►
From YouTube: 20210111 - Kubernetes WG Naming Biweekly 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
Hello,
everybody
today
is
january
11th
2021
happy
new
year,
and
this
is
the
now
bi-weekly
meeting
for
the
kubernetes
naming
working
group.
I
am
one
of
your
leads
celeste
horgan
another
one
of
our
lead,
zach
coralison,
is
on
this
call
and
kartik
over
dedicated
is
also
on
this
call,
and
that
appears
to
be
it,
which
is
totally
fine.
A
A
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
feel
free
to
ask
them
and
in
the
interests
of
time,
because
I
actually
don't
have
much
to
talk
about
today.
Let's
kind
of
just
dive
right
in
and
we'll
see
if
jace
makes
it
in
time
to
run
down
the
agenda.
A
Okay,
first
things:
first,
a
reminder
these:
we
can.
These
meetings
are
bi-weekly
now
in
the
hopes
of
improving
work.
Cadence
on
this.
A
That's
kind
of
it
you
will
have
noticed
the
the
change
in
your
meeting
agenda
invites
as
we
ease
into
the
bi-weekly
cadence.
I
will
probably
question
whether
we
need
the
full
hour
or
not.
A
So
that's
first
things.
First,
second
thing:
second,
we
have
an
adr
open,
I'm
jumping
down
directly
to
open
discussion,
because
I'm
not
sure
a
a
general
project
update
or
running
down.
The
board
is
actually
going
to
be
useful
right
now,
because
the
last
we
met
was
right
before
the
break.
So
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
much
has
happened.
I
know
I
haven't
done
much.
A
I
committed
from
a
new
computer
and
the
new
computer
has
has
messed
things
up.
That
is
yeah,
so
that's
that's
going
to
be
the
rest
of
my
days,
strong-arming
the
cla,
which
I
can't
I'm
just
I'm
so
excited
for.
I
can't
even
tell
you
so
that's
thing
number
one.
A
There
is
actually
and
I
dumped
it
at
the
bottom
of
the
agenda,
but
I'm
gonna
organize
myself
now.
Kartik
had
a
really
good
question
as
a
part
of
the
comments
that
I
think
is
worth
calling
out,
which
is
how
do
we
deal
with
archived,
repos
and
archive
documentation
in
regards
to
this
hi?
Do
you
want
to
speak
to
the
world.
C
Hi
celeste
yeah,
I'm
sorry.
I
was
just
waiting
for
this,
so
the
reason
I
asked
is
like
the
initiatives
like
cncf
brought
up.
If
we
are
trying
to
use
a
tooling
system,
it's
gonna
until
and
unless
we
say
exclusively,
okay,
don't
scan
these
particular
locations
or
repositories.
It's
gonna
scan
everything
and
it's
gonna
pop
up
in
the
dashboard
or
any
kind
of
metrics
that
we
are
used
to
using
for
visualization,
and
the
second
thing
is
like.
C
Nevertheless,
whether
a
repository
is
archived
or
a
live
repository,
your
github
search
is
going
to
give
you
list
from
all.
The
hits
like
even
our
home
search
is
going
to
give
the
hits
from
even
the
archived
repository.
So
until
analysis
and
archive
repository
is
removed
from
the
source
code
control
system.
As
in
like
deleted,
you
will
keep
on
getting
those
kind
of
like
abusive
or
drastic
words
if,
if
at
all,
anything
in
the
archive
repository
popping
up
every
single
search,
so
that
is
the
reason
like
and
again.
C
The
other
reason
is
like
it
might
add
up
eat
a
lot
of
our
times,
because
people
who
are
just
doing
the
search
and
creating
a
comment
or
creating
an
issue
we'll
keep
on
doing
the
same
thing
again
and
again
and
we'll
be
saying
like
okay.
This
is
an
arcade
repository
and
we'll
be
just
closing
those
issues
again
and
again,
so
I
couldn't
be
able
to
come
up
with
any
clear
solution
or
suggestion
as
of
now,
but
that's
a
question
that,
in
that
I
have
in
my
mind,
yeah.
B
So
I
wonder
if,
if
the
goal
is
to
have
a
search
that
excludes
archived
repositories
and
it
would
be
clunky,
but
we
could
solve
that
with,
like
with
regex
just
to
exclude
certain
pathways
from
a
search
and
like
just
publicize
that
search
and
say.
B
C
Yeah,
I
agree
with
that.
I
guess
I've
seen
a
rejects
usage
within
the
hound
search
as
well.
Maybe
we
can
suggest
okay
if
you
are
searching
something
like
try
use.
This
rejects
to
exclude
the
archived
repositories
or
something
like
that
and
not
to
directly
search
on
the
github
search,
because
github
search
is
going
to
include
everything,
just
use
the
hound
search
and
we
can
say
we
honor
hound
search,
not
the
github
search.
Maybe
something
like
that.
A
B
And
maybe
in
any
poll
request
like
if
we
can
add
or
adjust
the
pr
template
to
include,
did
you
did
you
use
this
search
to
find
this
replacement?
Just
I
mean
to.
C
B
Right
to
to
make
sure
that
hey
person
open
opening
this
pr
did
you
actually
use
this
search.
Yeah.
A
Think
between
this
question,
which
I
think
is
very
valid
and
if
you,
for
example,
look
at
if
you
did
a
search
or
a
hound
search
of
blacklist
whitelist,
it
appears
in
almost
every
repository,
but
it
appears
as
a
go
dependency.
It's
not
actually
our
code.
So
the
the
point
that
I'm
trying
to
make
is.
We
have
a
need
for
search
tooling,
that
excludes
specific
things
and
maybe
for
kubernetes.
The
specific
things
are
just
exclude:
go
dependencies
of
any
sort
or
any
sort
of
transitive
imports
and
b
exclude
archived
repositories.
C
B
It's
time
for
tooling,
but
no,
I
think,
is
this
a
problem
that
we're
actually
experiencing
and
if
it
is,
are
we
experiencing
it
in
sufficient
volume
that
it
is
time
for
tooling.
A
I
think
it
really
depends
on
where
I
mean
this.
This,
I
think,
comes
to
the
one
of
the
key
things
with
this
particular
working
group,
which
is
the
implementation,
is
a
little
bit
out
of
our
hands
right.
If
we
want
to
ease
the
way
for
implementation,
then
I
think
it
is
time
for
tooling,
because
the
implementation
needs
that
tooling,
but
right
now
our
implementation
is
very
ad
hoc.
If
somebody
decides
to
open
a
pr
and
then
we
approve
it.
A
Possibly
yeah
and
if,
if
the
solution
that
we
come
to
as
a
working
group,
is
that
the
implementation
is
out
of
our
hands
and
therefore
we
don't
want
to
start
muddling
in
the
tooling
around
like
how
do
we
create
a
search
for
these
kinds
of
things
and
that's
the
decision
that
we
come
to
and
it's
fine
either.
B
What
do
you
think
about
monitoring
the
situation
for
now
like
raise
awareness,
that
this
might
be
an
issue
that
comes
up
and
to
think
about,
but
not
be
become
overly
prescriptive
in
the
thinking
about
what
we
might
recommend
to
say
like
the
hound,
maintainers
or
other
folks?
That
say
this
is
a
thing
that
we
notice
this
is
our
desired
goal
state.
What
do
you
recommend.
A
I
think
that's
a
good
way
to
go.
I
think,
insofar
as
the
domain
of
this
working
group
is
recommendations,
making
a
recommendation
to
improve
tooling
is
within
scope.
A
Okay,
I
think
that's
pt
key,
so
the
other
update
I
personally
have
is
around
two
pr's
that
came
up
through
in
our
walk
through
last
month.
A
These
are
around
a
guestbook
example
tutorial
in
the
documentation
and
kubernetes
examples.
Repo
paul
opened
up
a
pr
for
the
use
from
a
working
group
naming
perspective.
We
were
okay
with
this
change
and
we
wanted
sig
docs
to
take
a
look
at
it
because
it
also
changes
the
technologies
in
play
in
these
particular
tutorials
and
examples.
A
Sig
docs,
I
believe,
has
started
to
take
a
look
at
this
and
the
prs
are
moving.
So
that's
my
big
update
on
these.
I
believe
that
they
have
more
or
less
decided
that
they
are
okay
with
with
the
technology
is
changing,
because
the
kubernetes
principles
are
fundamentally
the
same.
A
A
Yeah,
that's
kind
of
all.
I
have
in
terms
of
updates
and
agenda
items
that
need
to
be
addressed
other
than.
A
Sig
multi-tenancy
dropped
into
slack
to
ask
us
about
the
word
tenancy
and
whether
this
is
a
word
that
we
approve
or
order.
Oh.
A
Yeah,
so
I'm
actually
thinking
that
I'm
going
to
spend
a
few
cycles
looking
into
this
and
researching
this
just
because
now
I'm
interested
yeah.
A
So
that
might
be
our
next
recommendation
and
if
it
comes
back
that
we
just
recommend
that
it's
okay
and
to
continue
using
it,
maybe
that's
that
might
actually
be
something.
We
want
to
record.
B
I
agree
if
it's,
if
it's,
if
it's
a
question
worth
asking
from
a
sig
lead
or
from
a
from
a
sig,
then
it's
a
question.
That's
absolutely
worth
answering
yeah.
C
Okay,
so
from
my
side
I'll,
I
have
created
two
different
threads
which
got
resolved
like
we
don't
need
to
do
any
changes
on
the
on
those
words
which
were,
I
thought,
like
potentially
offensive.
C
I
have
like
other,
I
have
rest
on
the
list
of
tablet
column.
I
have
rest
of
the
words
I'll
start
the
thread.
I
was
like
totally
on
break
and
I
was
not
disturbing
anyone
so
I'll
I'll
create
the
thread
from
this
week.
A
A
Please
do
and
I
will
look
forward
to
those
and
probably
think
about
like
signaling
people
to
come
back
to
these
meetings,
but
yeah,
okay,.
C
I'm
gonna
wrap
it
up,
then
so
on
that
we
could
again
send
a
tweet
from
kate
contributors
handle
asking
like
the
working
group
naming
is
back
and
back
from
break
or
something
like
that.
Come
join
us
on
our
bi-weekly,
something
like
that.
A
Yeah,
I
wonder
if,
like
the
other
thing
to
do,
is
I've
been
meaning
to
write
a
blog
post
about
the
work
that
we're
doing
here?
And
I
wonder
if
it's
about
time.
A
Anyways,
I
will
have
a
sink
on
that
and
I
think
let's
talk
about
that
on
slack,
because
I'm
not
sure
we
need
to
spend
meeting
minutes
on
that.
C
A
Anything
else:
okay,
I'm
going
to
call
a
meeting
then.