►
From YouTube: Kubernetes Cluster API Breakout Meeting 20190102
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
All
right,
I
guess:
that's
that's
about
two
minutes
and
yeah.
Let's,
let's
jump
right
in
I
think
looks
like
Robert.
Has
the
the
first
note
our
first
topic?
He
is
not
here.
A
B
C
A
E
D
A
A
C
More
bare
metal
environments
by
using
this
extension
mechanism,
so
this
is
just
like
one
small
part
of
I
think
a
proposal
that
Vence
had
put
up
four-
or
maybe
it
was
temp
st.
Claire
about
using
web
hooks
as
an
extension
mechanism
for
cluster
API.
So
we've
been
working
on
proposal
for
that
I,
don't
know
how
soon
we
would
have
I
mean
actually
I'm,
not
sure
on
the
timelines.
D
D
Is
that
fair,
so
I
think
it's
a
question
of
whether
or
not
what
are
the
criteria
that
we
want
to
add
this?
When
do
we
want
to
add
this
feature
and
what
is
the
criteria
for
for
getting
it
in
within
other
sub
projects?
We
have
well-defined
deliverables
for
a
given
time
frame.
Cluster
API
has
been
a
little
bit
more
free-flowing,
but
I
think
in
the
new
year.
We
want
to
get
a
little
bit
more
locked
down
about
what
we're
trying
to
deliver
and
win.
So
that
way
folks
were
actually
trained
to
deliver
providers.
C
D
D
C
D
I
think
having
a
default
mechanism
that
allows
you
to
provide
web
hooks
in
a
secure
fashion,
here's
the
here's,
the
kicker
being
able
to
auto
generate
the
web
hooks
in
a
secure
mechanism,
he's
hard
ish
right.
Unless
you
do
it
like
a
fake
lambda,
you
type
of
deal
with
the
12,000
different
ways
that
people
have
for
doing
big
lamb
day
things
right.
F
F
The
road
stable,
but
the
alternate
implementations
shouldn't
necessarily
hold
up
the
core
API
itself,
I'm,
just
going
to
find
a
way
to
like
get
a
not
unblock
the
API
from
other
other
things
like
I,
also
want
to
like
experiment
with
like
embedding
having
another
objects
that
is
created
underneath
the
machine
right
so
like
I,
don't
think
that
would
ever
hold
up
any
of
the
implementations
or
any
of
the
API
itself.
It's
just
a
different
strategy
for
implementing
things.
C
Agree,
I
think
this
is
orthogonal.
This
is
more
of
a
sort
of
light
status
update
in
terms
of
like
what
we're
doing
so.
These
are
aware,
but
I
also
agree
that
I
have
real
concerns
about
the
consistency
of
operation
of
different
providers
and
also
their
implementation
and
I.
Think
if
we're
going
to
make
alpha
within
this
quarter,
that
is
the
priority.
D
I
pretty
much,
it
was
coming
first
thing
about
this,
one
which
is
just
know.
When
are
we
going
to
do
a
hard
march
against
you?
One
alpha
one
I'd
like
to
try
to
burn
that
down,
because
right
now
we
would
like
to
get
it
a
release
out
for
our
providers
that
folks
can
rely
upon.
It
has
proper
version,
semantics,
I.
G
The
last
time
I
went
through
the
existing
tickets
and
milestones
a
lot
of
them
were
referencing.
Some
very
old
tickets
related
to
you,
the
initial
kind
of
migration
to
the
cluster
API
repo
itself
for
the
GCP
provider,
implementation,
so
I
think
the
first
thing
that
needs
to
be
done
is
really
go
through
and
you
know
scour
the
backlog
clean
it
up
and
kind
of
actually
make
sure
that
we
have
a
decent
tracking
of
the
out
staying
issue
that
we
have
and
off
the
top
of
my
head.
D
B
G
B
F
A
Looks
like
it
yes,
going
once
going
twice:
ok,
I
think
we
covered
all
the
topics
for
today.
We've
got
a
couple
action
items
booked
for
Robbie
who's,
not
able
to
attend
today's
meeting
and
I
think
a
people's
eyes
on
the
112
upgrade
of
PR,
which
is
linked
in
the
doc
and
I.
Think
that's
it
thanks.
Everybody
and
yeah
Happy
New
Year
and
have
a
great
rest
of
your
week.