►
From YouTube: Kubernetes WG Naming Meeting 20201012
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
One
hello,
everyone:
it
is
monday
october
12th,
2020,
10
30
for
pacific
time,
and
this
is
the
monthly
working
group
naming
meeting.
A
This
meeting
is
covered
by
the
code
of
conduct
and
at
the
top
of
our
agenda
notes,
which
have
been
linked
to
the
chat.
We
have
a
set
of
working
agreements
before
adding
an
item
to
the
meeting
agenda
initiate
discussion
on
the
mailing
list.
First,
please
focus
on
efforts
underway,
favor
work
on
updating
language
in
the
projects
over
discussion,
favor,
systemic
improvements,
constructive
feedback.
A
This
meeting
tends
to
end
up
getting
discussion
heavy,
so
please
kind
of
self-moderate
the
order
of
things
in
chat.
That's
really
helpful.
If
you
can
do
that
and
yeah,
let's
launch
into
that.
Please,
like
let's
answer.
B
This
sorry,
so
so,
first
up
can
we
do
a
round.
I
see
some
new
faces
here.
I'd
love
to
get
some
introductions,
as
well
as
what
you're
looking
to
get
out
of
this
meeting.
C
I
can
go
first.
If
I
didn't
know
we
were
raising
hands.
You
know
first,
I'm
just
in
santa
barbara.
I
work
at
google.
I
nearly
launched
into
my
reminder
this
didn't.
I
knew
it
was
my
normal
spiel
of
a
reminder.
This
meeting
is
recorded
and
we'll
put
on
the
internet.
I
apologize
so
used
to
hosting
the
reason
I'm
here
is
because
of
a
specific
action
item.
Regarding
the
new
naming
for
the
node
labels
and
annotations,
I
was
originally
responsible.
C
I
apologize
for
some
language
in
that
which
we
know
we
want
to
read.
We
believe
we
want
to
rename,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
actually
have
consensus
on
that
new
name.
That
is
why
I'm
specifically
here
today,
but
also
looking
forward
to
seeing
what
you
guys
are
doing,
or
you
all
are
doing-
apologies.
D
I'm
fairly
new
to
kubernetes,
I'm
working
with
the
ci
signal
team
under
sig
release.
I
don't
know
I'm
just
here
to
say
hi
and
learn
about
what
you
guys
are
doing
and
also
take
notes.
Thank.
A
You
so
much
for
volunteering
to
take
notes
by
the
way
very
helpful
and
because
I
happen
to
know
and
follow
joyce
on
twitter
joyce
is
a
canadian
and
a
university
waterloo
student.
It's
a
thumbs
up
to
my
fellow
canadian,
and
I
think
that's
it.
I
think
that's
everybody
else
is
a
repeat
face
right.
E
Yeah,
I
I'm
new,
I
think
so
yeah
I
heard
steven
tweet
about
it
on
twitter,
and
here
I
am
essentially
I
I
tend
to
do
a
lot
of
work
in
marketing
and
community
stuff
for
open
ebs
and
litmus,
which
are
both
cncf
projects
related
to
kubernetes.
So
the
conversations
that
we're
having
around
naming
and
improving
things
up
here,
I
think,
will
help
improve
work
that
I
do
over
there
and
hopefully
vice
versa.
F
Yeah
hi
and
my
name
is
adolfo
and
I'm
actually
well
not
new.
I've
been
working
in
all
of
the
not
all
the
previous
sessions
so
far,
but
I'm
here,
because
I
I
think
this
this
work
group
combines
all
the
things
that
I
am
I
mean
I'm
a
computer
nerd
and
I'm
also
a
historian
and
interested
in
the
anthropological
side
of
things
and
the
other.
F
So
I
think
this
is
mixes
on
and
also
because
I
really
sometimes
contributions
and
have
in
the
past
being
corrected
in
the
terms
that
I
use,
because
I'm
not
a
native
speaker
and
so
interesting
paying
attention
what
goes
on
in
here.
A
Awesome
super
cool
all
right.
Do
we
wanna
launch
in
to
the
the
agenda
we're
gonna?
Let
steven
go
first
because
he's
going
to
have
to
drop
pretty
soon.
A
Okay,
I'll
link
you
the
agenda's
linked
in
the
chat.
Can
you
see
it
priyanka?
A
No,
because
I
think
I
joined
late,
but
I
think
it's
on
the
invite
right.
It's
on
the
invite
so
yeah
we're
just
gonna
launch
into
it,
because
steven's
gonna
have
to
drop
kind
of
soon.
H
H
I
am
working
on
an
lf
wide
initiative
to
bring
inclusive
language
to
code
and
in
that
stephen
and
celeste
are
my
partners
in
crime
and
we're
taking
inspiration
from
all
the
work
that
you
folks
are
doing
over
here
in
this
working
group
to
then
generalize
that
knowledge
and
learning
to
the
rest
of
the
world
so
that
hopefully
more
people
can
make
changes
and
build
a
better
inclusive
community.
H
So
that's
kind
of
why
I'm
here
we're
all
learning
from
all
the
great
work
you're
doing
so
please
keep
at
it
and
thank
you
so
much.
B
Thank
you
for
popping
by
all
right,
so
I
so
celeste
and
I
generated
a
set
of
prs
recently.
The
one
that
I
did
was
the
workflow
for
proposing
recommendations,
so
that
is
available
in
the
agenda.
If
you
want
to
check
it
out,
I
would
say
that
maybe
we
defer
reviews
unless
you
have
specific
comments
to
offline
chatter,
slack
and
mailing
list,
but
this
essentially
summarizes
what
we
were
discussing
in
the
last
meeting,
how
to
propose
a
recommendation.
How
that
recommendation
gets
then
solidified
and
it
links
out
to
celeste's
prs
as
well.
B
So
I
think
once
they
all
merge,
they
will
look
good
as
a
bundle,
so
this
kind
of
goes
through
how
to
start
a
discussion
filing
the
recommendation.
Architectural
decision
record
the
approval
of
such
a
recommendation
and
some
of
the
questions
that
we've
gotten
thus
far.
So
things
like
what
to
do
when
a
recommendation
requires
a
cap.
What
do
we
do
when
the
stakeholders
may
disagree
with
recommendation
and
then
general
guidance
and
requirements
for
approval
and
then,
following
that
implementation,
so
we're
a
little
looser
on
the
on
the
approval
and
implementation
details?
B
I
think
that's
going
to
evolve
over
time
as
we
actually
carry
through
carry
through
some
recommendation
through
this
process,
so
that
can
be.
You
know.
This
is
something
that
we
can
try
out
with
the
master
slave
recommendations,
as
well
as
the
allow
list
deny
list
recommendations.
So
any
questions
on
that.
A
One
comment
which
is
I'm
gonna,
voluntold
aaron
to
do
this,
unfortunately,
is
because
the
approval
process,
I
think
for
us,
is
probably
going
to
involve
some
input
from
steering.
A
So
I
think
it
would
be
really
helpful
if
you
could
give
a
close
eye
to
this
pr
that
stephen's
put
together
and
kind
of
represent
steering
in
that
regards.
That
would
be
very
helpful.
I.
G
J
I
Capturing
we're
capturing
that
in
time
I'm
certainly
happy
to
evaluate
it,
and
that
would
be
helpful
defer.
My
question
to
the
next
agenda
item,
if
possible,
but
I'm
just
it
seems
like.
I
have
a
set
of
suggestions
for
what
to
change
the
term
master
to
based
on
a
couple,
different
use
cases
and
definitions
that
I've
seen
I'm
trying
to
understand
whether
I
need
to
go
through
this
process
or
whether
I
need
to
move
to
the
adding
a
recommendation.
I
Template
thing
I
think,
and
one
of
the
things
that's
hanging
me
up
here
is
it
was
not
my
intent
to
try
and
drive
discussion
for
this
term
for
literally
all
of
kubernetes,
but
to
try
and
kind
of
focus
it
to
the
code
base
over
which
I've
got
approval
powers.
But
if.
K
I
B
I
think
that
it's
fine,
that
a
lot
of
the
discussion
is
happening
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're,
I
guess
catching
up
to
the
discussion.
By
putting
a
process
in
place,
it
would
be
unfortunate
to
have
to
go
back
and
further
discuss
something
if
people
disagreed
with
it,
based
on
not
having
an
approvals
process
in
place
ahead
of
time
right
so
aaron,
do
you
actually
want
to
share
the
link
for
did
you
you
might
have.
I
Yeah
so
I
dropped
it
in
the
meeting
notes.
I'll
share
the
link
to
the
mailing
list
thread
that
I
came
off
of
so
I'm
my
feeling
is
like
we
discussed,
we
discussed
a
single
term
and
a
single
replacement,
and
there
was
lots
of
discussion
and
then
that
kind
of
tailed
off
around
august.
So
I
feel
like
at
least
amongst
the
people
who
are
participating
in
that
thread.
There
was
consensus.
I
I
then
made
the
mistake
of
suggesting
we
do
a
rename
and
test
without
and
somebody
else
slapped
to
help
wanted
on
it.
I
didn't
think
it
was
quite
ready
for
that,
and
then
I
got
lots
of
pr's
that
I
had
to
review,
and
so
I
saw
how
just
a
blanket
search
or
place
in
a
bunch
of
different
places
was
not
particularly
appropriate.
I
So
I
wrote
down
sort
of
what
guidelines
I
was
using
as
I
was
reviewing
these
and
thought
hey.
It
would
actually
be
really
cool
if
we
had
this
in
a
central
place,
and
we
pointed
people
to
that.
So
the
next
step
to
me
felt
like
a
lot
of
the
code
that
was
being
touched,
was
relevant
to
api
machinery
and
just
architectural
stuff
in
general.
I
So
I
felt
like
I
wanted
to
start
to
include
people
from
those
groups
for
approval
purposes
and
escalated
to
the
naming
group
for
approval
purposes,
so
it
feels
like
I
might
be
like
somewhere
along
in
the
adr
process,
and
the
next
step
might
be
to
file
a
pr
using
the
recommendation,
template
and
then
seeking
approval
from
all
those
folks.
But
it
just
wasn't
clear
to
me,
based
on
the
prs
that
you
had
opened
whether
or
not
that
was
the
next
step.
Why
not?
I
B
Yeah
I
I
dig
that
I
think
that
yeah
and
that's
kind
of
why
we
wanted
to
like
we
were.
We
were
like.
The
only
thing
we
wanted
to
do
was
make
sure
that
we
turned
these
pr's
out
ahead
of
the
meeting
so
that
we
could
use
them
going
forward.
So
I
would
say
that
I,
I
think
your
next
best
step
is
to
review
those
pr's
and
see
if
you
agree
with
the
flow
and.
B
A
Yeah
yeah-
and
I
think,
apologies
on
my
part
at
the
very
least
because
this
this
meeting
stuck
up
on
me,
which
is
why
I
added
a
meeting
note
or
a
meeting
item
as
to
to
think
about
whether
we're
meeting
often
enough
to
keep
this
all
front
of
mind,
but
that's
for
later
on.
If
we,
if
we
kind
of
get
there
stephen
do
you
have
anything
more
about
you
want
to
talk
about
on
the
workflow
notes,.
B
No,
I
think
you
know
we-
we
discussed
them
last
last
meeting
and
it's
kind
of
the
coalescence
of
that
discussion.
So
anyone
who
disagrees
with
them
at
least
should
should
definitely
comment
but
yeah
we
should
we
should.
This
is
again
based
on
what
we've
discussed
already
so
hopefully
we
can.
We
can
just
merge
and
party.
A
I
B
Yes,
unless
you
want
to,
unless
you
want
to
issue
a
pr
based
on
what's
in
the
template,
just
noting
that
you
may
have
to
change
things
if
the
workflow
changes.
A
Yeah,
okay,
that's
what
I
would
say
so
it's
it's
up
to
you
aaron!
I
think
it's
pretty
safe
to
say
so,
the
speaking
of
which
I
guess
we're
kind
of
slowly.
Moving
on
to
the
next
agenda
item,
which
is
the
adr
template
I'll,
throw
a
link
in
the
chat,
so
everybody
can
take
a
look.
A
It
does
sound
like
your
next
step,
is
opening
up
a
formal
recommendation
based
on
what
we
discussed
for
master
and
slave
in
the
in
the
mailing
list
and
around
august.
That
sounds
like
your
next
step.
A
I
think
that's
fair,
the
pr
for
that
template
is
still
under
review
officially,
but
I
did
open
up
a
mailing
list
thread
about
that
a
month
or
two
ago
so
and
there
weren't
any
objections,
so
I
think
you're
safe
to
open
up
a
recommendation
based
on
that,
you
can
do
it
right
now
with
the
potential
that
you
might
have
to
do
a
bit
of
revision
based
on
how
the
the
pr
review
goes
or
you
can
wait,
maybe
a
week
or
so,
for
the
pr
to
merge.
I
Okay,
okay,
I'm
happy
to
be
the
guinea
pig
I
just
wanted
to
so
I
just
wasn't
clear
whether,
like
your.
A
Take
a
look
at
that
pr
that
I
just
linked.
I
think,
if
you
fill
that
out,
you're
going
to
be
good
as
gravy.
B
So,
with
regards
to
names,
I
think
that,
if
we're
going
to,
if
we're
going,
to
compare
this
template
to
adrs
or
say
that
this
template
is
the
adr,
so
we
should
make
sure
that
we
also
call
it
the
adr.
So
that
would
be
my
review
comment
for
the
for
the
pr.
A
Cool
sound
good
sounds
good
to
me.
Do
I
guess
formalize
this
second
meeting
agenda
item
of
the
recommendation
template
there
is
a
pr
open
based
on
the
mailing
list
thread,
which
was
started
a
couple
of
months
back.
A
Thumbs
up
thumbs
up,
okay,
let's
get
to
what
will
probably
be
a
slightly
more
controversial
pr,
and
hopefully
we
can
have
a
bit
of
a
discussion
why
stephen
is
still
here,
which
is
the
next
agenda
item
the
language
evaluation
framework.
So
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
discussing
this.
A
We
spent
a
lot
of
time
discussing
this
last
meeting,
which
is
we
didn't
feel
that
lazy
consensus
was
the
way
to
go
for
decisions
like
these
in
our
group,
and
that
was
where
we
were
winding
up
a
lot
on
the
mailing
list,
and
so
we
decided
that
we
wanted
a
more
formalized
way
of
looking
at
this
problem
space.
A
Initially,
we
had
sort
of
we
had
two
kind
of
tandem
ideas.
I
think
one
was
around
basically
evaluating
language
based
on
how
much
harm
it
might
be,
causing
certain
people-
and
I
think
the
second
was
we
were
thinking
of
it
initially,
as
maybe
a
rubric
or
a
decision
tree.
But
I
think
the
group
consensus
was
it's
not.
It
can't
be
that
formalized.
It
can't
be
that
rigid
and
stiff
because
that
that
effectively
begs
for
people
to
gain
the
system.
A
So
the
net
conclusion
of
this
action
item
is
this
is
a
pr
that
needs
review.
I
think
it
needs
quite
detailed
and
thoughtful
review.
So
please
set
aside
some
time
to
look
at
this,
but
I'll
walk
you
through
how
I
decided
to
put
this
together.
A
A
So
the
way
I
divided
this
up
or
organized
this
was
this-
is
there
are
effectively
two
or
three
categories
or
levels
of
concern
that
we
might
have,
and
I
just
said
they
were
first
second
and
third
order
concerns
the
higher
up
the
order,
the
more
important
it
is
that
we
address
a
particular
concern.
So
a
first
order
concern
is:
is
this
term
overtly
racist
outside
of
computing,
for
example,
master
slave?
Is
it
like
overtly
sexist?
Is
it
overtly
transphobic?
Is
it
overtly
homophobic
like?
Is
it
very
specifically?
A
Does
it
specifically
attack
an
identity
of
some
sort?
Second,
and
third
order
concerns
are
things
which
are
important
to
us,
but
they're
a
lot
less
overt
than
that
first
category.
So
it's
things
like
is
the
language
a
bit
violent
is
the
language
unclear.
Does
it
have?
Is
it
slightly
confusing?
A
A
It's
almost
certainly
something
you
should
change
if
it's
hitting
a
large
number
of
second
or
third
order
concerns.
It's
probably
something
you
need
to
consider
changing.
A
You
could
potentially
make
an
argument,
otherwise-
and
I
think
that's
more
or
less
about
as
prescriptive
as
we
can
be
without
without
turning
it
into
a
points-based
system.
A
So
that's
how
I
approach
this
problem.
I
am
open
to
the
fact
that
it
might
not
be
the
right
approach
and
I
very
much
hope
that
I
will
get
some
thorough
review
on
this.
H
A
Thank
you,
that's
so
nice
to
hear
I
was
hoping
I
was
hoping
it
would
kind
of
go
over
well,
but
so,
just
as
an
fyi,
because
we
have
effectively
a
lot
of
pr's
to
review
as
action
items
from
this
meeting.
I
am
going
to
post
these
links
in
the
chat
and
in
the
mailing
list
as
well
to
make
sure
that
we
get
review
so.
C
Yes,
thank
you.
I
think
this
has
echoes
of
what
aaron
was
talking
about.
Lubimir
has
put
up
a
cap
around
renaming
the
node
labels
and
taints,
which
do
use
the
master
term.
I
wasn't
sure
that
we'd
actually
that
this
group
had
actually
approved
or
finalized
the
the
new
name.
What's
I
think
different
about
this
particular
one?
Is
it's
user
facing
and
the
schedule
the
the
proposed
schedule
for
a
a
an
orderly
transition
is
on
the
order
of
a
year
to
two
years.
C
So
if
we
are
going
so,
I
want
to
make
sure
we
have
the
final
name
before
we
start
the
the
two
year
process
as
it
were,
and
I
just
I
I
wasn't
clear
to
me
whether
that
that
is
finalized
and
it
sounds
like
no,
and
so
that's
it
sounds
like
the
answer.
Is
we
probably
should
wait
until
the
adr
is.
A
Think
because
it's
user
facing
and
because
the
deprecation
process
will
be
long,
you
want
to
wait
until
that
markdown
file
is
sitting
in
a
repository,
because
I
think
it'll
you'll
risk
getting
people's
getting
people
a
little
upset.
Otherwise,.
B
So
I
will
say
that
this
is
a
control
plan,
at
least
was
from
a
discussion
from
it's.
It's
multiple
discussions
have
spun
up
on
on
the
on
the
sig
architecture,
mailing
list
and-
and
I
think
the
most
recent
one
which
actually
led
to
the
formation
of
this
group
was
the
the
subject
line
is
the
way
we
discuss:
control,
plane
of
control,
plane,
nodes
or
something
I'm.
B
I
feel
pretty
confident
as
a
community
that
we've
decided
that
control
plane
is
the
right
way
to
go
in
reference
to
nodes
that
hole
can
hold
control,
plane,
components
for
kubernetes.
There
are
lots
of
lots
of
other
suggestions
on
that
list,
but
that's
the
that's
the
one
that
sig
architecture
kind
of
came
back
to.
So
in
terms
of
starting
a
deprecation
clock,
I
think
it's
fine
to
start
a
deprecation
clock
for
120
and
I
think
that's
kind
of
the
details
of
the
cap.
B
B
A
All
right,
first
off
does
that
answer
your
question.
Second,
off
stephen
you've
got
to
drop
soon.
H
A
C
A
J
I
feel
like
I
got
two
different
answers.
One.
A
I
Let
me
get
my
thing
out
I'll
like
get
a
pr
out
and
I'll
send.
Is
it
okay?
If
I
notify
the
architecture,
mailing
list
and
api
machinery
lists
and
say,
hey,
please
take
a
look
at
this,
and
then
we
can
talk
specifically
about
that
cap
and
how
it
was
approved
and
how
it
matches
up
with
this,
and
is
there
anything
preventing
that
cap
from
moving
forward.
B
Yeah,
I
would
say
I
would
say
also
if
you
can
link
back
to
the
way
we
discuss
control,
plane,
nodes
thread
to
just
say.
We
have
discussed
this
before
everyone
at
lens
and
yeah
just
to
move
the
process
forward,
a
little
bit
that.
A
Okay,
are
you
comfortable
if
we
move
on
justin.
A
Okay,
so
yeah,
I
kind
of
have
a
short
kind
of
a
short
meeting
today,
which
is
kind
of
nice,
but
so
I
apologize
first
off
because
this
actually
isn't
on
the
mailing
list
and
I
did
not
propose
it
beforehand.
So
I
did
not
follow
my
own
process,
but
I
wanted
to
bring
this
up
with
this
group
anyways.
A
A
Okay
yeah,
so
the
initial
the
initial
pace
of
monthly
was
set
because
stephen
augustus
is
incredibly
busy.
I
am
somewhat
busy
zach
carlyson
is
incredibly
busy
and
jay
singer
to
mars
is
also
incredibly
busy,
but
I
think
we're
up
and
rolling
now
sorry
somebody's
trying
to
buzz
into
the
apartment.
A
L
I
think
it's
just
a
better
reminder
to
look
into
the
prs
and
the
discussions
you.
K
A
Yeah,
no
and
that's
exactly
how
how
both
I
and
steven
felt
coming
into
this
meeting
as
well.
Is
it
it
felt
like
it
snuck
up
on
us
and
people
are
busy
enough
that
if
it's
not
semi-regular,
it
does
tend
to
sneak
up
in
you.
So,
okay,
I'm
gonna,
take
that
back
to
the
channel.
Then.
M
Hi,
this
is
eddie
zaneski
just
wanted
to
swing
by
say.
Thank
you
for
helping
with
that
cube,
ctl
issue
that
we
had
open.
We
evaluated
that
to
be
a
troll,
but
I
just
I'm
looking
through
the
agenda
and
I
actually
see
the
templates
now,
but
I
wanted
to
know
if
there
was
any
other
process
that
we
could
follow
to
surface
those
types
of
requests
if
they
come
in
via
github
issues
and
that
kind.
A
Of
stuff,
that's
a
great
question.
I
think
you
did
follow
the
right
process,
which
was
to
tag
the
naming
working
group
and
let
us
know,
through
slack,
I'm
hoping
we
don't
see
too
many
more
of
those
kinds
of
issues
and
and
to
be
sure
we
actually
haven't
seen
too
too
many
of
them.
Anyways
yeah,
I
would
say
you
followed
the
right
process.
A
M
Let's
see,
I
think,
one
of
the
things
oops
sorry
go
ahead.
Oh
I
was
just
gonna
say
I
think
you
know.
I've
always
approached
that
kind
of
stuff
with
like
assume
positive
intent,
which
is
you
know
when
I
read
through
that
issue.
I
was
like
this
could
be
a
troll
or
this
could
be
someone
who's
not
familiar
with
like
english
or
how
to
approach
this.
So
that's
that's
good
to
hear
so
cool.
Thank
you.
A
I
mean
I
think
so.
This
is
interesting
because
this
has
come
up
a
few
times
in
regards
to
issues
that
get
opened
around
black
lives
matter.
Banners
and
the
rest.
So
I'm
speaking
both
with
a
code
of
conduct
committee
hat
on
and
a
working
group
naming
chair
hat
on
here
in
that
you
have
to
assume
good
intent,
but
you
have
to
do
it
with
a
bit
of
a
weather
eye.
A
So
to
give
background
to
everybody
else.
In
this
meeting,
eddie
brought
us
an
issue
to
the
slack
channel
from
a
brand
new
user,
using
an
illustration
of
a
black
woman
as
an
icon,
proposing
that
we
change
the
word
corden
and
coop
ctl
to
something
else,
because
cordon
is
something
that
is
used
by
police.
That
was
the
issue
and
we
evaluated
that
that
was
a
troll
in
the
end.
A
The
advice
that
I
actually
give
in
the
the
language
harm
reduction
framework
doc
is,
you
are
probably
gonna
deal
with
trolls
when
you
do
this
kind
of
work
and
I
think
what
we
actually
did
with
the
coop
ctl
issue
was
a
very
effective
way
of
dealing
with
a
troll
that
you
can't
quite
tell
as
a
troll,
which
is
you
ask
them
to
do
some
work
for
you
and,
if
they're
willing
to
do
the
legwork
and
they're
willing
to
identify
themselves
and
provide
an
email
address
and
come
to
the
mailing
list
and
participate
in
the
discussion,
there
is
a
far
less
likely
chance
that
they
are
back
to
troll,
because
most
trolls
won't
want
to
put
in
that
level
of
work.
A
So
I
think
that's
about
as
effective
as
we're
gonna
get
with
dealing
with
that.
But
thank
you
very
much
for
raising
it.
M
Yeah,
the
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
real
quick
was.
The
initial
recommendation
was
to
just
kind
of
close
it
immediately
as
a
troll
and
I'm
kind
of
glad
we
talked
through
that,
but
something
to
consider
going
forward
is,
like
you
know,
I,
as
a
straight
white
man,
don't
want
to
just
like
come
in
and
close
an
issue.
K
A
A
A
I
would
be
so
upset
about
that,
but
I
mean
it
also
had
the
harm
art
all
the
whole
like
earmarks
of
a
troll
account,
which
is
there
was
it
was
created
two
days
before
there
was
like
one
issue
opened
under
them.
They
had
no
repos
like
there
was
no
links
to
anything
aside
from
this
github
account
like
it
was.
It
was
kind
of
suspect.
K
I
did
have
one
more
question:
ask
for
you
guys.
I
tried
to
log
into
the
kubernetes
the
group
on
slack
and
it
says
I
have
to
either
continue
with
google
and
it
wouldn't.
Let
me
do
that
or
put
in
my
email
at
get
an
invite
at
slack.kubernetes
blah
blah.
K
A
Sorry,
let
me
get
you,
I'm
actually
just
going
to
stop
the
recording
and
we
can
take
this
offline,
but
if
you
want
to
stay
on
the
calls
too
I'll
help
you
out,
I.
A
To
like
give
everybody
back
kind
of
10
minutes
in
their
day,
so
I'm
going
to
say
the
meeting
is
officially
called
I'm
going
to
post
in
both
the
mailing
list
and
in
slack
to
see
if
we
should
up
this
to
a
bi-weekly
meeting,
though
I
think
the
feeling
is
yes,
please
review
the
pr's
linked
in
the
agenda
and
thank
you
all
very
much
stay
on
the
call.
Please
sue
thanks.