►
From YouTube: SIG Docs meeting for 20211116
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,
hello,
hello,
everybody
welcome
to
the
bi-weekly
sig
docs
meeting.
It's
been
a
while,
since
I've
seen
some
of
you,
we've
had
some
awesome
guest
co-chairs
step
in
and
host
the
meeting.
So
it's
great
to
to
be
back
at
the
helm.
Again,
no
pun
intended
hosting
a
sig,
docs
meeting
and
great
to
see
see
some
friendly
faces
today
is
november
16
2020
21
and
it
feels
like
the
year
has
flown
by
it's
incredible
and
yeah.
Do
we
have
any
new
contributors
joining
us
today?
B
Hi,
I'm
somewhat
new
my
name's
aleene.
I
did
attend
a
meeting
a
few
weeks
ago,
but
I
finally
I
got
my
employer
to
kind
of
get
me
through.
You
know
connected
through
their
github,
so
I'm
I
feel
new.
C
A
All
right
so
we'll
move
on
just
for
the
folks
that
are
joining
us
that
are
new.
These
meetings
aren't
really
that
formal
or
official,
and
I
mean
that
in
a
way
that
you
can
always
feel
free
to
interject,
ask
questions
we're
here
to
help
it's
a
community
that
supports
each
other.
So
I'd
like
no
one
to
feel
like
they
can't
reach
out
at
any
time
for
anything
or
find
us
on
slack
and
there's
plenty
of
folks
that
are
willing
to
help
people
get
ramped
up
and
get
started.
A
So,
with
that,
moving
on
to
the
updates
and
reminders,
this
week's
pr
wrangler
was
zac
coralison
zach,
I
don't
believe,
will
fulfill
the
role
as
pr
wrangler.
It's
curious.
Is
there
anybody
who's
willing
to
step
up
as
pr
wrangler
and,
if
not,
I'm
happy
to
help
out
in
that
regard,.
A
Thank
you
very
much
tim
and
also
for
the
folks
that
are
new
on
the
call.
So
every
every
week
we
have
a
pr
wrangler.
The
pr
wrangler
goes
through
and
reviews
open,
pull
requests
against
the
kubernetes
website
repository
and
the
duty
of
the
pr
wrangler
is
to
kind
of
keep
the
the
wheels
moving.
Keep
the
conveyor
belt
rolling,
making
sure
that
pr's
that
are
blocked
get
unblocked
if
they're
ready
to
merge
they
get
merged,
and
that's
really
the
duty
that
we're
talking
about
here
and
with
that
we're
all
human.
A
A
E
Might
I
guess
I
guess
I'll
I'll,
let
you
know
what's
going
on
hello,
everyone,
I'm
nate,
I'm
with
the
I'm
one
of
the
dots
shadows
for
the
1.23
release,
where
we
were
initially
tracking,
probably
about
54
55
enhancements.
A
few
of
those
had
no
dots
required.
E
I
think
we're
down
to
45
meeting
docs
with
quite
a
few
of
them,
probably
about
20
needing
sort
of
are
at
risk,
so
they
may
not
actually
make
it
into
one
two,
three,
maybe
blended
to
one
to
four.
We
have
seven
drafts
that
are
that
are
in
and
ready
to
be
starting
starting
to
be
looked
at
and
we've
got
10
that
are
actually
ready
for
review.
E
So,
if
you're,
if
you're
interested
in
doing
a
little
bit
of
reviewing,
we've
got
10
that
are
sort
of
ready
for
it,
and
we've
already
got
six
merged,
which
is
great,
it's
nice
to
have
those
in
a
little
bit
early.
We
are
still
at
yellow
because
we
are
concerned
that
we
haven't
had
a
whole
lot
of
pr.
Placeholders
opened
up
just
yet.
We've
still
got
quite
a
few,
obviously
that
that
need
those,
and
today
is
code
freeze
day,
which
means,
I
believe,
the
pr.
E
The
pr
placeholder
deadline
is
two
days
after
code
freeze
day,
so
that's
gonna
be
on
the
18th
of
november.
So
that's
coming
up
real,
quick
and
once
those
are
all
in.
They
need
to
be
ready
for
review
about
a
week
after
that
and
then
ready
for
for
merge
by
november
30th.
So
right
now
we're
at
yellow
just
because
we're
still
waiting
on
things,
the
murder,
the
the
the
integration
branch
is
healthy.
I
think
I
just
saw
friday
jesse.
E
I
made
sure
that
that
got
updated.
So
I
think
we
are
bracing
for
a
busy
a
busy
week.
E
At
this
point,
I
don't
believe
so.
The
the
the
effort
that
you
folks
have
been
doing
on
the
reviews
has
been
appreciated
and
yeah
ray.
Do
you
have
anything
on
that
that
you
might
have
missed.
F
Yeah,
well
just
that,
since
you
didn't
mention
code
freeze,
it
starts
tonight
at
6,
00
p.m.
Pacific
time
tomorrow,
we've
asked
the
doc
scene
to
reach
out
to
the
enhancements
that
have
not
made
the
docs
placeholder
pr
deadline
and
that
are
still
being
tracked
for
123.
at
6
p.m.
Hour
after
6
pm
tonight,
pacific
we
will
remove
some
of
those
enhancements
that
did
not
make
code
freeze,
meaning
that
their
their
code
pull
request
was
not
approved
by
6pm
pacific.
F
So
next,
the
next
step
in
communication
is
tomorrow
and
if
thursday,
which
is
the
doc's
place
or
pr
deadline,
I
will
and
myself
and
the
other
lead
channels
will
help
reach
out
to
the
enhancement
owners
who
have
not
made
the
docs
placeholder
pr
deadline,
so
we'll
reach
out
to
those
individually
to
get
those
created.
F
This
is
historically
been
what
we've
seen
with
the
release.
That's
at
the
end
of
the
year
since
we
have
coupon
and
several
holidays.
So
we
do
see
this
in
his
trend.
I
do
have
a
proposed
change
for
next
year
on
how
to
solve
this.
So
we'll
we'll
talk
about
that
after
the
123
retro,
which
is
after
the
release
and
so
that'll
be
mid-december.
So
I
do
have
a
proposed
change
so
that
we
have
less
of
this.
A
Awesome
sounds
good
and
I'm
guessing
some
of
those
at-risk
ones
might
no
longer
be
at
risk
if
the
enhancements
trickle
off
yes,
perfect,
cool,
also
just
quick
context
here
for
folks
that
have
joined
us.
So
there
is
every
quarter,
there's
a
release.
I
think
it's
quarterly
right,
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
yeah.
It
thinks
every
quarter.
A
There's
an
entire
team
that
does
a
special
interest
group
that
does
that
is
separate
from
sig
docs.
However,
as
you
can
imagine,
with
a
release,
you
need
documentation
to
follow
it
along
with
the
features,
and
so
one
of
the
things
we
do
is
we
have
a
sig
docs
release
lead
who
acts
as
a
liaison
between
the
release,
team
and
sig
docs
each
cycle
and
it
rotates
out
various
individuals.
So
there's
not
just
one
person
who
knows
the
entire
process
and
it's
kind
of
a
continuous
process
where
we
always
build
and
improve
upon.
A
F
I'll
do
each
one
individually,
so
I've
been
really
seeing
recently
going
to
contrabax
meetings
and
trying
to
help
out.
The
first
issue
is
trying
to
help
make
the
contributor
sites
more
findable.
So
in
the
kubernetes
dot
io
website
there
is
a
contributes
section
and
it's
really
mostly
for
how
to
contribute
to
kubernetes
documentation.
F
In
my
viewpoint,
in
my
opinion,
when
people
go
to
to
contribute,
they
could
either
want
to
learn
about
how
to
contribute
to
the
project
itself
or
how
to
contribute
to
the
documentation.
I
feel-
and
I
this
issue
that
I've
linked
here
just
trying
to
find
make
that
contributor
site
it's
a
different
site.
It's
kubernetes.dev
more,
I
guess
easily
more
bigger
link
or
easily
findable
on
maybe
on
kubernetes.io.
F
So
I
was
kind
of
thinking
that,
when
we
go
to
to
contribute
that
we
have
two
options
that
contribute
to
the
project
contribute
to
the
documentation,
and
so
so
I'm
proposing
I
will
make
some
pull
requests,
probably
after
the
123
release
on
on
what
that
looks
like
and
I'll
make
a
proposition
after
the
123
release,
but
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up.
If
there's
any
suggestions,
I
know
tim
I've
seen
tim
made
some
comments
on
that
issue,
but
yeah.
I
will
start
working
on
that
any
comments
or
questions.
D
D
D
D
Like
we,
we
burn,
or
you
know,
we
have
the
cost
of
a
whole
top
level
heading
on
the
on
the
page
and
contributors
are
part
of
the
community
they're,
not
the
only
part
of
the
community,
but
I
think
we
could
make
more
of
the
community
page
to
sign
those
people
there
as
well.
B
I
could
try
it
I'm
new
as
long
as
well,
I'm
really
new,
I'm
very
new.
So
but
I
I
I
would
like
to
volunteer.
D
Okay,
elena.
B
D
Okay
cool,
I
I
will
write
up
a
good
first
issue
and
I
will
mention
you,
oh
aleene,
on
that.
A
H
A
F
All
right,
second
one
is
this:
it's
an
open
pull
request
since
june,
and
it's
about
some
changes
into
the
networking
page
and
I
do
like
the
pull
requests.
There's
been
good
feedback
on
it.
I've
seen
tim
and
tim
banister
and
tim
hawkins
they've
made
some
good
comments
on
it,
so
it
definitely
had
some
good
reviews,
I'm
just
looking
to.
F
I
would
like
to
see
I
like
the
changes
on
this,
and
I
know
it's
quite
a
bit
that
we
might
have
a
need:
a
refactor
label
on
it,
since
the
networking
page,
in
my
opinion,
is
a
fairly
you
know,
strong
page,
just
to
so
add
the
refactor
label,
but
I
just
want
to
highlight
this
and
just
get
further
eyes
on
reviews,
because
I
do
want
to
move
this
pull
request
forward
in
terms
of
just
the
the
changes
to
to
the
networking
concepts
on
this.
F
So
lots
of
good
reviews
so
far,
but
it's
been
open
since
june.
Just
kind
of
want
to
see
it
across
that
finish
line.
F
So
my
opinion,
it's
it's
just
there's
just
been
a
there's,
a
few
few
comments
that
need
to
be
addressed
from
as
recently
as
11
days
ago.
I
just
I
don't
think
there
is
a
main
blocker.
I
just
just
need
some
lg
tms
from
from
sig
network,
and
I
could
reach
out
to
sig
network
on
that.
F
D
I
want
to
speak
to
that
as
well.
There
is
a
there
is
a
challenge
here
that
we
will
see
repeatedly,
so
I
want
to
mention
it
to
people,
so
we
know
about
it
when
you
have
a
sig
and
you
have
someone
who
is
like
a
technical
lead
for
that
other
sig
or
a
main
contributor
to
that
sig,
and
we
ask
for
a
tech
review.
D
I
think
there
are
people
who
think
oh,
this
is
by
that
person.
You
know
like.
Maybe
I
don't
I
don't
feel
like.
I
know
enough
about
networking
to
review
that
person's
pr
and
so
I'm
afraid
as
sig
docs
it
is
our
I.
I
think
it
is
our
job
to
make
those
other
people
in
that
other
sig,
confident
to
give
us
a
text
sign
off,
even
if
they
don't
know
everything,
because
the
barrier
and
I've
just
put
a
comment
on
this
is
is
not.
Is
this
perfect?
It
is.
D
A
Yeah,
that's
strong,
plus
one
that
tim.
I
completely
agree
wholeheartedly.
I
mean
even
you
know,
as
sig
docs
I
helped
write
a
blog
recently
and
when
it
went
posted
you
know
I
look
for
reviews.
I
look
for
feedback
from
sig
docs.
You
know
I
my
you
know.
Grammar
in
english
isn't
perfect.
I
I
want
feedback
from
the
community
and
other
folks
who
see
things
not
the
way
I
do
so.
I
I
totally
agree-
and
I
see
no
issues
with
that.
It's
the
same
way
that
we
would
behave
here
internally
at
sig
docs
too.
A
Cool-
and
I
also
didn't
mean
to
skip
out
on
you
right
there-
I
want
to
make
sure
we
address
that
issue,
so
it
sounds
like
we
have.
The
marching
orders
forward
to
reach
out
to
sig
network
get
approval
from
one
of
them.
That's
not
the
author
and
then
once
that's
good.
We
can
merge
it
and
then
just
a
side
comment
around
that
when
we
get
to
these
pr's
that
kind
of
get
hairy
or
messy.
I
do
think
that
getting
the
tech
lgtm
is
definitely
the
p0
or
priority
zero
or
priority
one
on
the
pr.
A
But
as
you
start
to
mull
over
some
of
these
technical
changes,
once
we
get
general
technical
accuracy,
I'm
always
in
the
favor
of
getting
and
improving
content
as
it
is
and
then
building
or
iterating
on
top
of
it.
So
if
there's
you
know
follow-up
content
or
follow-up
discussion,
maybe
the
solution
is
get
networking
lgtm
pull
out
a
chunk
if
it's
controversial
or
if
there's
more
conversation
to
be
had
merge
the
content
we
agree
in
and
then
we
can
move
that
conversation
forward
in
a
smaller
bite-sized
bit.
So
I
got
a
double
thumbs
up
from
tim.
A
A
All
right
moving
on
to
discussion,
so
divya
couldn't
make
it
today,
it's
quite
late,
where
she
is.
I
totally
understand
vivia
sent
out
a
survey
for
the
aipac
friendly,
sig
docs
meeting,
it's
a
questionnaire
and
looking
for
responses
by
end
of
day
november
23rd
of
this
year
and
the
questionnaire
can
be
found
in
the
doc's
mailing
list.
I
can
also
boost
it
here
in
chat
once
I
get
done
talking
or
in
the
slack
as
well,
and
really
it's
a
short
questionnaire.
It
takes
less
than
a
couple
of
minutes
to
fill
out.
A
What
we're
looking
to
do
is,
while
we've
readjusted
our
meetings,
we
went
from
a
weekly
meeting
to
a
bi-weekly
meeting.
We
have
a
slack
stand-up
in
between
the
bi-weekly
meeting.
We
ultimately
found
out
that
we
run
into
days
where
there's
an
overlap
where
we
have
a
morning
meeting
as
well
as
an
apac
meeting,
and
then
they
just
don't
always
line
up
so
there's
just
general
conflict
between
when
the
meeting
times
are.
It's
not
predictable.
It's
hard
to
follow,
and
so
we
are
really
looking
for
more
of
a
clear-cut
guidance
around
our
meetings.
A
It
shouldn't
be
as
confusing
for
contributors
to
be
able
to
find
us
and
when
we
meet,
so
that's
really
the
goal
there.
So,
if
you're
interested
in
attending
the
the
apec
friendly
meetings,
please
fill
that
out
and
also
for
the
folks
that
are
in
america
who
might
have
interest
in
supporting
our
folks
in
the
apec
friendly
time
zones.
Also
fill
it
out.
Your
your
opinion
is
definitely
included
and
valued.
There.
A
So,
moving
on,
I
wanted
to
congrats
shannon
on
becoming
our
approver.
Many
congrats
shan's
been
doing
awesome
work
in
the
sig
docs
community.
So
many
many
thanks
there
and
thanks
shannon
for
raising
the
the
issue
forward
for
self-nomination
to
become
a
reviewer.
It's
much
deserved
and
much
appreciated.
So
thank
you
and
congrats.
A
But
as
far
as
the
transition
goes,
you
can
see
that
the
bullet
is,
you,
can
self-nominate
nominated
by
an
approver
in
the
sub-project
or
you
can
be
nominated
by
a
robot
which
is
kind
of
funny,
and
so
I
want
to
encourage
folks,
as
folks
are
involved
with
docs.
Here
we
can
always
use
more
reviewers.
Reviewer
is
the
first
step
into
moving
into
an
approver
moving
into
a
different
leadership
role
in
sick
docs.
But
it's
one
of
those
things
where
you
start
with
no
membership.
A
Getting
your
kubernetes
org
membership
becoming
a
reviewer
of
sick
ducks
becoming
approver
of
sig
docs.
Not
everybody
needs
to
work
that
ladder
the
entire
way
up,
but
at
the
very
least,
becoming
a
reviewer
is
incredibly
helpful
out
to
the
sig
docs
community
and
helps
drive
those
pr's
forward.
A
Cool
and
I've
also
added
a
link
to
about
becoming
a
reviewer
too,
which
is
posting
our
site,
but
one
other
good
item,
if
folks
aren't
reviewers
and
they're
looking
to
get
their
contribution
numbers
up.
One
other
item
that
would
be
very
helpful
is
documenting
more
clearly
the
reviewer
process
and
maybe
the
nomination
process,
and
what
what
would
you
look
for
in
becoming
a
reviewer?
A
You
know
maybe
not
the
greatest
first
issue,
but
just
something
that
folks
could
look
at
contributing
to
become
to
become
a
reviewer
and
really
creating
clear
guidelines
on
on
what
does
that
look
like
to
become
a
reviewer,
because
I
think
you
have
some
folks
in
the
community
that
might
not
go
out
of
the
way
to
self-nominate.
That
would
be
incredible
reviewers,
and
I
want
to
raise
that
opportunity
up
to
those
folks
who
might
be
more
quiet.
I
I
I
don't
quite
know
how
to
move
forward.
I
know
that
there's
a
couple
of
reviewers,
you
know,
should
I
bother
them
or
you
know,
how
might
we
go
about?
You
know
trying
to
get
this
merged
first
reviewed
and
then
and
then
merged
yeah?
That's
the
the
pr
request.
So
any
ideas
I
know
ray.
You
were
just
talking
about
how
to
contribute
to
the
contributor
site.
So
just
wanna,
you
know
how.
How
do
we
move
this
thing
forward?
C
I
Not
on
the
on
the
website.
F
I
believe
the
contrabex
might
be
incorrect.
The
slack
channel
might
be
the
best
way
to
get
reviews
for
this
sites.
I'll
have
to
take
a
look
to
see.
A
I
Done
with
the
diagram
guide
for
the
document,
the
the
document
style
guide
section,
so
I
guess
I'll
I'll
push
everything
up
there
today
and
folks
can
start
reviewing
that.
But,
prior
to
that,
I
know
it's
still
in
a
hold
status.
Do
we
or
could
we
maybe
request,
maybe
a
couple
of
guys
to
review
it
before
I
unhold
it
there's
a
lot
of
diagrams
in
in
there
and
it's
fairly
long?
I
Well,
you
know
what
I'll
just
I'll
push
everything
and
unhold
it
or
yeah
unhold
it,
and
then
we
can
go
through
the
normal
process.
A
Yep
yeah,
it
sounds
good
to
me
and
if
you
need
reviewers,
I
think
going
to
the
pr
wrangler
would
be
more
than
acceptable.
Both
share
duties
between
tim
and
myself
and
as
well
as,
if
you're,
not
getting
the
attention
needed
there
is
the
sig
ducks
maintainers
channel
as
well,
could
potentially
boost
it
there.
Oh
okay,
got
it
cool
anything
else
on
that
chris,
not
at
this
point
cool.
So
that
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
agenda.
A
Is
there
any
other
topics
or
questions
or
concerns
that
folks
would
want
to
bring
up
for
open
discussion?
So
I
saw
two
hands
raised
that
we
didn't.
J
I
was,
I
was
only
going
to
say
that
my
the
apec
friendly
meeting
quiz-
I
found
mine
in
my
spam
folder.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
an
issue
for
others,
but
it
might
make
your
survey
less
effective
if
that's
happening
all
around.
A
I
appreciate
the
call
that's
no
good
at
all,
but
thank
you
I'll
keep
that
in
mind
and
I'm
not
sure
you
could
really
resolve
that,
but
I'll
definitely
boost
it
in
slack
again.
So
people
have
the
link.
Okay,.
A
And
I
apologize
for
that.
I
could
see
where
that
was
confusing,
so
this
meeting
is
going
to
stay
the
same.
It's
going
to
stay
by
weekly
and
say
10
30
pacific.
What
happened
was
there
was
an
apec
meeting
previously
scheduled
for
the
last
third.
This
is
the
fourth
thursday
or
the
fourth
tuesday
of
the
month.
It's
not
me
flubbing
on
the
date
or
the
time
since
it
is
apec
friendly.
The
utc
time
tips
it
into
wednesday
and
google
calendar
gets
weird
and
the
whole
bunch
of
stuff
gets
really
weird.
A
So
it's
like
google
calendar
says
it's
the
fourth
wednesday
utc,
which
is
really
the
fourth
tuesday,
not
utc.
It
gets
really
messed
up.
That's
the
mess
that
we're
in
today.
That's
why
the
survey
is
out
there
we're
trying
to
change
the
confusing
time
slot
for
the
apec
friendly
meeting
to
something
that's
more
like
the
last
thursday,
for
example,
that
can
easily
roll
off
the
tongue.
D
Yeah
so
I
was,
I
was
wanting
to
make
sure
the
I
was
happy
to
leave.
It's
like
the
rest
of
the
agenda
get
through,
but
I
wanted
to
talk
about
reviewing
the
ethos
of
a
different
thing
I
volunteer,
for
is
that
everyone
is
crew
and
on
github
we
are
all
reviewers.
That's
what
I
would
say.
D
If
you
see
a
pull
request,
that's
open-
and
you
know
that
you
know
your
contribution-
could
be
you've
misspelled
kubernetes.
D
Then
you
can
suggest
it,
but
you
can
also
say
the
rest
of
this
looks
great
I'd
be
really
happy
to
see
this
merge
and
you
can
tell
that
and
everyone
with
a
github
identity
can
do
that.
So
a
positive
review
that
says
this
is
fine.
Whatever
qualify
by
saying
you
know,
you're
not
doing
a
technical
review
on
behalf
of
the
relevant
sig,
really
helpful,
pointing
out
small
things
and
my
favorite
kind
of
review
when
it's
appropriate
is
to
say
this
is
great.
D
I've
spotted
a
few
things
that
you
could
fix,
but
and
because
I'm
an
approver
I
would
put
slash
lgtm
to
say
this.
This
is
this
is
acceptable.
There's
this
tiny
thing
you
could
fix
as
well
and
then
and
then
it's
up
to
it's
up
to
the
the
author.
If
they
want
to
take
that
thing
further,
but
they
don't
have
to-
and
I
absolutely
fine
if
they
don't
all
of
those
things.
A
Yep,
yes,
strong,
plus
one,
and
also
for
the
folks
that
are
relatively
new
to
sig
docs,
one
of
the
best
things
about
contributing
through
github
or
through
get
contributions,
especially
if
you're
new
to
it
by
default.
You
really
don't
have
any
permissions
to
do
something
really
messed
up
or
nasty,
so
the
good
news
is-
and
this
is
talking
to
myself-
because
this
is
what
I
think
when
I'm
doing
things
that
I'm
not
you
know
familiar
with
or
new
to,
I'm
like
how
am
I
going
to
break
this?
A
What
am
I
going
to
flub
or
mess
up,
and
the
great
thing
is
is
is
as
a
newcomer
to
sick
docs,
you
have
no
permissions
to
flub
it
up
now,
maybe
in
the
future.
If
you
get
to
a
certain
extent,
you
have
certain
permissions,
maybe
you
could
break
it.
I've
also
broken
it
broken
it
with
permissions,
so
not
to
say
it's
a
foolproof
way,
but
hopefully
that's
a
message
of
encouragement
for
folks
get
out.
There
leave
comments
open
pr's,
you
can't
break
doc
so
that
that's
reassuring
to
me
at
least.
D
There
was
a
hand
up
from
anubhav
okay.
I
I'm
gonna
suggest
that
you
go
yup
go
for
it.
D
So
if
you're
reviewing
a
pull
request,
you
know
there's
a
medium
thing:
someone's
introduced
a
new
feature
and
it's
great
like
the
pod
security
admission
is
coming,
it's
already
alpha
and
it's
going
to
go
beta
and
it's
a
great
feature.
But
if
you
don't
understand
how
it
works,
tell
us
tell
the
authors,
because
that's
that
the
fact
that
you
don't
understand
it
and
you've
got
a
question
you
can.
D
You
can
add
value
by
telling
you
know
the
reviewers,
the
person
who's
actually
doing
a
binding
review
that
someone
who
was
new
to
this
didn't
know
what
it
meant.
I
just
can't
explain.
You
know
I
can't
emphasize
how
valuable
it
is
to
know
that
some
stuff
didn't
make
self
sense
to
the
new
people,
because
the
person
who
wrote
the
code,
of
course
they
know
how
it
works.
The
person
who's
reviewing
it
they've
been
using
kubernetes
for
at
least
a
year.
I'd
say:
they're
gonna
know
who
it
works
as
well.
We
want
the
newbies.
D
We
want
your
your
your
perspective,
particularly
well.
A
Cool,
so
we
are
at
the
end
of
our
agenda
here,
pretty
much
open
forum
q,
a
any
other
questions
or
comments
before
we
ring
off
here.
G
I've
got
something
jim.
I
wanted
to
actually
ask
so,
given
that
it's
towards
the
end
of
the
year
and
it's
a
soon
to
be
a
new
pi
wrangler,
let's
say
a
calendar,
I'm
wondering
do
we
need
to
actually
refresh
the
pr
wrangler
group
and
try
and
get
a
few
more
in
there,
so
that
we've
got
some
more
coverage.
A
That
is
an
excellent
question,
so
let
me
give
a
little
history
on
pr
wrangling
just
for
a
quick
second.
So
before
I
want
to
say
last
year,
maybe
the
year
prior
pr
wrangling
was
written
by
hand
by
a
previous
co-chair
would
go
through
the
approver
list
and
literally
plug
in
individuals,
for
you
know
each
week
of
the
year
so
26
plus
times
and
then,
as
of
recently
brad
topple,
was
also
on.
A
L
No,
I
I
find
people
who
I
don't
like
and
I
give
them
the
vacation
weeks
I'm
kidding,
but
no
I
do
do
it
manually.
It's
not
that
hard.
The
question
is
where
to
pull
the
values
from
right
now
I
just
pull
them
from
the
owner's
file,
which
means
we
right
we're
typically
just
pulling
approvers.
L
The
question
is:
do
you
want
me
to
expand
that
and
and
and
pull
from
others
again
they
they
do
need
to
have
the
ability
to
do
a
few
things
right.
You
know
a
sign
and
what
have
you
so
so?
What
are
the
thoughts.
A
Yeah
and
that's
a
great
segue,
brad
too,
as
well,
I
was
going
to
get
into
is
I
thought
that
there
was
more
of
an
automated
way
and
I
wanted
to
acknowledge
and
it's
unfortunate
there's
not,
but
I
wanted
to
acknowledge.
One
of
the
challenges
with
the
pr
wrangler
schedule
is
that
we
have
owners
of
various
localizations
and
the
various
approvers
that
are
kind
of
spanning
different
subject
matter
expertise.
A
So
the
first
thing
is
is
figuring
out
what
is
the
cleanest
way
to
get
the
pool
of
approvers,
and
then
that
is
a
segue
to
brad's
comment
around
where
it's
traditionally
approvers
today?
Do
you
want
to
potentially
look
at
reviewers-
and
I
don't
have
an
opinion
on
this,
but
I
think
it's
a
great
topic
for
discussion,
something
that
if
we
don't
get
all
of
the
time
to
talk
to
it
to
if
we
can't
talk
about
all
of
it
today,
we
can
definitely
punt
it
for
a
future
meeting.
A
But
one
thing
we
might
consider
is
extending
pr
wrangling
shifts
to
people
who
are
reviewers.
The
one
challenge
there
is
part
of
pr
wrangling
is
approving
pull
requests,
so
they
can
be
merged
and
giving
them
the
full
lgtm
and
approved
to
actually
get
them
out
of
the
queue.
A
So
we
might
consider
some
things
like
potentially,
if
you're
a
pr
wrangler
for
the
week.
Maybe
there's
elevated
approver
rights
for
the
week
for
that
reviewer
or,
like
I'm,
not
sure
how
to
really
approach
that.
But
I
want
to
pitch
some
ideas
out
there,
where
maybe
we
can
extend
this
to
other
folks
to
get
their
feet
wet
and
approvers
and
at
the
same
time
increase
pr
velocity.
A
I
can
see
the
counter
argument
to
that
being
that
usually
reviewers
aren't
as
well-versed
or
has
been
as
seen
as
much
as
some
of
the
approvers
have.
So
maybe
it
makes
sense
to
keep
the
approvers
you
know
kind
of
in
the
weeds
and
approving
prs,
and
you
know
keeping
that
q
unblocked
but
yeah
it's
food
for
thought.
A
I
think
it's
worth
the
discussion
I'll
shut
up
in
just
a
second,
but
I
wanted
to
say
that
I
stole
that
idea
from
sig
release
and
the
concept
of
sig
release
has
other
non-privileged
individuals
in
the
kubernetes
community
published
the
release
and
what
they'll
do
is
they'll
grant
temporary
permissions
to
gcp
where
they
actually
build
the
release
so
like,
for
example,
if
I
were
to
be
building
a
release,
I'd
have
temporary
permissions
via
pr
I'd
cut
the
release.
Then
there
was
permissions
to
revoke
that
as
part
of
the
release
process.
A
Maybe
it's
unneeded
additional
overhead
for
the
pr
wrangler
process.
However,
it
might
open
it
up
to
more
folks
contributing
so
I'm
I'm
game
either
way,
but
I
want
to
see
what
other
folks
think
about
the
yeah
wrangler
process.
L
I
think
the
interesting
thing
is:
are
there
folks
who
are
not
approvers
who
are
wanting
to
be
involved
in
the
wrangling
process?
So
I
mean
that's
that's
sort
of
step.
One
though
right
do
we
have
folks
who
are
like
wow
if
you
could
figure
out
a
way,
I'd
like
to
participate
in
this,
because
the
other
option
is
is
is
sort
of
a
shadowing
of
all
right.
Let
me
show
you
how
I
do
this.
What
we're
doing
here?
Do
you
have
any
questions?
L
L
We
we,
we
could
do
it
where
you
know
the
the
person
could
say:
hey
I've
done
these
and
I
feel
comfortable
and
and
we
we
could
reduce
the
workload
that
way,
because
really
the
hardest
part
of
the
wrangling
is
building
up
your
network.
So
who
do
you
send
the
hard
ones
to
so?
For
example,
if
it's
scheduling
I
know,
there's
there's
there's
there's
people
that
I
know
like
huang
that
I
would
send
it
to
if
it's
something
low-level
containers
I'd
send
it
to
mike
brown.
E
Yeah,
I
was
actually
also
just
going
to
suggest
potentially
shadowing
if
we've
got
enough
of
a
pool
of
people
who
are
interested
and
to
to
to
your
question
there
brad,
for
instance,
I'm
not
an
approver,
but
I
have
often
thought
oh,
I
could
probably
pitch
in.
I
could
probably
help
out,
but
I'm
not
an
approver,
and
so
I
thought
I
should
probably
first
off
get
on
getting
to
approval
level
for
first
off.
Second,
I
thought:
okay,
because
I'm
not
an
approver.
E
I
won't
put
my
hand
up
and
say
hi
for
for
that
type
of
work,
so
I
think
I
think
potentially
shadowing
or
having
a
help
would
have
helped
me
help
more.
C
L
L
So
if
there's
people
who
are
interested
in
starting
to
do
that,
I'm
sure
we
can
work
it
out
where
you
know
some
of
us
are
are
very
happy
to
have
someone
on
board.
You
know
as
a
mentee
for
that
week.
I
know
whenever
I
have
mine
I'll,
be
happy
to
do
it,
I'm
sure,
jim
as
well
and
and
and
and
tim.
L
So
I
think
it's
just
a
matter
of
you
know
letting
know
when
when
we
can
make
the
schedule
and
then
what
we
can
do
is
folks
can
let
me
know
when
they
want
a
shadow.
So,
for
example,
maybe
there's
a
good
week
for
you
that
is
good
to
to
serve
and
shadow,
and
then
we
can
just
update
the
schedule
and
it'll
have
the
name,
and
then
we
can
have
the
shadow
person
next
to
it
or
something,
and
that
way
you
know,
people
could
ease
into
it
right
they
can
say
well.
L
This
is
a
good
week
for
me
to
spend
time
on
this
I'll.
Do
it
this
week
or
if
there's
a
you
know
an
approver,
you
you
feel
very
comfortable
with
you
know.
We
all
know
how
smart
jim
is
boy.
Let's,
let's
do
it
when
jim's
doing
it
not
brad.
I
mean
I've
never
seen
brad
do
the
wrangling,
but
let's
go
with
jim
no
I'm
kidding,
but
but
so
I
I
I
can
happily
do
that
and
I'm
available
on
slack
that
I
can
easily
when
it's
time
to
redo
the
schedule.
Add
that
in.
A
G
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
say
I'm
a
big
plus
one
to
that.
I
think
purposely
adding
in
that
these
are
people.
Shadowing
kind
of
to
nate's
point
opens
the
opportunity
that
oh
shadowing
is
an
option,
and
maybe
I
can
put
my
hand
up
for
this,
and
maybe
a
lot
more
folks
who
don't
realize
that
they
can
they
can
be
involved
in
in
doing
some
shadow
wrangling
is,
is
going
to
be
a
potential
opportunity
for
them.
I
really
like
that
great.
A
Cool,
so
I
it
sounds
like
this
is
a
great
step
forward.
I
totally
agree
with
everything
everyone's
saying,
so
it
sounds
like
the
next
steps
are.
A
Yes,
we
do
need
a
new
pr
wrangler
for
the
next
year,
we're
going
to
recreate
it
with
approvers,
with
the
caveat
of
we
know
that
there's
some
sticky
points
with
the
localization
members
and
making
sure
that
we
have
the
correct
approver
list
and
then
we're
going
to
add
in
a
additional
column
in
that
shadow
or
in
the
wrangler
schedule,
to
include
shadows
as
volunteers
if
folks
would
like
to,
and
we
could
even
open
that
up
in
our
weekly
meeting
or
the
slack
stand
up
too
for
a
call
for
volunteers.
A
If
there
is
any-
and
I
think,
that's
a
great
way-
to
encourage
reviewers
to
kind
of
step
in
the
shoes
of
the
provers
role
as
well
as
get
some
experience
there
and
hopefully
open
up
that
gap
between
jumping
from
reviewer
to
approver
or
close
that
gap
a
little
bit.
I
guess.
L
Yeah
and
and
jim
I'm
happy
to
keep
doing
the
schedule
every
year.
It's
it's
not
that
hard
for
me
to
do,
and
you
know
I
can
add
the
new
column
for
a
shadow,
and
you
know
we
can
just
use
me
as
a
contact
on
slack
for
for
folks
to
say.
Oh
I'd
like
to
shadow
this
week,
does
that
that
seem
like
a
good
enough
process
or
yeah.
E
E
And
the
reason
I
ask
is,
if
we're
thinking
about
going
into
like
a
shadow
ship,
it
might
be
interesting
to
break
it
up
into
two
quarters
or
or
half
years,
so
that
the
people
who
have
shadowed
in
let's
say
the
first
quarter
have
an
opportunity
to
to
sort
of
graduate
into
as
they
as
they
move
up
the
because
once
you
become
an
approver,
presumably
that
that
process
doesn't
take
18
months.
Presumably
it
takes
a
shorter
amount
of
time,
which
then
sort
of
leaves
some
slots
open
down.
L
Oh
yeah,
absolutely
I
typically
do
it
in
two
half
year
chunks,
so
I'll
typically
just
do
just
half
here
and
then,
as
we
get
into
like
june,
then
I
know
to
do
it
for
the
other
half
of
the
year.
So
there's
certainly
that
flexibility
and
there's
believe
it
or
not
opportunities
pop
up,
because
you
know
we
we
have
slots
open
up
for
one
reason
or
another
people
get
new
jobs
and
they
go
do
new
things.
And
you
know.
Lo
and
behold,
you
know
jim
and
I
are
hey.
L
We
we
we
need
a
regular
next
week,
hey
who's
got
a
pulse,
who's
got
an
approver
and
a
pulse,
get
it
get
out
there.
So
so
that
there'll
be
good
opportunities.
L
I
think
the
interesting
thing
would
be
maybe
to
if
we
can
find
a
way
to
update
the
page.
So
we
I
wonder
if
we
should
list
the
folks
who
want
to
be
shadows
or
or
just
putting
them
in
will.
I
guess
make
it
clear
enough
that
if
I
add
the
column,
then
then
they'll
be
fine.
You
know,
I
I
think
just
maybe
slacking
me
and
making
sure
when
the
chairs
are
aware
that
we
we
know
who
are
the
folks
that
want
to
be
shadows.
L
I
know
I'm
seeing
here
that
chris
wants
to
be
a
shadow
and
I
think
shannon
wants
to
be
a
shadow.
I
mean,
and
if
you
just
slack
me
a
message
then
then
then
I
have
that
for
sure,
and
you
know
I'll
keep
track
of
that.
M
Yes,
hello,
I
think
the
shadowing
idea
is
really
awesome.
I
personally
have
been
trying
to
do
some
reviews
and
I
just
sort
of
get
kind
of
lost
in
these
bigger
pr's,
and
I
don't
really
know
what
where
to
go.
So
I
think
the
wrangling
idea
is
a
great
idea.
M
The
shadowing
idea-
I
I
guess
what
I'm
curious
about
is
how
many
do
we
have
a
number
of
how
many
wranglers
we
have
right
now
and
is
there
like
an
ideal
number
of
wranglers
that
we
have
to
kind
of
get
to
or
is
it
sort
of
just
the
more
the
merrier
you
know
whoever,
however
many
we
can
get
is
positive.
M
A
D
D
One
thing
that
I
don't
think
has
been
clarified
is
that
it
is
an
expectation
that,
if
you're
an
approver,
it's
an
expectation
that
you
join,
that
rotor.
D
Yeah,
if
you
felt
that
you
were
couldn't
stay
on
that
rotor
and
whatever
we'd
make
you
an
emeritus
approver
and
we
thank
you
a
lot
for
your
contributions,
but
yeah,
that's
kind
of
like
the
that's
the
stale.
L
Yeah,
it's
just
it's.
You
know
with
great
great
responsibility,
something
or
other
something
other
so
but
but
it's
you
know
we're
really
flexible.
I
mean
you
know.
If
we,
if
we
schedule
for
your
week
and
you're
like
hey,
I
can't
do
it
that
week,
everybody's
really
cool
we
just
we
just
swap
up.
We
switch
around
really
what
tim
is
referring
to
is
you're
listed
as
a
wrangler
and
we
try
and
contact
you
and
the
approver
has
just
fallen
off
the
face
of
the
earth.
L
Nobody
get
a
hold
of
the
person
they're,
not
like
hey
I'm
sick
this
week
or
hey
I'm
not
this
week.
It's
just
like.
We
can't
get
a
hold
of
this
person
and
that's
typically,
I
think
when,
when
we
decide
to
say
well,
if
we
can't
get
a
hold
of
them
and
find
out
what's
going
on,
let's,
let's
we
got
to
drop
you
as
an
approver.
Does
that
sound
about
right?
Jim
tim.
K
K
L
As
scary
as
you
think,
right
as
long
as
you're
around
you're,
like
you
know,
things
happen
right
things
happen,
you
know
people
get
sick
or
family
issues
and
we
just
help
each
other
out.
It's
just
more
of
the
the
ghosting
right
and
somebody
just
ghosts
us
on
the
ghost
wrangler
who
just
disappears
or
like
where'd.
This
person
go
and
that's
that's.
When
we
kind
of
pulled
the
plug
go
ahead.
A
Jim
yeah
absolutely
natalie's
spot
on
that.
Just
communication
is
really
just
the
key
there
and
you
know
one
other
last
comment
on
the
you
know
getting
pulled
from
being
her
approver
or
getting
changed
from
the
status
or
roles.
It's
not
a
punitive
thing.
You
know.
I
always
wanted
to
clarify
that
to
folks.
Is
that
let's
say
I'm
an
active
approver?
I
can't
do
it
due
to
familial
issues
or
whatever
issues
come
up.
A
If
I
get
to
be
an
emeritus
approver
and
later
on,
do
have
the
cycles
or
want
to
get
contributing
back
and
ramped
up,
usually
allow
them
to
say,
hey
look.
You
can
pee
yourself
back
in
as
an
approver,
obviously,
without
having
the
permissions.
You'd
have
to
either
talk
to
someone
in
sick
docs
or
you
know
someone
say:
oh
yeah,
you
know
brad's
back
around
finally
has
availability.
A
Let's
get
this
thing
rolling,
and
so
I
just
want
to
be
clear
because
I
think
that
just
just
changing
the
overall
mentality
of
if
we
were
to
switch
a
role
or
switch
a
status,
that
it
was
like
a
final
decision
like
you're,
no
longer
a
reviewer
you're,
no
longer
an
improver,
and
it's
not
like
that.
I
want
to
be
clear
about
that.
A
Yeah
and
so
just
a
real,
quick
comment
on
the
shadowing
process.
The
kubernetes
k
website
wikipedia
or
the
wiki
on
github
is
editable
by
everybody,
I
believe,
and
so
what
I'm
thinking
we
should
do
and
brad
I'm
open
to
your
thoughts
or
suggestions
here
is
we
could
have
a
shadow
column,
that's
just
open
and
it's
kind
of
free
sign
up
and
then
potentially
for
sigdoc's
meetings.
We
can
ask
if
anyone's
interested
in
shadowing.
I
think
we
can
make
it
relatively
informal
where
we
don't
need
to
fulfill
every
single
shadow
slot.
A
G
Yeah-
and
we
can
just
with
the
meetings
that
we
have
bi-weekly
when
we're
calling
out
the
pr
english
shifts
just
call
out
if
there's
a
shadower
or
not-
and
you
know,
there's
kind
of
easy
to
kind
of
loop
in
for
the
regular
meetings
too.
D
D
Be
at
least
an
org
member
to
write
to
that
wiki,
which,
behind
the
scenes,
is
a
git
repo.
D
Find
out
when
people
try
and
do
it,
the
implementation
is
a
git
repo,
and
I
guess,
if
someone's
like
just
an
org
member
and
is
on
this
call
and
is
willing
to
experiment.
That
would
be
a
really
good
data
point
to
get
quickly
say
be
quicker
than
reading
the
docs.
A
Cool,
I
know
we're
pretty
much
up
on
time
here
if
somebody
does
want
to
give
that
a
try
and
shoot
out
a
shout
out
in
slack
be
more
than
happy
to
see
her
hear
what
the
outcomes
of
that
are
and
with
two
minutes
left
any
other
topics
for
discussion
or
questions.