►
From YouTube: 20210125 - Kubernetes WG Naming bi-weekly sync
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
According
to
this
computer,
hello,
everybody,
it
is
january,
25th,
2021,
10,
33
a.m.
Pacific
time-
and
this
is
the
kubernetes
working
group
naming
bi-weekly
meeting-
my
name
is
celeste.
I
am
your
host
for
today
I
am
volunteering
stephen
tv
notetaker,
and
he
is
also
one
of
your
leads.
There
are
working
agreements
at
the
very
top
of
the
meeting
notes
which
are
attached
to
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
I
will,
however,
drop
the
link
to
the
agenda
in
the
chat
for
those
who
need
it.
A
In
short,
the
working
agreements
are
please
abide
by
the
kubernetes
code
of
conduct
and
please
be
wonderful
to
one
another
during
the
course
of
this
meeting
it
is
recorded
and
it
will
be
on
the
internet
later,
let's
run
through
the
agenda,
some
reoccurring
topics
as
of
january
1st
2021.
This
meeting
is
bi-weekly.
Now
this
is
our
second
bi-weekly
meeting.
A
Please
remember
that
this
is
bi-weekly.
As
a
general
project
update,
we
have
officially
merged
our
recommendation
around
blacklist
whitelist,
that
is
in
the
in
the
book,
so
any
pr's
waiting
for
that
can
move
forward.
Now
we
have
an
open
kind
of
discussion
item
that
kartik
brought
up
around
how
to
handle
archived
repositories
and
whether
this
can
be
solved
via
regex.
If
there
is
a
tooling
question
around
this,
etc,
I'm
not
sure
how
to
move
forward.
A
That
is
thing
number
one
thing
number
two
is:
we
do
have
two
pr's
open
that
have
been
open
for
quite
a
while
pulsar
opened
these
to
update
a
tutorial
to
remove
the
words
master
slave
from
that
tutorial.
Sig
docs
is
officially
going
to
take
those
over.
There
are
issues
open
to
take
that
over
from
its
original
author,
so
it
will
be
in
the
hands
of
the
their
team
going
forward,
but
they
are
okay
with
the
changes
that
they
see.
A
And
and
sig
docs
is
okay
with
the
changes
that
were
made:
okay
cool.
So
at
this
point
there's
a
few
other
things
that
need
to
happen
to
get
those
pr's
over
the
line.
Paul
created
some
of
the
examples
of
the
tutorial
using
a
personal
docker
image,
and
I
believe
that
we
wanted
to
use
one
of
the
official
kubernetes
images
for
obvious
reasons.
So
there's
a
bit
more
like
actual
technical
work.
A
C
B
And
has
it's
not
like
this
meeting
is
not
the
venue
really
but
like
the
the
question
would
be,
and
maybe
it's
good
that
dims
is
here
too.
The
question
would
be
like:
how
do
we
better
enable
folks
who
are
or
do
we
feel
there's
there
are
any
gaps
to
to
try
to
fill
for
folks
that
are
interested
in
staging
repositories
and
management
of
images
that
may
not
have
the
experience
or
bandwidth
to
maintain
them.
B
Yeah,
that's
good,
so
so,
basically,
the
I
think
one
of
the
blockers
has
been
the
the
technical
blocker
of
understanding
how
to
create
and
maintain
a
staging
repository
for
images.
Do
we
feel
that
there
are
any
gaps
or
places
that
we
could
help
out
for
people
who
are
looking
to
do
that
for
their
prod
their
sub
projects,
but
may
not
know
how
to
do
that
or
maintain.
D
D
B
D
D
D
Yeah,
the
volume
of
incoming
requests
where
we
need
to
create
the
staging
stuff
is
not
that
bad.
It's
it's
like
kind
of
like
gone
down
significantly,
okay,
so
otherwise
you
know
we
would
have
had
to
do
some
stuff
like
if
you
compare
the
number
of
people
like
opening
ci
jobs
in
test
and
front
and
the
number
of
people
asking
for
stage
representation.
It's
like
you
know
way
different
from
from
between
the
two.
D
B
A
Okay,
kartik,
I
saw
this
mailing
list
thread
go
out
and
I
completely
forgot
to
respond,
so
I
apologize
for
that.
So
everybody
wants
to
open
up
the
link
in
the
agenda.
This
is
around
a
discussion
around
the
term
black
box
as
being
potentially
offensive
cardiac.
Do
you
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
this.
C
C
So
I
agree
with
most
of
the
people
on
the
most
of
the
folks
on
the
thread
that
it
is
actually
not
an
offensive
terminology,
because
when
you
say
black
box
testing,
you
actually
say
in
a
context
where
it
is
like
highly
related
to
a
programming
world.
So
you
don't
say
like
black
box
in
a
different
scenario
or
out
of
context
in
kubernetes.
But
the
thing
is
like
there
are
a
few
folks
in
the
community.
They
have
actually
marked
this
as
actually.
C
This
as
one
of
the
offensive
term
and
the
folks
who
flagged
they
moved
away
from
black
box
and
they
have
moved
into
opaque
testing
or
just
like
testing
or
something
like
that.
So
that
is
the
reason
I
market
it
as
a
gain
as
a
potentially
often
shoot
officer
terminology,
and
this
maybe
doesn't
fall
under
offensive
terminology.
Maybe
in
a
confusive
wordings
on
the
programming
context,
you
don't
need
to
call
that
as
a
black
box
testing-
and
I
totally
agree
on
the
thread
with
jordan.
C
B
So
yeah,
so
I
I
do
like
the
behavioral
testing
that
was
suggested
here.
I
feel
like
that's
fairly
accurate
to
what
is
happening.
I
do
feel
like
this
falls
towards,
like
the
the
second
third
order,
concerns
like
where
we
can
provide
where
in
in
terms
where
we
can
provide
more
clarity,
as
opposed
to
them
being
specifically.
B
So
one
note
is
that,
based
on
what
aaron
pointed
out
regarding
like
repos,
that
already
have
already
have
like
those
terms
encoded
in
them
that
are
repos
that
we
may
like
depend
on.
I
think
that
I
think
that
what
we
do
need
as
a
project
is
a
mechanism
for
handling
that,
like
there's
only
like,
we
have
a
certain
level
of
control
of
what
we
can
do
for
external
projects,
right,
whether
it's
guidance
to
our
docs
forwarding
to
the
inclusive
naming
initiative
resources.
B
D
E
A
B
B
I
you
know,
I
think,
I
think
raising
it
I
think,
raising
it
is
is
part
of
it.
I
would
say
open
up
an
issue
first
in
kubernetes
kubernetes
community.
Do
we
wanna
do
community
discussions,
something
just
to
suggest
this
idea
at
least,
and
we
can
kick
it
around
a
little
bit
internally
before
we
ship
it
out
further,
but.
B
B
So
yeah,
so
one
note
in
this
workflows,
we
should
probably
consider
like
how
these
things
are
affected
across
the
the
various
orders
of
concern
that
we
have
right
so
like
if
we,
if
we
want
to
create
a
workflow
for
trying
to
effect
change
in
another
project,
then
part
of
it
needs
to
be
like
what
is
the
investment
level
that
we
have
around
that
change
right?
If
it's
a
second
third
order
concern,
I
I
don't
not
care,
but
I
care
less
than
if
it
was
a
first
order.
Concern
right.
B
So
in
this
case
I
might
say
we
should
we.
We
note
it
as
a
second
third
order
concern
in
kubernetes,
but
because
it's
a
dependency,
you
know
there
there's
going
to
be
a
an
investment
level
and-
and
the
decision
will
be
like
one-
do
we
have
a
workflow
around
it
guidance
around
it
and
two
who
wants
to
own?
Having
that
conversation.
D
A
D
Saw
the
announcement
from
guitar
say
I
was
like:
oh,
we
haven't
done
it
yet
shoot.
What
do
we
do
yeah
and
when
do
we
do
it
and
how
do
we
roll
it
out?
So
did
we
already
talk
about
it
and
you
know
it
almost
feels
to
me
like
we
should
designate
one
day
and
say:
okay,
this
is
the
day
we
are
going
to
flip
and
then
everything
is
going
to
break
and
then
we
all
hands
on
tech
to
fix
everything
right.
So
that
is
basically
what
will
end
up
happening.
A
Reporting,
thank
you.
Git
has
officially
announced
or
github
rather
has
officially
announced
that
you
can
now
rename
branches
from
master
to
maine,
with
presumably
no
context.
I
I
haven't
actually
read
the
announcement,
but
I
did
hear
it
through
the
grapevine
and
so
now.
This
is
what
we
had
advised
projects
to
wait
for,
particularly
in
kubernetes
where
dependencies
are
like
legally
and
now
it's
okay,
you
can
do
the
thing
and
now
how
do
we
do
the
thing.
B
So
this
is
so
this
should
be
a
topic
for
the
the
github
administration
team
sub
project
meeting,
as
well
as
their
slack
channel.
So
if
you
are
in
kubernetes
slack,
the
github
team
is
in
github
management.
I
am
currently
assigned
to
this
task.
The
thought
process
was
that
we
try
to
do
a.
We
don't
do
everything
at
once,
because
that's
going
to
hurt,
we
try
to
do
a
small,
medium,
large
situation.
We
find
repos
that
are
kind
of
like
small.
B
They
don't
have
lots
of
intertwined
dependencies
that
we
have
to
care
about
where
we
can
have
them
as
a
testing
ground
and
see
what
breaks,
especially
as
it
relates
to
like
test
infra
right
test.
Infer
is
probably
one
of
the
ones
that
we
want
to
care
about.
I
am
going
to
comment
on
that
issue.
I
was
going
to
do
it
last
week,
but
I
will
do
it
soon
after
this
week.
B
A
B
As
many
others,
so
I
would
say
that
we
kind
of
work
our
way
through
the
small
medium
up
to
large
ones
where,
where
website
would
probably
be
on
the
trailing
end
of
this
conversion,
and
then
there
are
kind
of
two
things
at
play
here:
hey
jace.
There
are
two
things
at
play
here:
one
is
the
is
the
conversion
of
previous
repos,
and
then
how
do
we
handle
new
repositories
right?
B
So
the
way
that
we
handle
new
repositories
and
kubernetes
is
if
a
repository
is
if
a
repository
is
donated,
migrated
right,
different
story
right,
we
have
to
deal
with
whatever
case
existed
in
the
repo
at
the
time
that
it
was
created
right.
If
it
was
created
post
the
the
default
branch
being
called
main,
then
we
have
to
flip
it
right
and
we
have
to
plan
to
flip
it.
The
good
time
to
do
that
is,
while
all
of
the
migration
process
is
happening
right,
because
there's
already
going
to
be
a
disruption
right.
B
The
the
other
way
that
we
handle
repositories
is
that
we
use
the
template
project
right.
The
template
project's
default
branch
right
now
is
master
so
for
new
pro.
So,
even
if
we
were
to
flip
the
switch
on
the
github
organization
having
main
as
its
defaults
right
now,
it
it
effect
like
effectively
doesn't
do
anything
right
because
we
use
the
template
project.
So
we
need
to
make.
B
We
need
to
plan
to
set
a
date
to
flip
the
template
project
over
for
new
repositories,
and
I
think
that
we
can
just
probably
do
that
right.
That's
the
I
feel,
like
that's
the
easy
one,
the
the
harder
one
is
going
to
take
the
is
going
to
be
taking
the
existing
ones,
so
I
will
put
together
a
list
of
suggested
repositories
and
kind
of
like
the
scale,
the
level
of
effort
for
each
of
them.
So
okay,
website,
k,
test
and
for
are
going
to
be
on
the
list.
C
B
A
A
B
What
we
would
be
concerned
about
is
the
people
who
are
already
taking
dependencies
on
them.
That
are,
you
know,
master
to
main
right.
How
does
that
dependency
change
change
and
it
shouldn't
right,
because
when
you
change
a
branch
when
you
change
the
branch
as
long
as
the
reference
is
there
it
should,
it
should
redirect
just
fine
github
magic,
yadda
yadda.
D
D
B
Were
waiting
for
right
so
this
this
flip
should
handle
it
seamlessly,
at
least
from
the
the
context
of
the
repo
itself
right.
There
should
still
be
a
notification
period
to
people
who
are
submitting
prs,
and
I
will
you
know,
suggest
that
the
sub
subproject
owners
it's
on
them
to
handle
some
of
that
communication.
We
can
do
a
larger
one,
but
from
that
perspective,
if
you
are
on
an
active
pr
right
recognize
that
your
local
branch
will
need
to
be
updated
to
reflect
the
new.
D
B
Able
to
shoot
for
so,
I
think
I
think
smashing
through
some
of
the
small
medium
large
ones
that
are
kind
of
like
test
repositories
would
be
the
first
step
or
identifying
them,
and
then
getting
the
work
started
there
and
having
those
individual,
subproject
owners
or
sig
leads
make
those
communications
to
those
teams
from
there.
That
gives
us
kind
of
a
you
know
that
gives
us
kind
of
like
a
finger
in
the
wind
about
like
what
needs
to
be
done
on
the
community
level
right
when
we
hit
all
of
the
repositories.
B
So
when,
when
is
the
like,
so
the
answer
to
your
question
is
I
don't
have
the
answer
yet,
I
think
after
we,
after
we
do
some
identification
as
well
as
like.
Do
we
have
to
write
tooling
for
this
right
if
we
want
to
hit
all
the
repositories
like?
Is
there
since
I'm
not
a
github
admin?
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
big
switch
somewhere
that
says,
like
cut
all
of
your
repositories
over
right.
A
D
D
A
So
at
this
point,
this
is
where
the
process
of
this
group
will
help
you
out,
which
is
you
have
the
paper
trail
available?
We
re
this
group
recommended
changing
master
to
maine
some
months
ago
and
has
been
slowly
making
those
changes
that
that
recommendation
went
through
with
some
discussion,
but
there
was
a
very
long
period
in
which
it
was
open
for
discussion
and
so.
E
B
The
one
that's
assigned
to
me
right
now,
so
a
note
for
for
people
like
I
don't
care
about
trolls
like
that,
it's
irrelevant.
We
made
the
decision
already
as
a
community
like
we.
What
we
do
need
is
a
decision
about.
I
think
I
think,
there's
an
issue
open
somewhere.
I
don't
remember
exactly
where
it
is.
Maybe
k
community
about
how
we
deal
with
that.
What
what's
the
close
statement?
How
do
we
handle
people
who
are
bad
actors?
B
A
Oxygen,
so
what
what
I
will
ask
of
everybody
on
this
call
then-
and
I'm
gonna,
put
my
code
of
conduct
hat
on
for
a
second
is,
if
you
face
any
trolls
immediately,
email
call
to
conduct,
because
it
is
within
code
of
conduct's
power
and
mission
statement
to
make
those
kinds
of
decisions
for
the
community
email
code
of
conduct,
and
we
will
do
the
follow-up
rather
than
trying
to
swing
the
van
hammer
yourself
so
to
speak,
and
it
may
not
be
the
screenshot
and
refer
screenshot
and
referral
is
ideal.
Thank
you.