►
From YouTube: Knative Steering Community Meeting: Sept. 1, 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
Matt
you
set
this
up.
I
think
we're
here
to
talk
about.
How
do
we
represent
vendor
concerns
in
the
project
and
sort
of
in
an
idea
that
I
think
jacques
had
floated
in
the
past?
That
people
seem
to
think
might
have
some
promises,
maybe
having
like
a
vendor
working
group
or
artifice
location
whatever
in
the
community,
for
any
vendor
to
represent
their
concerns
and
what
they
wanted
to
get
out
of
the
project
versus
having
that
be
something
that
we
have
to
land
people
on
steering
for.
B
Yeah,
so
I
was
mostly
going
off
of
it
being
just
something
that
we
had
discussed
right
like
we
were
going
from
a
largely
vendor
seek
model
to
a
model
where
seats
are
well.
I
mean
I
say
going
to
right
the
proposal
that's
currently
being
discussed,
and
so
I
think
the
the
question
that's
been
raised.
A
few
times
is
how
are
vendors
represented
in
that
world
other
than
sort
of
twisting
their
employees
arms
who
happen
to
sit
on
one
of
these
bodies
and
yeah.
B
So
I
mean
we,
we
can
also
discuss
other
things.
That
was
just
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
we
had
flagged
in
the
previous
discussion,
for
you
know
further
discussion.
A
A
C
A
I'm
about
to
like
I
was
about
to
mention
something
that
that
you
had
mentioned
last
time,
which
is
maybe
it
would
be
productive
to
think
about
the
kind.
The
types
of
concerns
that
that
vendors
have,
that
they
want
represented
and
sort
of
decompose.
Those
and
think
about
you
know
which
of
those
are
things
that
would
require
like
steering
or
toc
type
of
input
or
decision
making
versus
versus
ones
that
don't
and
jace.
A
I'm
sure
you
could
put
a
better
wording
around
that,
but
I
want
to
say
that
you
brought
up
in
our
discussion
on
last
wednesday
kind
of
decomposing
that
sprawling
topic
into
specific
things
that
that
vendors
might
be
concerned
about
and
want
representation
on.
D
Yeah
and
sorry,
I'm
late,
so
I
think
that
the
I
think
the
one
thing
that's
really
harmful
and
dangerous
to
any
open
source
community,
whether
it's
in
a
foundation
or
not.
Is
that
if
there's
motivations
or
or
direction
or
efforts
underway,
that
don't
have
transparency
or
around
what
the
actual
motivation
is.
D
So
so
I
think
that
what
the
the
idea
around
thinking
through
vendor
vendor
specific
problems
is
that
our
our
best
case
scenario
is
that
a
vendor
can
come
in
to
the
project,
want
to
contribute
resources
and
help
drive
some
specific
piece
of
functionality
that
may
unlock
sales
or
or
funding
from
vc
or
whatever.
That
is,
and
it's
done
in
a
completely
transparent,
open
way,
and
so
what
that
means
is
that
it's
either
going
to
be
in
alignment
with
neutral
to
or
counter
to
the
direction
of
the
project.
D
As
stands
because
in
most
cases,
vendors
can
can
monetize
just
fine
with
the
existing
feature
set
of
of
a
project.
D
It's
when
that,
when
that
sort
of
friction
case
comes
up
of,
I
need
this
specific
thing
to
unlock
that
kubernetes
had
a
lot
of
these
things
like
the
cloud
provider,
wars
that
happened
early
in
the
life
of
kubernetes,
where
you
know
every
cloud
provider
wanted
to
have
entry
support,
so
it
looked
like
it
was
a
first-class
quote-unquote
cloud
for
for
kubernetes,
like
we've
seen
this
before,
and
that
the
decisions
decisions
can
be
localized
and
cordoned
off
from
the
main
project
in
ways
or
whatever.
D
That
is
whatever
those
decision
making
processes
are
as
long
as
they're,
transparent
and
open.
I
think
that's
the
key
right,
and
so
as
a
vendor.
If
you
come
in-
and
you
know
that
something
is
counter
to
the
the
the
direction
of
the
project
you,
you
need
to
have
some
recourse
to
actually
untangle.
What
that
looks
like
like
how?
How
are
you
being
blocked?
Why
are
you
being
blocked?
D
Is
it
really
truly
that
you're
making
a
short
term
decision
on
behalf
of
the
project
that
is
deleterious
for
long
term
the
project,
or
is
this
a
legit
use
case
that
maybe
just
hasn't
been
exposed
to
the
project
because
everybody's,
a
cloud
provider
and
you're
an
end
user
or
whatever
those
things
look
like
there
has
to
be
some
governance
mechanism
to
go
through
that
analysis
from
a
technical
and
a
project
stewardship
standpoint
and
and
have
that
voice
heard
now,
if
the,
if
there's
a
case
where
there's
completely
opaque
motivation
coming
from
some
vendor
in
the
project
and
people
just
start
cranking
out
code
for
something
that
doesn't
seem
to
have
any
support
in
the
project,
that's
another
problem
entirely.
D
A
Problems,
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
that
I
captured
everything.
You
said
there
was
a
lot
of
good
content
there
and
unfortunately
I
was
setting
up
the
note
stock
during
part
of
it.
So
I'll,
maybe
just
ask
folks
if
they
can
check
my
note-taking
there,
but
the
last
things
I
got
chase
were
around
insertion
of
emperor
for
outcome
that
is
unknown
or
insertion
of
effort
for
outcome.
That
is
known
where
it
may
not
be
fully
aligned
with
existing
direction.
E
Part
of
part
of
the
motivation
for
suggesting
a
specific
named
forum
for
vendor
concerns
was
also
to
create
a
clear
separation
between
what
the
steering
committee
does
in
terms
of
individuals
with
an
individual
sort
of
remit
or
democratic
legitimacy.
E
To
avoid
even
the
appearance
that
vendor
interests
were
being
represented
by
proxy
through
the
steering
committee.
By
giving
it
an
explicit
forum.
People
might
still
suspect
that
right,
but
we'd
have
a
stronger
case
that
it
that
there's
a
true
independence
with
her
form
and,
of
course
it
might
turn
out.
C
E
A
Guess
so?
Yes,
sorry,
doug
duggan,
jewels.
F
C
F
Yes,
I
want
to
go
yeah
sure,
so
I
don't
know
whether
you
intended
it
to
be
this
way
paul.
But
I
interpreted
your
comment
as
if
you
need
to
get
into
the
steering
committee
in
order
to
get
what
you
would
need
out
of
the
project,
then
chances
are.
We
have
bigger
problems
with
the
project
and-
and
I
agree
with
that
sentiment-
if
that's
what
you're
trying
to
basically
say.
F
That's
why
you
know
in
the
past
I've
said
I'm
not
sure
we
actually
need
an
sc,
but
that's
a
different
topic,
because
I'd
like
to
have
them
as
little
power
as
possible.
I'd
like
to
see
if
we
get
to
the
mode
where
most
decisions
are
strictly
technical
decisions
as
low
down
in
the
hierarchy
as
possible.
A
A
A
If
I've
got
to
get
someone
onto
steering
to
be
represented,
it's
sort
of
it
sort
of
puts
a
wall
between
me
and
making
that
investment
right
like.
I
think
that
we
should
have
a.
I
think.
We'd
be
well
served
to
grow
the
number
of
like
participating
vendor
presences.
If
anybody
any
vendor
can
represent
represent
their
needs.
C
Well,
all
I
was
going
to
say
is
I
I
think,
the
only
area
that
I'm
disagreeing
there
a
little
is
that's
how
that's
how
it
should
be
set
up
right,
but
the
steering
committee
is
the
thing
that
has
to
set
it
up
that
way
and
if
that
is
failing,
it's
the
steering
committee,
that's
going
to
be
responsible
for
un
failing
it.
If
you
see
what
I
mean
and
I'm
it
is
a
failure.
C
If
the
steering
committee
has
to
get
involved
to
make
sure
the
project
is
going
in
the
direction
of
things,
but
I
do
worry
ab
like
there's
just
that
little
worry
in
the
back
of
my
head
of
like
how
what
what
about
when
it's
not
an
ideal
world.
B
I'll
put
my
sort
of
short
spin
on
it
right
like,
I
think
our
aspirations
for
the
project
are
that
there
are
more
vendors
involved.
Then
we
will
probably
ever
have
some
sense
here,
and
some
of
those
will
be
really
small.
It'll
be
hard
for
them
to
make
the
sorts
of
commitments
for
the
project
that
you
know
are
needed
to
really
get
someone
into
some
of
those
seats
right,
and
so
I
I
think
that
we
need
to
find
a
way
to
enable
vendors
to
have
representation
in
the
community.
B
Without
necessarily,
you
know
needing
to
sort
of.
B
G
I
I
think
I
agree
with
what
most
of
you
are
saying,
I
think,
the
as
a
community.
It
should
always
be
bottom-up
right,
so
decisions
should
be
from
the
least
from
as
low
down
in
the
quote-unquote
hierarchy.
I
don't
want
to
even
use
the
word
hierarchy,
but
as
low
down
as
you
can,
and
we
should
only
resort
to
all
of
these
functions
that
we
have,
and
that
even
starts
with
the
working
group
leads
right.
G
So
even
in
the
auto
scaling
working
group,
the
individual
contributors
should
be
able
to
decide
and
to
influence
what
happens
like
to
the
project
and
to
the
auto
scaling
working
group.
In
general,
I
view
my
personal
position
as
a
auto-scaling
lead
and
similar
as
my
position
on
the
toc
and
I'd
expect
or
hope
that
the
syrian
committee
views
it.
Similarly,
as
purely
a
well,
it's
called
steering
right,
so
you
put
on
you,
put
up
some
boundaries,
maybe,
but
most
of
the
time
it
you
should
be.
G
I
I'd
like
to
be
the
person
that
people
resort
to
if
they
cannot
resolve
their
issues
between
each
other.
If
a
discussion
goes
in
circles
and
stuff
like
that,
that's
where
people
come
in
and
help
sort
that
out,
but
I
completely
agree
that
everything
else
should
be
like.
We
should
not
resort
to
these
mechanisms
as
much
as
we
can.
A
I
think
I
think
the
part
that
you
said
out
loud
is
that
individual
contributors
should
be
able
to
influence
the
project
direction
as
a
as
a
leader
in
our
community.
You
want
to
feel
empowered
to
to
resolve
issues
if
you
need
to
do
so,
but
want
to
enable
those
individual
contributors
to
influence
the
project
direction.
G
It's
it's
voted,
I'm
elected
by
these
people
right
so
yeah.
In
that
sense,
in
an
ideal
like
in
a
democracy.
Ideally,
I
represent,
like
the
majority
of
people
in
in
that
sense,
and
so
that
should
solve
itself.
Ideally,
like
people
should
vote
on
ideas
and
stuff
like
that,
and
I
don't
even
need
to
come
in
and
decide
something
because
they
have
a
majority
vote
on
something
and
that's
it.
A
Yeah,
so
I
think
one
of
one
of
the
things
that
I
heard
and
what
you
said
marcus
is
maybe
maybe
an
idea
about
what
representation
might
mean
with
regard
to
vendors,
in
terms
of,
and
I
think
this
might
be
a
good
chance
to
like
make
sure
that
we're
all
thinking
in
the
same
way
so
to
to
me
just
speaking
as
myself
when
I
think
vendor
representation,
I
don't
think
that
necessarily
means
that
there's
some
part
of
the
community
where,
like
where
vendors
get
to
influence
decisions
directly.
A
I
guess
I
sort
of
I
think
about
the
use
case
of
I
think
about
the
use
case,
as
a
of
kind
of
like
I'm
making
a
decision
about
whether
I
want
to
make
an
a
new
investment
right
as
one
use
case
and
and
I've
got
my
vendor
hat
on,
and
I'm
saying
these
are
my
priorities
across
all
the
functional
groups
or
functional
areas
that
that
I'm
concerned
about
that.
I
want
to
try
to
get
out
of
the
project
when
I
think
vendor
representation,
I
think
of
that
as
like
there's
a
flavor
of
it.
A
That
might
be
like
a
help
desk.
That's
like
okay!
Well,
these
are
the
areas
that
you
should
engage
in
and
discuss
with
people
and
like
attend.
The
working
group
share
your
use
case
create
an
issue
that
kind
of
stuff
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that,
like
that,
it's
a
source
of
power
within
the
community,
if
that
makes
sense-
and
I
just
want
to
see
marcus-
if
maybe
there's
an
assumption
about
what
representation
means
to
you
that's
coming
through
in
in
what
you
said.
Does
that
make
sense.
G
It
does
yeah,
and
I
think
you
captured
what
my
thinking
about
like
my
ideal
thinking
about
that
investment
that
you
talked
about
is
you
send
people
into
the
community
and
people
that
work
with
the
community
and
they
get
known
in
the
community.
They
build
trust
with
the
community,
and
that
is
what
gives
you
it's
it's
hard
to
put
it
into
like
the
usual
business
terms.
In
terms
of
I
don't
want
to
say
it
gives
you
leverage,
but
it
gives
you
it.
G
It
puts
people
in
the
community
and
other
people
in
the
existing
community
start
to
trust
these
people,
because
they
help
and
things
like
that,
and
that's
where
you
can
like
start
shaping
the
way
the
the
project
is
going
more
and
more
through
just
being
part
of
the
community,
not
by
necessarily
starting
to
obtain
a
leadership
position
in
that
community
from
the
get-go.
A
Yeah,
I
wonder
if
anybody
else
like
might
have
some
thoughts
connected
with,
like
what
does
representation
mean
to
you.
C
I'll
talk
slightly
about
representation,
just
the
one,
the
one,
because
again
I
agree
with
what
marcus
is
saying
like
the
decision
should
be
made
as
low
as
possible,
and
it's
always
the
failure
cases
that
I'm
a
little
that
I
worry
about
right.
It's
okay,
we've
got
this
representation
at
the
bottom.
What
about
when
there
is
a
broader
decision
that
we
need
to
escalate
so
any
especially
when
we've
got
like
what
is
this
project
about
decisions,
for
example,
just
like
off
the
top
of
my
head
right?
C
Do
we
care
about
the
use
case
of
multi-tenancy
right,
like
you
know,
as
a
server
okay
native
as
a
service
workloads?
Those
are
there
are
trade-offs
that
you
would
make
one
way
or
the
other
multi-container
is
a
disaster
if
you
want
to
do
multi-tenant,
canadian,
but
it's
a
great
feature,
if
you
want
to
so
there's,
there
are
trade-offs
right
and
I
feel
like
we
kind
of
have
there's
almost
like
a
confusion
or
we
we
are.
C
We
are
like
so
in
the
cloud
foundry
ecosystem,
there's
product
managers
and
there's
engineering
right
and
they're.
They
are
not
the
same
function
you
and
that
it
feels
like
we're
asking
the
engineers
and
the
working
group
please
to
be
product
managers
and
I'm
not
sure
they
have
the
input
required
to
do
a
good
job
of
that
to
be
a
good
product
manager.
I
just
came
from
cloud
foundry.
I
was
doing
this.
You
need
to
be
talking
to
people
right.
C
C
A
Jules
here's
what
I
heard,
which
is
when
you
hear
working
group
you
think
engineers
and
you're
not
sure
if,
like
someone
in
an
engineering
role,
is
like
necessarily
the
best
person
to
represent
these
types
of
concerns
on
behalf
of
their
employer.
Maybe.
C
Not
just
on
behalf
of
the
employer
right
like
on
behalf
of
our
users,
like
it's
better
in
k-native
than
other
projects,
because
it
is
an
engineering
project,
so
our
users
are
engineers,
so
we
can
have
some
level
of
empathy
for
them,
but
we're
not
our
users
right.
We,
we
are
all
very
familiar
with
kubernetes
and,
and
things
like
that,
and
I
don't
know
that
we
do
have
a
great
deal
of
empathy
for
people
deploying
canadians
in
production
or
people
using
canadian
production
and
what
those
people
want
from
k
native
right
to
do.
C
A
good
job
of
that
is
a
is
a
job
right.
It's
a
job
that
people
take
years
to
get
good
at
right.
That
job
is
pming,
that
job
is
product
management
and
and
it
is,
it
is
a
profession
to
itself
with
a
way
of
doing
things,
and
I
I
it
feels
like
there's
a
gap
where
product
management
should
be
in
in
how
some
of
these
decisions
will
be
made.
A
So
just
real,
quick
we've
got
a
couple
hands
up.
I'm
glad
that
you
said
that,
because
I
want
to
just
surface
that
I
think
when
we
say
working
group,
there's
no
reason
that
a
pm
can't
join
that
group
and
there's
no
reason
that
a
like
executive
personality
can't
join
that
group.
So
I
I
think
that
it's
good
to
surface.
C
A
We've
got
a
couple
hands
up
chris,
I
think
your
hand
was
up
first
and
then
vla.
I
Yeah
yeah,
I'm
just
wanted
to
tell
that.
I
am
pretty
much
wanted
to
tell
the
same
thing
that
judo
said,
but
maybe
I
will
only
add
that
if
we
not
give
a
clear
way
for
vendors
to
speak
for
them
themselves,
we
will
be
in
position
that
vendors
will
force
their
like
opinion
by
their
employees,
and
that's
it's
really
not
ideal
to
to
set
up
a
project
like
this
and,
for
example,
the
steering
for
me
is
for
those
decisions
that
working
groups
cannot
take.
I
For
example,
the
decision
like
jesus
said
that
has
traders
you
trade,
something
for
something,
so
you
cannot
choose
either
or,
for
example,
those
hard
decision
like,
for
example,
should
we
integrate
with
vendors
technologies,
x,
y
z
or
not?
And
if
we
don't
integrate
with
that
technology,
maybe
we
will
lose
that
that
vendor
from
community
and
lose
their
input
valuable
input.
So
that's
the
decision
like
for
project
steering
for
exactly
and
how
the
working
group
can
answer
that.
I
think
kind
of
the
technical
aspect
of
that
is.
I
It
isn't
really
technical.
It's
just
about
project,
about
the
good
health
of
project,
about
financing,
about
funding,
about
teams,
about
health
of
teams
about
all
of
that,
and
that
really
depends
on
if
the
vendors
are
feeling
healthy
in
the
project
and
if
they're
feeling
that
they
can
be
hurt
really
so
yeah.
A
So
the
the
the
I'm
sorry
villa
you
had
your
hand
up.
Why
don't
you
go.
J
Please
tom
talk,
okay,
so
yeah,
so
I
just
wanted
to
plus
one
marcus
is
common,
not
that
it
needs
it
because
I
think
it's
gotten
enough,
but
the
decision
should
be
pushed
to
the
lowest
level
where
they
make
sense,
and
only
in
the
exceptional
cases
should
things
bubble
up
and
as
long
as
we
have
the
infra
and
the
procedures
in
place
to
go
and
support
that,
then
perhaps
we
can,
unless
there's
huge
disagreements
on
that.
J
Maybe
we
can
take
that
as
an
action
item
to
go
and
figure
out
and
and
kind
of
eval
do
we
feel
that
we
have
the
appropriate
structures
in
places
or
not,
as
far
as
jules
is
common
about
the
pm's?
That
is
something
that
yes,
thank
you.
So
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
in
the
eventing
retro
again
I
mean
we've
talked
about
that
in
the
past
as
well
is
how
do
we
go
ahead
and
actually
get
enough
feedback
and
pm
involvement?
J
We
had
a
long
time
ago
in
seattle
in
a
bunch
where
we
had
a
bunch
of
vendors
coming
in
and
there
was
a
lot
of
pm
representation,
and
that
was
extremely
valuable
and
I
am
just
I
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
and
and
use
this
as
a
call
for
help
on
that,
because
I
was
just
gonna
go
and
go
bother.
Various
vendors
and
go
like
hey
come
come,
come
come
hang
out
with
us,
we
are.
We
are
actually
pretty
nice
people,
some
of
us.
J
So
I
I
agree
with
that
point
as
well,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
folks
have.
K
Thank
you,
yeah.
Just
a
quick
comment
before
I
come
to
my
actual
comment
on
the
on
the
pm
side.
We
have
at
least
one
pm
on
the
call
which
is
stuck
doug
is
an
offering
manager
on
our
site,
so
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we
don't
miss
that
one.
K
I
agree
in
terms
of
the
decision
making.
I
I
agree
that,
like
on
a
day-to-day
basis,
decisions
should
be
made
on
the
lowest
level.
I
think
this
is
no
different
in
in
an
open
source
project
like
this.
Compared
to
how
we
do
daily
work
in
in
our
each
of
our
companies.
You
want
to
make
decisions
on
a
day-to-day
basis
on
the
lowest
possible
level.
I
think
what
what
we
have
to
or
or
decide
on
is
like
if
there
is
a
conflict
in
terms
of
certain
decisions.
K
What's
the
ultimate
decision
power
to
resolve
the
conflict
like
in
our
companies,
we
usually
have
established
structures
and
we
know
who
to
go
to
to
make
it
make
such
a
decision,
and
I
think
we
need
some
sort
of
equivalent.
K
D
Yes,
a
steering
committee
done
well
is
a
group
of
people
who
represent
very
high
trust
in
a
project
who
are
personally
invested
and
probably
professionally
invested
in
the
success
of
the
project,
who
are
looking
at
the
one
plus
year
horizon
of
the
life
cycle
of
the
project
and
will
insulate
disruptive
changes
that
might
net
short-term
gain
for
either
some
or
part
of
the
project
versus
others
and
are
paying
attention
to
the
signal
that
is
the
project
healthy
or
not?
Is
it
successful
or
not?
Is
it
trending
positive?
D
Is
it
trending
negative,
like
just
a
just
a
little
bit
of
archaeology
history
here,
remember
that
kubernetes
steering
committee
came
from
a
very
specific
huge
problem,
which
was
the
the
project
was
was
dying.
I
don't
think
a
lot
of
people
realize
how
bad
the
project
got
before
the
steering
committee,
where
basically
issues
were
rotting
and
people
weren't
paying
attention
to
any
of
the
the
metrics
or
other
things
that
were
necessary
to
understand
the
project
was
healthy
and
and
what
happened
was
like
basically,
the
the
elders
of
the
project
brendan
and
other
folks.
D
I
was
in
the
room
when
this
happened
and
we
were
like
we've
got
to
do
something.
Somebody
actually
has
to
pay
attention
to
the
overall
health
of
the
project,
because
otherwise
it's
going
to
die.
We
can
see
these
things
dying
right
now
so
so
the
idea
of
the
steering
committee
is
is:
is
that
longevity,
the
overall
health
of
the
project
and,
unfortunately,
to
ensure
that
you
do
require
some
some
enforcement
powers,
which
is
basically
the
enforcement
of
decisions
that
may
be
for
longer
term
gain
over
short-term
gains?
D
D
I
need
this
thing
for
my
customers
yesterday
and
people
are
like
well,
we
have
to
clean
up
this
debt
because
otherwise,
you're
not
gonna
be
able
to
do
anything,
and
so
those
healthy
tensions
can
happen
at
a
much
smaller
granular
level
than
the
long-term
decisions
about
wow.
Our
net
issue.
Stale
dates
are
now
trending
toward
weeks.
People
are
sitting
for
weeks
with
prs,
not
being
merged
like
that's
that's
what
the
steering
committee
can
do
and
should
do,
and
that's
not
any
company,
that's
the
project
like
the
project
will
die
without
that
kind
of
help.
H
Yeah
I'd
be
happy
to
so
I
was.
I
was
commenting
that
I
think
that
there
is
a
substantial
or
that
I
wanted
to
rebut
doug's
comment
that
do
we
need
steering.
I
think
we
do.
I
think
that
there's
a
substantial
number
of
things
involved
in
having
a
successful
project
that
are
non-technical
in
nature,
and
I
think
that
would
be
steering's
remit
to
to
take
care
of
those
aspects
of
project
health.
Jace
talked
about
a
few
of
them.
H
I
think
you
know
making
sure
that
we
have
a
way
that
we
welcome
people
into
the
community
asking
like
what's
the
onboarding
experience
for
contributors
is
not
something
that
toc
or
working
groups
are
necessarily
going
to
be
good
at,
but
it's
important
if
we
want
people
coming
onto
the
project
and
helping
out
and
contributing.
H
Similarly,
you
know
end
users,
what's
their
experience
in
terms
of
you
know,
understanding
what
the
project's
about
and
you
know
actually
getting
support
a
thing
that
I
don't
know
how
to
assess,
and
I
would
appreciate
you
know
someone
who
you
know
some
sort
of
people
going
and
taking
a
look
at
and
I
would
put
steering
on
this
is
hey.
You
know,
lots
of
people
show
up
asking
questions
about
their
install,
which
may
or
may
not
be
a
specific
vendor
version.
We've.
H
Also
recently,
you
know
sort
of
organically
or
by
toc,
put
together
some
rotations
for
answering
those
questions.
Are
we
worried
about?
You
know?
Oh
hey,
we've
got,
you
know.
10
people
from
google
on
here
they'll
tend
to
steer
people
towards
google
solutions
and
not
towards
like
red
hat
solutions.
That's
a
complete
hypothetical!
I
actually
haven't
looked
at
the
numbers,
but
you
know
that
seems
like
the
kind
of
thing
that
probably
matters
to
us
as
a
community,
there
should
be
a
set
of
people
looking
at
it.
H
Having
the
authority
to
make
changes
would
mean
that
steering
you
know
has
a
fairly
broad
remit.
I
would
hope
that
steering
doesn't
use
that
excessively
in
the
same
way
that
you
know
in
the
united
states.
The
supreme
court,
you
know,
has
the
ability
to
reinterpret
the
law,
but
a
lot
of
the
times.
H
They
constrain
themselves
to
pretty
small
and
narrow
questions,
because
it
helps
everybody
if
you're
not
looking
over
your
shoulder,
wondering
you
know,
hey
is
this,
you
know.
Am
I
going
to
get
reversed.
You
know
tomorrow
because
I
made
a
decision
that
made
sense
to
me,
but
you
know
somebody
else
didn't
like
it.
H
No,
that's
what
I
had
to
say.
I
think
that
steering
is
useful
for
all
of
the
other
aspects
of
the
project
that
are
basically
humans
and
logistics.
L
Yeah,
I
I
sorry
I
joined
elite
but,
from
my
perspective,
steering
was
supposed
to
be
like
the
board
of
directors.
Like
I
always
kind
of
to
you
know,
tie
on
to
like
the
government
analogy
it
was
kind
of
like
you
know,
you
have
other
gosh.
Any
sort
of
analogy
with
our
current
government
is
a
mistake,
but
you
know,
like
you,
have
the
one
body
that
kind
of
like
is
overseeing
everything,
but
then
you
have
toc,
that's
actually
the
one
that
is
like
driving
the
day-to-day.
L
You
know
like
what's
happening
in
the
project,
the
work
not
to
diminish
what
steering
does
but
the
technical
work.
You
know
what
we,
when
we
think
of
a
project.
That's
what
we're
thinking
of.
Let's
be
honest,
that
the
recognition
that
there
is
all
this
administrative
stuff
that
kind
of
goes
on
with
a
project
and
the
the
idea
was
like.
L
You
also
have
the
issue
of
like
who's.
Gonna
pay
the
bill
for
slack
and
assorted
testing
like
things
like
that,
you
know,
and
so
I
think
there's
this
model
that
we
could
potentially
have
where,
like
you,
have
the
big
corporate
players
have
a
representation
on
a
steering
board
because
they're,
usually
the
ones
playing
the
goal,
but
then
there's
also,
you
know:
community
feedback,
whether
that's
like
seats
like
istio,
recently
changed
theirs,
whether
that's
like
seats
from
the
community
or
whatever.
But
I
think
there
is
this
need.
L
You
know
to
balance
it,
and
then
it
looks
like
a
lot
of
stuff
in
the
chat.
There
is
this
kind
of
perception
of,
like
the
term.
Steering,
apparently,
is
really
loaded
with
a
lot
of
stuff,
and
it's
something
that
we've
always
joked.
It's
like.
Why?
Who
knew
so
many
people
wanted
to
work
on
marketing?
It's
actually.
You
know
like
a
lot
of
what
steering
works
on
and
stuff
like
that.
So
maybe
it
is
something
like
you
know.
We
can
be
better
at
naming.
L
I
know
in
one
of
our
previous
meetings
and
we
actually
have
a
list,
and
it's
on
me
to
update
the
pr
I
apologize
of
like
the
things
that
steering
you
know
really
going
more
granular
than
what
we
have
currently
on
the
repo
like
what
steering
what
their
you
know,
charter
is
and
a
lot
of
it
is
you
know
it's
that
administrative
type
stuff.
There
is
one
part
in
it
that
I
think
we
could.
L
You
know
review,
but
there's
like
one
part
that
says
that
like
steering
has
allocated
its
you
know
authority
over
the
technical
part
to
the
toc,
and
I
wonder
if,
like
you
know,
it's
worth
considering
just
saying
we're
just
going
to
make
that
the
tocs
role
and
it's
not
that
steering,
has
decided
to
delegate
that
authority.
They
just
don't
have
it,
but
that's
just
kind
of
some
thoughts
to
think
through,
but
I
do
think
there's
a
lot
of
value
in
a
name
change.
If
that
would.
L
It
seems
like
some
folks
in
the
comments
were
saying.
Like
you
know,
maybe
changing
the
name
from
steering
would
be
helpful
and
it's
like
what
do
you
change
it
to
and
I'm
totally
on
board
with
like
herders
of
puppies,
but
I
demand
there
be
real
puppies,
so
jase
I
expect
puppy
but
yeah.
I
think
you
know
if
we
can
come
up
with
some
kind
of
a
name
that
it's
really
that
you
know
people
that
the
community
understands
exactly
what
the
group
does
like.
A
I
put
my
hand
up,
and
I
think
I'm
the
only
one
with
my
hand
up
currently
so
so
april.
What
I
heard
is
that,
like
of
the
dimensions
that
you
named,
like
the
one
that
seems
to
touch
vendors
is
like
the
who's,
gonna
pay,
the
bills
for
cloud
resources,
slack
etc.
A
And
here's
here's
my
question:
it's
not
necessarily
to
you.
It's
to
everybody
is
like
do
we
need
to
have
the
logistics
concerns
represented
in
steering,
or
can
we
have
a
place
outside
of
steering
where,
like
there's
a
as
matt
pointed
out
earlier?
Ideally
we
were
having
like
way
more
vendors,
making
an
investment
in
the
project
than
available
seats
on
steering.
A
H
Since
there
was
a
pause
I
was
going
to
say,
it
seems
like
steering
would
need
to
answer
questions
like
you
know.
If
google
said
hey
we're
tired
of
paying
for
slack
we're
going
back
to
the
free
version
you
know,
steering
it
doesn't
seem
like
you'd
need
someone
on
s
from
google
on
steering
for
google
to
make
that
decision
steering
would
be
left
to
figure
out.
You
know
hey,
do
we
want
history?
Do
we
want
to
do
the
free?
H
L
I
guess
my
thought
is
like,
like
I
understand
what
paul's
saying,
but
then
I
also
think,
like
that's
kind
of
what
steering
was
supposed
to
be
was
an
independent
group.
That
kind
of
just
did
those
kind
of
you
know,
project
adjacent
things,
and
I
in
the
interest
of
I
think,
doug
had
said
before,
like
keeping
it.
As
you
know,
small
as
possible,
like
you
really
need
to
add,
like
a
third
group,
almost
that
wouldn't
handle
that
kind
of
stuff
like
does
it?
D
Well,
so,
let's,
let's
throw
it,
let's
throw
a
scenario
out
there.
Let's
say
a
brand
new
cloud:
vendor
comes
on
the
scene
like
and
they're
they're
big
they've
got
a
lot
of
money
like
I'm
gonna,
throw
40
developers
at
k-native,
because
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
we
have
we're
going
to
basically
remap
the
way
you
do
eventing,
so
it
works
with
with
our
products.
D
You
know
we
don't
care
if
we
have
a
seat
in
the
steering
committee
or
not,
I
mean
we're
gonna,
just
throw
people
at
this
thing
like
and
there's
some
other
company
represented
in
the
current
contributor
pool,
who
is
already
invested
in
the
current
way
that
it's
done
and
that
this
would
mark
a
significant
disruptive
change
to
their
business
model
because
it
changes
the
fundamental
way
they
deal
with
the
product
and
what
who's
going
to
decide.
What's
right
there
like
what
happens,
then.
K
Happened,
yeah
and
I
I
agree.
I
think
it's
similar
to
the
function
scenario
that
we
also
experienced,
and
I
think
there
needs
to
be
somebody
whether
it's
the
toc
or
the
sc,
or
some
some
new
thing
that
we
come
up
with,
but
there
needs
to
be
a
defined
place
where
people
can
look
at
for
making
those
guiding
decisions.
C
Right
and
in
the
current
proposal,
that's
the
steering
committee
and
in
the
current
proposal,
those
people,
those
the
people
from
from
you
know,
jace's
google
2.0,
whatever
company
that
are
being
contributed
on
that
steering
committee,
have
a
clear
and
painful
conflict
of
interest
because
they
have
been
hired
for
the
purpose
of
contributing
these
functions.
C
But
it
may
well
not
be
the
right
thing
for
the
project
as
a
whole,
and
I
mean
I'm
just
stating
the
conflict
out
loud,
but
that
I
think,
is
why
there's
this
hesitation
at
the
back
of
my
head,
at
least
of
this
all
sounds
great
and
it's
democratic
and
the
people
contributing
are
represented
and
there's
no
vendor
influence,
but
the
people
contributing
are
paid
for
by
a
vendor.
C
And
I
I
just
can't,
with
a
completely
honest
straight
face,
say:
I
really
believe
that
everyone
is
going
to
be
able
to
say
to
completely
leave
the
vendor
hats
at
the
door
when
there
is
no
other
way
for
the
vendors
to
be
represented,
but
through
their
employees.
It's
one
thing:
if
there's,
if
one
thing
is
michael's
on
steering
and
is
representing
ibm,
you
know
with
an
executive
hat
on
right,
then
I
don't
have
to
worry
about
it
at
all.
C
If
the
only
person
that's
on
steering
is
me,
for
example,
inevitably
some
of
ibm's
priorities
are
gonna
weigh
on
my
shoulders.
I
think.
C
Yeah
a
new
scenario
I
mean
I,
I
think
I
think
that's
the
the
difference
right
like
some.
There
are
some
things
that
are
just
in
a
working
group
and
they
can
get
solved
low
level
they're
easy
right.
It's
it's
the
hard
way.
It's
functions,
for
example
right.
Some
people
wanted
us
to
have
a
functions
working
group
because
it
fits
in
with
what
they
want
to
do
with
the
products
and
some
didn't
and
there
isn't
a
low-level
working
group.
You
could
have
had
that
discussion
in.
I
don't
think
right.
F
But
that
would
then
that's
a
good
example
because
to
me
that
is
something
that
says:
okay
goes
to
the
steering
committee,
but
not
for
the
steering
committee
to
say
with
this
a
good
or
a
bad
idea.
The
steering
committee
looks
at
the
charter
of
the
organization
and
says:
do
these
folks
have
a
right
to
start
a
working
group
around
functions
because,
based
on
what
the
charter
says
well
but
who.
F
The
charter
right
right,
but
it
goes
back
to
you
know.
Obviously
you
have
those
two
groups
and
you
got
to
figure
out
the
right
voting
thing
between
them.
Yes,
but
different
topic.
That's
why
remember
back
that's
why,
when
I
suggested
some
text
for
the
charter,
it
was
very
specifically
or
I'm
sorry
very.
I
very
specifically
avoided
concrete
language
in
terms
of
what
features
are
there?
Rather
it's.
What
does
the
community
want
at
the
time
or
that
kind
of
thing
right?
F
K
The
fundamental
point
still
remains,
no
matter
how
we
look
at
it,
whether
it's
the
charter
or
the
steering
committee
or
the
work
group
leads
there.
There
will
always
have
to
be
some
some
group
of
people
who
are
empowered
to
make
the
decision,
and
I
think
we
just
need
to
name
them
like.
Is
it
the
worker?
Please
is
it
some
somebody
has
has
to
be
it,
whether
it's
low
in
the
hierarchy
or
high
up
in
the
hierarchy.
D
Yeah,
I
think
that
so
the
the
worst
case
scenario,
in
my
opinion,
is
that
you
have
wars
of
attrition
at
the
pr
level,
so
people
are
basically
creating
really
good
quality
code.
It
passes
all
the
tests,
it's
like
introducing
some
really
new,
innovative
stuff
and
the
pr's
just
don't
get
merged
or
reviewed,
or
you
have
these
just
ridiculous.
D
Knit
threads
that
go
on
and
on
and
on
forever
in
these
pr's
and
nothing
ever
moves
forward
like
that's
where
a
project
will
die
and
that's
why
that's
why
there
has
to
be
some
relatively
well-worn
path
to
say,
I'm
trying
to
do
something,
I'm
getting
friction
from
the
community.
How
do
we
resolve
this,
and
sometimes
it's
good
friction
in
the
case
that
you
know
we
have
a
very
clear
policy
around
x
and
this
is
clearly
in
in
violation
of
that
or
the
the
other
scenario
which
I
think
is
more
common.
D
Is
that
the
we're
there's
some
company
that's
invested
in
the
way
we're
doing
why
and
this
goes
against
it
like
that's.
You
want
to
know
where
the
real,
the
real
meat
of
the
the
governance
is
it's
right
there.
It's
when
I
haven't
stated
that
my
company
depends
on
this
functionality
being
this
specific
way
and
it's
not
because
it's
better
or
worse,
it's
because
I'm
invested
in
this
model
and
that's
where
you
really
might
be
able
to
detangle
things.
L
But
isn't
that
where
you
would
then
use
the
fork
option
like
if
one
you
know
contributor
has
something
they
want,
that
is
against
what
the
rest
of
the
community
wants.
Like
you
know
I,
so
I
I
have
two
thoughts
there
like.
If
you
have
that
kind
of
a
situation
and
you're
seeing
it
escalating
up
one,
I
I
kind
of
always
think
toc
is
always
the
top
like
to
me.
L
Toc
is
the
decider
for
any
of
that
stuff,
but
you
know
whoever
it
goes
up
to
like
if
they
make
a
decision
that
the
rest
of
the
community
isn't
happy
with.
L
There's
always
that
option
of
you
know
doing
a
fork
so,
and
I
think
in
that-
oh
sorry,
I
would
say
I
think
in
that
case
of
like
what
jace
was
saying
and
like
if
you
had
a
a
party
third
party
that
wanted
to
make
some
changes
that
you
know
couldn't
necessarily
get
the
community
agreement
like
they
would
then
be
able
to
to
work
on
their
own
path.
You
know
and
go
ahead
paul.
A
Sorry,
I
didn't
mean
to
interrupt
the
delay
over
zoom
trips
me
up
sometime
yeah.
I
I
feel
like
we
would
be
well
served
to
take
a
step
back
and,
let's,
let's
re
re-focus,
on
the
impetus
for
this
discussion,
which
is
what
exactly
do
vendors
actually
needs
some
kind
of
representation
with
regard
to
so
one
of
the
things
that
we
we
have
talked
about,
that,
I
think,
is
maybe
a
little
bit
of
a
strange
attractor
to
like
the
folks
that
we
have
here.
A
A
lot
of
us
are
developers
and
we
tend
to
be
attracted
to
technical
decisions,
but
I'm
like
I
think
that
is
a
bit
of
a
distraction,
because
probably
the
best
way
for
any
vendor
that
wants
to
influence
technology
decisions
is
for
for
them
to
engage
in
the
working
groups,
whether
it's
their
pms
saying
hi.
This
is
how
we
consume
this
project,
and
this
is
the.
This
is
how
we
use
it
in
our
products
in
our
offerings,
and
these
are
the
use
cases
from
a
technical
standpoint
that
we
need
it
to
do.
A
That's
probably
going
to
be
the
absolute
most
effective
way
to
engage
with
the
community
right
and
but
that's
just
one
broad
category
of
those
of
those
kind
of
vendor
concerns
the
other
one.
Is
I'm
I'm
paying
people
to
work
on
this
and
I'm
paying
people
or
I'm
paying
for
cloud
resources,
and
I
want
to
talk
about
my
available
budget
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
A
That
seems
to
be
the
like
the
stickier
bit
and
I
feel
like
we're
we're
getting
a
little
into
the
weeds
on
a
different
subject.
So
I
want
to
understand,
I
think,
exactly
if
we
kind
of
decompose
that
last
collection
of
things,
what
does
it
decompose
into?
What
are
the
specific
like
use
cases
that
we
want
to
facilitate
around
the
I'm
representing
a
vendor,
and
I
want-
and
it
is
my
job
to
control
cloud
resource-
spend
for
open
source
or
stuff
like
that.
A
Can
we
can
we
take
a
focus
on
that
in
the
remaining
three
minutes?
I
realize
that
we
have
schedule,
but
I
think
that's
sort
of
like
I
I
feel
in
our
discussions
on
you
know
like
steering
model
like
that
is.
That
is
the
thing
that
I
have
a
perception
that
people
feel
that
the
community
has
to
provide
a
solution
to
vendors.
For
does
anybody
disagree
with
how
I
like
characterize.
That,
like
is,
is
that
the
heart
of
the
matter
or
is
it
something
else?
A
Okay,
so
one
of
one
of
the
things
that
that
you
enumerated
in
your
comment
from
a
few
minutes
ago
april
is
the
logistical
standpoint:
who's
going
to
pay
the
bills
for
cloud
resources,
slack,
etc.
A
Sure
I'm
trying
to
understand
exactly
like
what
are
the
use
cases
there
right.
So
if
we
think
about
the
like
different
practical
things
that
are
sort
of
use
cases
for
vendor
representation,
what
are
they?
Because
it's
not
exactly
clear
to
me
and
I
think
that's
what
we're
trying
to
resolve
is
the
tension
between
like
having
steering
act
as
individuals,
but
also
making
sure
that
any
vendor
like
has
a
way
to
represent
their
concerns
about
their
spend,
etc,
makes
sense.
L
Okay,
I
get
yes,
I
get
what
you're
saying
and
I
just
want
to
clarify.
Like
you
know,
I
I
raised
that
as
a
aspect
of
steering
and
the
role
of
a
vendor.
You
know
in
that
position,
but
that
is
by
no
means
like
the
the
end-all
be-all.
That's
just
one
thing
that
you
know
made
me
think
of,
and
it's
not
a.
L
You
know
this
this
this
aspect
of
like
open
source
that
is
founded
by
a
corporation
like,
ultimately,
you
know
the
funding
comes
from
someone
and
as
things
transition
just
making
sure
that
path
is
there
like
we
see
this
now
with
like
our
permissions
for
the
calendar
invites
and
things
like
that,
like
I
don't
even
know
where
to
begin
to
unravel
that
thread,
but
I
want
to
get
it
documented
so
that,
as
the
project
continues
on,
like
whoever
you
know
comes
next
can
can
pick
up
the
keys
and
you
know
start
the
engine,
and
so
that's
kind
of
what
I'm
just
thinking
of
is
again
because
like
steering
is
that
administrative
kind
of
body
you
know,
does
it
make
sense
to
have
a
representative
from
a
lot
of
the
organizations
that
are
doing
that
work?
L
H
I
have
I
have
a
slightly
more
concrete
additional
example.
Imagine
that
all
of
our
ci
ran
on
one
particular
cloud
provider,
and
so
all
of
our
testing
only
detected
problems
with.
I
don't
know
one
particular
architecture
on
one
particular
cloud
provider.
H
I
know
that
that
has
been
a
topic
of
interest
as
of
late,
and
that
seems
like
a
place
where
you
know.
Oh
hey,
we
donate
resources,
but
also
you
know:
do
we
have
the
infrastructure
to
actually
be
able
to
run
this
anywhere
else?
There's
a
little
bit
of
chicken
and
egg
there
going
on
that,
I
think,
has
caused
ibm.
H
Some
distress
at
least
because
ibm
have
power,
builds,
and
currently
everything
is
all
of
the
ci
cd
is
paid
for
and
hooked
in
with
google's
gke
and
gke
doesn't
have
any
power
options
for
v.
I.
H
L
H
H
It's
it's
prowl
run
by
google
on
google
resources,
okay,.
I
Even
say
that
even
simpler
vendor
wants
to
run
tests
or
on
their
inter
infrastructure
to
find
tests
find
bugs
in
their
infrastructure
and
those
that
this
infrastructure
is
much
slower
than
what
the
the
community
is
now
using,
and
you
need
to
make
decision.
Should
we
run
tests
on
that
infrastructure
and
make
or
our
peers
take
longer.
D
L
H
In
the
productivity
working
group,
but
I
could
see
that
being
something
where
it
might
get
escalated
up
to
steering.
Potentially,
as
you
know,
how
do
vendors
get
onto
this?
Where
toc
could
maybe
point
directions
in
terms
of
well?
You
could
start
contributing
here,
but
I
think
steering
would
be
the
one
who
would
say
you
know
it's
actually
necessary
to
make
that
space
so
that
other
people
can
run
ci
cd.
It's
a
right.
B
So
chicken
and
egg
problem
right-
and
I've
raised
this
with
ciao
at
least
before
who
leads
the
productivity
working
group,
which
is?
Can
someone
who
does
not
work
for
google
become
a
productivity
working
group
lead
realistically
considering
nobody
outside
of
google
can
even
access
the
infrastructure
right?
I
mean
it's,
it's
a
pretty
fundamental
problem
and
one
I've
raised
with
steering
before
when
we
started
down
the
g
suite
path
right,
because
there's
some
stuff
going
on
in
cncf,
around
kate's,
around
a
cncf
owns
g
suite
or
against
some
stuff
in
that
space.
B
But
you
know
right
now:
a
significant
amount
of
our
productivity
infrastructure
isn't
even
accessible
to
non-googlers
right.
That
includes
the
entire
crowd
set
up.
It
includes
the
performance,
automation
with
mako
and
on
and
on.
L
L
L
Maybe
that's
too
simplistic
sounding,
but
it
just
seems
like
there's
things
that
we
could
potentially
do
for
that.
But
I
think
in
thai-
and
you
know
it
ties
back
into
the
bigger
question
of
like
a
decision
like
that-
should
that
go
to
the
toc
or
the
sc
and
to
me
it
should
go
to
the
toc
not
staring.
B
L
H
Well,
I
think
there
might
be
two
different
decisions:
there's
the
infrastructure
change
and
then
there's
the
actually
getting
the
funding
like.
If
we
wanted
to,
you
know,
run
tests
on
aws
as
well.
H
A
A
So,
and
I
know
people
have
have
started
taking
off,
but
like
do
we
want
to
talk
about
this,
maybe
like
later
in
the
week?
Do
we
want
to?
How
do
we
want
to
continue?
Because
I
I
think
that
we're
at
least
making
some
progress
in
terms
of
coming
to
view
what
the
problems
are
to
solve
together.
K
L
I
know
I'm
taking
time
off
this
week.
I
don't
know
if
other
folks
are.
L
L
Monday's
labor
day,
so
we
have
friday
off
and
then
monday
off
and
then
because
we
do
have
friday
off
monday
off.
I
was
planning
on
taking
tomorrow
and
thursday.
That
being
said,
I'm
still
happy
to,
like
you
know,
check
in
on
emails,
and
things
like
that.
I
think
one
of
the
great
things
about
this
conversation,
at
least
from
my
perspective,
and
I
apologize
for
having
missed
the
last
one-
that's
been
insane.
L
This
has
really
helped
me
kind
of
get
a
sense
of
what
kind
of
like
the
real
you
know,
concerns
and
kind
of
the
scenarios
are,
and
so
that
to
me
is
really
interesting.
Yes,
evan's
right
this
per
season,
but
that's
been
really
interesting
to
me,
and
so
you
know
that
makes
me
think
of.
Like
you
know,
these
are
not
problems
that
are
specifically
unique.
L
Decay
native,
like
other
projects,
have
experienced
things
like
this,
so
we
can
then
go
and
look
and
see
how
others
have
kind
of
addressed
it
and
what's
worked
and
so
yeah.
I
find
that
really
helpful
and
so
for
to
that
extent
like
if
there's
stuff
that
we
can
you
know
collaborate
on
via
slack
or
asynchronously,
I'm
all
there
for
that.
A
A
I
We
are
discussing
that
for
for
a
time,
various
discussions-
and
I'm
wondering
maybe
better
way,
would
be
to
everybody
to
think
about
solutions
actually
and
to
to
to
think
about
how
we
can
solve
that
and
think
about
the
proposals.
And
maybe
somebody
will
end
up
adding
some
additional
proposals
to
your
pr
or
something
or
maybe
completely
something
different.
But
let's
discuss
on
something
not
discuss
all
around.
But
let's
discuss
on
some
propositions
like
your,
for
example,.
A
Sure,
yeah,
and
so
in
terms
of
like
next
next
already
scheduled
time
that
we
could
use
for
discussions.
There
is
like
public
meetings
scheduled
for
tomorrow,
where
maybe
we
could
continue
this
but
yeah
chris.
I
think
you
make
a
very
good
point
about
like
surfacing
this
on
some
artifacts,
so
if,
if
folks
want
to
to
put
their
thoughts
on
the
the
open
proposal
like
in
a
comment,
I
think
that's
that's
fine,
I
think
that's
community
214.
Is
that
right?
Yes,
yeah!
A
If
you
want
to
throw
stuff
on
community
214,
totally
cool,
if
you
want
to
throw
it
into
the
notes
we
took
today
and
that's
shared
with
dev
and
users,
also
totally
fine,
but
that's
tomorrow's
a
good
time.
That's
already
set
up
to
talk
about
it
april.
I'm
sorry
that!
Well,
I'm
happy
for
you
that
you
have
ptos
scheduled,
but
I
mean.
L
L
A
Oh
so
true,
but
yeah.
Well,
thanks
everybody
for
attending
and-
and
you
know
we'll
we'll
see
folks
tomorrow,
but
I'm
sure
that
we
won't
I'm.
I
think
this
is
a
kind
of
tough
nut
to
crack.
So,
let's
just
all
put
our
heads
together,
yeah.