►
From YouTube: K8s SIG Docs Meeting 20191015
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
B
B
B
Oh
yes,
my
name
is
tama
onaka
Hara,
yes,
are
a
long
time.
Is
this
and
I
think
yeah
I
first
came
at
the
actual
contributor
summit
because
I'd
been
intending
to
for
a
while.
Unfortunately,
this
time
I'm
usually
doing
a
broadcast
today
is
a
rare
day
that
someone
else
is
doing
a
broadcast.
So
it's
gonna.
A
Great,
so
moving
on
to
some
updates
and
reminders,
this
week's
BI
Wrangler
is
Arnold.
I've
seen
him
in
some
of
the
PRS
wranglin.
So
everything
looks
well
there
and
then
next
week
is
Brad,
Topal
and
I.
Believe
Brad
is
doing
a
double-header,
exactly
know
if
that
was
confirmed
or
not
for
Andrews
shift,
but.
A
A
So
just
some
clarity
on
that
issue
is
we're
recruiting
a
cooper,
neighs
enhancement
proposal
for
what
to
do
with
third-party
content
and
how
that
is
managed
from
a
from
a
more
of
a
wider
perspective
and
what
goes
into
the
decks
and
what
does,
and
so
that
cap
is
linked
in
the
agenda
and
I
believe
Tim.
You
are
working
on
that.
Do
you
have
an
update.
D
D
A
E
E
E
A
A
E
E
So
in
the
intervening
time,
I
have
gotten
contacts,
contact
and
an
email
from
Stewart
you
on
slack.
So
we
have
information,
Jennifer
and
Jim
I'm
happy
to
share
that
with
you.
We
have
contact
information
and
he
also
shared
that
he's
has
been
busy
and
will
continue
to
be
busy
at
work
for
another
month.
E
So
right
now,
I
think
this
PR
just
removes
Stewart
altogether.
Instead
I
would
recommend
that
we
I
would
recommend
that
I
update
this
block
to
move
Stewart
you
into
an
emeritus
of
Kruger
status.
With
a
comment
saying:
hey
come
back
when
you're
ready,
so
that
we
can
provide
clarity
and
acknowledge.
Is
that
anyone
else
looking
at
this
file
can
understand,
or
at
least
get
an
idea
of
the
context
of
what's
going
on.
So
that's
what
I
break
them
in
in
particular.
E
E
Tara's
obviously
have
a
whole
bunch,
but
approvers
the
the
thing
that
we
ask
of
approvers,
in
addition
to
like
exercising
discretion
and
good
judgment
in
approving
PRS,
is
to
be
present
for
a
PR
Wrangler
shift,
and
so,
if
someone
misses
one
of
those,
it's
it's
missing
out
on
the
only
real
responsibility
that
we
ask
so
I
guess
I
wanted
to
float
for
discussion.
The
idea
that,
if
someone
misses
their
PR
shift
like
stuff
happens,
people
need
to
like
move
stuff
around
all
the
time.
E
But
if
someone
misses
their
PR,
Wranglers
shift
with
no
notification
that
that
that
we
open
a
PR
automatically
to
like
suspend
folks
as
approvers
until
they
can
meet
their
their
PR
Wranglers
shift.
I,
don't
know
the
best
language
to
use
around
that.
We
all
have
like
this
academic
language
like
suspend
revoke
it's
like
going
to
the
DMV,
but
whatever
finding
language,
to
tie
the
idea
that
this
is
a
responsibility
that
comes
with
the
role.
E
A
Mind
tying
into
this
I
know
that
Zack
was
working
on
Arnold
was
that
working
on
some
sort
of
notification,
bot
or
slack
chat,
pod
I,
can't
think
of
the
PR
quick
enough
to
link
it
in
the
agenda.
I'll.
Try
to
add
it
back
later,
but
it
would
be
nice
if
there's
some
sort
of
nagging
mechanism
in
place
or
alerting
a
reminder
on
on
your
shift
is
coming.
You
know,
personally
speaking,
my
unfortunately
founded
SPI
Wrangler,
due
to
a
sig
Ducks
meeting
as
I
joined
in
them,
be
a
regular
this
week.
E
About
quitting
the
PR
Wrangler
file,
that's
currently
it's
like
the
markdown
file
in
the
wiki,
like
making
a
JSON
file
out
of
it
and
just
automating
a
bot
to
handle
some
of
those
functions
a
little
more
elegantly,
but
I
don't
know
yeah.
Maybe
it
would
be
nice
to
automate
some
of
that
away.
So
Jennifer,
no.
B
That's
fine.
That
seems
like
an
excellent
idea
and
and
worth
discussing
and
discussing
as
an
agenda
item
and
slightly
tangential
to
the
question
of
Zacks
PR,
about
which
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
I
really
appreciate
the
thought
that
you've
given
to
the
situation
and
how
best
to
respond
to
it.
B
It
was
a
useful
Jam,
I
tried
I
tried
to
frame
my
comment,
as
you
know,
+12
doing
what
we
can
to
move
forward
with
some
kind
of
reminder,
automation,
I,
know,
I'm
Stuart's,
not
the
only
person
who
effectively
missed
their
PR
Wrangler
shift
this
year.
So
so
yes
I,
would
appreciate
automation.
Also
I
just
felt
like
it
was
worth
pulling
the
two
things
apart.
That
is
all
but
opportunistically
bringing
it
up.
Hey
I'm,
queen
of
the
chase,
to
shiny
things,
so
no
worries.
E
E
E
B
A
Far
as
moving
forward,
you
know
missing
your
PR
Wranglers
shift.
Should
this
be
a
reaction
that
anyone
could
take,
we
noticed
there's
someone
not
active
and
the
PR
angular
shift.
We
make
that
motion
to
move
it
forward
or
at
least
open
the
discussion
up
or
I.
Guess
how
do
you
want
to
approach
us
if
it
happens
again?
I.
E
Well,
I
I,
don't
want
to
restrict,
who
can
and
can't
open
PRS
arbitrarily
based
on
topic,
so
I
would
say:
I
mean,
like
obviously
as
chairs,
should
be
on
top
of
the
PR
q
of
the
Wrangler
shifts,
so
it
will
most
likely
be
one
of
us,
but
if
someone
else
notices
it
if,
for
some
reason
like
all
of
us,
are
unconscious
or
dead
that
were
like
a
tap
on,
then
we
just
don't
think
about
it.
I
see
no
reason
why
someone
else
couldn't
open
it
I.
Just
mr.
F
A
B
B
D
So
I,
just
if
anyone's
got
any
comments
on
the
KDP,
that's
being
haunted
and
they
feel
that
a
bit
of
talking
time
now
is
appropriate
and
I
mean
I.
Think
you
should
just
be
honest:
I'm
ready
to
PR
that
now,
but
I
agree
with
like
giving
it
a
bit
of
time
to
just
you.
Does
anyone
feel
like
a
conversation?
Now
it's
a
good
idea.
I.
D
D
E
That's
an
excellent
question
and
I:
don't
think
I
knew
that
there
was
a
window
for
release,
although
when
you
say
it
makes
total
sense
that
there
is
yes,
why
don't?
Why
don't
we
have
the
best
of
all
worlds?
Why
don't
we
conclude
this
meeting
officially
and
then
why
don't
we
continue
reviewing
and
discussing
they're
kept
actually
folks
who
want
to
go
like
I
think
we're
done
with
official
business.
Let's
not
stop
the
recording,
but
then
let's
continue
for
the
rest
of
the
time
that
we
have
doing
a
review
of
the
cat
sounds
great
to
me.
A
And
the
one
thing
I
did
want
to
add
too,
is
Woodley
kept
deadline
and
from
some
of
my
experience
as
being
part
of
the
the
release
team,
it
really
seems
like
this
might
not
be
the
best
time
to
squeeze
this
under
the
door.
I
guess
to
get
this
in
there
and
I
say
that
from
a
perspective
of
right
now
is
when
all
of
the
people
who
are
trying
to
get
their
caption
as
true
kubernetes
core
enhancements,
they
do
their
last-minute
changes
to
Doc's
and
their
PR
is
not
their
Doc's
but
their
PRS.
D
D
This
is
like
a
direct
copy
and
paste
from
the
issuer
open
and
I
wonder
if
we
want
to
tweet
this
before
it
goes
in.
That's
probably
the
main
thing
that
I
would
tweet,
because
this
is
what
people
are
doing
if
this
is
going
to
trigger
someone's
personality
or
feelings
to
upset
them.
This
is
what's
gonna.
Do
it
I
think.
A
B
A
I
would
agree
with
that.
I
think
that
we
keep
the
summary
pretty
basic.
What
I
didn't
see
in
the
summary
and
I
think
you
might
be
adding
this
year
is
more
of
the
desired
outcome.
You
know
we
bring
up
the
initial
what's
going
on
and
then
it'd
be
nice
to
have
kind
of
what
the
intention
is
of
the
cap
also,
but
it
looks
like
that's
what
you're
filling
in
there
yeah.
E
E
B
I
was
just
what
I
was
doing
was
taking
what
other
people
had
written
it
saying.
Okay,
let's
see
if
we
could
just
move
it
around
to
solve
the
problem.
I
I'm,
not
good
at
I,
mean
I'm
really
impressed
him
I'm,
not
any
good
at
live.
Editing.
I
am
more
than
happy
to
take
a
closer
look
outside
the
parameters
of
this
meeting,
but
I
seem
to
be
incapable
of
doing
like
real
editing
and
typing
and
talking
at
the
same
time,
maybe
typing
and
talking
too,
but
that's
sometimes
different.
B
D
D
A
D
Summary
and
there's
the
motivation
section
which
really
aims
to
capture
and
what
people
weren't
happy
with
I
mean
I.
Think
probably
all
of
us
on
this
call
have
seen
peers
that
we
didn't
think
we're
appropriate
or
peers
that
we
sort
of
did
think.
Like
would
kind
of
like
well
I
know
what
you're
doing
there.
You
know
you
work
for
a
big
vendor
and
you're
describing
the
stuff
a
big
vendor.
Alright,
then,
so
that's
what
there's
motivation
section
cobblers.
D
D
E
E
E
D
A
Comes
to
mind
for
non
goes:
this
could
be
a
goal
or
non
goal
depending
on
how
you
phrase
it
and
I
think
Jo
Jo
bata
did
a
good
job
of
of
bringing
it
up,
but
basically
the
the
main
goal
of
sig,
Docs
and
documentation
general
should
be
a
successful
user
journey
and
I.
Think
that
that
should
be
one
of
the
top
focus
is
making
sure
that
we're
not
impacting
a
user
journey
by
removing
so
much
content.
That
is,
you
know,
no
longer
a
helpful
document.
D
F
D
So
this
reminds
me
of
jurisprudence
and
an
observation
I'll
just
make
to
everyone.
Is
that
and
we
are
asking
approvers,
especially
approvers,
but
I
mean
all
all
participants
in
pull
requests,
but
especially
the
approver
to
make
a
judgement
and
what
people
do
in
in
legal
jurisprudence.
Is
they
look
a
lot
at
intent?
You
know,
and
you
cannot,
you
cannot
measure
intent.
You
know
you
cannot
write
documents
to
describe
it
carefully.
It
is
a
remarkably
tricky
thing
to
communicate
and-
and
you
have
to
judge
and
I'm.
G
You
know
I'm
wondering
with
these
user
stories
if
it
would
be
helpful
to
specifically
list
some
of
the
the
content
issues
that
we've
come
across
with
this.
You
know,
for
example,
the
CNI
page,
where
Jim
said:
oh,
he
likes
having
all
the
tabs
with
all
the
instructions
from
all
these
various
networking
interface
live.
You
know
to
third
party
tools,
and
you
know
that
was
one
of
them.
G
The
logging
sections
where
they're
specifically
linking
to
third
party
logging
tools,
because
kubernetes
doesn't
have
a
logging
tools
and
I
came
across
one
today
that
I
hadn't
found
before
third
party
authentication
servers
are
mention
it.
You
know
in
a
page
with
links
to
setup
instructions
and
there's
like
three
of
them
mentioned.
E
G
E
D
G
D
That's
not
good,
so
one
thing
that
if
it's
your
PR
or
your
issue,
you
can
edit
the
description-
and
you
know
periodically
summarize
and
revise
and
say
here,
are
all
the
links
and
I
like
it.
When
people
do
that,
duration
and
I,
sort
of
thumbs-up
from
Zack
as
well
and
another
cool,
so
yeah,
basically,
that's
possible.
I,
also
recommend
it.
Ok
cool
bit
about
user
stories.
It
sounds
like
these
are
gonna,
want
it
to
iterate
a
lot
and
I'm
fine
with
that
implementation
details.
A
Think
the
hardest
part
is,
we
need
something
actionable
and
you
kind
of
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
talking
about
intent.
You
know
if
you
are
gonna,
expect
approvers
and
authors
to
leverage
intent
or
multiple
reviewers.
For
you
know,
final
approval
assay
or,
as
like
the
gatekeeper
I,
think
there
needs
to
be
a
little
bit
more
to
that
overall
process.
A
Besides
saying
this
is
kind
of
what
we
think
here
use
your
best
judgment,
please
having
more
of
a
clear-cut
rule
set
of
what
what
this
looks
like
and
if
we
were
to
implement
this
today.
What
would
be
the
actions
we
would
need
to
take?
What
would
be
the
actions
that
are
taking?
You
know,
moving
forward,
I.
A
G
D
So
I
think
to
sell
this
to
the
community
and
to
make
this
workable,
I.
Think
that
the
message
we're
getting
from
you
know
the
message
I'm
hearing
from
the
community
is
that
something
that's
a
bit
less
flow
charity
and
looks
more
human
and
and
cost
the
judgment
owners
on
approval.
He's
gonna
is
gonna
work,
yeah.
G
B
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
the
words
describing
this
in
the
cap
would
look
like,
but
I'm
wondering
about
something
where,
especially
when
we
first
roll
out
the
policy,
we
encourage
approvers,
who
aren't
sure
well
anybody
who's
involved
in
a
PR
that
might
touch
on
this
policy.
If
there's
any
disagreement
in
the
in
the
PR
comments,
if
there's
anything
that
looks
like
it's
gonna
hold
up
approval
that
we
explicitly
invite
people
to
bring
an
agenda
item
to
the
cygnets
meeting.
D
D
E
E
E
Reducing
and
minimizing
dual
source
content-
that
is
also
you
know,
I
guess.
A
goal
of
this
policy
is
to
make
sure
that
we're
that
the
information
in
kubernetes
Docs
is
accurate,
timely
and
the
best
available
to
maximize
help
for
users,
so
not
just
preventing
like
ad
spam,
but
making
sure
that
we're
not
duplicating
information,
that's
more
accurate
somewhere
else,
or
maybe
we
have
the
most
accurate
version,
and
maybe
it
shouldn't
live
in
our
Docs.
You
know
what
to
do
what
to
do
with
content
that
really
belongs
elsewhere
as
a
single
source.
A
That
sounds
like
it
should
also
fall
under
the
implementation
details
as
well,
because
I'm
sure
that
there
are
examples
where
we
have
the
most
up-to-date
content.
If
it
doesn't
belong
there
as
part
of
this
cup,
are
we
retro
actively
scraping
that
or
pushing
it
somewhere
else,
and
what
is
that
process.
D
D
D
E
A
We
use
a
section
there
might
be
a
better
section,
but
I
believe
this
is
where
in
a
traditional
code
track.
You
know
this
is
implementing
this
feature
this
time
or
these
small
sub
areas.
I
wonder
if
this
is
a
worthwhile
area
at
the
track.
This
issue
came
up
or
here's
the
PR
we're
tracking
to
help
resolve,
or
you
know,
success
looks
like
this
PR
successfully
posed
resolved
this.
A
D
D
Drawbacks
why
this
should
this
cap
not
be
implemented?
I
guess
I'm
gonna
say
that
if
you've
got
some
feelings
there,
it's
always
good
to
have
that
sort
of
devil's
advocate
position
and
either
put
them
in
as
comments
make
it
to
write
edit
or
make
a
suggestion.
All
the
Google
Docs
things
asynchronously
I
think
that's
the
best
place
to,
but
now
go
for
it.
Now.
If
you
want.