've
settled
that
we
can.
We
can
play
this
way
and
then
you
know
maybe
there's
a
vendor
committee
off
the
side
and
they
have
to
vote
and
they
get
one
vote
collectively
right
and
that
that
sort
of
like
creates
an
exclusive
channel
that
sort
of
stuff
like
it
starts
to
get.
H
It
starts
to
sort
of
look
like
a.
I
was
about
to
start
naming
countries,
but
that's
offensive,
a
constitution
that
that
gets
a
bit
a
bit
wiggly
part
of
the
difficulty
here
is.
We
can't
sustain
the
overhead
of
a
full
like
multi-camera,
sort
of
legislative
structure,
which
is
the
usual
answer
to
these
kind
of
tensions.
H
H
J
Yeah
I
just
like
to
because
jules
is
just
saying
what
I
was
like
to
say
because
I
feel
like
the
pr
is
talking
especially
to
have
only
like
participants
and
and
users
are
should
be
talking.
Taking.
Responsibility
for
steering
the
key
native
and
vendors
has
huge
investment
on
their
side
for
like
developing
for
and
for
letting
their
employees
to
actually
work
on
that
project.
So
I
feel
like
if
we
I
first
of
all,
I
really
like
the
proposal.
J
I
would
say
that
I
I
think
it
should
be
like
that,
but
in
the
real
world
that
we
all
living
in
money
and
investment
matters,
and
I
feel
like
if
we
don't
respect
that
investment
sooner
or
later,
something
might
give
my
break
and
that's
why.
I
also
think
that,
like
we
should
think
of
solution
to
actually
respect
in
companies,
investment
in
open
source,
so.
C
I
I
am
hearing
those
concerns
and
I
think
let
me
see
if
I
can.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
put
a
fine
point
on
what
I
think
chris
and
jules
my
own
version
of
what
I'm
hearing-
and
you
can
tell
me
if,
if
it's
accurate
or
not,
which
is
that
there's
there's
a
concern
that
that
vendors
that
are
making
investments
have
should
be
represented.
C
F
I
I
The
istio
has
gone
this
way
and
nowhere
in
the
original
pr
have
we
actually,
as
a
community
thought
through
whether
this
makes
sense
right,
we've
kind
of
gone
immediately
to
one
solution,
so
I
kind
of
want
to
make
sure
that
we
discuss
and
come
to
the
viewpoint
that
we
as
a
community
have
decided
not
to
go
with
the
kind
of
stakeholder
representation
and
to
go
for
an
individual
representation.
I'm
not
actually
pushing,
particularly
on
one
thing.
So
much
as
I
feel
like.
I
I
If
we
do
given
that
there
is
no
vendor
representation,
I
worry
that
the
vendor
representation
kind
of
ends
up
on
the
people
elected
as
community
members,
and
that
feels
like
a
unfortunate
tension.
And
possibly
you
can
do
that
with
this
side
committee
to
represent
the
vendors
such
that,
then
it's
not
on
the
people
actually
in
the
steering,
but
I
haven't
seen
how
that
would
work,
and
it
feels
odd
to
me,
if
I'm
honest,
it
feels
feels
like.
A
F
So
I
think
that
a
really
valuable
thing
here
is
just
let's:
let's
stop
generalizing
about
this
and
actually
talk
about
the
problem
which
is
as
a
vendor.
You
may
have
a
priority,
that's
different
than
the
community,
and
it's
not
obvious,
because
that's
a
that's
a
blocker
for
you
to
make
a
sale
like
that's
the
that's
the
bottom
line.
If
I
have
layer,
7
routing,
then
suddenly
I
unlock
this
new
new
thing
that
layer
4
didn't
give
me
like.
F
F
I
just
need
to
know
that
there's
not
going
to
be
headwinds
against
doing
this
work
or
that
it's
not
off
the
charts
or
it
doesn't
go
against
the
the
strategic
direction
of
the
project
and
the
toc
says
you
know
what
I
great,
but
we
just
don't
have
the
bandwidth
to
do
that
and
and
if
you
feel
like
as
a
vendor,
that
that's
that
that's
going
against
your
interest,
you
can
escalate
to
the
steering
committee
and
say
steering
committee.
I
really
need
you
know,
I'm
willing
to
fund
it.
F
I've
got
you
know
it
isn't
this
blah
blah
blah
and
then
the
steering
committee
says
yes
or
no
and
that's
a
that's
a
reasonable
escalation
path
for
a
diversion
of
a
technical
roadmap.
Like
vendors
aren't
going
to
come
in
and
say
we
need
to
do
some
thing
with
the
community
that
isn't
you
know,
I
mean
that's,
not
a
vendor
thing.
Vendors
are
focused
on
providing
features
that
unlock
sales
for
their
for
their
companies
and
give
visibility
to
the
to
the
company
as
a
whole.
F
So,
like
I,
I
just
feel
like
the
vendor
seat
thing
gets
a
little
bit,
squidgy
and
and
josh.
Also
mentioned
this,
the
the
chat
too,
like
y'all,
are
vendors
right,
like
let's
not
in
in
istio's
case,
there's
an
interesting
thing
where
they
have
vendors
who
resell
istio
as
like
the
fundamental
part
of
their
product
like
it
is
essentially
istio
in
a
box
or
istio
blah
blah
blah
native
is
a
constituent
part
of
other
products.
F
So
I
feel,
like
the
vendor
seat,
may
be
something
that
there's
an
inflection
point
later
as
more
native
and
a
box
things
happen,
but
I
would
I
would
caution
against
trying
to
differentiate
who
is
a
vendor
and
who's,
not
because
then
it
sort
of
creates
this
really
artificial
boundary
about
what
actually
constitutes
a
vendor
and
from
experience
you
don't
want
to
get
into
that.
So
it's
a
really
messy
nasty
space.
G
I
Good
box,
as
well
blue
ribbon
for
what
it's
what
it's
worth.
I
think
I
kind
of
buy
that
as
a
solution,
because
I
I
feel
like
I
feel
like
the
idea
of
saying.
Okay,
we're
gonna
start
with
this
and
then
we'll
revisit
whether
there's
more
representation
over
time.
It's
a
pretty
reasonable
way
of
making
progress,
and
I
think
we
all
have
an
op.
I
C
C
E
E
L
Of
course
you
have
agendas,
everybody
does
even
if
you're
an
individual
but
you're
trusted.
So
I
think
this
notion
is
the
key
and
I
think,
to
solve
the
problem
of
making
sure
that
people
are
not
just
dropped
in
from
a
company.
They
could
be
individuals,
but
they
just
dropped
in
they
don't
have.
Any
idea
of
the
community
is
that
they
have
already
been
through
the
toc.
So
in
other
words,
you
get
promoted
from
the
toc
up
now,
of
course,
there's
a
current
reality
and
that's
okay.
We
grandfathered
them
right.
So
it's
the
way.
L
We
start
so.
If
we
do
something
like
this,
then
it
then
that
it
forces
the
notion
that
if
you're
in
the
sc
and
you're
trying
to
help
the
community
with
grand
vision,
you
were,
you
are
either
in
the
theocy
right
now
or
you.
You
were
part
of
the
coc,
so
that
creates
the
mechanism
of
making
sure
that
you
have
some
knowledge
and
that
you
understand
the
code
and
that
you're
you
know
invested.
L
C
C
I
think
that
we're
discussing
how
can
we
make
sure
that
vendors
have
a
way
for
their
for
their
wants
and
desires
to
be
represented
and
we're,
I
think,
there's
there
seems
to
be
a
gravity
toward
like
in
our
discussion,
which
is
just
amongst
you
know
the
people
that
are
speaking
right
now
at
this
moment
that
that
there's
maybe
a
gravity
toward.
Let's
fix
this
with
a
formula
of
seats
on
some
committee.
C
Let
me
throw
something
out
there
that
is
like
that's
in
my
head
as
we're
talking
about
this
is,
if
we're,
if
we
think,
if
we
frame
the
the
problem
that
way,
here's
something
that
I
don't
think
it
addresses,
which
is
maybe
I'm
a
vendor,
and
I
am
not
currently
involved,
but
I'm
I'm
feeling
like
if
I
could
get
x
or
y
thing,
I
could.
I
could
not
only
consume
it
and
redistribute
it,
but
I
could
make
a
considerable
spend
of
you
know
people
hours
on
developing
the
project
in
the
upstream.
C
C
That's
for
vendors
to
represent
those
things
I
my
gut
feeling
is
that
that
might
relieve
some
of
this
tension
in
the
sense
that
people
on
steering
in
toc
can
be
free
to
have
their
community
hats
on
without
any
ambiguity,
and
that
when
there's
a
vendor
level,
question
of
or
desire
for
a
feature
or
x
or
y
thing
that
anybody
any
any
vendor
big
or
small.
Whether
they've
previously
been
involved
or
not,
has
a
way
to
express
that
in
public
and
have
it
given
consideration
by
toc
or
steering
or
whatever
part
of
the
community.
C
It
may
not
even
be
toc.
It
might
be.
Eventing
features
that,
like
as
an
example
and
there's
a
reason
that
I
brought
that
specific
example
up
that
I'll
get
to
in
just
a
moment
say
they
need
eventing
features
right
like
if
there's,
if
there's
a
way
for
them
to
do
that
without
like
having
to
figure
out
how
to
get
to
the
levers
to
do
it.
C
You
know,
input
from
pm
type
folks,
where
this
time,
when
I
say
pm,
I'm
thinking
product
management
or
offering
management
type
of
personalities
and
also
how
to
represent
kind
of
downstream
road
maps
for
things
that
follow
k
native
very
closely
or
are
based
on
it
or
whatever.
So
I
I
think,
there's
there's
a
whole
to
that.
C
That's
maybe
larger
than
just
algorithms
for
how
we
come
up
with
these
seats
and
my
own
gut
feeling
is
that
maybe,
if
we
kind
of
take
a
look
at
that
hole
and
like
as
a
separate
part,
maybe
to
the
side
of
this
discussion
about
the
kind
of
basic
over
open
governance
stuff
talk
about,
how
do
we
give
vendors
any
any
vendor,
large
or
small,
adequate
representation?
Maybe
that's
a
way
to
kind
of
eliminate
some
of
that
tension
that
we're
that
we're
talking
about,
and
I've
been
talking
now
for
a
while.
G
Okay
yeah,
I
doug
had
made
a
point
earlier,
but
I
don't
even
remember
what
it
was
anymore,
but
I'm
gonna
sort
of
redirect
paul's
stuff
a
little
bit.
I
think
one
of
the
roles
that
I
would
like
to
see
steering
do
is
more
effectively
express
where
we
want
to
put
our
resources
as
a
project,
and
you
know
hey.
G
You
know
it's
really
important
for
us
to
have
docs,
or
it's
really
important
for
us
to
like
hit
a
certain
quality
bar,
or
it's
really
important
for
us
to
have
a
predictable
set
of
features
that
you
know.
People
who
are
trying
to
build
a
business
off
of
this
open
source
project
can
know
when
their
stuff
is
going
to
land.
G
You
know
like
that
feels
like
something:
that's
not
technical
in
nature,
but
is
important
for
the
success
of
the
product
and
that's
a
place
where
I
don't
know
whether
vendor
hats
or
community
hats
are
most
important,
but
that
feels
like
you
know,
a
core
piece
of
what
steering
should
be
doing,
including
potentially
saying
hey.
How
do
we,
you
know,
manage
to
hire
somebody
to
do
some
contract
work
on
the
website?
If
we're
not
happy
with
the
website
design
for.
D
L
G
L
But
anybody
in
steering
is
probably
very
senior
in
the
organization,
so
they
can
always
delegate
to
get.
Somebody
else
do
it
for
them.
Right,
like
michael,
is
on
our
steering
and
if
he
needed
stuff
done
he's
very
senior.
He
could
ask
us
anybody
here
and
an
ibm
to
do
it
and
we'll
we'll
help
him
all
right.
It's
my
only
job.
Actually,
I
only
delegate,
I
would
just.
L
L
L
L
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
you
you
summarize
it
so
it's
trust
and
alignment.
So
how
do
we
achieve
that
in
a
way
that
keeps
it
sustainable?
And
you
know
people
don't
get
burned
out
because
they're
in
everywhere
and
so
on
right?
It's
it's
not
an
easy
question.
I
mean
there's
a
reason.
You
know,
mark
zuckerberg
runs
facebook,
but
he
also
created
it
right
initially.
So
I
don't
know
I
I
think
I
think
people
will
go
into
the
steering
committee,
even
if
they
are
not
necessarily.
L
You
know
that
that
that
was
like
it's
a
world
that
they
want.
So
I
really
think
that
you
have
to
go
from
bottom
up
right,
like
we're
not
going
to
be
in
coc
until
we
get
elected.
Well,
we're
not
going
to
be
elected
until
we're
like
contributing
a
lot
and
we're
not
going
to
be
contributing
a
lot.
And
yes,
we
write
a
lot
of
good
right,
so
like
tools
in
three
months
is
pushing
up
right.
L
So
that's
examples
of
somebody
that
is
trying
to
move
up
and,
and
I'm
sure
there
are
audios
as
well.
But
the
point
is:
that's:
how
you
build
a
trust
and
once
you're
in
the
coc,
then
you'll
build
more
trust
based
on
your
decisions
and
then
keep
going
up
so
anyway
I'll
shut
up
and
see
what
others
want
to
say.
But
I
I
feel
strongly
that
it
has
to
be
going
up,
even
if
we
agree
that
initially
we'll
grandfather
everything
so
that
the
current
members,
that's
fine,
where
they
are
right.
I
So
I
just
want
to
see
if
we
can
actually
move
forward,
because
I
think
there
was
a
kind
of
compromise
in
the
air
which
was
that
I
think
I
think
we
all
feel
that
the
cur
the
proposal
is
better
than
the
current
situation
and
that
we
would
trust
that
proposal
to
result
in
a
steering
committee
that
could
tackle
the
broader
problem
of
how
we
get
vendor
point
of
view,
and
so
on.
That
feels
the
compromise
that
says.
Okay,
is
this
better?
I
C
Well,
I
think
I
think,
like
we
could
have
a
separate
discussion
around
the
vendor
representation
stuff,
and
I
tell
you
what
like
I'm
I'm
hearing.
It
deserves
an
an
ai
like
an
explicit
act
that
it's
something
to
you
know
eventually
figure
out
in
time
I'll
take
an
ai
to
to
spin
out
another
side
side
discussion
for
that
and
vla
ack
your
hand
go
ahead.
I
think
you're,
the
I
think,
you're
next.
B
C
B
Yeah
so
now
one
of
the
things
I
really
really
liked
was
jayce
bringing
this
into
very
concrete,
particular
proms
and
so
forth,
because
I
am
not
a
very
good
justice
expert.
I
just
ride
on
the
back
seat
of
the
car,
but
sometimes
it
gets
very,
very
meta
and
I
lose
track
of
what
we
are
trying
to
solve.
So
if
one
of
the
things
we
could
think
about
between
now
and
next
time
we
meet
or
what
is
to
go
and
take
some
of
the
examples
like
jace
was
going
there
like.
B
Okay,
look:
here's
a
particular
problem
that
a
vendor
might
be
facing.
If
we
could
go
ahead
and
think
about
what
are
some
of
the
problems
we
might
have
seen
in
the
past,
whether
it's
in
this
community
or
another
community
and
kind
of
eval
that
against
the
current
proposal
and
see
how
might
we
solve
that
and
what
the
steps
would
look
like.
I
would
find
that
extremely
useful
personally.
C
C
Okay,
let's
see
we're
at
about
eight
minutes
left.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
I
communicate
that
I
pushed
some
updates
to
the
pr
yesterday
to
try
to
respond
to
the
numerous
suggestions
and
feedback
that
folks
from
the
community
had,
and
I
I
really
appreciate
those.
So
there
is
new
content
there.
If
you
haven't
looked
at
it
since
about
6
00
pm
eastern
time
yesterday,
yeah
so
just
making
sure
that's
out
there
for
people
to
know.
C
C
I
E
C
And
I
realized
actually
shortly
before
this
meeting,
that
we
hadn't
floated
any
of
this
into
the
pr
in
a
comment.
So
doug
and
I'll
add
it
to
the
notes
now
that
I'll
take
I'll,
take
an
action
item
immediately
after
this
to
to
surface
that
part
of
the
conversation
last
time
into
the
github
pr,
so
that
it's
it's
clear
if
you're,
if
you're,
watching
the
pr
okay.
Thank
you.