►
From YouTube: [SIG ContribEx] Bi-Weekly Meeting for 20230621
Description
[SIG ContribEx] Bi-Weekly Meeting for 20230621
A
A
Welcome
to
the
June
21st
edition
of
the
sick
contributor
experience
by
weekly
meeting
a
few
announcement
items
before
the
start
of
the
call.
This
call
is
being
recorded.
So
please
be
mindful
of
what
you
say
or
do
in
this
meeting
and
we
operate
under
the
kubernetes
code
of
conduct,
which
essentially
boils
down
to
be
excellent
to
everyone
and
be
nice
to
everyone
in
the
call.
We
do
have
a
document
to
take
notes
for
this
meeting
the
link
to
which
I
dropped
on
the
zoom
chat.
It's
also
on
the
slack
Channel.
A
If
anyone
wants
to
volunteer
taking
notes,
please
feel
free
to
do
so
and,
having
said
that,
so
we
I
really
like
to
give
the
opportunity
to
people
who
have
who
are
joining
this
meeting
for
the
first
time
to
introduce
themselves
if
they
want.
So,
if
someone
is
new,
please
feel
free
to
like
introduce
yourself.
C
The
issues
up
for
the
contributor
Summit,
let
me
grab
a
link
to
it.
We
are
still
looking
to
fill
a
lot
of
lead
roles
for
contributor
Summit.
If
you're
interested,
please
sign
up.
We
talked
about
last
time
needing
to
make
sure
that
folks
were
members
of
the
repo
or
members
of
the
organization
and
also
Shadows
being
chosen
by
the
leads,
and
so
I've
been
enforcing
the
enforcing
that
and
in
order
to
accept
some
more
Shadows,
we
need
some
more
leads.
C
C
E
E
C
C
Yeah
I
think
it
would
be
more
of
a
sort
of
accountability
on
the
leads
yeah,
as
well
as
like
timetables.
Kind
of
enforcing,
like
you
know,
speaking
for
myself,
can't
have
a
tendency
to
be
a
little
oh
yeah,
I'm
gonna,
get
to
that
and
like
and
do
the
I'm
waving
my
hands
with
my
cameras.
Up,
do
the
like
hand
wavy
thing
of
like
yeah
it's
coming
and
you
know
PM's
like
yeah
when
you
know
like.
Oh,
we
need
this
fight
or
whatever
things
like
that,
you
know.
Yeah.
B
C
Right
right,
I,
yeah
I
did
have
like
somebody
in
mind,
but
they
are
not
here
to
for
me
to
ask
them
so.
Okay,
we
can
yeah,
we
can
definitely.
This
is
optional,
not
a
super
necessary
thing.
You
know.
I
trust
us
to
you
know
be
on
top
of
things,
but
as
far
as
sort
of
making
the
lift
of
the
leads
Less
in
the
lead
up
to
the
contributor
Summit
was
more
of
my
thinking
of
of
the
PM
role.
C
Okay
and
yeah
for
yeah
Craig.
Does
that
answer
your
question?
Sorry,
yes,
okay,
cool
yeah,
so
we
can
send
it
out
to
kadev.
I
mostly
was
just
like
you
know:
I'm,
not
super
trusting
myself
with
like
what
I
wrote
and
I
was
like.
Oh
other
people
need
to
look
at
this
before
it
goes
out
to
like
a
ton
of
people.
C
Yeah
there
was,
and
I
need,
I
need
to
answer
that
question,
but
yeah
there
is
a
lot
that
can
be
done
in
the
lead
up
and
even
remotely.
You
know
like
if
they're
working
with
comps
like
get
tweets
out
like
during
the
during
the
event
you
know
stuff
like
that
like
there,
there
is
a
lot
that
can
be
done
remotely
and
I
need
to
craft
a
response
to
that
and
sort
of
make
suggestions
for
things
that
can
be
done.
C
B
Actually
a
case
of
there's
work
for
Shadows
to
do
that
does
not
require
you
to
to
actually
show
up
if
the
lead
is
showing
up.
Although
that's
not
that's
not
ideal,
because
part
of
the
idea
of
the
Shadows
is
if
something
happens
to
the
lead
yeah
this
person
can
swap
in
and
and
obviously,
if
they're,
not
even
planning
on
going
that
doesn't
work
out
so
well.
B
F
B
Yeah
one
of
the
things
we're
going
to
run
into
with
this
contributor
Summit
by
the
way
and
we'll
discuss
this.
You
know,
sort
of
contributor,
Summit,
meeting
and
stuff
is
we're
back
to
having
a
really
bad
scene
with
the
co-located
events,
yeah
yeah,
like
I,
don't
know
if
you
saw
the
the
announcement
of
the
colos
but
I,
don't
know
what
I
don't
know
what
cncf
events
is
doing,
but
it's
like
they
had
a
new
plan
to
to
control
the
proliferation
of
co-located
events
and
they
seem
to
have
completely
abandoned
it.
So.
B
C
D
C
I
mean
it
was
interesting
to
see
like
the
open
source
Summit
and
then,
like
the
CD,
can't
get
up
it's
kind
of
like
the
way
they
ran
that
sort
of
thing,
and
it
seems
like
that's
more
the
model
that
y'all
are
pushing
for,
but
yeah
we
can
raise
the
complaint
as
Noah
said
early
and
she's
like
hey.
We
want
to
have
this
conversation
and
then
just
do
our
very
best
to
play
in
the
dopest
contributor
Summit
that
we
can,
under
the
circumstances.
F
One
thing
that
we
do
have
a
little
bit
of
advantage
of
in
this
is
that
most
of
the
colors
are
half
day
events,
so
if
people
are
do
have
responsibilities
at
one
of
the
other
colos
SE,
that
does
at
least
leave
the
you
know
rest
of
the
day,
yeah
scheduling
and
all
that
stuff.
The
honestly
I
think
the
biggest
thing
will
be
scheduling,
because
a
lot
of
the
people
that
will
be
submitting
talks
will
also
have
other
responsibilities.
Yeah.
C
Bye
all
right:
well,
we
will
cross
that
bridge
as
we
get
a
little
bit
closer.
Does
anybody
else
have
anything
they
want
to
say
about
contributor
summary
now
action
items
for
me:
I
need
to
respond
to
some
of
those
folks
in
the
issue.
It's
been
sitting
a
couple
days
and
yeah
strong
bias
for
people
who
can
attend
for
the
folks
asking
about
remote
stuff,
but
there
are
opportunities
to
help.
C
B
B
H
Yeah
I've
just
been
saying
in
chat
and
stuff
lately
that
we
need
like
a
a
difference
of
roles
between
shadows
and
volunteers,
especially
for
like
Ops.
You
need
someone
who's
shadowing,
so
they
can
take
over
that
role
in
the
future,
but
you
also
need
people
on
site
who
are
doing
things,
and
those
are
volunteers,
I
think
so.
I
think
whether
we
describe
them
that
way
or
not,
we
have
shadows
and
volunteers.
It
would
be
useful
if
we
describe
them
as
such,
codify.
C
D
C
A
C
B
F
B
D
B
C
G
B
Yeah
I
mean
that's
it.
We
just
need
somebody
locally
who
actually
wants
to
run
it.
I
did
reach
out
to
some
of
the
people
who
had
been
part
of
the
KCs
in
previous
Shanghai
ones,
and,
and
none
of
them
were
planning
on
doing
that.
So
if
the
cncf
has
somebody
who's
contacted
them,
they
need
to
pass
them
on
to
me
and
puya
Noah,
and
we
can
try
to
bring
them
up
to
speed,
so
they
can
actually
do
something.
A
B
F
B
Yeah
the
I
mean
for
the
group
meant,
because
group
mentoring
is
about
leveling
up,
it
seems
like
any
legit
candidate
would
have
to
already
have
contributed
to
whatever
area
it
is
yeah
or
at
least
something
closely
related
right.
If
somebody's
a
contributor
to
Sig
you
know
to
to
Sig
UI
or
whatever
CLI.
F
B
Yeah,
okay,
I
need
to
follow
up.
I
have
another
project.
That's
contacted
me
about
needing
some
group
mentorship
sub-project,
because
they're
all
in
a
situation
of
all
of
their
current
maintainers,
are
now
working
on
other
things
for
their
day
jobs,
and
so
they
really
need
to
Elevate
more
people
to
maintainers
and
I'll.
Follow
up.
I'll
I
will
send
them
over
to
you
now
Baron.
I
H
I
So
we're
working
on
putting
all
the
various
automations
from
zapier
into
one
account.
I
took
a
go
at
it,
something
wasn't
quite
right:
Nigel
came
in
and
fixed
it
thank
you
Nigel,
but
we
don't
have
access
to
the
G
Drive
directory,
that's
in
use
and
something's
happening
in
there.
We
think.
Maybe
so
we
need
like
some
kind
of
like
a
screenshot
even
might
even
be
enough
for
us
just
to
kind
of
interpret
what
we're
seeing
in
zapier
versus
what
we're
expecting
in
the
directory.
G
I
G
H
F
A
F
E
Oh
for
the
dev
container
configuration
in
KK,
yeah
I
have
all
of
the
work
done,
ready
to
make
a
PR
I've
just
been
blocked
on
work
work.
It
really
I
want
to
get
the
pr
in
the
decent
shape,
because
there
there's
some
conversation
to
be
had
around
it,
and
so
I
didn't
want
to
just
like
drop
a
code
PR
with
no
discussion,
and
so
I
I
keep
meaning
to
carve
out
like
a
Saturday,
to
make
sure
that's
in
the
right
shape
before
I
drop.
E
No
I
I
I'm
happy
be
saying
that
here
I.
Let
me
make
a
commitment
so
that
you
all
can
hold
me
accountable.
It's
you
know
it's
stupid,
because
it's
just
not
that
big,
a
thing
I
will,
by
the
time
this
meeting
happens.
Next
I
will
create
a
draft
PR
for
people
to
comment
on
of
that
I,
like
Nigel's
response.
That's
great.
A
C
This
is
me:
okay,
cool
yeah,
zapier
zapier,
so
Zoom
there's
like
some
issues
with
accounts
and
access
and
where
videos
are
being
recorded.
Essentially,
what
happened
is
when
so
two
things
happen
at
once.
The
first
is
that
zapier,
the
one
that
we
had
working
for
the
contrabacks
needed
to
re-log
in,
and
so
our
automation
stopped
so
like
our
working
one.
C
C
It's
uploading,
the
video
title
as
a
text
file
in
that
folder
that
you're,
seeing
so
like
those
so
basically
I
need
to
get
into
zoom
and
like
pull
down
all
the
recordings
of
our
meetings
and
put
those
on
YouTube
for
this
Gap
that
we've
got
going
that
maybe
is
over
when
this
video.
When
this
meeting
ends,
we
will
see
so
essentially
I've
stitched
back
together.
C
Things
in
the
new
zapier
account
to
where
it
should
be
working,
but
I
haven't
actually
validated
that
it
is,
and
this
will
be
a
good
test
when
this
meeting
ends.
So
so
yeah
Zoom
issues
account
issues
and
need
some
credentials
and
troubleshooting
between
the
two
Zoom
accounts.
The
YouTube
automation
stopped
working
for
a
bit,
maybe
still
not
working
so
I
need
to
upload
missing
videos
and
for
slack
I'm,
unaware
of
anything
to
report.
I
I
C
A
F
F
You
know
kind
of
negatively,
so
instead
I
think
what
we
wind
up
doing
is
we
update
our
policy
on
this
stuff
in
the
community
membership.md
regarding
like
bumping
it
down
to
a
year
instead
of
18
months
and
then
some
other
criteria
updates
for
in
terms
of
PRS
and
content
that
are
acceptable
for
org
membership,
then
we
send
out
a
message
to
kdev
just
like
FYI.
These
have
changed.
G
F
No
no
go
ahead
like
for
those
that
might
have
missed
the
stuff.
In
slack,
we
have
about
1800
work
members
and
a
bit
over.
600
of
them
have
not
had
any
activity
in
the
year,
which
is
significant
and
something
that
we
have
seen
repeatedly
like
priyanka's
dealt
with
this
quite
a
bit.
Is
that
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
apply
for
org
membership,
with
like
one
small,
trivial,
PR
and
then
a
good
chunk
of
those
never
contribute
again
like
or
the?
If
they
do?
F
B
B
The
the
because
originally
we
had
a
fairly
High
bar
right
and
and
then
we
effectively,
even
though
we
didn't
change
any
of
the
rules,
we
told
people
to
be
sort
of
more
generous
in
terms
of
you
know,
as
long
as
it
looked
like,
they
were
seriously
intending
to
contribute
and
had
done
something
and
so
and
so
I
guess.
One
of
my
questions
is:
do
we
need
to
raise
the
bar,
or
do
we
just
need
to
get
more
diligent
about
auditing.
F
F
You
wind
up
getting
lots
of
DMS
and
have
to
have
lots
of
arguments
so
upping
the
requirements
is
at
least
a
good
way
to.
This
is
priyanka's
suggestion.
It
was
just
like
to
you
know,
get
around
having
to
have
that
argument
with
people
like
multiple
people
have
reached
out
when,
like
DM
to
multiple
GitHub
admins-
and
you
know,
member
coordinators,
if
we
say
like
hey,
you
need
to
show
a
little
bit
more
work,
so
I'm,
sorry,
changing
a
period
in
one
Doc
is
not
enough
to
to
apply
for
Oregon
membership.
G
Yeah,
so
the
bar
from
what
I've
read
from
the
documentation
is
five
five,
substantial,
PRS
and
and
I've
seen
I
actually
have
had
gone
through
on
people
on
on
their
org
membership
PR
as
well,
or
the
issue
and
I
I
have
seen
several
that
I've
gone
through
with
just
one
PR,
as
as
Bob
has
mentioned
as
well.
So
I
think
that
the
current
bar
from
the
current
documentation
is
not
being
enforced,
always
I
personally
get
a
lot
of
requests
for
for
sponsorship
as
well.
G
I,
don't
sponsor
unless
I
personally
have
worked
with
the
contributor
or
or
if
I
personally
have
reviewed
their
PRS
and
know
their
their
it's
great
contributions
have
they've
done
it,
not
just
a
one-time
thing
and
and
part
of
sick
docs.
We've
also
had
an
effort
to
try
to
limit
trivial
PRS
as
well,
because
we
have
many
many
triple
PR's,
but
it's
it's.
G
We
just
keep
getting
them,
no
matter
what
so,
but
we
still
try
to
enforce
the
no
triple
PR
policy
which
it
is
documented
to
not
just
raise
a
PR
just
for
trivial
typo,
so
I
think
which
seem
to
enforce
if
we
do
need.
If
we're
not
going
to
raise
the
bar,
the
bar
just
has
to
be
enforced,
always
enforced.
The.
G
B
Yeah
well,
the
thing
is
you
can't
make
hard
quantity
rules
for
this
because,
like
you
know,
I've
seen
performance,
slash,
race,
condition,
fixes
that
were
literally
two
lines,
but
I
actually
happened
to
know
that
that
person
spent
six
weeks
working
on
it
to
figure
out
those
two
lines
the
so
it's
always
going
to
be
a
qualitative
decision
by
the
sponsors
and
the
evaluators
I
mean
I.
Guess
the
questions.
If
we're
raising
the
bar
I
think
we
need
to
actually
take
a
look
at
how
hard
is
it
to
contribute
to
kubernetes?
B
The
because,
because
in
any
healthy
project,
you're
going
to
have
a
certain
substantial
number
of
people
who
are
what
we
call
ogational
contributors,
you
know
who
who
send
in
one
PR
every
four
months
or
whatever,
and
the
question
is
where
we
want
those
people
to
be
in
terms
of
org
membership.
Right,
I
want
to
say:
hey,
we
don't
want
those
people
to
be
organ
members.
They
shouldn't
need
to
be
org
members.
Then
we
also
need
to
look
at.
B
F
I
F
I
C
No
I
was
gonna
say
that
it
looks
like
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
also
an
opportunity
for
like
mentorship
right,
like
we're
talking
about.
You
know,
always
looking
for
more
maintainers
to
getting
people
on
this
path
and
number
one.
It's
like
trying
to
figure
out
what
people
are
are
trying
to
accomplish
by
obtaining
org
membership
and
number
two
is
like.
C
Okay,
so
is
there
a
way
that
we
can
turn
these
people
instead
of
being
like
a
one-time
doc,
fixed
person
to
being
more
more
of
a
substantial
contributor
involved
in
like
a
particular
Sig,
so
I,
just
like
I,
see
this
as
a
as
an
opportunity
for
like
mentorship
and
funneling
as
as
a
solution
to
get
them
over
the
bar,
because
if
they
can
complete,
you
know
a
certain
amount
of
training
or
whatever,
then
perhaps
that
would
be
sufficient
for
membership.
The.
F
The
big
problem
that
I
see
is
most
of
the
people
that
actually
do
want
to
continue
like
show.
Some
sort
of
an
initiative
will
apply
with
more
than
one
tiny
fix,
like
I
I,
if,
if
the
people
that
are
applying
for
org
membership
with
just
like,
like
from
me,
looking
at
candidates
spending
my
like
time,
looking
at
people,
the
vast
majority
of
people
that
apply
with
like
one
or
two
tiny
trivial
things
never
contribute
again.
They
get
the
org
membership,
they
get
the
badge
they
tweet,
that
their
careers
contributor
and
then
never
come
back.
B
B
B
B
Because
again,
if
we're
going
to
raise
the
bar
I
think
we
need
to
make
it
make
the
exceptional
process
for
the
contributor
somewhat
clearer,
because
I
think
we'll
have
people
who
are,
for
example,
occasional,
but
steady
contributors
or
not
board
members.
We
want
to
let
them
in
any
way.
We
want
them
to
know
that
that's
an
option.
F
An
option
so
no
like
we,
we
encourage
them
like
I,
am
I,
have
had
multiple
conversations
with
people
that
like
have
actually
like
emailed
or
DM
me
asking
like
hey,
can
I
like
I
know:
I'm,
not
I,
don't
contribute
a
lot,
but
can
I
still
come
over
and
I
was
just
like
one
of
them
had
actually
written
a
cap,
got
it
merged
and
was
working
on
implementing
it.
I'm
like
dude,
you
should
just
apply
for
org
membership
like
yeah.
This
is
significant.
A
B
Then
they
did
it.
One
project
I
had
to
drop
because
of
time.
Conflicts
that
would
be
maybe
worth
picking
up
again
was
I've
noticed
that
there's
actually
pretty
substantial
geographical
bias
in
terms
of
who
applies
forward
membership,
and
it
will
be
worth
a
sort
of
determined
effort
to
reach
out
to
individuals
with
patterns
of
contribution,
particularly
in
Asia,
to
to
encourage
them
to
actually
become
World
members.
F
A
I
C
I
I
guess,
like
the
I,
hope
that
we
word
it
in
a
different
way.
You
know
it's
trivial
right,
it's
I,
don't
know
I
I
again
like
not
trying
to
be
keep
you
discouraged.
People
from
making
I
found
this
thing.
I'm
gonna
make
a
PR
for
it
like
I.
Think
that's
great
and
I
want
I,
definitely
always
want
people
to
feel
empowered
to
fix
things
that
they
see
broken,
be
them
small
or
not.
F
I
think
like
the
like,
I
have
a
good
idea,
for
the
wording
essentially
has
has
demonstrated
a
long-term
or
like
a
a
commitment
to
the
pro
like
to
continually
be
active
to
the
project
yeah.
It
can
be
one
PR,
it
can
be,
you
know,
say
dozens
of
small
trivial
fixes,
but
like
the
the
work,
the
amount
of
work
has
to
actually
be
meaningful
and
that
that
is
subjective.
But,
like
we
kind
of
have
to
have
it,
be
a
subjective
thing.
D
C
B
Not
really,
no,
because
you
know
I
can
give
you
two
counter
examples.
One
is
you
update
a
single
go
function,
that's
been
replaced
in
the
Upstream
and
that
can
generate
a
thousand
that
can
generate
a
ten
thousand
line
PR
and
at
the
same
time,
but
but
it
was
only
an
hour
of
work
for
you
right
and
at
the
same
time,
some
of
the
things
like
performance
fixes
security
fixes
can
be
really
small
but
required
dozens.
Hundreds
of
hours
of
backend
work
to
figure
out
what
was
wrong.
I
understood.
A
J
So,
like
I've,
been
I've
been
listening
to
this
conversation
like
pretty
silently
I.
Just
had
one
point
to
add
here:
the
criteria
about
what
a
major
contribution
is,
what
a
substantial
contribution
is,
what
a
non-trivial
PR
is.
All
of
that
is
pretty
subjective,
as
the
conversation
indicates,
so
the
non-trivial
pr
thing.
Definitely,
we
can
start
off
with
something
like
that,
but
one
thing
that
I
sort
of
that
came
to
mind
was
yeah.
J
A
few
weeks
ago
we
were
having
some
conversations
around
mentoring
and
all
of
that-
and
someone
pointed
out
that
I
will
commit
time
to
being
your
Mentor
as
long
as
you
understand
that
being
like.
As
long
as
you
understand
that
your
time
commitment
is
long
term
so,
like
maybe
we
can
add
something
along
the
lines
of
an
org
membership.
Indicates
you
sticking
around
for
some
amount
of
time,
but
in
fancier
language
or,
if
you're,
if
you've,
written
something
or
like
you've,
contributed
something.
J
It
indicates
that
you
also
help
maintain
help
us
maintain
it
something
along
those
lines
and
then
right
after
that,
immediately
link
a
link
to
a
dock
where
it
says,
be:
perform
this
audit
of
cleaning
up
org
members
every
this
much
time
period
And.
This
is
the
criteria
for
it.
We
aren't
going
to
mention
that
you
will
be
removed
from
the
org
if
so,
and
so
criteria
are
met,
but
at
least
right
where
we
are
mentioning
the
criteria
for
our
membership.
J
Maybe
it's
also
important
to
mention
that
we
are
doing
such
an
audit
as
well,
so
like
instead
of
quantifying,
what's
big
or
what's
more
like
we,
maybe
we
can
start
off
with
like
educating
what
our
expectations
from
you
is.
If
we
are
granting
you
the
org
membership
privileges
right
because,
as
Bob
said,
it
comes
with
the
elevated
privileges.
C
F
F
B
Let
me
make
a
suggestion:
We're
Not
Gonna,
finish
overhauling
this
in
this
meeting.
Yeah,
maybe
open
and
open
and
issue
a
project
board
card,
because
this
is
going
to
take
a
while
to
like
overhaul
all
of
it
and
then
we're
gonna
have
to
propose
it
to
the
community
and
get
a
whole
bunch
of
comments
and
everything
else.
B
A
A
Well,
I
was
just
saying
like
we
should
definitely
continue
this
in
the
GitHub
admin
meeting,
which
is
open
to
everyone
to
come
and
discuss.
So
we
should
really
put
it
as
an
agenda
there
and
continue
this
further.
We
also
do
have
like
five
minutes
left
and
two
agenda
items.
I
see
we
haven't
discussed
yet
in
the
open
discussions.
B
B
B
B
B
It's
not
obvious
that
it's
only
for
contributors,
and
so
people
are
punting
around
design,
ideas
that
specifically
say
contributor
or
whatever
the
and
the
one
of
the
other
things
that
that
particularly
contribex
will
need
to
do
as
we
figure
out
designs
and
stuff
is
to
figure
out
who
gets
one
right
and
this.
This
is
like
the
same
sort
of
discussion
as
org
membership.
B
D
B
A
A
They
can
also
take
a
bunch
and
distribute
so
what
I
did
was
like
I
got
like
40ish
from
Brienne
and
essentially
distributed
them
in
kcd
Bangalore,
this
time
who
were
explicitly
org
members,
so
they
needed
to
so
I
knew
like
who
were
all
members
there
and
just
gave
them
one
each,
and
that
was
also
working
well.
We
can
do
the
same
with
the
whatever
we
designed
later,
as
well,
just
in
an
added
measure
of
spreading
it
out.