►
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
Now:
okay,
hello,
everyone-
this
is
a
class
api-
was
ours
on
the
30th
of
march
you're
writing
to
the
cncf
code
of
conduct.
So
please
be
nice
to
each
other.
Please
use
the
raise
hands
feature
when
you
want
to
say
something.
If
you
have
anything
to
that,
you
want
to
talk
about.
We
still
have
a
bit
of
space
in
our
gender
here.
So
just
add
something
at
the
bottom.
A
You
can
add
yourself
to
the
attendee
list.
If
you
want
to,
if
you
don't
have
access
to
document,
you
can
join
the
c
class
life
cycle
mating
list
and
then
you
get
automatic
access.
Okay,
so
let's
get
started,
I
would
start
with
welcome
new
attendees
and
then
we
go
to
the
proposed
videos.
So
if
someone
is
new
here
and
wants
to
introduce
themselves,
please
go
ahead
and
wait
a
bit.
You
can
just
unmute
yourself
and
talk.
B
Am
I
new,
I'm
not
even
sure
hi
bridget,
with
azure
have
been
coming
to
the
capsi
meetings
for
a
bit
figured
hey,
come
to
the
overall
cappy
meeting
and
say
hi.
I
see
some
familiar
faces,
possibly
from
other
meetings.
I've
been
in
earlier
today.
C
A
A
Okay,
then,
let's
move
ahead,
okay,
open
proposal:
without
does
anyone
want
to
talk
about
any
of
those
proposals.
A
Yep!
That's
that
one
or
maybe
just
at
least
consensus
first
april.
A
Yep
I
have
a
similar
short
announcement
just
that
the
last
week
I
showed
that
polish
mutation
hook.
Oh
sorry,
matt
you
first.
E
Oh
yeah,
just
really
quick
an
update
on
machine
pull
machines.
I
think
we're
still
getting
pretty
close
to
consensus,
but
vince
had
some
really
good
feedback
yesterday
about
moving
the
fields
to
maybe
to
the
provider
status
that
I'm
thinking
about
and
there's
a
few
other
things
we
noticed
to
catch
so
still
in
progress,
but
I
think
we're
very
close
to
final
to
declaring
lazy
consensus
time,
we'll
see.
Okay,
perfect.
A
Just
one
short
note
about
the
polish
mutation
that
I
showed
last
week.
I
just
moved
to
a
pr,
so
I'm
on
pto
the
next
few
weeks,
so
I
just
want
to
have
it
already
spr
so
that
folks
can
discuss
there
and
make
some
progress.
A
So
if
I
have
time,
please
take
a
look
and
please
take
also
a
look
at
all
those
other
proposals
we
have
here.
If
you
have
timer
and
are
interested
as
usual
fabrics,
I'm
not
sure
if
you
mentioned
that
one
at
some
point
or
if
you
want
to.
B
D
Point
in
yeah,
quick,
tldr
there's.
We
know
that
there
could
be
improvement
in
the
for
conditions,
especially
for
conditional
around
workers,
and
so
we
we
tried
to
put
together
a
status
date
that
basically
make
a
snapshot
of
the
condition
that
we
have
today
and
discusses
some
idea.
I
also
opened
a
web
pr
with
a
small
bit
of
code
where
we
can
go
and
experiment
about
condition
bubbling
up
to
cluster
stuff
like
that.
A
Good
done,
let's
see:
okay
yeah,
you
already
did
that
or
do
you
want
to
see
more?
No,
that's
fine,
okay,
good!
Then!
Next
up
killian.
F
Hi,
it's
there.
A
Yep,
do
you
want
to
share.
F
F
So,
by
way
of
introduction,
this
is
a
lead
on
from
the
proposal,
the
runtime
sdk
proposal
and
there's
a
proposal.
That's
still
a
work
in
progress,
but
we
should
be
putting
it
out
there
sometime
over
the
next
week
in
google
doc
form
to
start
off
with.
F
So
this
is
an
initial
set
of
runtime
hooks
based
on
the
runtime
sdk
and
so
obviously
we're
waiting
for
that
proposal
to
merge
first,
and
these
are
designed
to
enable
add-on
management
based
on
cluster
lifecycle
events.
So
the
idea
here
is
that
these
are
a
series
of
books.
There's
six
in
all
this
graphic
just
shows
when
they
occur
so
down
the
bottom.
F
We
have
the
hook
call
so
we've
got
one
before
cluster
create
after
the
control
plane
is
initialized
before
the
cluster
upgrades
after
the
cluster,
our
control
plane
upgrade
is
finished
after
the
whole
cluster
upgrade
is
finished
and
then
before
deleting
the
cluster,
and
these
are
designed
to
enable
some
of
the
more
advanced
add-on
use
cases
that
we've
seen
that
we're
sort
of
using
things
like
clusters
or
set
at
the
moment.
But
we
don't
have
enough
insight
into
the
actual
cluster
life
cycle
to
manage
things
intelligently.
So
knowing
when
the
control
plane
is
being
upgraded.
F
Hopefully,
a
solution
to
allowing
add-on
management
based
on
the
cluster
lifecycle,
so
yeah.
I
just
want
to
give
a
brief,
overlook
and
tell
people
to
expect
this
to
be
posted
in
the
channel.
I
guess
following
on,
like
the
other
proposals,
we'll
do
run
of
google
docs
reviews
first
and
then
once
we
have
something
that
most
people
seem
happy
with,
we'll
move
it
to
a
pr.
So
yeah
we'll
be
posting
this
in
the
channel,
hopefully
sometime
over
the
next
week,.
G
F
Yeah,
so
there
is
a
relationship
between
them,
but
they
don't
rely
on
each
other
in
any
way.
So
this
proposal
doesn't
define
any
systems
or
patterns
for
actual
add-on
management.
It
just
defines
the
lifecycle
hooks
that
could
be
used
for
that
management
and
the
proposal
for
add-on
management,
the
other
one
I'm
not
that
familiar
with
the
ins
and
outs
of
it,
but
it
doesn't.
D
Yep
yeah,
just
just
a
quick
comment,
so
clearly
an
answer
so
that
there
is
a
lazy
relation,
so
we
can
implement
a
dawn
orchestration
with
or
without
a
proposal.
D
But
if
we
have
these
runtime
moocs,
we
have
a,
let
me
say,
more
tool
in
our
hands
and
the
second
comment
is
that
these
runtime
hooks
are
pretty
generic,
so
they
can
be
used
also
for
other
use
cases
different
than
a
dawn
management.
We
kind
of
scoped
down
the
proposal
to
okay.
Let's
look
at
what
we
we
need
for
our
management
and
we
design
input
and
how
to
parameter
given
this
use
case.
But
we
recognize
that
in
future
we
can
yeah.
D
There
could
be
different
use
case
for
before
upgrade
after
trade,
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
so
in
the
follow-up
iteration
we
will
be.
Of
course
we
will
consider
to
expand
the
implementation
to
support
to
better
support
all
these
use
cases.
A
H
Yeah,
I
was
actually
thanks
for
breach.
I
was
going
to
ask
about
the
general
usage
of
these
runtime
hooks,
so
it
sounds
like
that
is
top
of
mind
for
folks,
maybe
just
a
suggestion.
Maybe
we
could
kind
of
reclassify
this
proposal
along
those
generic
lines,
so
it
doesn't
seem
to
suggest
that
we're
working
on
two
add-on
solutions
in
parallel
because
it
is
sort
of
confusing,
and
maybe
that
would
help
tighten
up
the
the
way
the
spec
actually
evolves.
H
If
we
think
about
it
from
a
generic
point
of
view,
like
just
generic
runtime
hooks,
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
to
sort
of
produce
three
or
four
use
cases
apart
from
add-ons.
But
if
it
really
is
just
for
add-ons,
then
I
don't
know
it
seems
like.
Maybe
it
should
be
a
part
of
the
add-on
proposal
itself
and
not
a
separate
proposal
that
make
sense.
D
I
can
answer
so
it
kind
of
makes
sense,
so
we
went
back
and
forth
around
this,
so
the
the
the
reason
why
we
we
we
named
the
proposal
around
the
life
cycle
looks
for
adult
management.
Is
that
you
know
when
you
think
at
life
cycle
looks
there
are
many
I,
for
instance,
why
why
we
don't
have
a
before
machine
deployment
upgrade
or
after
machine
employment
upgrade,
and
so
we
were
looking
for
a
reason
to
scope
down
to
an
initial
set
of
hooks
that
that
make
sense
is
already
consistent,
but
it
is
also
limited.
D
So
we
can
act
and-
and
so
the
idea
is
that,
okay,
let's
start
one
one
one,
what
of
a
topic
in
the
community,
which
is
a
dawn
management,
and
so
this
is
why
why
we
get
there,
but
I
agree
that
we
can
work
a
little
bit
on
wording
in
order
to
make
it
more
evident
that
these
things
are
also
generics
can
be
used
in
another
way.
I
thank.
A
Sounds
good
yeah.
I
think
it
becomes
a
little
bit
more
clear
in
the
documented
service
out,
because
we
we
stated
some
more
details,
of
course
in
in
goals
and
on-calls
etc,
but
that
wasn't.
B
A
C
Yes,
can
I
share
screen,
so
it
might
be
easier.
C
C
We
started
this
self-assessment
as
in
almost
six
seven
months
ago
now
and
nadir
and
kita
me,
and
one
more
one
or
two
more
people
from
seek
security
were
involved
in
it.
The
idea
was,
instead
of
waiting
for
a
third
party
audit
to
happen
like
we
had
for
kubernetes
and
we're
gonna
have
another
one
for
kubernetes
this
year,
but
the
scope
is
very
limited.
C
So,
as
a
result
of
that,
we
thought
let's
try
to
do
a
community
review
instead
of
waiting
for
somebody
to
fund
it
from
cncf,
and
we
have
prior
work
and
prior
art
on
this,
where
cncf
tax
security
has
done.
Reviews
like
this
for
different
projects,
but
we
never
did
really
did
a
review
for
sub
projects
of
a
graduated
project
like
cluster
api
and
kubernetes.
C
So
we
followed
some
of
the
templates.
We
learned
few
things
and
came
up
with
our
own
methods
and
processes
that
worked
and
the
end
result
is
basically,
after
a
lot
of
help
from
everyone
in
cluster
life
cycle
and
six
security.
Is
this
pr
that's
open?
So
we
have
a
bunch
of
diagrams,
as
is
typical
in
a
threat
model,
and
then
I
think
this
is
the
main
document.
C
So
it's
sort
of
long
big,
huge
document,
so
I'll
use
my
favorite
hack
to
open
the
online
editor
on
github,
which
makes
it
easier
to
render
markdown
shout
out
to
all
the
microsoft
and
github
folks
on
the
call.
I
really
like
this
feature
so
now,
if
you
see
here-
and
I
think
this
is
the
one
for
rendering
yeah,
so
this
is
a
big
document,
but
what
I
really
need
help
from
everyone
in
the
call
if
they
have
some
time
is.
C
C
So
we
divided
all
the
threads
into
different
categories
and
all
of
them
are
listed
and
for
each
of
them,
if
you
notice
I'll
just
take
one
example
here
so
status,
so
for
all
the
threads,
we
have
a
status
field
and
so
far
we
have
answers
for
some
of
the
threats.
But
if,
as
we
scroll
down
more
and
more,
we,
we
weren't
able
to
get
a
confirmed
answer
on
whether
we
plan
to
implement
it
or
have
we
already
planned
to
implement
it.
C
C
This
is
the
issue
I
think
that
would
really
help
and
then
I'll
keep
this
maybe
open
for
a
couple
of
weeks
or
so,
and
if,
if
I
based
on
the
comments
I
get,
I'm
thinking
me
and
some
other
folks
in
six
security
could
start
creating
issues
on
cluster
api
repo
for
all
of
these
threats.
One
threat
one
issue
and
then
all
of
you
can
kind
of
help
me
triage
whether
that
makes
sense
to
be
implemented.
C
D
Foreign,
so
first
of
all,
thanks
for
the
work
seems
yeah
an
impressive
work.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
will
try
to
go
through
the
issue
and
and
provide
the
comments,
but
generally
I
agree
that
the
way
forward
is
that
we
should
basically
transform
activities
into
issuing
our
backlog
and
and
try
to
get
them
into
the
business.
As
usual.
C
Okay
sounds
good
yeah.
I
just
didn't
want
to
start
creating
a
lot
of
spam
where
there
are
multiple
issues
created
by
me
and
then
we
end
up
finding
out.
Many
of
them
are
duplicates.
So
if
there
is
a
chance,
we
can
reduce
the
number
of
issues
that
we
know
need
to
be
implemented.
Then
I'll
just
create
those
instead
of
all
of
them.
C
Okay,
thanks
a
lot
and
any
in
general
feedback
from
everyone
about
the
assessment.
The
content
is
welcome.
We've
never
really
done
this
before
so
any
feedback
you
give
for
the
process
itself
also
will
help
other
sub
projects
when
we
do
it
for
future
sub
projects.
A
Okay,
did
you
also
want
to
say
something
about?
Oh
sorry,
I
kind
of
mixed
up
the
top
okay.
Let
me
show
you
again.
A
Okay,
yeah
sure.
I
A
D
Yeah,
I
can
search
for
it,
but
the
process
is
open
apr
if
I
remember
in
kubernetes.org
and
then
they
will
create
a
channel
for
you.
So
I
I
I
will
search
for
the
following.
A
A
Okay,
then,
next
up
for
me
soon.
D
Yeah,
so
a
quick
update.
Last
week
we
talked
about
an
issue
that
happens
with
cluster
class
and
managing
topologies
when,
when
you
have
acting
blades,
which
is
co-authored
by
the
cluster
classic
itself,
so
by
the
template,
defining
the
link
to
the
cluster
class
and
by
the
controller
and-
and
the
issue
happened
when
the
quadrat
part
is
within
the
same
list.
The
example
is
a
subnet,
bring
your
subnet
in
in
copper.
D
D
Current
status
is
that
I'm
starting
to
investigate
how
to
fix
it,
but
this
will
take
some
time
and
probably
it
will
require
also
a
change
in
the
api
from
the
provider
to
add
the
annotation
for
the.
D
Basically,
for
specifying
the
that
this
is
our
list
that
should
be
treated
as
a
map
and
which
is
and
which
are
the
key
like
for
server
side,
apply
the
same
annotation
used
for
several
servers.
I
apply
so
given
that
the
fix
will
take
some
time
to
be
developed
and
tested.
A
D
Don't
know
if
this
was
a
good
idea
or
not,
but
we
had
a
meeting
some
time
ago
about
provider,
standardization
provider
and
and
and
we
just
faced
the
the
fact
that
sometimes
or
we
we
don't
have
a
good
occasion
to
discuss,
I
don't
know
limits
to
the
to
the
contract,
how
we
can
improve
the
contract
for
the
provider
stuff
like
that,
and
so
we
decided
instead
of
creating
a
new
meeting.
G
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
suggest.
Maybe
since
we
have
you
know,
provider
folks
usually
joining
this
meeting
anyway,
maybe
we
could
you
know
if
we
have
time
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
try
to
do
a
quick
round
robin
and
see
if
you
know
each
someone
from
each
provider
has
updates
or
any
current
blockers
that
they're
working
through
and
just
you
know
quickly,
go
through
the
providers
and
bring
up
what
our
current
highlights
and
low
lights
of
the
week.
A
Okay
see
general
agreement
of
it
yeah
so
like.
I
guess
why
not
a
good
chance
and
also
to
address
some
issues
that
provide
us
fine
mike.
J
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
give
some
support
to
what
cecile
was
saying
in
the
sig
cloud
provider.
They
do
something
very
similar.
I
mean
that
meeting
is
kind
of
a
different
focus,
but
they
have
basically
like
a
list
of
all
the
providers
that
are
creating
ccms
and
then
they
kind
of
go
through
and
do
updates
from
there
kind
of
dovetailing
on
what
cecile
was
saying.
A
Yeah,
but
I
mean
why
not
so
we
can
just
start
with
putting
a
list
there
of,
I
guess
the
reference,
something
like
our
provider
list
in
the
book.
Also,
I.
J
A
Okay,
yeah,
I
mean
if
someone
spontaneously
from
some
writer
wants
to
showcase
what's
going
on,
we
can
do
it
now,
otherwise
we
will
start
next
week.
A
Yeah,
perfect,
don't
understand,
would
you
do
that
or.
J
J
Okay,
granted
sig
cloud
provider
is
much
more
focused
on
just
you
know,
looking
at
each
cloud
provider,
but
a
similar
pattern
might
be
followed
here.
A
Okay,
I
can't
find
this
but
there's
some
disappointments
somewhere
in
the
book.
I
will
just
take
that
one
and
then.
B
One
nice
thing
sid
cloud
provider
does
that
we
could
consider
too,
is
because
that
is
seated
in
the
agenda
for
each
meeting
as
you're
prepping
for
the
meeting.
Even
if
you're
not
going
to
be
there,
you
can
add
your
little
bullet
point
if
you
want,
or
edit
during
the
meeting,
either
way
yep.
That
makes
no
sense.