►
From YouTube: Knative Public Steering Meeting: September 2, 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
There
we
go
hey
y'all,
we're
in
september
already.
Isn't
that
crazy?
Welcome
to
our
public
steering
meeting
on
steering.
We
have
me
brenda
paul
ron.
Alex
is
april
here,
michael
here
I
don't
see
them.
A
Okay,
so
hopefully
they're
just
running
late,
so
we
can
get
started
on
the
youtube.
C
C
A
All
right,
I'm
hearing
we're
okay
to
get
started.
The
first
item
in
the
agenda
doc
is
actually
april
alex
ron
perspective
on
proposal.
So.
C
Yeah
so
I'll
kick
us
off
and
then
and
then
we
can
have
some
discussion
around
that
brenda
paul.
Can
you
at
least
confirm
that
you
can
hear
me?
Okay,
I
don't
wanna.
My
cpu
is
just
like
coming
through
loud
and
clear.
Okay,
awesome
all
right!
So
let
me
let
me
let
me
kick
us
off,
so
I
think
it's.
C
I
think
it's
obvious
from
our
being
a
little
bit
quiet
reserve,
taking
a
step
back,
that
we
have
some
reservations
about
the
proposal
as
it
currently
stands,
and
so,
as
we
were
thinking
about
this,
what
we
wanted
to
start
with
is
to
articulate
and
try
to
bring
some
clarity
and
in
what
is
it
specifically
about
the
proposal
that
doesn't
match
what?
What
we
think
is
right
for
k
native,
and
so
I
wanted
to
give
a
little
bit
of
background
and
then
and
then
and
then
jump
into
some
of
the
details.
C
So
first,
where
we're
coming
from
is
that
you
know
we,
we
value
very
highly
the
stable
core
that
k-native
has
today
and
that's
because
we
have
now
thousands
of
customers
that
rely
on
it
every
day
and
and
so
so
we
we've
built
products
on
top
of
k,
native
thousands
of
customers.
We
we
value
that
stable
court.
C
At
the
same
time,
we
see
a
lot
of
value
in
the
innovation
on
top
of
that
core
and-
and
we
want
to
continue
empowering
the
community
to
drive
that
so
that's
kind
of
the
the
balance
that
we're
trying
to
find
and
and
figure
out
how
to
kind
of
have
that
stability,
while,
while
maintaining
all
of
the
innovation
and
getting
more
out
of
it
for
for
everybody.
C
So
so
we
want
to
bring
to
everybody
today,
something
for
everybody
to
consider.
I
wouldn't
call
it
a
formal
proposal,
but
some
alternatives
for
us
all
to
consider,
and
I
want
to
give
a
couple
of
thoughts
on
that
to
start
with,
so
we
want.
Obviously
I
mean
I
want
to
reiterate:
we
want
to
set
up
the
project
for
success.
I
think
it
is
just
looking
at
the
number
of
people
on
this
college.
C
Clearly
has
our
passion,
your
passion,
we
all
want
it
to
succeed
and
it
has
been
successful
and
we
want
to
empower
the
the
toc
actually
to
to
drive
it
to
drive
that
success.
The
the
the
additional
capabilities
more,
you
know
adding
adding
more
on
top
of
k98,
so
we
think
that
steering
so
so
we
want
toc
to
drive
that.
We
think
that
steering
actually
has
a
useful,
though
small,
role,
to
play
in
in
in
that
in
that
path
board,
and
we
want
to
enable
everybody
to
innovate
on
top
of
k
native.
C
So
so
let
me
talk
about
what
I
mean
by
that
that
that
how
do
we
empower
other
committees
and
how
to
what
do
we
think
that
that
small
contribution
from
steering
should
be
so
so
our
alternative
is
seeking
to
focus
the
responsibility,
accountability,
the
powers
of
steering
and
ensure
that
the
community
is
empowered
to
carry
the
project
forward
in
an
open
way
that
allows
contributions
and
and
for
people
to
earn
agency
within
the
project.
C
So
we
think
that
the
steering
committee
should
really
only
focus
on
three
areas
advising
the
trademark
owner
on
trident
trademark,
administration,
handling,
code
of
conduct
issues
and
then,
lastly,
reviewing
and
approving
the
scope
for
k-native
core
and
for
everything
else.
We
believe
that
staring
should
delegate
all
of
those
responsibilities,
everything
else
in
there
into
subcommittees
like
the
tlc.
C
We
should
discuss
and
figure
out
how
many
committees
there
should
be
what
what
each
of
their
responsibilities
should
be,
how
they're
elected
by
by
the
community
and
the
contributors
to
the
project.
I
I'm
not
putting
forth
a
very
specific
proposal
yet
because
I
want
us
to
first
discuss
the
the
thoughts
that
I've
laid
out
here,
but
that's
the
the
main
structure
that
I
wanted
to
put
forth
for
discussion
today.
So
that
was
a
bit
of
a
mouthful
I
want
to
take
like
I.
C
I
want
to
take
a
little
pause,
get
some
feedback
thoughts
and
discuss
the
that
higher
level
structure
before
we
before
we
get
into
the
details.
If
that's,
if
that's
good,
with.
E
Everybody
you
know,
I
have
a.
I
have
a
sort
of
a
question,
so
it
sounds
like
a
counter
proposal
or
not
certain
proposal,
focusing
on
the
scope
and
authorities
of
the
steering
committee,
which
is
a
topic,
but
I
would
argue
that
it's
amongst
many
topics
that
are
in
the
air
at
the
moment
and
that
what
we're
trying
to
get
through
at
the
moment
is
the
the
particular
pr
which
has
a
particular
thrust
in
terms
of
changing
the
structure
of
representation
from
being
company-oriented
to
individual.
E
I
think
all
of
these
questions
of
like
and
I've
been
responsible
for,
creating
rabbit
holes
and
pushing
people
down
and
laughing
as
they
fell,
but
I
think
at
the
moment
it
would
be.
It
would
be
useful
overall
to
get
through
the
immediate
issue
in
front,
which
is
the
pull
request
in
front
of
us
part
of
everyone.
E
Is
that
there's
a
lot
of
history
for
the
folks
that
are
here
that
goes
beyond
sort
of
designing
the
ideal
structure
from
first
principles
and
and
more
the
historical
experience
of
like
frustrations
and
tensions
and
emotional
feeling,
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
is
get
through.
Those
first
before
we
can
talk
about
reforming
other
things.
Does
that
make
sense.
C
It
it
I,
I
understand
your
point
of
view.
I
I
think
that
I'm
well.
What
I'm
trying
to
express
is
what
are
the
parts
of
the
proposal
that
that
we
can't
that
were
unable
to
accept,
and
so
I
think
that
well
there
are
a
couple
things
here:
there's
there's
history
that,
for
example,
personally
I
don't
have
so
so
I
don't
want
to
ex.
C
You
know
pretend
that
I
have
it
when
I
don't.
So
that's
that's
number
one
number
two.
I
think
that
there
are
a
couple
ways
forward
and
which
is
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
I
didn't
put
a
an
alternate
pull
request
up
there.
I
think,
there's
a
possibility.
I
don't
want
to
commit
anything
yet,
but
there's
a
possibility
that
we
adjust
the
current
pr
to
something
that
that
we
can
accept,
and
so
we
can
discuss
that.
C
C
I
I
humbly
wasn't
part
of
them
and
that's
that's
not
my
style,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
I'm
just
trying
to
actually
bring
I'm
trying
to
tell
you
I'm
trying
to
share
what
are
the
specifics
that
that,
if
we
address
them,
will
help
us
move
forward
and
complete
the
conversation,
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
can
amend
things
in
a
proper
way.
We
don't
have
I'm
not
saying
we
have
to
start
from
scratch.
B
Yeah
sorry
paul,
I
hate
to
hate
the
button.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
I
heard
you
correctly
ron
when
you
said
you
know
it's
been
a
mouthful
I
I
was
just
taking
some
notes,
real,
quick
and
and
in
characteristic
fashion.
For
me,
I
started
taking
notes
after
you
started
talking,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
I
caught
everything
but
here's
here's.
B
What
I
caught
is
that
the
the
the
tension
that
or
tension
is
not
the
right
word,
the
the
balance
that
your
and
I
assume
that
you're
speaking
for
google,
rather
than
personally,
when
you
say
we
correct
the
the
balance
you're
you're,
all
interested
in
like
having
the
scales
weigh
out
evenly,
is
around
stability
of
the
core
and
like
how
do
we
facilitate
further
innovation
in
the
project,
and
I
I
also
heard
a
clear
statement
that,
like
it's
there's
a
recognition,
it's
important
to
the
community
too,
and
the
steering
focus
areas
that
that
you
see
broadly
are
trademark.
B
My
notes
aren't
grammatical.
Okay,
so
let
me
translate
them
back
into
real.
Real
language
is
advising
the
holder
of
the
mark
on
issues
related
to
that
code
of
conduct,
issues
and
future
or
present,
as
the
case
may
be,
questions
about
the
project
scope
is
that
right.
C
Yeah,
I
want
to
be
specific
about
that
third
part,
because
I
think
there's
an
opportunity
for
fine-tuning
that
to
make
make
it
so
that
to
find
a
good
path
forward,
which
is
it's
reviewing
and
approving
the
k
native
core
scope,
I
think
we
need
to
part
of
how
you,
in
any
project
this
is
not
specific
to
k
native
part
of
how
we
get
and
encourage
more
innovation
is
fewer
restrictions
and
more
empowering
of
subcommittees
as
we
you
know
over
time
and
none
sorry
over
time,
starting
immediately,
I'm
not
saying
we
slowly
relax
things
I'm
saying
like
starting
today.
C
There
should
be
an
ability
to
to
drive
more
building
on
top
of
that
k
native
core
with
last
input
from
from
the
steering
committee.
It's
that
it's
that
core,
that
that
I
want
to
make
sure
the
steering
committee
reviews
and
approves.
F
Yeah
run
so
first
off
thanks
for
bringing
forward
this
proposal
and
and
reflecting
your
ideas,
I
think
this
is
a
very
healthy
discussion.
What
I
was,
as
you
went
through
the
items.
What
I
was
thinking
is
like,
where
is
the
biggest
delta,
between
the
proposal
that
you
just
described
and
what
we
have
today?
F
Do
you
think
it
is
this
aspect
around
this
responsibility
for
the
core
versus
something
bigger
or
how?
How
would
you
characterize
the
key
delta.
C
G
The
third,
which
is
clarity,
the
contrast
being
asked
for,
is
from
the
state
as
it
is
today
versus
what
we're
saying,
not
from
the
pr
versus
what
it
is
today.
C
G
C
Got
it
so
I
think
the
the
key
distinction
is,
I
believe,
the
steering
committee
today
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
has
other
responsibilities
around
marketing
and
all
sorts
of
other
stuff
like
that
and
also
has
authority
over
all
scope
and
and
that's
the
part
where
I
don't
know
that
we
we
need
that,
because
I
think
it
it
will
slow
us
all
down,
and
so
when,
when
we
look
at
what
what
do
we?
C
G
No,
I
feel
that's
that's
pretty
accurate.
The
the
goal
here
is
to
constrain
what
steering
is
responsible
for
to
the
bare
minimum
it
needs
to
do
so
that
the
project
can
drive
itself
and
the
toc
can
drive
the
direction
of
the
project.
I
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
whether
under
the
current
pr,
you
even
need
a
steering
committee
because
it
seems
like
the
steering
committee
is
made
redundant.
You
know,
and
so
the
goal
here
is
to
articulate
what
is
it?
G
B
Just
wanted
to
act
that
we
have
a
couple
hands
up,
so
maybe
we
can
maybe
we
can
clear
the
hands
and
then
ron.
I
think
you
were
gonna,
go
into
more
detail
and
and
maybe
michael
and
brenda
we
can
come
back
after
the
heat.
Yes,.
C
C
H
So
I
just
wanna
understand
a
little
bit
more
clearly
the
distinction
between
or
what
what
we
think
of
as
the
core
like
what
all
encompasses
in
the
core.
When
we
say
core,
are
we
talking
about
like
the
pillars
like
say
serving
and
eventing?
Are
we
talking
about
the
api
shapes
or
are
we
talking
about
like
I,
I
I
can
certainly
sympathize
with
everybody's
desire
to
go
ahead
and
take
a
stability
on
on
on
apis.
H
We
have
other
people
you're,
not
alone
in
building
products,
so
right
a
little
bit
better
on
sort
of
kind
of
what
is
it
exactly
the?
What
is
core
and
what
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
that
happened
there
and
sort
of
kind
of?
How
does
that
relate
to
steering?
So,
for
example,
if
a
eventing
working
group
goes
off
the
deep
end
and
decides
to
do
x,
y
and
z,
that
is
sort
of
kind
of
pushed
all
the
way
down
in
the
in
the
working
group.
H
So
I'm
just
trying
to
kind
of
get
a
little
bit.
Clarity
on
that.
C
Yeah
villa
just
one
quick
comment,
because
I
don't
want
to
hog
all
the
time
here,
but
there
are
lots
of
people
on
this
call
who
are
building
products.
C
I
was
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
that
my
perspective
and
my
and
my
point
of
view
is
based
on
how
do
I
do
the
best
thing
for
my
customers
based
on
my
products,
and
so
I'm
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
that
my
points
of
view
are
not
my
personal
point
of
view,
but
rather
what
I
believe
I
need
to
do
in
the
interest
of
those
thousands
of
customers.
That's
that's
all
I
was
saying
I
I.
I
know
that
there
are
lots
of
people
building
products
and,
and
they
are
trying
to
do
the
same.
C
D
But
those
people
don't
get
to
have
a
route
to
controlling
the
definition
of
core.
Only
you
and.
D
Sorry,
you
you
were,
you
were
saying
that
lots
of
other
people
other
than
google
are
building
products,
but
you
also
seem
to
suggest
that
they
shouldn't
get
the
same
say
in
what
core
is.
G
So-
and
I
don't
see
it
that
way,
the
way
I
view
it
is
that
tlc
has
the
dominant
say
about
how
the
product
evolves
and
poc
and
steering
have
equal
veto
power
over
keeping
things
out
of
core.
G
So
let's
say:
there's
some
new
idea
whatever
it
is,
you
want
to
add
tea
pots
to
candy,
and
so
we
start
a
teapot
working
group
and
they
start
building
teapots
and
they're
lovely
and
they
have
flower
patterns
and
so
on
at
some
point
that
comes
across
pocs
desk
and
they
say:
oh,
these
are
lovely
teapots,
but
they
don't
belong
in
core.
That's
done.
Steering
doesn't
have
the
power
to
force
teapots
into
the
project,
but
let's
say
tlc
does
approve
the
teapots
and
and
and
steering
does
not.
G
Then
steering
has
equal
ability
to
keep
that
out
of
scope.
So
the
goal
here
is
to
ensure
that
the
community
is
driven
primarily
by
toc
or
other
subcommittees,
as
we
like
in
some
future
dates
think
are
necessary
but
enable
you
know
steering
to
be
able
to
control
the
final
definition
of
what's
in
scope.
D
I
D
D
So
in
the
teapot
analogy
to
make
it
very
clear,
someone
wants
to
add
teapots
and
let's
say
google
wants
to
add
teapots
and
your
answer
would
be
well.
The
toc
members,
the
representation
of
non-google
people,
is
on
the
tmc,
so
the
toc
computer.
D
G
Something
big
well,
I
think
fundamentally
because
at
the
moment
google
owns
the
marks,
and
so
what
we
define
to
be
in
scope
directly
affects
what
the
definition
is
of
the
trademark.
D
I
I
didn't
mean
that
to
be
a
howl
answer.
Well
I
mean
it
seemed
to
be
that
you
were
saying
that.
D
G
I
I
was
trying
to
say
something
very
similar,
but
to
my
ears
different,
which
is
google
needs
the
extra
power
because
we
own
the
trademark.
Not
google
gets
the
extra
power
because
one
trademark,
which
is
very
slightly
different,
I
feel
like.
B
Can
I
just
recognize
we
got
a
couple
of
hands
up
in
the
chat.
One
of
them
is
mine
because
I
think
there's
a
question.
I
have
that
touches
this,
but
I
think
someone
evan
you
were
before
me.
J
Yeah,
so
I
wanted
to
ask
one
of
the
powers
that
wasn't
that
wasn't
in
ron's
list
was
governance
or
setting
the
rules
of
the
road
for
the
project.
J
You
know
how
people
get
on,
steering
and
toc
and
so
forth.
That
seems
like
it's
important
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
was.
You
know
with
that's
now
four
items
for
your
steering
committee,
but
I
think
there
was
a
healthy
discussion
yesterday
about
what
other
things
we'd
like
steering
to
do
so
yeah.
I
think
there
may
be
a
few
more
things
than
just
a
very
narrow
trademark
and
keep
the
lights
on.
C
Actually,
so
in
the
interest
of
brainstorming
evan,
so
in
the
spirit
of
brainstorming,
I
think
that
governance
rules,
aside
from
changing
what
those
three
components
of
the
steering
committee,
I
think,
could
also
be
defined
by
a
different.
We
could
have
a
governance
committee
and
it
could
define
outside
of
core.
You
know
three
tier
four
tier
different
layers
and
what
does
it
take
to
grab
to
move
between
two
years
and
and
all
of
that
governance
responsibility,
I
think,
doesn't
have
to
be
in
the
steering
committee.
It
can
go
to
another
committee.
J
C
Right
so
so
I'm
saying
that
other
than
the
specifics
of
that
which
we
should
leave
in
in
its
current
form
everything
all
other
aspects
of
governance.
We
we
we
don't
need
to
put
in
steering.
So
yes,
I
get.
I
get
your
point
which
is
well
if
you,
if
you
move
all
governments
to
something
else,
you've
actually
moved
the
steering
committee
overall.
So
I'm
not
trying
to
I'm
not
trying
to
suggest
that.
B
Jacques,
I
think
that
you
had
your
hand
up
in
the
chat,
but
I
wasn't
sure
if
it
was
the
second
hand
or
the
first.
E
Thank
you
yeah
again.
I
think
this
is
a
an
important
discussion.
I
sense
that
there
is
a
lot
of
concern
from
google
about
the
the
the
sort
of
the
orbit.
E
You
know
the
broad
authorities
that
student
committee
has
at
the
moment
and
a
desire
to
sort
of
sort
out
the
heads
of
power
so
to
speak,
and
I
think
that
is
an
important
question,
but
I
also
want
to
drag
us
back
to
the
thing
that
brought
us
here
in
the
first
place
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
which
was
the
discussion
of
changing
the
electoral
process.
E
Essentially,
what
is
the
franchise
for
steering
committee
and
I
think
that
those
are
related
there
is
a
nexus
through
the
same
document
and
that
it
has
a
purpose,
but
also,
I
think,
a
lot
of
the
feeling
is
that
a
lot
of
folks
really
do
want
to
move
to
an
elected
model
and
that
we
want
to
sort
of
like
get
that
better
down.
E
First,
so
an
analogy
I
thought
of
yesterday,
because
we,
you
know-
and
I
blame
you
for
this-
jules
jules
was
waxing
rhapsodic
about
having
product
managers,
because
he
has
gone
through
the
same
process
of
being
blogged
that
I
did,
which
is
working
with
pivots
and
it's
sort
of
like.
I
have
a
prop
for
this.
You
know
this
happened
except
it
didn't
happen
very
well
because
of
the
background,
pointing
the
light.
E
And
I
thought
that
if
we
were,
if
we
were
looking
at
this
as
like
a
story
and
a
backlog
with
the
various
discussions
that
I've
had,
I
and
other
engineers
we
said
they're
pointing
it
at
like
10
000
points,
we'd
be
saying
to
the
product
manager.
E
You've
got
to
break
this
down
and
you're
going
to
put
them
in
order,
and
so,
if
we
were
building
this
as
a
backlog,
I
would
say
the
pull
request
we
have
in
front
of
us,
which
is
mostly
about
the
franchise
and
about
the
electoral
system,
would
go
the
top
of
the
backlog,
but
we'd
also
start
adding
items
explicitly
saying.
We
need
to
discuss
the
heads
of
authority
for
steering.
We
need
to
discuss
conflicts
of
power
between
toc
and
steering
committee.
E
We
need
to
discuss
how
vendor
representation
might
work
or
what
would
work,
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
of
issues
that
are
sort
of
like
outstanding,
and
I
think
that
the
reason
is
sort
of
like
all
genders.
Perhaps
people
feel
incorrectly
that
there's
this
one
opportunity
to
change
things
when
that's
not
true
at
all.
B
So
I
I
have
my
hand
up
after
jacques
and
the
the
question
that
I
had
is-
and
I
maybe
heard
it
kind
of
touched
on,
but
and
I
I
had
the
perception
ron
that
you
were
maybe
gonna
go
into
detail
about
this,
but
I
might
be
wrong
is
in
terms
of
it's.
Not
it's
not
clear
if
you're
proposing
a
different
model
for
how
steering
is
composed
or
what
the
status
of
of
that
like
in
terms
of
your
thoughts
is,
could
could
you
maybe
clarify
a
little
bit.
C
G
C
You
know
I,
and
maybe
I
misunderstood
jock's
point
of
view,
so
so
so
apologies
if,
if
I'm
not
approaching
it
correctly,
but
so
do
you
see
what
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
understand
how
how
you'd
like
to
proceed
with
that?
Given
jock's
comment.
B
Yeah
and-
and
I
appreciate
the
difficulty
of
thinking
on
your
feet
and
yeah,
so
what
I
heard
is
is
maybe
that
it's
it's
in
an
maybe
an
indeterminate
state,
like
maybe
a
position
isn't
fully
formed.
But
now
it's
there's.
G
The
thrust
of
the
thrust
of
what
we're
saying
here
is
that
we
can,
I
think,
empower
subcommittees
to
drive
the
project
in
the
in
the
community
driven
way,
that's
in
the
spirit
of
the
existing
pr
without
substantially
changing
the
current
composition
of
steering,
but
rather
by
constraining
its
powers
to
a
very
specific
set
of
powers,
and
so
that
is
that
is
the
thrust
of
what
we're
saying
here.
So
it's
not
really
about
changing
the
way
steering
is
elected.
It's
really
about
changing.
G
M
There
are
certain
things
that
the
community
does
not
have
agency
over.
M
You
know
the
community,
the
sort
of
decision-making
authority
for
the
community
right,
and
so,
if
steering
relinquishes
scope
right,
the
question
is:
who
does
that
authority
fall
to
and
how
does
the
community
have
a
voice
over
those
aspects
of
the
project
that
are
no
longer
in
scope
for.
G
M
Sure
so,
we've
had
requests
for
things
like
vendor,
neutral
training,
material
ron
mentioned
marketing
right
there's
how
the
infrastructure
for
the
project
is
financed
and
run,
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
things
right.
How
do
we
pay
for
slack?
How
do
we
pay
for
stuff
right?
I
mean
there's
a
whole
category
of
how
do
we
pay
for
it
right,
which
is
sort
of
unanswered.
G
I've
been
talking
too
much
so
go
ahead,
so
trying
to
pick
just
one
of
those
examples.
I
think
you
said
marketing
or
or
another
example.
I
think
of
the
kind
of
thing
that
we
we
are
talking
about
being
in
school,
for
steering,
is
sort
of
community
management
or
driving
community
events
or
whatever
there's
in
my
mind,
some
of
those
things
could
be
delegated
directly
to
the
toc
or
if
we
feel
like
the
skill
set,
that
we
want
to
do
a
particular
thing.
Isn't.
G
Match
for
the
skills
of
people
who
put
themselves
forward
from
the
toc,
we
create
a
new
subcommittee
called
like
marketing
committee.
You
know,
have
have
the
community
pick
the
agreement
for
that
committee
and
define
it
and
like
that
committee
then
goes
off
and
does
that
thing
and
that
community
would
be
presumably
in
a
very
similar
model
to
how
we
do
toc
elected
by
the
community.
G
F
L
N
That,
like
I,
don't
know
of
any
the
only
project,
I
know
that
has
that
is
kubernetes
and
we
are
not
at
kubernetes
level
yet.
But
I
think
when
we
get
to
that
level,
we
can
obviously
use
their
expertise
in
that
area,
and
I
just
that's
one
of
those
things
that,
like
traditionally
people
kind
of
do
on
their
own
versus
the
open
source
project
figuring
out
exactly
what
you
know.
C
That's
yeah,
let
me
so
you're,
probably
right
april,
but
to
get
to
back
to
matt's
set
of
examples.
I
think
I,
what
I'm
about
to
say
is
the
same
as
alex's,
but
I
would
imagine
there
would
be
an
operations
committee
that
would
be
elected
by
the
community
and
they
would
be
responsible
for
scott's
cayenne
con
and
you
know,
because
I
I
don't
think
we
need
a
k
on
committee
and
con
committee
and
a
marketplace.
C
So
I
I
don't
think
I
mean
it
it's
it's
up
to
us
to
to
figure
out
how
many
different
committees,
but
there
is
such
a
thing
as
overkill,
and
so
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
you
know
a
person,
and
this
is
my
personal
opinion.
I
don't
think
we
want
so
many
committees
where
everyone's
part
of
it
matt,
but
I'm
trying
to
answer
your
question,
which
is,
I
think
there
would
be
an
ops
committee.
C
M
Well,
I
think
the
clarifying
question
I
have
is,
if
steering
is
shedding
that
scope,
what
gives
it
the
authority
to
delegate
that
scope
right?
It
is
the
backstop
today.
It
can
create
those
committees
today
to
effectively
shed
that
scope
in
the
same
way
that
toc
exists
as
a
delegated
body
for
technical
decision
making
right
so
right.
I
think
really
what
you're
suggesting
is
no
change
from
today
because
steering
exists.
M
How
does
that
create
those
committees
today,
but
what
you're
saying
is
that
we
haven't
grown
to
the
size
of
kubernetes
to
justify
the
creation
of
those
things.
If,
if
I'm
understanding
correctly
right.
J
I
think
ron
was
actually
saying
something
slightly
different,
which
was
that
he
was
suggesting
that
running
a
community
vote
would
be
the
backstop
rather
than
having
steering
do
it
for
what
evan
for
deciding
to
set
up
like
a
marketing
committee
and
determining
who's
on
it.
You
suggested
using
a
community
vote
for
that,
rather
than
having
steering
decide,
decide
yeah.
C
Yeah,
I
think
yes,
I
mean,
I
think
we
would
want
to
put
up
a
pr
for
a
suggested
committee
and
what
its
responsibilities
are
and
how
many
members
and
how
they're
elected
and
then
the
committee,
the
community,
would
have
a
vote
for
it.
If
we
want
to.
I
actually
am
also
okay
with.
If
we
want
that
to
be
a
toc
thing,
that's
fine,
but
I
don't
think
the
people
who
are
on
the
tlc
want
that
kind.
You
know
want
to
deal
with
that,
so
I
I'm
trying
to
sorry
go
ahead.
B
Paul,
I
apologize
sorry,
no,
it's
it's
just
the
speed
of
light.
I
I
just
noticed
brenda
had
her
hand
up
yeah.
A
No,
that's,
okay,
scott
nichols
had
his
hand
up
first
and
then
I'll
go
go
scotty.
L
So
I
think
I
think
the
major
point
that
we're
trying
to
talk
about
here
is
toc
has
changed
to
make
sure
that
there
is
no
single
vendor
majority
on
that
that
board
and
the
community
wants
the
same
for
ta
for
steering,
and
it
sounds
a
lot
like
what
ron
is
saying
is
the
proposal
sounds
good,
except
we
can't
undo
the
the
majority
for
google
and
that
I
think
that
sounds
like
what
the
backlash
is
here
in
this
meeting
like
this
is
what
people
are
reacting.
L
A
What
I
was
going
to
say
is
just
to
bring
us
all
back
on.
Why
are
here
is
the
the
open
issue
that
we
have
in
our
community
repo
around
clarifying
formula
for
steering
composition.
A
I
I
don't
think
we've
addressed
this
issue
and
I
and
I
think,
that's
kind
of
what
I
want
us
to
focus
on,
because,
like
I'll
be
very
upfront,
I
don't
want
to
be
on
steering
forever.
A
C
I
mean
one
quick,
quick
reaction
to
what
you
said
before
we
go
to
whoever
had
their
hand
up
next,
like
I
just
got
here.
So
I'm
good,
I'm
I'm
just
making
a
joke
brenda.
I
I
don't
know.
B
It's
a
good
joke
ron
and-
and
I
I
was
gonna
echo-
I
was
gonna-
make
a
point
similar
to
what
I
think
brenda
was
trying
to
make
which
is
in
in
the
spectrum
of
like
if
we
change
nothing
about
the
way
that
steering
is
composed
in
terms
of
like
the
people
being
one
extreme
and
and
the
other
being
completely
elected.
B
Here's
here's
something
that
I
think
I
want
to
ensure
that
I
surface
as
something
important,
which
is
if
and
what
I
heard
is
that
the
google
position
at
present
is
keep
the
steering
composition
more
the
way
it
is,
but
I
I've
I'm
wondering
if
I
like,
maybe
misheard
that,
because
I
think
we
would
want
a
diversity
of
like
vendors
to
or
sorry
it's
tough
to
find
the
words
in
a
just-in-time
manner,
yeah.
So
here's
here's.
What
I
am
wondering
is
darn
it.
B
B
We
haven't
really
clarified
exactly
how
steering
is
composed,
because
right
now
we're
sort
of
in
this
we've
been
in
a
bootstrap
phase
where
we
kind
of
like
we.
We
picked
people
and
said
this
fender,
this
fender,
this
vendor
gets
a
seat.
So
I
I
don't
want
to
jump
to
conclusions
about
specifics
that
maybe
you
know
in
in
your
all's
minds,
but
I
I
just
wonder:
are
we
talking
about
not
changing
that
at
all?
Are
we
talking
about
slightly
changing
it?
B
C
I
I
both
you
and
I
are
like
trying
to
think
on
our
feet.
Think
through
all
the
other
questions
in
the
stack.
So
I'm
I'm
more
than
happy
to
spend
a
little
time
detailing
that
out
with
you
offline
for
our
next
meeting.
C
C
I'm
also
happy
paul
to
go
with
you
and
whether
one
or
two
other
people,
or
something
like
that
to
to
come
up
with
what
are
the
specifics,
so
that,
as
as
we
detail
them,
we
have
someone
to
bounce
ideas
off
of
that
that
aren't
just
alex
in
april,
so
that
that
we
can
do
some
qa
for
what
we
are
putting
forth
so
that
we
we're
a
little
bit
more
efficient.
I'm
open
to
that.
B
Yeah
just
to
just
to
complete
my
thought,
a
quick
is
one
thing
that
I
want
to
just
like.
Also
recognize,
at
least
for
me
is
this-
is
a
a
large
amount
of
food
for
thought
like
this
is
a
lot
of
content.
B
I
I
feel
like
I'm
probably
gonna
have
to
go,
go
back
and
and
listen
to
listen
to
this
a
couple
times
to
just
make
sure
that
I
got
everything
I
don't
know
about
anybody
else,
and
I
and
I
appreciate
the
content,
but
it's
a
lot
to
think
about
so
tough
to
think
on
your
feet,
tough
to
tough
to
puzzle
over
just
in
time,
but
I
I
will
definitely
like
need
a
beat
of
time
after
this
to
digest
it
all.
C
B
G
G
What
composition
a
steering
committee
will
make
that
advising
actually
have
teeth
and
impact
and
effect
and
make
it
not
just
a
lame
duck
process
that
can't
actually
make
things
happen.
What
is
the
right
group
of
people
within
the
project
to
focus
on
code
of
conduct
issues?
I
would
put
forward
the
point
of
view
that
in
today's
zeitgeist
that
needs
to
be
the
steering
committee
just
because
of
where
we're
at
with
some
world
events
going
on
around
racism
and
inclusion,
and
things
like
that.
These
are
important
things.
G
The
leadership
of
the
project
should
be
invested
in
in
a
future
world
where
this
is
more
under
control.
I
could
imagine
deciding
to
delegate
that
to
a
subcommittee,
but
in
today's
world
I
feel
that
the
leadership
of
the
project
should
own
code
of
conduct
and
first
for
controlling
scope
of.
What's
in
the
brand.
In
my
mind,
that's
very
clearly
tied
back
to
the
trademark
ownership
and
it's
important
that
it
not
be
possible
to
modify
what's
included
in
the
mark
without
the
trademark
owner
being
on
board.
G
Not
needing
to
take
away
at
all
from
the
idea
that
toc
can
drive,
innovation
within
the
project
can
set
up
subgroups
that
the
community
can
vote
on
when
it's
the
right
time
to
have
a
marketing
committee
or
when
it's
the
right
time
to
instantiate
some
other
structure
to
drive
some
elements
of
the
project.
At
the
end
of
the
day.
G
What
we
want
here
is
an
open
project
where
everybody
is
empowered
to
get
agency
and
to
drive
things
that
are
important
to
them
and
try
to
define
what
steering
is
responsible
for
in
the
narrowest
possible
terms
and
the
power
experience
that
steering
actually
has
a
role
to
play.
That
is
worthwhile
for
the
success
of
the
project.
G
So
I
mean
the
beauty
of
open
source.
Is
that
it's?
You
know
anyone
can
fork
an
open
source
project
at
any
time
and
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
know,
as
as
the
cncf
would
put
it.
You
know,
the
fork
is
the
ultimate
vote
of
no
confidence
in
the
leadership
of
the
project,
and
you
know
that's
that's
why
it's
open.
G
That's
why
you
make
open
sources
so
that
people
can
fork
it,
and
so
I
don't
think
anyone
can
embark
on
creating
a
new
open
source
project
and
giving
you
know
their
hard
work
to
the
world
without
being
aware
of
them.
G
I
didn't
I
didn't
say
that
I
mean
if,
if
I,
what
I
said
is
that
it's
an
open
source
project
and
people
are
free
to
fork
at
any
time.
That's
that's
just
the
reality
of
being
open
source.
That's
the
promise
of
open
source,
that's
the
goodness!.
K
K
No,
I'm
just
saying
that
I
I
see
a
strong
signal
from
the
community
that
the
direction
google
is
trying
to
push
the
project
towards
is
not,
I
would
say,
being
well
received,
and
that
means
in
my
mind
that
if
this
continue,
this
signal
will
lead
to
a
project
fork
eventually.
So
I'm
just
saying
I'm
just
wondering
google
being
well
well
well
respected
in
the
open
source
history.
K
It's
either
saying
no.
This
will
not
happen
or
there's
a
problem
in
this
signal
reaching
google
so
which,
which
of
these
like?
Like?
Is
there
a
problem
with
the
communication
like
with
the
signal
itself,
or
is
it
the
problem
with
how
the
community
is
so
worried
because
yeah
who's
misrepresenting
the
signal
who's
miss
reading
the
signal.
G
I
think
there
may
be
just
a
mismatch
in
point
of
view,
so,
for
example,
I've
seen
the
chat,
jules
soren,
if
I
mispronounced
your
name,
jules
says
that
it
cannot
and
can
never
be
an
open
project.
If
the
trademark
holder
must
be
happy
with
everything
and
the
trademark
holder
is
a
single
vendor.
I
I
guess
at
the
moment.
I
don't
see
that
point
of
view.
G
I
totally
think
the
project
can
be
open
within
those
constraints,
and
so
you
know
the
the
toc
clearly
has
veto
power,
and
so
that
doesn't
mean
the
trademark
holder
can
force
a
toc
to
do
something.
Steering
has
veto
power
and
then
that
enables
steering
to
make
sure
the
marks
are.
G
Answered
your
question:
I
won
my
best,
but
I
don't
feel
like
I
have
I'd,
be
happy
to
engage
like
one-on-one
or
something
because
I
feel
like.
I
have
not
really
understood
your
point
of
view
and
I
and
I
sincerely
want
to
understand
this-
I'm
not
trying
to
stonewall
you,
but
I
don't
really
answer
you.
D
I
I
don't
think
it's
a
tricky
point
of
view.
I
really
don't
think
it's
a
tricky
point
of
view.
Sure
toc
has
veto,
but
you
you,
I
think,
if
I've
understood
are
arguing
that
the
trademark
holder,
which,
let's
be
honest,
we
know
what
that
trademark
holder
means
here
saying
the
trademark
holder
has
an
extra
veto
not
available
to
anyone
else
in
the
community
that
may
be
open
source,
but
it's
not
an
open
community.
E
I
just
want
to
jump
in
and
say
yes,
but
I
still
want
to
bring
us
back
to
the
issue
of
representation
like,
even
if,
even
if
we
decided
that
the
powers
of
the
steering
committee,
where
we
would
delegate
trademark
decisions
to
a
board
that
we
spun
and
everyone
once
a
while,
you
just
threw
a
dart
and
instead
see
some
random
person
in
azerbaijan.
E
Whatever
what's
interesting
to
me,
right
now
is
the
representation
question.
I
think
that's
a
really
important
pressure
valve
for
a
lot
of
the
negative
emotion.
That's
built
up
over
the
last
couple
of
years,
unfortunately,
and
what
I
hope
ron
and
alex
and
other
person
with
an
a
could,
you
all
choose
different
names
april,
I'm
sorry
people
I'm
about
to
keep
remembering
people's
names
and
faces
and
names
and
faces
and
names.
What
I'm
hoping
that
you
take
with
you
today
and
sort
of
mull
over
is.
E
I
think
people
are
open
to
discussing
amendments
to
the
charter,
but
I
think
what
people
are
really
keen
on
right
now
is
representation.
I
think
that's
what
we
want
to
sort
out
first
before
anything
else,
and
I
think
that's
why
this
there's
so
much
sort
of
like
emotional
freight
in
it,
because
this
has
just
been
kicked
down
the
road
so
many
times
in
so
many
ways
on
so
many
side,
quests.
C
Is
it
okay
villa?
If
I
just
reply
to
jacques
first,
I
know
you
have
your
hand
up.
Of
course,
thank
you
buddy.
So
I
I
hear
you
and
and
part
of
what
you're
expressing
I.
C
I
can
only
say
that
I
empathize
and
I
can
attempt
to
empathize,
but
I
haven't
been
part
of
the
community
as
long
as
you
have
so
I
I
can't
even
begin
to
empathize
with
the
frustrations
that
you're
referring
to
over
the
last
couple
of
years,
and
I
do
want
to
work
towards
clarity,
so
we
can
get
to
that
clarity
and
move
on.
So
we
can
focus
on
features
and
and
work.
So
so
hope
you
know
it.
C
I
think
we
have
that
in
common,
because
I
think
that's
what's
behind
some
of
this,
and
there
are
two
aspects
that
I
think
impact
that
representation.
C
One
is
the
representation
on
the
steering
committee
itself
and
two
focusing
the
representation
on
that
steering
committee
such
that
we
have
other
opportunities
for
representation
and
agency
outside
of
it,
and
so
that
that's
that's
the
perspective,
I'm
I'm
trying
I'm
trying
to
express,
which
is
let's,
let's
very
finely
define
the
steering
committee.
Then,
let's
identify
what
are,
what
are
the?
What
is
the,
how
do
other
committees
get
formed
and
and
how
are
how
is
representation
there
and
then?
What
is
that?
C
What
are
the
the
details
for
representation
in
the
steering
committee
so
hopefully
that
that
begins
to
address
it,
and
I
I'm
not
trying
to
purposefully
be
vague,
I'm
trying
to
help
us
end.
The
the
meeting
on
time
am,
I
am,
I
understanding
your
perspective
shock,
I'm
trying
to
actually
put
it.
In
my
own
words,
that's
all
basic
basically,
but
I
want
to
be
late
to
have
the
last
word.
H
Okay,
oh
dear
the
pressure
yeah,
so
I
think
basically,
the
fundamental
problem
that
we
are
struggling
with
is
the
fact
that
we
are
on
one
hand,
saying
we
want
to
go
and
encourage
innovation
and
so
forth,
as
long
as
that
innovation,
good
for
the
community
and
that's
great,
but
then
what
I
think
we
are
trying
to
say
is
that,
because
google
is
the
one
single
entity
that
can
at
any
given
point
saying
nope,
we
don't
want
to
use
alex's
example
teapots.
H
M
B
M
I'm
gonna
have
another
community.
B
And-
and
I
I
I
tell
you
what
I
think-
maybe
we
should-
we
should
call
it
here
unless
ron
or
alex
or
april
any
of
you
would
like
to
respond
to
velay.
Like
I
said
I,
I
am
gonna
need
to
devote
some
like
brain
cpu
cycles
to
like
processing
everything,
and
I
I
appreciate
the
the
input
into
these
discussions
from
like
from
all
my
steering
colleagues
in
in
the
community,
but
yeah.
I
I
don't
know
if
anybody
wanted
to
respond
to
what
vela
said.
C
I
I
mean
personally
I
do,
but
that
will
continue
the
conversation,
so
I
think
yeah
that
will
continue
the
conversation
more
than
just
a
couple
of
minutes.
So
we'll
know
that
that
would
be
helpful.
I'm
happy
to
talk
offline
and
I
think
there
might
be
something
we
can
do
together,
whether
it's
me
you
and
villa,
or
something
like
that-
to
try
to
before
our
next
meeting
so
that
we
can
present
something
a
little
bit
more
concrete.
But
if,
if
you
don't
want
to
that's,
that's
that's
also.
B
Okay,
it
sounds
like
we
should
call
it
here
and
yep
yeah.
My
brain
is
full.
So
thanks
thanks
for
the
brain
cargo
and
thanks
everybody
for
joining
us
today,
I
felt
like
it
was
a
good
discussion.