►
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,
everyone
welcome
to
this
week's
cluster
API
provider,
Azure
office
hours,
cluster
API
provider,
Azure
or
capz
is
a
sub-project
of
cluster
API,
which
is
part
of
Sig
cluster
lifecycle.
We
abide
by
the
cncf
code
of
conduct,
please
be
kind
and
respectful
to
one
another,
raise
hands
and
I,
or
someone
else
will
call
on
you
and
we'll
have
a
great
collaborative
time
together.
A
Okay,
so
at
the
beginning
of
our
discussions,
we
by
convention
open
up
the
floor
for
new
contributors
to
say
hi.
So
if
you're
new
or
if
you
want
to
say
hi
for
any
reason,
please
raise
hand
and
I'll
call
on
you
and-
and
you
can
give
yourself
a
brief
introduction,
what
you're
working
on
who
you
work
for?
If
you
want
to
share
that
information.
A
A
Okay,
so
please
add
your
name
to
the
attendee
list
here
in
this
doc.
The
dock
is
Linked,
In
slack
I'll
go
ahead
and
paste
a
link
in
chat
as
well,
which
will
also
be
a
excuse
for
me
to
open
up
the
chat
window
and
organize
that
so
there's
a
link
to
Google
Docs
and
we
have
one
item
from
ashtash
it
looks
like
and
while
ashitosh
is
discussing,
his
Azure
worklet
identity,
update,
I'll,
add
a
couple
items
myself
so
astronauts.
Why
don't
you
start
the
agenda?
Part
off.
B
Sure,
thanks
SEC,
so
The
Proposal
PR
has
been
raised
and
I
have
got
reviews
so
from
Anisha
and
Cecile
already
I've.
Also
Incorporated
couple
of
comments
there
so
feel
free
to
you
know,
take
a
look
at
that.
B
Also.
The
second
item
on
my
list
mentions
at
PR
that
is
crucial
for
getting
in
workload,
identity
and
that
has
got
approved.
It
looks
good
to
me
as
well
I've,
also
like
cloned
it
to
my
local
setup,
and
it
looks
good
so
feel
free
to
take
a
look
at
that
PR.
Also,
if
you
want
so
so
far
looks
good.
B
We
have
resolved
all
of
the
challenges,
but
there
has
been
one
issue
in
distributing
the
key
piece
to
the
control
plane,
node
and
Cecil
pointed
me
to
one
idea
and
I'm
looking
into
that,
I'll
try
to
do
a
prototype
for
that
and
I'll
put
info
in
the
design
document
itself.
Right
now,
I
have
commented
on
an
high
level
approach
in
the
open
question
section
so
feel
free
to
look
at
that.
So
that's
that's!
All
I
wanted
to
give
an
update
and
I
think
we
are
close
to
get
this
into
Kathy.
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
endurance.
Keeping
this
proposal
moving
forward.
I
know
it's
been
around
for
a
while
super
important.
It's
gonna
touch
a
lot
of
folks.
So
thank
you.
So
much
and
I
know
you've
got
a
a
work
in
progress.
Implementation
already,
scaffolded
up
as
well,
so
I
don't
see
any
LG
TMS,
but
maybe
optimistically
well,
actually,
I
guess
we
should
discuss
whether
we're
going
to
meet
next
week.
A
We
probably
should
not
meet,
but
maybe
the
next
meeting
whenever
that
is,
we
can
start
a
lazy
consensus
on
this
proposal
because
it
seems
like
it's
near.
C
B
B
A
A
All
right
so
good
I
see
some
some
agenda.
Items
are
popping
up
in
real
time,
so
I
will
briefly
discuss
the
status
of
the
Azure.
Actually,
maybe
won't
be
briefing
folks
want
to
talk
about
it
for
a
while,
so
I
shouldn't
condition
this
discussion,
but
as
far
as
my
agenda
is
very
brief,
which
is
to
just
remind
folks
that
this
graduation
proposal
is
still
live.
A
We
have
at
least
one
lgtm
on
it,
and
so
I
would
like
to
propose
to
the
group.
I
know
not
everybody's
present
here
who's-
maybe
ever
spoken
on
this,
but
I'd
like
to
post
to
this
group
that
we
start
a
lazy
consensus,
maybe
for
mid
next
week
to
merge
this,
and
then
we
can
start
talking
about
more
practical
steps.
A
How
does
that
sound
any
any
dissent
on
the
idea
of
calling
a
timer
on
merging
this?
So
if
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
look
at
this,
you'll
still
have
a
chance,
and
if
you
have
any
concerns,
those
concerns
will
be
definitely
addressed,
but
pending
no
additional
commentary.
Should
we
plan
to
merge
this
proposal
next
week.
A
C
A
Rely
on
it
okay,
week
of
the
19th
okay
cool
great.
Thank
you
so
much
to
everyone
who
has
commented
on
this
I
like
that,
the
beginning
of
the
pr
ize
has
is
like
twice
as
large
as
what
it
ended
up
being.
So
that's
great.
So
we
we
got
rid
of
a
lot
of
things
and
it's
I
think
a
lot
more
concise.
A
So
very
briefly
on
what
this
means.
When
we
merge
this,
we
well
I
should
say
primarily
David
T
John
H
and
myself
in
various
communication.
A
Media
have
been
sort
of
hatching
a
plan
to
to
prototype
out
the
actual
concrete
work
of
moving
the
experimental
apis
into
the
V1
beta,
1
API
surface
area,
and
keeping
that
PR
sanitized
with
respect
to
main
branch
until
the
just
after
the
release
of
1.7,
which
we
anticipate
to
be
roughly
a
month
from
now
I
think
Jan,
January
10th
is
the
the
nominal
date
could
probably
easily
find
that
out
by
clicking
on
this
milestone.
A
So.
The
plan
is
that
after
we
release
1.7
yep,
it
says
January
10th
there
we
would
already
have
a
PR
prepared
with
the
necessary,
like
source
code
changes
to
reflect
the
fact
that
the
experimental
feature
flag
is
no
longer
required,
we'll
default
that
to
true
in
order
to
get
AKs
support
and
then
we'll
merge
that
at
the
beginning
of
the
1.8
development
cycle.
A
So
the
reason
for
doing
that
is
that
we'll
have,
in
the
meantime,
I'm
going
to
try
to
work
with
folks
to
get
that
prototype
PR
sort
of
up
in
the
next
week
or
so,
and
that
way
we'll
have
a
few
weeks
before
1.7
actually
lands
to
get.
We
can
get
periodic
test
coverage
on
that
PR
and
then,
when
it
lands
in
Maine,
then
we
can
have
an
entire
release
cycle
to
bake.
That
I.
Don't
expect
any
really
material
changes.
A
Actually,
I
literally
don't
expect
any
material
changes.
It
should
just
be
boilerplate.
We
might
have
to
update
our
CI
configs
just
a
little
bit
to
remove
the
explicit
feature
flag
because
we
won't
need
that
anymore
and
what
at
that
point
will
essentially
be
able
to
announce
that
AKs
support
is
graduated
from
experimental
and
that
we'll
look
forward
to
1.8
as
an
initial
release
for
that
go
ahead.
David
T.
D
Yeah
I
was
just
going
to
say
the
other
thing
that
we're
considering,
that
is
I'd,
say
out
of
the
norm
from
the
typical
release.
Pattern
is
to
once
that
gets
merging
domain
to
do
like
a
1.80
called
alpha
or
whatever.
Just
so
that
other
that
folks,
that
may
want
to
to
use
that
that
feature
out
of
the
feature
flag
be
able
to
test
it,
use
it
give
feedback
or
whatever
I,
don't
foresee
that
being
a
normal
thing
moving
forward.
D
But
just
because
of
we
know,
there's
a
lot
of
folks
that
that
want
that
and
they
want
to
have
a
potenti.
You
know
non-developers
want
a
way
to
let's
say
easily
use
that
that's
that's
one
of
the
other
things
we're
we're
considering
doing.
In
addition,
so
I
guess,
if
anybody
has
any
feedback
on
that
feel
free
to
chime
in.
A
That
makes
sense
to
me
I
think,
that's
just
a
little
bit
more
work
with
a
lot
of
payoff,
potentially
over
that
two-month
period.
A
Does
anyone
have
any
concerns
for
the
timeline
so
the
way
that
we're
laying
this
out?
You
could
essentially
think
that
the
the
current
AKs
implementation,
in
certainly
in
Maine,
but
it's
not
too
different
from
1.6,
which
is
the
the
latest
release
well
more
or
less
with
some.
Some
very
minor
feature
changes
will
ship
with
one
dots,
we'll
ship
with
the
current
feature
set.
So
are
there
any
concerns
about
that
Mike
go
ahead.
C
A
If
there
were
patch
really,
if
there
are
fixes
to
the
1.7
release
of
AKs,
then
those
would
have
to
be
probably
manually
applied,
so
it'd
be
more
laborious
for
that
particular
development
cycle.
Okay,
you're,
just
I,
assume
you're,
referring
to
the
fact
that
Sherry
picks
are
not
gonna
easily
back
port.
At
that
point,
yeah,
that's
certainly
a
good
call
out.
So
we
we
should
expect
that
patches
to
1.7
for
AKs
we'll
take
a
little
bit
more
effort.
A
Okay,
cool
I'm,
going
to
let
Matt
MC
should
we
meet
next
week.
I
feel,
like
I've,
heard
a
knock
on
the
window
and
I.
Think
I,
like
locked,
my
wife
out
of
the
house,
I'm
gonna
go
let
her
in
I'll
be
back
in
a
second
okay.
E
That
sounds
more
important
but
yeah.
The
question
is
obviously
I'll
be
here,
but
if
most
of
us
won't
then
let's
not
maybe
we
should
have
a
show
thumbs
up.
If
you
want
to
have
a
meeting
next
Wednesday
and
we'll
be
here.
E
C
E
E
All
right
should
we
do
Milestone
review.
A
Check,
yes,
I
think
I'm
back
and
I.
Don't
think
that
my
wife
will
lock
herself
out.
That
was
my
fault
and
because
I'm
down
here,
I
can't
do
it
again,
so
it
becomes
safely
ensconced,
all
right,
so
Milestone
review
for
1.7.
Do
we
want
to
go
through
this?
Let's
go
through
this
first
and
then,
let's
scrub,
the
pr
board
to
see
if
there
are
any
PRS
that
we
haven't
been
that
we
haven't
tagged
for
milestone.
A
So
this
is
actually
looking
fairly
clean.
Only
11.
the
top
one
is
vmss
flex
anything
interesting
there
Matt.
E
There's
lots
of
little
interesting
things.
There
was
just
one
thing
we
were
stuck
on.
We
were
some
code
I
hadn't
looked
at
was
naming
the
Azure
machine,
pull
machines
in
a
super
naive
fashion
which
worked
fine.
They
were
being
called
like
zero
one.
Two
and
I
never
looked
that
closely
and
everything
worked
fine
until
you
brought
up
two
node
poles
at
the
same
time,
and
then
they
would
Collide
in
interesting
ways
because
they
want
the
same
name.
E
So
I
fixed
that
and
now
there's
just
a
bunch
of
unit
test
damage
to
fix
and
one
new
unit
test
to
write
and
done
some
more
reviews.
So
hopefully
we
can
land
this
early
next
week
is
my
plan.
Okay,
cool.
A
A
Okay,
so
just
so,
we
give
ourselves
that
lazy,
consensus
overhead,
but
other
otherwise.
I
think
that
that
should
be
should
stay
in
this
milestone.
A
I
think
it's
actually
fair
to
kick
this
out,
because
I
don't
expect
to
spend
any
time
on
this.
So
if
someone
else
wants
to
do,
whoops
see
how
do
I
do
that.
Someone
else
wants
to
pick
this
up,
that's
great
and
feel
free
to
add
it
back
to
the
Milestone,
but
for
now
I'm
going
to
just
kick
this
to
next.
A
All
right,
Mike
I,
know
you've
been
working
diligently
on
this.
Do
we
still
feel
yeah.
C
Running
some
updated
tests
on
it.
Actually,
as
we
speak
so
hopefully,
I'll
have
an
update,
updated
PR,
10
air
tomorrow.
A
B
No
I
just
got
reminded
by
this
conformance
word.
So
it's
just
a
question
like
is
the
conference
test
on
capsu
reading
properly,
because
I
saw
that
the
major
block
from
Ginkgo
is
deprecated
after
we
bump
the
version
to
2.6.0,
so
maybe
I'll
file
up
an
issue,
but
not
sure
if
anyone
will
have
time
to
fix
that
go
ahead.
E
Is
it?
Are
you
seeing
that,
so
we
noticed
a
problem
that
the
conformance
tests
actually
weren't
running,
because
we
didn't
catch
up
with
some
refactoring
stuff?
Is
that
what
you're
referring
to
is
this
something
about
2.6
of
Kinko
in
particular,.
B
Yeah
it's,
it
is
definitely
refactoring,
but
not
sure
of
water
factoring
you're
referring
to,
but
it
is
just
like
if
you,
if
you
go
to
the
conformance
test
code,
there
is
a
measure
block
like
we
have
blocks
eight
contacts.
There
is
a
measure
block
yeah
and
that
is
deprecated,
so
not
sure
if
data
still
executes
after
2.6.0,
it's.
E
Deprecated
and
if
you
read
to
the
end
of
the
deprecation
notice,
which
I
did
not,
it
says
and
also
won't
run,
so
it
hasn't
been
running
since
we
upgraded
to,
but
we
have
an
issue
for
it
and
I
think
the
fix
John.
Were
you
looking
at
that
or
do
we
have
someone.
E
A
Cool,
so
to
be
clear,
this
issue
that
I
bumped
is
is
totally
different.
This
is
opened
in
April
and
really
I,
don't
even
know
what
this
issue
is.
That's
been
my
that's.
How
far
I've
gotten
is
not
even
being
able
to
confirm
that
it's
still
an
issue
sounds
like
it's
great
that
we're
working
on
this
newer
issue,
which
is
more
well
understood.
A
Okay
cool
so
on
this
one.
This
is
also
signed
to
me.
I'll
give
myself
another
week
because
that's
interesting,
that's
you
know
just
reading
that
sentence
is
not
something
we
want
to
tolerate,
so
keep
that
in
the
milestone.
A
G
G
Yeah
Jack
I
think
Brian
is
still
updating
it,
but
I
can
follow
up
on
the
pr.
A
Because
that
was
a
month
ago
and
my
brain
garbage
collected
all
that
information
a
long
time
ago,
okay,
I
think
this
is
just
this
just
required
a
little
priority.
I,
don't
think
it's
hard,
so
I'll
keep
it
for
another
week.
We
can
kick
it
out
in
early
General
meet
resume
here.
If
no
progress
has
been
made,
I
think
that's
fair.
A
Nuance,
here's
another
one
with
your
name
on
it.
Do
you
feel
like
this?
One
still
belongs
in
1.7
yeah.
G
That
one's
ready
for
thank
you.
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
I'll,
add
an
agenda
item
and
the
agenda
item
will
look
like
this.
A
Oops
I'm
trying
to
do
the
right,
emoji
sad
tests,
agenda,
item,
okay,
cool
this
doesn't
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
worry
about
that
being
a
part
of
it.
Thank
you
Willie
for
opening.
This.
Do
you
feel
like
this
is
more
than
a.
A
H
H
I
want
to
test
this.
One
I
didn't
test
it
because
it's
WIP,
but
I
I
can
put
some
work
on
it.
This
is
important
for
my
customer.
A
I
Have
left
yeah
for
sure
I
think
it's
done
already,
but
I
do
need
to
do
a
little
more
testing
so
severio.
If
you
wanna
test
it
right
now,
it
should
be
working.
I
H
Oh
okay,
cool
so
I
mean
the
email
time
zone,
meaning
that,
after
this
meeting,
my
working
day
is
over
so
I'll
test
it
tomorrow
and
with
the
usual
tilt,
tooling,
right
and
I
will
give
you
feedback
on
the
pr.
Thank.
I
You
sure
yeah
thank
you
I'll
be
out
tomorrow,
but
I
can
look
at
it
again
next
week.
Sure.
A
Yeah,
it's
a
very
PL.
You
could
just
ping
John
and
myself
I
think
at
least
I'll
be
in
tomorrow
and
I.
Think
it's
an
AKs
issue.
So
this
sounds
great.
Thank
you.
William
severio
I
think
this
came
together
really
quickly.
So
great
work.
A
All
right,
I
expect
this
will
land.
It
seems
like
Jonathan,
isn't
here,
but
I'm
gonna
speak
for
him
and
add
to
this
Milestone.
This
I
took
a
peek
at
it
and
it
looks
like
mostly
housekeeping
PR,
so
we'll
want
to
land
that
yeah.
This
will
land
by
hooker
by
crook.
There
may
be
a
few
more
bike
shedding
about.
Should
we
even
bother
testing
web
Hook
by
end
to
end,
but.
A
I'll
fight
that
fight
okay-
this
is
probably
I
assume
astroch.
Is
it
fair
to
say
that
this
will
be
a
part
of
the
1.8
development
cycle,
the
actual
implementation?
Yes,.
B
A
A
Let's
just
go
ahead
and
default
to
optimism
and
then
we'll
pick
this
up
in
January
and
punt
it
if
we
need
to
I'm
making
a
lot
of
executive
decisions
so
but
I'm
trying
to
look
at
the
raise
hands
if
anyone
disagrees
with
those,
please
raise
hands
and
I'll
call
on
you
and
allow
you
to
Executive
override
my
executive
decision.
A
B
Yeah
I
think
I've
reviewed
this
PR,
but
we
need
to
find
a
way
to
actually
test
it
right.
So
it
looks
like
MSC
is
not
yet
publicly
available,
but
I
don't
have
any
strong
opinions
as
far
as
like,
if
it
does
not
interferes
with
the
current
workflow.
A
A
It's
it's
really
in
terms
of
the
risk
of
of
merging
it.
Without
those
tests
like
how
does
this
touch
other
parts
of
the
code?
A
Should
this
be
a
feature
flag,
I'm,
not
sure
so,
I
don't
know
if
those
things
can
be
sort
of
all
those
questions
can
be
settled
before
one
at
seven,
but
we'll
have
a
kind
of
at
least
a
brief
mention
of
it
in
January.
So
without
any
objections
that
is
okay,
cool
nowaz,
how
close
is
this.
A
A
A
Okay,
this
one
is
a
real
bear,
but
it
will
land
in
some
form
or
it'll
get
closed,
but
I
think
it'll
I
think
there's
some
value
there.
So
some
form
of
this
will
land
foreign
I-
don't
know
about
this,
but
it's
already
tagged
to
next
one
at
seven.
Okay,
I
think
we're
good
all
right,
so
we
are
933.
Does
anyone
have
any
other
agenda
items?
A
We
wanna
chat
about
we're
kind
of
going
back
to
the
agenda
after
Milestone
review
because
we
haven't
talked
about
tests
yet
and
we
should
talk
about
tests
and
1.6.1
release
discussion
as
well,
which
is
related
to
tests
hashtosh.
B
A
Okay,
great
great
question,
so
I
don't
think
we've
followed
up
on
slack
after
I
can't
remember:
Monday,
it's
been
a
busy
week,
Monday
Tuesday
we
had
a
quick
get
together
on
the
state
of
tests
and
the
likelihood
of
being
able
to
release
a
patch
release
from
what
I
have
gathered
today
is
Thursday.
We
are
not
going
to
release
1.6.1
this
week
because
our
tests
are
not
green.
Is
that
a
controversial
statement?
Does
anybody
disagree
with
that
statement.
B
Might
make
sense
if
the
tests
are
not
green,
but
so
the
background
of
this
is
like
I
need
to
like
do
a
down
strip
bump
for
KFC
and
I
thought.
If
we
are
going
to
do
a
batch
release.
I'll
just
wait
for
that,
and
you
know
include
the
latest,
but
you
know
1.6.0
also
works
fine.
A
Okay,
cool
yeah
I,
so
we
can
quickly
just
sort
of
look
at
the
come
on
go
right
in
between
the
lanes
there.
There
we
go.
A
All
right
so
I
don't
even
know
where
to
begin.
What's
so
definitely
our
main
end-to-end
periodic
job,
it's
looking
a
little
better,
but
now
we've
got
so
we've
fixed.
A
Wait,
this
is
oh,
no!
This
is
Cappy
okay,
so
I
can't
speak
to
this
right
away,
but
we
can,
let's
go
back
to
that.
I
can
speak
to
this
one.
So
I
want
to
I
want
to
sort
of
narrate
my
way
through
this
one.
So
what
I
have
observed
that
so
we
fixed
IPv6
by
removing
a
said
statement
for
a
local
listener
in
the
entity
pod
manifest
I
I
can
sort
of
break
out
and
slack
with
some
folks
their
their
threads
about
that
I.
A
Don't
want
to
go
too
into
the
weeds,
but
it
does
look
like
the
external
cloud
provider
has
regressed,
which
is
sort
of
sad,
because
the
reason
that
for
these
failures,
you
can
see
a
consistent
story
here.
This
top
that's
a
row,
this
top
row,
all
those
F's
in
a
row.
A
Those
are
all
related
to
the
lack
of
an
image
for
the
latest
version
of
copyrighter
azure,
so
that
was
actually
published
prior
to
the
Run
of
this
successful
PR
and
quickly
drill
down
and
see
what
happened
here.
A
That
it's
a
bummer
we-
maybe
that
was
just
a
temporary
flake
in
the
improvisioning
I,
don't
know
so
these
these
tests
are
potentially
looking
better.
We
haven't
got
a
full
grain
right
in
a
while,
but
I
expect
that
this
is
not
the
the
primary
source
of
blockage
between
now
and
releasing
a
patch
of
1.6
and
1.5.
A
A
In
time
for
this
test
run,
I'm
not
sure
I'll
have
to
look
into
that.
Sorry,
if
I'm
not
super
organized
on
this,
the
the
things
that
are
outstanding
have
to
do
with.
A
So
this
is
running
this.
These
Cappy
jobs
are
running
against
Maine,
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
theme
here.
It
seems
that
this
upgrade
based
on
machine
deployment
changes
is
the
one
that's
the
most
common
failure.
So
maybe
we
can
triage
that,
but
this
is
running
against
Maine.
Let's
compare
that
to
what
would
actually
inform
a
release.
This
is
running
against
our
view
in
beta
1
branch,
which
is
released
at
Dash,
1.6
and
yeah.
We
have
a
different
story
here.
A
This
is
definitely
more
successful,
so
I'm
not
sure
why
Maine
would
be
less
successful,
but
that
might
actually
positively
unblock,
and
this
is
the
one
at
five
Branch.
So
these
are
actually
looking
a
little
bit
better
from
in
terms
of
Cappy
tests.
I
think
these.
So
this
is
main
we
have
a
an
equivalent
I'm
going
to
move
this
one
real,
quick.
We
have
an
equivalent.
A
Yeah
well
I
mean
at
a
glance:
that's
bad,
that's
bad!
It's
better!
I!
Don't
want
to
look
at
that
other
one
that
one's
really
bad.
Let's
look
at
this
one.
Actually,
this
one's,
probably
green,
that
one
looks
better.
It
looks
it
does
look
at
a
glance
that,
for
unknown
reasons,
Maine
is
on
more
unhealthy
than
1.6
and
1.5,
so
that
perhaps
bodes
something
for
maybe
there's
a
possibility
of
a
patch
release.
A
Early
next
week,
I'll
be
working
at
least
part
of
the
week
next
week,
and
so
I'll
be
on
slack
and
and
with
the
input
of
the
user.
Community
I
think
that
we
can
consider
a
1.6.1
patch
early
next
week,
if
folks
want
it
and
they're
actually
going
to
use
it
and
test
their
green.
So
we'll
we'll
continue
to
drill
down
those
tests
and
try
to
find
out
what's
going
on,
and
anyone
here
you
know
reach
out
on
slack.
B
A
A
Think
that's
another
I
would
expect
if
I
pull
the
slack
audience,
does
anyone
going
to
actually
consume
a
new
patch
release
of
1.6
or
not
five
on
December
20th,
most
folks
are
going
to
say
no
I'm
not
going
to
do
that
so,
but
if
we
do
hear
otherwise,
there's
there's
a
chance
that
we
could
validate
our
test
signal
and
and
do
that
release.
We
certainly
have
a
lot
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
in
there
because
we
haven't
released
for
like
over
a
month,
I
think
it's
a
lot
of
fixes.
B
A
You,
okay,
I,
don't
see
any
more
ad
hoc
agenda
items
popping
up,
so
maybe
we
can
give
20
minutes
of
our
time
back.
A
All
right
see
folks
in
a
few
weeks-
probably
so
we
we
talked
about
this
and
we
didn't
talk
about
the
week
after
which
would
be
December
29th,
but,
let's
quickly
say
also
skip
December
29th.
Please.
J
Okay,
cool
hi,
Chuck,
so
yeah.
This
is
a
machine,
so
I
I
don't
have
objection
on
that
date,
but
I
have
a
question.
So
if
we
finish
all
the
topics,
can
I
ask
my
question.
A
Oh
please!
Yes,
if
you,
if
you
raise
hand
I'll
always
call
on
you,
so
definitely
don't
have
to
wait
till
the
end
of
the
meeting.
Welcome
the
floorsers.
J
Oh
yeah,
so
basically
I
have
a
question,
so
we
use
cap
C
for
AKs
and
basically
we
disable
the
local
account
also
an
occasion
for
AKs,
because
it's
not
safe
for
production
use.
However,
after
that,
so
we
found
like
a
tap
I
actually
cannot
easily
log
into
like
AKs
workload
clusters.
So
just
curious
is
data
fixed
in
the
like
latest
Catholic.
A
A
A
E
J
Yeah
so
basically
I
I
think
there.
It
is
yeah
yeah
that
that,
like
Austin,
is
also
from
our
team.
So
we
have
this
PR
disabled
local
account
for
AKs
right,
but
then
on
the
Kappa
I
side
like
a
Cappy,
you
need
to
log
into
the
AKs
workload
cluster
so
basically
check
if
the
number
of
nodes
correspond
right
so
basically
for
capite
to
work
correctly
on
the
number
of
nodes
in
the
node
pool
cap
I
need
to
log
into
the
workload
cluster,
but
with
this
disabled
actually
not
working
properly
right.
F
J
Yeah
but
I
think
the
error
is
not
from
capacity
side,
so
cap
Z
side
that
works
fun
after
the
chain,
it's
more
like
a
cup
I.
No,
it
cannot
walk
qualification.
J
Yeah,
so
we
we
do
have
some
proposal,
basically
we're
looking
to
that
we
try
to
use
Cuba
logging.
So
basically
you
want
to
learn
interactive
logging
to
the
cluster
yeah,
but
we
are
just
trying
to
see
if
it's
a
solve
the
problem,
if
not
like,
we
have
some
proposal.
A
Okay,
great
I
would
I
would
I
would
definitely
encourage
you
to
open
that
proposal
and
and
we'll
make
sure
to
share
it
with
a
wider
audience,
and
we
can
start
to
do
some
tests
against
it
and
see.
How
sounds
I
mean
it
sounds
like
what
you're
saying
is
that
you
have
a
you,
have
a
solution
that
has
a
known
issue
with
Cappy,
and
you
have
a
proposal
to
address
that
issue
in
Cappy.
A
Yes,
okay,
great,
so
why
don't
you
if
you,
if
you
could
open
up
a
concrete
PR
in
cap
Z
with
the
cap,
Z
changes
and
then
open
up
a
separate
issue
with
with
your
proposed
changes
of
Cappy?
We
can
work
together
to
move
that
proposal
into
the
to
into
Cappy
and
and
or
do
you
do
you
regularly
attend
the
Cappy
office
hours.
A
Case
cool
we
can
I'm
we'd,
be
happy
to
to
introduce
the
larger
cluster
API
audience
and
support.
That
proposal
sounds
good.
Yeah,
thanks,
okay,
cool,
so
concrete,
open
the
capsu
change
in
the
capsi
prq
and
then
and
then
share
your
copy
proposal
as
an
issue
in
capsi,
and
then
we
can
work
together
to
move
that
into
Cappy
as
a
proposal.
Okay,
does
that
make
sense.
A
J
A
Well,
this
was
just
closed
you're
saying
that
the
disabled,
local
accounts
is
a
feature
now.
Oh.
J
I
think
he
merged
I
think
there's
another
Pi.
You
showed
before
right.
It's
from
Austin
from
our
team.
A
Yeah,
if
you
could
open
up
the
the
pr
that
you've
been
using
to
to
troubleshoot
this
as
a
PR
encapsi,
just
the
cap,
C
changes
and
then
open
up
a
capsi
issue
describing
your
proposal
to
address
the
Cappy
changes
that
are
needed.
And
then
we
can
take
that
cap
Z
issue.
We
could
come
to
the
cluster
API
office
hours
and
sort
of
announce
that
we're
going
to
be
starting
a
new
proposal
in
Cappy
with,
and
does
that
make
sense.
A
B
J
A
Sure
thing,
thanks
for
speaking
up,
okay
cool,
but
special
thanks,
because
it
sounds
like
we
are
not
going
to
meet
here
for
another
few
weeks.