►
From YouTube: 20190409 sig cluster lifecycle
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
A
A
There's
there's
one
topic
which
I
did
add,
which
is
it's
sprung
up
from
all
of
these
SF
State
cluster
lifecycle
has
a
broader
set
of
sub
projects.
My
Nathan
Sorrell
unlikely
add-on
sub-project
was
newly
formed
and
we
have
these
other
sub
projects
like
I,
saw
Thomas
they're,
so
mini
cube.
We
have
Q
medium.
A
We
have
a
cluster
API
in
part
of
like
what
recently
transpired
in
the
cluster
API
group
is
folks,
are
trying
to
sort
of
distill
down
a
broader
set
of
scope
and
requirements
right,
it's
basically
two
to
channel
what
is
in
scope
for
this
project.
What
is
a
scope
of
the
project?
What
are
the
lines
or
the
delineation
points
where
we
sort
of
say
like
no?
Like
that's
a
good
idea,
we
consider
this
on
a
scope
and
I
find
the
current
documentation
structure
very
lacking,
like
we
have
caps
and
that's
very
good
for
a
design
spec.
A
But
it's
not
very
good
for
sort
of
having
like
sort
of
architectural
awareness
like
objectives
and
scope
boundaries
just
higher-level
documents.
It's
sort
of
outline
like
this
is
where
this
project
begins
and
ends.
So
this
is
where
this
other
project
begins
and
ends.
So
I
wanted
to
like
get
feedback
from
the
broader
group
on
foster
on
this
I.
B
Think
it's
definitely
a
good
good
thing
to
raise
I'm,
not
sure
how
we
would
define
it.
I
feels
like
we've
been
talking
about
it
like
we
had
our
kickoff
meeting
for
add-on
operators
on
Friday
and
definitely
the
scope
was
a
big
topic
of
conversation
there,
but
it
does
feel
like
we're.
Making
those
decisions
pretty
locally.
We're
not
us,
are
empowered
to
like
determine
our
scope
locally
I,
don't
know
how
we
would
that
and
I
think
the
other
thing
is
I
think
they
come
out
of
the
came
out
of
cluster
API.
A
A
Another
way
to
say
this,
but
I
think
I
think
it
would
help
the
sub
projects
tremendously
to
have
something
written
down
that
basically
allows
folks
to
have
the
conversation
without
having
to
rehash
or
to
relitigate
a
lot
of
the
details
of
why
choices
were
made
right,
because
not
if
you
come
into
the
conversation
and
have
sort
of
the
understanding
of
oh,
it's
got
kind
of
shaped
like
this,
then
you
can.
You
can
easily
ascertain
that.
Oh,
this
is
on
a
scope
for
this
project
and
it
doesn't
become
conflating
right.
C
C
A
We're
going
to
PR
cluster
API
as
an
example:
well,
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
it's
a
done
thing
right!
I
think
it
needs
a
lot
more
thought
about
how
we
start
to
do
this
across
sub
projects
right.
This
see,
Quester
life
cycle
I
think
was
born
uniquely
it
to
be
a
group
of
federated
repositories
and
to
distill
down
the
common
best
practices,
but
in
order
to
do
that
and
not
sort
of
like
I,
don't
know
become
yet
another
installer
is
that
is.
A
We
have
specifically
said
like
these
are
otoscope
right
and
by
doing
that
that
helped
to
keep
the
conversation
bounded
and,
as
we
add
more
and
more
sub
projects,
making
sure
that
that
we
have
the
bounded
scope,
I
think
will
help
conversations,
especially
when
you
folks
come
online
right,
so
defining
what
is
in
scope
and
out
of
scope
and
right
now,
when
we
want
to
adopt
a
new,
a
new
sub
project,
we
would
create
a
cap
and
I
think
that's
actually
the
wrong
thing
to
do
now.
What
I
think
about
it?
A
D
So
I
just
hope
that
what
you're
describing
is
typical
in
startups,
for
instance,
you
define
the
mission
because,
basically
something
that
you,
the
main
objective
of
the
mission
of
the
company
project,
is
to
decide.
I
just
said
what
it's
not
but
it's
outside,
but
the
requirements
you
previously
defined,
like
high-level
requirement
requirement,
is
tricky
because
requirement
depends
a
lot
of
the
evolution
of
the
project
or
the
barouche
logical
system.
D
I
mean
you
can
keep
the
same
objective
or
mission
I
stable
a
bit
over
a
very
long
time,
and
actually
you
need
to
update
your
requirements
if
you
want
to
catch
up
with
your
ecosystem.
For
me,
there
are
like
two
different
level
of
very
differentiator
level
of
definition.
So
definitely
really
both
one
is,
should
be
more
stable,
but
not
should
not
be
based
on
a
specific
feature.
You
know
it's
more
like
I
will
say
conceptual
scope,
I.
D
Maybe
also
define,
for
instance,
in
this
case
this
new
group
or
should
project
of
the
patcon
is
being
created.
Defining
that
really
belongs
to
the
idea
or
should
be
independent
project,
because
if
you
have
a
clear
escoba
mission,
the
some
point
that
maybe
attention
with
other
you
know
sephrillian
say
they
want
to
cover
more
and
that's
all
you
need
to
decide.
But
what
the
best
way
to
go
is
that
they
they
limit
the
scope
or
just
go
along.
So
in
the
long
term,
it's
important
to
have
this
boundary
for
everyone,
as.
A
As
I
saying,
we
allow
competition
or
two
if
this
thing
is
the
umbrella,
the
clearinghouse
for
this
things
to
exist
so
currently
there
there
are
overlapping
tools
that
exist
and
what
happens
is
the
evolution
over
time?
We
kind
of
you
know,
sponsor
or
put
more
horsepower
behind
one
right,
so
I
think
it's
fine
to
have
the
you
know
multiple
ideas
and
see
which
one
wins
out.
That's
an
okay
thing
to
I
think
what
we're
seeing
is,
as
as
our
tools
have
matured
that
we've
created
we're
getting
a
lot
more
people
involved.
A
There's
a
lot
broader
engagement
and
being
able
to
have
a
focused
conversation
is
really
important,
because
when
you
have
40
people
in
a
call
or
38
people
on
a
call,
we
want
to
make
sure
that,
like
we
can
basically
call
put
the
stamp
and
be
like
this
is
not
a
scope.
I
understand
your
use
case,
but
we
want
to
be
able
to
say
that,
because
we
have
40
people,
would
it
be
mindful
at
everybody's
time.
D
It's
the
smaller
topic,
but
probably
being
the
same,
just
to
create
a
different
project
just
to
tackle
them
even
when
they
are
outside
the
regional
scope.
I
mean
it's
tricky
to
maintain
that
us
us
as
this
immature,
because
machine
is
the
most
mature
part
of
the
cross.
Your
API
is
not,
rather
than
now
the
people
working
there
and
addressing
all
the
concern.
But
what
to
do
I
mean
create
a
different
project
and
Safra
get
something.
A
Refining
it,
like
you,
start
out
with
a
boundary,
find
scope,
and
then
you,
you
evaluate
the
use
cases
and
you
determine
whether
or
not
you
need
to
change
the
scope
right
and
if
it
falls,
if
as
long
as
doesn't
conflict
with
your
other
requirements
and
your
your
overall
mission,
then
refining
the
the
mission
and
objectives
or
scope
and
objectives
document
makes
a
ton
of
sense.
But
I
think
you
do
it
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
and
it
should
be
the
exception
versus
the
norm.
So
include
medium.
It's
it's
different
because
most
of
the
could
be
DM.
A
Contributors
have
been
around
or
their
corporate
reviewers
for
a
long
time.
So,
like
it's
almost
implicitly
known
of
what
is
in
scope
and
otoscope,
we
have
been
a
lot
less
explicit
because
we
knew
each
other
and
we
were
working
on
this
project
for
like
two
years.
Basically
saying
like
the
boundary
lines
are
here:
we're
not
gonna
cross
that
right.
This
is
where
this
is.
Where
component
conviction
clearly
take
hold
right,
and
we
have
that
shared
understanding.
A
D
Yeah
because
I
feel
that
it's
not
inside
outside
because
as
I
said,
it's
like
overlapping
at
some
point,
probably
make
the
same
to
take
the
part
just
outside
the
project
or
create
the
bottle
or
project
just
to
cover
it.
Some
use
cases
are
outside
the
region
or
the
school,
but
there
are
relevant
to
some
part
of
the
community
that
that's
the
situation
that
the
machine
is
happening
is
and
are
some
requirement
up.
D
Probably
is
you
look
at
the
objective
for
this
copula
cross
VIII
outside
is
valid
that
are
outside,
but
at
the
same
time
is
that
you
say,
but
I
can
we
use
what
you
already
had.
I
just
only
want
to
add
some
use
cases
that
are
relevant
for
order
or
what
to
do
there,
because
you
know
it's
like
for
the
usual
answer
is:
let's
support
the
project,
but
you
know
the
fork
in
the
project
at
the
filter.
D
Basically,
what
does
is
dilute
the
airport
in
several
communities
and
I
also
say
I,
don't
know
the
answer,
but
this
is
something
is
happening
right
now,
just
bringing
it
because
it's
something
that
is
happening
the
last
week
so
conversation
ever
on
the
machine
and
what
to
do
around
about
that?
I
think.
A
The
the
machines
api
is
well
understood
to
make
it
composable
and
extensible.
I
think
people
are
also
talking
past
each
other
I
think
the
implementation
details
are
debatable.
I
think
the
overall
broader
mission
of
the
machines
API
and
what
people
want
to
do
is
is
encompassed
within
the
broader
set
of
requirements.
I
think
people
aren't
meeting
past
certain
ideas.
A
That's
a
very
specific
use
case
scenario
and
a
part
of
this
has
to
do
with
making
sure
that
we
actually
write
down
a
design
spec
and
see
what
happens,
which
is
a
kept
and
then
going
from
there
and
actually
write
down
an
implementation
detail.
There's
nothing
wrong
with
working
and
implementation
that
uses
a
POC
to
have
the
conversation.
In
fact,
I
think
that's
the
best
way
to
do
it,
because
then
it
gives
us
an
action
point
for
us
to
have
a
conversation.
A
C
Just
wanted
to
chime
in
and
saying
that,
having
a
having
this
level
of
clarification
is
really
useful
for
long-term
maintenance
of
the
project
as
well,
because
it
gives
you
a
document
that
you
can
cite
when
you're
reviewing
PRS
or
issues
to
basically
say
you
know,
this
is
not
in
scope
for
our
project.
We
have
in
mini
queue.
We
have
a
principals
dock
that
we
we
do
sites
sometimes,
but
I
wish.
We
went
a
little
bit
further
into
the
non
goals
section,
for
instance,
yeah.
A
B
I'm
hoping
the
answer
there
is
that
the
we
don't
want
to
build
all
those
add-ons.
We
just
want
to
build
the
framework.
If
someone
wants
to
build
that
the
add-ons
for
things
that
are
apps,
that's
okay,
as
long
as
it
doesn't
need
changes
to
the
framework
that
pushes
it
outside
our
core
scope.
But
yes,
I
I
am
hardly
optimistic
and
I'm.
Sure
time
will
change
that
yeah.
A
A
We
can
start
to
converse
about
I
think
we
might
want
to
talk
about
like
different
sub
projects
and
how
they
mash
together
right
because
in
the
broader
story
that
we
want
to
tell
would
be
a
really
good
one
really
powerful
one
over
time.
For
those
who
aren't
aware,
I
was
just
on
a
call
with
a
CNC
F
like
a
number
ago
with
just
like
a
customer
use
case,
C
F
forum,
and
it's
surprising
what
people
do
in
the
wild
there's
still
a
heck
of
a
lot
of
home
ground,
DIY
rolled
your
own
meta
environment.
A
That's
actually
the
most
common
thing,
I
see,
which
is
kind
of
interesting
and
terrifying.
At
the
same
time,
so
I
think
you're
trying
to
get
those
people
that
brought
our
group
into
the
fold
to
understand
and
us
having
a
picture
where,
like
they
don't
need
to
take
everything
that
could
take
pieces
of
the
puzzle.
I
think
would
be
a
good
conversation
to
have
and
to
sort
of
articulate
to
the
broader
community
I.
B
Actually,
really
like
that
I
think.
That's
I
think
that's
key
the
idea
that
we
are
producing
these
separate
X,
isn't
this
incremental
e
adoptable
and
not
just
like
increments
lead
up
someone
tooling
like
cops
or
cube
spray,
but
like
if
you've
rolled
your
own,
it
should
be
easy
to
incrementally
adopt.
A
F
Tim
with
regard
to
cook
on
Lucas,
wanted
me
to
bring
up
whether
or
not
we
are
preparing
or
planning
or
nominating
people.
Apparently,
at
the
contributor
summit,
there's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
different
structure
is
what
I
heard
and
we
need
to
need
to
have.
Some
people
were
like
ready
to
lead
the
session
or
something
like
that.
I've.