►
From YouTube: K8s SIG Docs Q3 review / Q4 planning 2020 (20201022)
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
can
y'all
see
my
screen,
yep
awesome.
So
hey
everybody
welcome
to
the
sig
docs
planning
meeting.
This
is
our
q3
review.
Q4
planning
for
sig
ducks,
I'm
jim
angel,
it
is
october
21st
or
if
you're
looking
at
the
utc
time
zone
is
october
22nd
at
I
guess
it's
midnight.
A
I
guess
you
know
one
in
the
morning,
if
you'll,
if
you
go
in
the
early
side,
so
the
first
thing
I
do
is
just
move
these
topics
up
for
discussion
to
the
end
and
if
anyone
has
anything
they'd
like
to
bring
up
feel
free
to
add
it
to
this
document,.
A
All
right,
so,
as
I
was
mentioning
this
is
the
quarterly
review
planning
meeting
is
the
first
time
I've
ran
one
of
these
quarterly
planning.
So
please
bear
with
me
as
we
kind
of
work
through
this
entire
process.
A
Normally
it
was
led
by
zack,
which
we'll
talk
more
about
in
a
little
bit,
and
you
know
traditionally,
this
meeting
has
been
you
know,
late
at
night
or
early
in
the
morning,
depending
on
what
part
of
the
world
you're
in,
and
I
I
don't
think
it
will
be
as
long
as
it
traditionally
has
been
in
the
past.
Traditionally,
it's
been
around
an
hour
or
30
minutes
saying
that
I
might
have
jinxed
us
and
it
might
be
just
as
long
and
I'm
lying
to
y'all,
so
we're
gonna
find
out.
A
So,
first
of
all,
membership
updates.
We
have
a
new
chair,
joining
us
erv,
so
some
of
y'all
might
have
seen
her
join
on
some
of
the
weekly
meetings,
helping
out
with
some
of
the
localization
efforts
and
really
happy
to
see
your
view,
ramping
up
and
helping
out
with
some
of
the
documentation
aspects
and
some
of
the
the
less
than
glamorous
pieces
of
being
a
chair
which
is
more,
the
administrivia
of
you
know,
operational
effort.
A
So
that's
awesome
and
we
have
a
new
maritime,
that's
zach,
zachary,
sarah,
and
that's
really
what
I
was
getting
at
here
and
saying
that
this
is
my
first
time
leading
one
of
these
quarterly
plannings
zach
would
traditionally
run
these
and
being
a
maritime
emeritus.
It
was
only
right
to
start
to
pass
the
torch
and
start
up
with
some
other
chairs
hosting
this
meeting.
So
I'm
doing
it
for
this
quarter.
Potentially
some
of
the
other
co-chairs
will
do
it
in
quarters
to
come.
A
So,
to
start
us
off
we'll
talk
about
q3
and
review
and
just
to
be
clear
when
I'm
talking
quarters
here
for
those
who
are
familiar,
we're
talking.
Third
quarter
is
predominantly
july
1st
through
september
30th
and
fourth
quarter,
which
we're
talking
about
planning
is
october
1st
through
december
31st.
A
One
other
thing
I'll
mention
too
before
we
get
totally
ramped
up
here,
is
with
the
fourth
quarter
ending
in
late
december.
Usually
that's
when
the
holidays
hit.
So
it's
very
likely.
We
won't
have
another
one
of
these
quarterly
planning
meetings
until
either
early
next
year
or
sometime
in
january.
I
would
guess
occasionally
we
could
squeeze
that
in
for
kubecon,
unfortunately,
with
kubecon,
not
being
in
person
is
gonna
have
to
be
virtual
from
here
on
out
until
we
hear
otherwise.
A
So
reviewing
the
quarter,
three
review
wins
just
a
quick
note
here.
Some
of
y'all
might
have
seen
that
the
q3
wins
was
blank
originally,
that
is
not
to
say
that
there
isn't
any
wins
or
there
isn't
anything
to
talk
about,
and
I
appreciate
some
of
the
additional
information
getting
added
here
traditionally.
This
is
where
we
would
review
some
of
the
metrics
for
google
analytics,
as
well
as
the
cncf
dev
stats.
A
So
traditionally
you
would
look
at
how
many
millions
of
users
are
viewing
our
kubernetes
website.
What
that
growth
looks
like
compared
to
last
quarter
and
when
I
started
to
go
into
some
of
the
metrics,
and
I
started
to
look
at
views
this
quarter
compared
to
last
quarter
and
the
growth
or
trajectory
there
and
we're
a
little
bit
lower
than
we
have
been
the
previous
quarter.
That's
both
for
pr
velocity,
prs,
merging
views
on
kubernetes
documentation.
A
I
don't
think
it's
a
bad
thing
per
se,
we're
talking!
You
know
in
the
half
of
a
percentage
lower.
I
think
that's
just
part
of
the
world
that
we're
in
right
now
could
be
potentially
due
to
some
of
the
things
going
on
outside.
In
the
world,
but
I
didn't
think
it's
necessarily
worth
calling
out
as
a
win.
So
that's
that's
that
so
talking
to
some
of
the
bullets
that
were
added
here,
I
think
one
big
win.
This
quarter
was
the
formation
and
kickoff
of
the
localization
subgroup.
A
So
traditionally
we
had
every
localization
group
learned
how
to
on-ramp
to
sig
docs,
but
after
that
they
were
kind
of
on
their
own,
so
every
localization
would
have
various
different
ways
to
solve
similar
problems
and
the
localization
subgroups
goal
is
to,
over
over
time,
figure
out
what
those
common
challenges
are
come
up
with
a
common
process
and
help.
You
know
clear
that
pathway
forward.
So
that's
definitely
a
huge
win.
A
A
Once
again,
we
would
normally
do
a
contributor
summit
before
cubecon,
but
we
haven't
had
any
main
track,
kubecon
talks,
and
so
this
is
a
first
for
sig
docs
and
that's
definitely
a
win
kind
of
in
flight
here
for
q3
and
q4,
so
very,
very,
very
topical
for
sure,
and
last
but
not
least,
I
see
successful
mentoring
of
contributors,
so
the
new
addition
of
tech
leads
and
new
chairs
and
a
strong,
stronger
leaders
as
a
representative
of
assisting
some
of
those
folks
coming
in
to
sig
docs,
which
I
completely
agree
with,
is
there
any
other
wins
that
people
could
think
of
whether
in
the
docs
or
not?
A
B
That's
what
I
could
come
up
with
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I
know
there's
a
lot
more.
B
I
mean
I
know
I
did
outreach
at
my
company
to
to
get
more
folks
involved.
I
don't
know
if
we
can
count
that
or
not,
but
I
know
I
know
several
folks
resulted
in
new
contributors
from
from
my
company.
A
Awesome
yeah.
I
would
definitely
call
that
a
win.
I
think
any
sort
of
outreach-
and
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
zach
brought
up
and
talked
about
at
the
last
quarter
of
the
review.
Was
this
state
that
signbox
is
in
today?
We
don't
have
as
many
technical
writers
as
we
have
had
in
the
past.
There's
not
a
ton
of,
I
don't
want
to
say
endorsement
or
sponsorship,
but
I'm
struggling
to
find
a
better
word
for
it,
but
there's
not
a
strong
presence
of
a
corporate
leader
in
cig,
docs
or
technical
writing
here.
A
So
one
of
the
things
that
was
brought
up
is
that
we're,
in
somewhat
of
a
maintenance
mode,
keep
the
lights
on
keep
prs
rolling.
So
the
fact
that
we
have
stayed
the
same
and
we
have
continued
our
efforts
and
said
docs,
I
think,
is
definitely
a
win
as
well,
even
though
I
would
say
it's
a
lesser
win
than
maybe
in
years
past,
when
we
had
more
technical
writers
present
and
we
had
more
of
a
driving
force
behind
sig
ducks
so
definitely
appreciate
outreach
for
sure.
A
A
Not
only
does
it
improve
our
pr
velocity
and
our
ability
to
maintain
and
stay
on
top
of
the
prs,
but
it
also
will
help
us
figure
out
who
approvers
are.
I
guess
what
approvers
are
active
so
we've
seen
in
the
past
folks
who've
had
the
approver
status
or
permissions,
maybe
not
be
as
active
in
sig
docs,
and
so
we
can
use
the
pr
wrangling
shift
as
a
way
to
engage
with
them
regularly,
keep
them
plugged
in
and
as
well
as
if
they
get
too
busy
things
happen.
A
You
know
potentially
move
that
permission
to
something
more,
such
as
like
a
reviewer
or
something
until
they're
able
to
commit
the
time
being
an
approver
again
so
definitely
agree.
Pr
wrangler
program
is
pretty
pretty
successful
in
keeping
up
the
velocity.
A
In
not
only
from
a
velocity
perspective,
but
I
think
that
the
the
pr
wrangler
speaks
a
lot
to
the
volume
sig
doxy.
So
one
thing
that
has
remained
consistent
over
the
past
two
or
so
years
is
that
kubernetes
website
under
the
kubernetes
repo
or
the
the
github
repository
is
the
number
two
repository
for
merge.
Velocity
prs,
merge
pr
is
open,
so
short
of
the
kubernetes
kubernetes
main
project,
kubernetes
docs,
is
the
second
most.
I
guess
active.
You
know
in
the
sense
of
pr
velocity
and
pr
is
open
and
closed
for
sure.
A
C
Jim,
if
you
haven't
mentioned
it
already,
the
giant
css
cleanup
that
celeste
and
tim
and
karen
led
in
the
past
quarter
was
a
huge
benefit.
The
some
of
the
css
removals
resulted
in
build
times
that
were
like
minutes
faster
because,
like
removing
all
of
the
post-processing
and
things
like
that,.
A
Awesome
yeah.
Definitely,
I
did
not
mention
that
and
I
completely
agree
that
the
giant
css
cleanup
is
is
an
incredible
win
for
sure.
Thank
you.
A
Any
other
wins
folks
would
like
to
talk
about.
C
C
Well,
we
have,
we
have
a
google
season
of
docs
intern
right
now,
who's
working
on
improving
the
reference,
docs
experience
and
he
is
persisting
in
the
face
of,
shall
we
say,
significant
feedback
and
is
making
some
pretty
good
headway.
So
I
would
call
that
a
win
have
we
have.
We
mentioned
the
1.19
release
cycle
and
like
what
a
win
that
was.
A
A
Did
I
say
116.,
that's
what
I
heard:
oh,
what
119
I'm
losing
it,
but
yeah
the
119
release
was
one
of
the
most
successful
releases.
I've
seen
you
know
a
long
time
and
that's
speaking
as
someone
who's
led
a
release
in
the
past.
I'll
include
my
own,
and
in
that
assessment
I
I
thought.
C
I
don't
know
that
it
will
ever
be
boring,
but
well,
I
guess
well
telegraphed.
A
A
So
one
thing
that
I
thought
was
pretty
important
that
was
brought
up
at
the
last
quarter
of
the
review
when
we're
kind
of
in
the
earlier
stages
of
this,
I'm
not
sure
what
stage
we're
at
in
this
pandemic
now,
but
I
think
just
the
the
willingness
to
acknowledge
that
things
can
be
a
little
strange
and
that
folks
are
all
dealing
with
different
stuff
in
their
own
personal
lives
and
taking
that
into
account,
when
evaluating,
you
know,
pull
requests
lack
engagement.
A
A
And
another
challenge
which
I
kind
of
alluded
to
earlier,
is
that
the
contributor
onboarding
in
succession.
I
still
think
that
there's
room
for
improvement
for
better
recruiting
retaining
mentoring,
new
contributors.
Obviously,
in
the
win
section
we
see
some
things
that
are
working,
there's,
definitely
some
outreach
going
on.
I
I
don't
think
there'll
ever
be
too
many
contributors
to
sig,
docs
or
ever
too
smooth
of
a
process
to
onboard
new
folks,
and
I
think
growing.
That
is
definitely
somewhat
of
a
challenge.
Still
today.
A
B
I
wouldn't
call
it
a
challenge.
I'd
definitely
say
that
we
have
a
a
wonderful
group
of
people
that
are
very
friendly
to
work
with
and
it
makes
it
a
very
wonderful
cig
to
participate
in,
and
it's
been
that
way
since
the
culture
was
set
many
years
ago
and
the
culture
continues.
So
I
don't
know
what
area
it
goes
into,
but
but
it's
a
really
nice
culture
of
a
sig
group
to
work
in.
A
A
All
right
here,
nothing,
let's
move
on
to
the
blog
update
caitlyn
I
see
you're
on
the
call.
Is
that
something
you
would
like
to
to
talk
about
for
the
past
quarter
or
some
sort
of
the
accomplishments
over
q3
and
what
we're
looking
forward
to
in
q4.
D
Yeah,
so
you
know
it's
not
always
super
exciting,
because
we've
gotten
the
blog
into
a
really
great
place
with
our
process,
and
all
of
that
I
think
the
biggest
thing
that
happened.
This
quarter
really
isn't
so
much
for
the
kubernetes
blog
itself,
but
for
the
contributor
site,
where
which
now
has
its
own
blog.
So
this
quarter
we've
kind
of
tested
out
and
kind
of
started
to
decide
what
content
makes
sense
for
the
contributor
site
versus
what
goes
on
the
kubernetes
blog
itself
and
the
idea
is
kind
of
that.
D
The
kubernetes
dev
blog
is
going
to
be
really
contributor.
Specific
stuff
and
kubernetes
blog
will
focus
more
on
the
end
user,
with
the
exception
of
really
contributor
articles
that
are
relevant
to
the
greater
the
greater
ecosystem
and
the
greater
kubernetes
community
and
end
users
as
well.
So
we
had
one
of
those
blogs
this
quarter.
Thanks
to
tim,
we
got
canonical
linking
implemented
on
the
blog,
which
is
really
great.
It
has
not
been
something
that
we
have
had
in
the
past
and
really
needed
to
implement.
D
So
thanks
tim
for
that-
and
I
think
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at
with
the.
A
D
I
think
it
was
lower,
maybe
around
five.
I
think
q3
was
a
little
bit
slower,
but
I'll
drop
it
on
the
dock.
A
Oh
yeah
sounds
good
and
that
might
reflect
what
I
was
talking
about
a
little
earlier.
We're
just
you
know,
page
views
are
a
little
down.
The
pr's
are
a
little
slower
to
merge,
but
we're
talking
like
half
of
a
percent
and
we're
talking.
You
know
very
small
differences,
but
but
potentially
q3
is
a
little
bit
slower.
You
know
very
marginally.
Definitely
so
I
think
that
might
be
in
line
with
what
we're
seeing.
A
Cool
so
moving
forward
with
the
goal
review:
here's
where
we
have
a
kind
of
an
informal
discussion
around
the
goal
review
for
each
goal
we
mentioned
if
we're
going
to
carry
forward
for
q4
of
2020,
and
usually
that's
done
with
your
thumbs
up
thumbs
down.
I
don't
think
here
we
go.
I
can
actually
show
myself
the
participants
here.
If
you
wanted
to
not
go
on
camera
and
you
wanted
to
use
zoom,
I
believe
some
people,
maybe
my
zoom
plan-
is
really
old.
A
I
actually
don't
have
the
the
raise
your
hand
or
not
emoji
yeah,
so
that's
not
gonna
help
either
way
we
can
use
chat.
We
can
use
thumbs
up
thumbs
down
things
of
that
nature.
To
to
talk
about
this
and
in
a
sense,
what
we
do
is
we
review
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
brought
up
in
q3,
whether
or
not
we
want
to
carry
them
forward
in
q4
and
talk
about
the
current
status
of
them.
A
So
the
very
first
one
that
we're
going
to
talk
about
really
doesn't
get
a
vote,
unfortunately,
or
maybe
fortunately,
it's
the
kubernetes
release.
You
know
we're
going
to
carry
it
forward.
The
kubernetes
release
and
the
docs
there,
whether
we
like
it
or
not-
and
very
fortunately,
this
go
around
for
120
and
future
121
releases,
we're
building
on
what
savitha
did
in
119.
Like
I
mentioned
earlier
and
has
been
doing
a
great
job
for
120..
A
I
see
a
lot
of
engagement
there
as
far
as
how
shadows
are
being
onboarded
and
handled.
There's
the
new
slack
channel
for
the
sig
ducks
release,
and
I
see
a
lot
of
engagement
there
and
a
lot
of
interaction
as
well,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
you
want
to
mention
anything
new
going
on
this
quarter
or
anything.
You
know
in
particular
to
the
120
release,
but
but
if
you
want
to
comment
on
that,
that'd
be
great.
E
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
new,
particularly
to
mention
other
than
that.
It's
actually
we're
tracking
a
lot
of
features
for
this
release
compared
to
last
releases.
So
like
we're
tracking
55
enhancements,
which
is
a
lot,
and
that
means
a
lot
of
dogs
prs
will
be
coming
in
and
it's
around
kubecon,
it's
around
thanksgiving,
it's
around
like
december,
so
I
just,
I
guess,
wanted
to
mention
that
could
be
like
something
that
we
just
need
to
watch
out
for
in
the
coming
weeks.
So
awesome.
A
Yeah,
thanks
for
that
and
as
well
as
when
we
get
near
kubecon
and
thanksgiving,
and
some
of
these
dates
might
become
a
challenge,
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
the
sig
doc
slack.
If
we
can
help
in
any
way.
I
know
before
we
had
kind
of
an
all
hands
on
deck
at
some
point
for
reviewing
docs
and
making
sure
enhancements
and
features
you
know
got
merged
in
a
timely
fashion,
so
happy
to
help
out.
If
we
can.
E
Oh
yeah,
so
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
gonna
try
my
best
to
do
is
proactively
ask
for
reviews
throughout
the
release.
I
think
that's
something
that
we
learned
last
time
too,
because
we
had
a
lot
of
talks
to
review
in
the
last
few
days
before
the
deadline.
So
I
I'm
gonna
keep
that
in
mind
and
make
sure
that
we
bring
up
the
prs
that
needs
to
be
reviewed
during
the
sick
dogs
or
reach
out,
and
the
slack
channel
and
stuff
like
that.
So.
A
Cool
yeah
sounds
good
and,
and
I
recall
that
a
little
bit
of
a
fire
from
the
19th
release,
but
yeah
yeah,
not
a
problem
at
all.
A
A
A
I
believe
this
was
to
talk
about
the
overall
speed
and
performance
of
kubernetes
kate
said
I
o
so
like
running
it
through
page
speed
tests
enhancements
there.
You
could
maybe
say
that
the
css
work
as
part
of
that
I
don't
know
how
impactful
that
would
be
to
actual
performance
of
speed,
but
as
zach
mentioned,
it
definitely
improves
build
time
for
the
kubernetes
website,
but
in
q3
taylor
dozell
only
dole
on
slack
and
github
mentioned
that
he
would
like
to
carry
it
forward
in
q4
and
do
a
research
with
some
folks
there.
A
All
right
not
hearing
a
whole
ton
there,
so
I
guess
as
far
as
carrying
this
forward,
you
know
it's
a
little
tough
with
taylor,
not
here,
but
if
you
want
to
react
with
either
a
thumbs
up
or
a
thumbs
down,
or
maybe
you
don't
really
care
feel
free
to
to
express
it
either
in
chat
or
in
video.
E
I
think
it's
really
hard
to
vote
on
this
one,
but
or
not
here
here
but
like
he
wants
to
move
it
forward,
so
I'm
like
all
for
it
so.
F
Wait,
can
you
hear
me
yep?
Maybe
you
can
make
it
less
of
a
subgroup
and
just
ask
him
to
try
to
narrow
it
down
a
little
bit
more
and
make
it
a
little
bit
more,
something
that
he
can
actually
tackle
or
or
try
to
involve
more
people
with
it.
So
it's
going
to
be
tough
to
do
it
by
himself
right.
A
If
taylor
is
still
interested
and
then
karen
and
I
have
added
your
feedback
above
there
about
narrowing
down
to
maybe
an
issue
as
opposed
to
a
working
group,
I
think
that's
a
great
idea
for
sure
it's
a
big
bite
to
choose,
so
I
think
consolidating
that
down.
You
can
get
more
more
hands
on
deck
and
then,
if
taylor's
not
interested,
I
think
that
the
carry
forward
obviously
becomes
a
no.
Unless
somebody
else
wants
to
pick
that
up
and
run
with
it.
So
no
problem
there.
A
All
right
moving
on
to
the
continue
work
on
organizing
the
task
section
here
says
karen
you're
open
to
karen
to
open
an
issue
with
objectives
and
actions.
I
haven't
kept
up
with
this
or
have
any
context
I
don't
know
karen.
Can
you
share
a
little
bit
on
this.
F
Sure
I
haven't
done
anything.
F
Let's
see,
I
know
that
tim
actually,
I
think,
opened
the
issue
for
me
or
or
or
did
it
on
his
own
and
there's
been
some
conversation
there.
I
think
he
wants
to
he's
more
interested
in
reorganizing
and
I'm
kind
of
more
interested
in
tagging
and
adding
some
metadata.
So
there's
nothing
has
been
done.
F
I
don't
think
there
has
been
some
work
done
in
the
in
the
test
in
general,
but
I
think
you
can
either
carry
it
forward
or
you
could
kind
of
let
us
go
off
and
and
kind
of
see
what's
there
and
and
where
we
want
to
take
it
on
our
own
without
having
it
as
an
action
item.
So
it's
it's
completely
up
to
you.
A
Awesome
yeah,
I
mean
I
wouldn't
say
it's
entirely
up
to
me:
I'm
happy
to
remove
this
from
the
quarterly
planning
if
you
want
us
to,
but
if
you're
willing
to
run
this,
I
think
that'd
be
great.
A
F
I
mean
frankly,
I
don't
know
what
what
it
exactly
means
to
have
it
officially
on
the
on
deck
for
q4,
because
it's
up
to
the
group
really,
if
you
think
that
it's
something
that
should
be
on
there,
fine,
if
not
I
mean
I
may
actually
get
back
to
it-
tim
might
get
back
to
it.
You
know
so
I
have
no
idea,
I'm
going
to
continue
to
look
at
it,
but
it
might
be
sort
of
a
back
burner
type
thing.
So.
A
Gotcha,
so
my
general
opinion
would
be
to
we
leave
it
on
here.
I
guess
what
what
it
means
to
me
to
have
it
on
this.
You
know:
agenda
action
means
that
there's
some
sort
of
accountability
at
that
quarterly
review
spot.
You
know,
I
know
personally,
I've
opened
up
issues
such
as
updating
the
release,
which
I
think
we're
going
to
talk
about
later,
where
it's
just
been
on
my
personal
back
burner,
and
then
it
comes
up
for
a
quarter
of
the
review
and
I
say
oh
crap
I've.
A
I
volunteered
to
do
this
and
I
have
no
work
done
on
it,
so
it
it's
a
good
reminder
for
myself,
but
you
know
it's
not
like
not
there's
any
sort
of
punitive
action
for
having
it
on
here,
not
having
it
on
here.
A
A
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
related
to
the
big
css
cleanup,
which
definitely
has
helped
out,
but
this
seems
to
be
more
focused
on
creating
maybe
a
team
to
review
that
technical
level
of
accuracy
for
css
javascript.
If
I'm
recalling
the
the
discussion
properly,
does
anyone
on
the
call
have
any
more
context
on
on
what
this
action
item
was
or
should
be.
C
C
The
I
think
the
genesis
of
this,
if
I'm
remembering
correctly,
is
the
fact
that
in
the
some
of
the
css
cleanups,
some
of
the
prs
to
improve
site,
css
and
performance
were
sufficiently
complex,
that
we
had
a
very
shallow
pool
of
potential
reviewers,
and
also
that
there
were
some
changes
introduced
to
css.
That.
C
So
I
think
that
the
plan
was
to
create
a
review
team
of
people
who
could
actually
like
review,
give
it
like
a
deep
technical
css
review
to
css
changes.
C
I
think
that
the
plan
was
to
to
pull
both
within
sig
docs
and
also
in
the
wider
community
for
folks
who
may
have
a
deeper
css
knowledge
and
add
them
to
like
to
make
a
special
like
review
team
for
the
css
folder,
and
I
have
no
idea
whether
that's
done
or
not,
but
I
think
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
that
was
the
plan
was
to
get
a
specialized
team
from
the
wider
community
and
loop
them
in
on
reviews
for
css
changes.
Specifically.
A
Cool
that
definitely
helps
my
memory
about.
This
is
definitely
coming
back.
I
recalled
celeste
bringing
this
up.
I
believe
at
one
of
the
weekly
meetings
as
well
asking
for
that
more
of
a
deep
technical
review
of
some
of
the
css
changes.
A
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
of
the
major
stakeholders
here.
It's
either
celeste
taylor
or
tim.
I
guess
as
far
as
adapting
for
q4,
I
think
it's
a
lofty
goal.
I
don't
know
how
much
action
has
been
carried
on
there.
My
general
opinion
is
much
like
the
earlier
issue
with
the
taylor's
web
performance
is.
If
there's
folks,
who
want
to
drive
this
forward,
I
entirely
get
behind
this
and
support
it.
A
I
personally
don't
have
the
bandwidth
to
take
this
on,
and
I
don't
know
if
there's
anyone
else
on
this
call
who
would
like
to
volunteer
to
assist
with
such
a
team.
I
guess
I
should
rephrase
that
is
there.
Anybody
on
this
call
who
would
like
to
assist
building
such
a
team.
F
I
just
mentioned
that
I
think,
since
we
have
the
new
theme
that
I
think
some
of
the
customization
has
required
has
gone
down.
So
therefore,
we
have
a
lot
of
benefits
coming
from
the
theme
which
has
a
broader
pool
of
people
contributing
to
it
and
and
as
much
as
we
can
leverage
the
theme
and
what
the
theme
has
to
offer.
F
I
think
that's
a
good
thing
and
I
so
I
think
that
some
of
there
has
been
a
good
amount
of
clean
up
with
the
cs
and
the
js
there
still
could
be
more,
but
I
think
that
there's
some
we
have
we've
reaped
some
benefit
from
the
theme.
So
I
just
think
that's
a
good
pitch.
A
Yeah
definitely
I
completely
agree
with
that.
I've
seen
some
improvements
coming
from
updating
that
sub
module
and
happy
to
see
it
come
from
upstream,
as
opposed
to
us
leading
those
changes
for
sure.
A
D
I
would
be
interested
in
exploring
this
and
just
going
back
to
celeste
and
taylor
and
seeing
if
we
still
want
to
go
forward
with
this,
I'm
not
sure
based
on
what
karen
was
saying.
I'm
not
sure.
Maybe
it
needs
to
be
as
formalized
as
we
thought
last
time
around,
but
I
personally
think
it's
at
least
worth
exploring
further.
A
Awesome
yeah,
that's
generally
what
I'm
thinking
as
well.
F
Can
I
add
one
more
thing,
absolutely
yeah.
Can
you
actually
advertise
it,
though
I
think
that
yeah
advertise
it
like
hey
we're.
You
know
this.
This
may
be
a
subgroup
or
is
there
interest
in
that
area,
because
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
kind
of
make
it
provide
more
information
about
it.
I
don't
think
it
was
well
advertised
at
the
beginning.
That's
all.
D
Yeah,
I
love
that
and
I
I
definitely
think
it's
something
more
people
are
going
to
be
interested
in
if
we
mention
it
I'm
guessing.
This
is
on
a
lot
of
people's.
A
Minds
yeah,
so
if
I'm
hearing
correctly,
it
sounds
like
if
the
original
owners
are
still
willing
to
drive
this
forward.
This
general
docs
interest
on
top
of
driving
it
forward
actively
promoting
it
trying
to
engage
or
build.
This
type
of
team
would
be
beneficial
and
so
kind
of
carry
forward.
If
there
are
owners,
the
original
owner
still
interested
is
that
correct.
A
A
All
right
moving
on
localization
friendly
hyperlinks,
this
was
brought
up
by
chi
ming
you're,
ready
to
leave
with
chi
ming
and
karen
to
make
a
decision
to
move
forward
with
it
in
q3.
A
F
I
did
not
look
at
the
links
that
she
provided
earlier.
I'm
sorry,
but
I
know
that
chiming
has
actually.
He
wrote
a
nice
script,
he's
written
several
in
fact,
but
a
while
ago
that
I
believe
he
is
using
in
which
the
script
identifies
all
of
the
links
in
a
localization
that
would
need
to
be
updated,
and
so
it's
really
good.
I
think
it's
really
it's
an
excellent
script
and
it
could
be
used
by
all
the
teams.
F
So
I
don't
know
whether
that
was
discussed
in
the
actual
in
the
subproject
or
not.
But
it's
it's
a
well,
it's
a
nice
script,
but
it
doesn't
it's
not
like
it's
an
automatic
thing
where
it
actually
converts
the
scripts.
F
Sorry
converts
the
links
for
you
so,
but
it
definitely
is
a
good
script
to
diagnose
links
that
need
correcting.
D
F
There's
a
second
script
that
just
that
he
wrote
not
that
long
ago.
That
also
I
can't
remember
the
exact
details,
but
there's
there
are
two
scripts
in
fact
that
are
most
recent
and
they're,
both
very
useful,
so
check
with
him.
Yep.
B
A
You
awesome
yeah
and
I
I
just
took
a
quick
peek
at
the
pull
request,
that
of
karen
of
your
testing
script.
To
do
that,
and
I
see
it
was
closed
in
favor
of
teamings
and
then
now
I
catch
what
you're,
what
you're
saying
there?
I
do
wonder
as
far
as
the
kudos
opened
18403,
if,
if
that's
ready
to
close
or
not-
and
I
don't
have
a
ton
of
context
in
this-
I
don't
want
to
go
too
much
into
this
without
further
researching.
A
There
you
go,
but
I
see
it
looks
like
I
got
closed
with
the
the
life
cycle
stale
and
reopened
and
looks
like
the
last
activity
was
about
14
days
ago,
and
that
was
the
the
fed
about
closing
it
out
with
90
days
of
inactivity.
A
So
I
guess
what
I'm
hearing
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
is
that
their
subscription
place,
it
sounds
like
there's
some
improvement
to
be
done
with
as
far
as
advertising
this
with
the
localization
groups,
but
as
far
as
like
carrying
this
forward,
it
sounds
to
me
like
we're
in
good
shape,
either
that
issue
is
stale
and
stagnant
and
and
as
far
as
adopting
q4
there
would
be
a
no
I'm
guessing.
But
please,
let
me
know
if
someone
feels
like
that's.
A
Awesome,
so
I'm
going
to
mark
here
appears
to
be
no
it'd,
be
worth
double
checking
achieving.
I
know
that
without
him
on
the
call,
it's
a
little
hard
to
make
that
judgment
call.
So
I
don't
want
to
say
it's
not
worth
carrying
forward
at
all.
It
just
seems
like
the
effort
there
is
enough
to
close
out
this,
this
localization
friendly
hyperlinks
action
item.
G
A
To
the
reduced
manual
labor
burdens,
earview,
leading
jim
tim
backing
up
and
taylor
interested
talking
about
a
link
checker.
I
do
recall
some
progress
being
made.
Your
view
looking
into,
I
believe,
is
github
actions
for
checking
some
of
the
links.
I
don't
have
an
update.
I
haven't
been
actively
involved
in
this
project
or
this
this
action
item.
F
Why
not
right?
Okay,
so
I
don't.
I
think
there
is
a
a
pr
out
to
add
the
link
checker,
the
the
go
based
link,
checker,
which
only
checks
the
english
links,
and
I
think
you
could
probably
find
the
pr
or
I
can
try
to
dig
it
up
for
you,
but
I
think
that's
to
use,
get
github
actions.
It's
not
completed
yet,
and
I
stink.
I
think
there
was
some
investigation
with
that.
F
So
I
don't
know
the
status
of
it,
but
as
far
as
achieving
script,
that's
a
possibility
that
could
you
could
be
used
as
well.
So
I'm
just
throwing
that
in
there,
as
maybe
it's
an
option
or
an
addition.
C
To
I
recall
there
being
a
a
functional
script
that
works
for
checking
links,
I
think
the
the
last
I
recall
about
the
discussion
was
whether
or
not
to
automate
it
and,
as
usual,
I
sort
of
came
out
strongly
against
putting
it
in
the
ci,
unless
we
can
figure
out
a
way
to
restrict
it,
to
run
only
against
certain
con
only
against
certain
content,
but
that's
yeah.
That's
the
last
of
the
call
of
duty.
F
I
mean
I'm
not,
I
haven't
been
super
supportive
of
adding
it
to
the
to
the
workflow
to
automate
it,
because
I
feel
as
it's
something
that
it's
it
could
be
run
manually
and
if
it
is
automated,
what
will
people
do
with
the
information?
It's
not
like
it's
automated
and
it
will
automatically
fix
the
problems.
F
So
it's
it's
automated,
it's
gonna
tell
you,
and
so
somebody
has
to
open
a
pr
to
actually
fix
the
link,
so
it'd
be
I'd,
be
more
interested
in
having
people
actually
be
willing
to
run
it
and
then
try
to
fix
things.
You
know,
but
that's
just
me
personally,.
F
C
Nope,
I'm
a
strong
plus
one
as
well
sorry,
plus
one
to
what
karen
just
said.
I
don't
think
that
we
should
automate
something
unless
we
want
it
to
serve
as
a
universal
gait
check
or
unless
we
can
restrict
it
and,
like
karen
says,
unless
we're
clear
about
what
people
should
do
with
that
knowledge,
I
don't
think
there's
any
point
in
automating
the
check.
A
Cool
yeah
I'll
add
a
plus
one.
There
too,
I'm
I
don't
have
nearly
as
strong
of
opinions
on
automating
it
or
not,
but
I
do
do
agree
with
both
comments
being
made
saying
that
you
know
if
you
automate
it
and
there's
no
action
being
taken
on
that
you're
introducing
you
know
potential.
A
You
know
kinks
in
the
chain
there,
for
you
know,
merging
prs,
opening
pr's
or
you
know
whatever
that
trigger
is
for
that
github
action
so
I'd.
I
would
also
be
a
strong
plus
one
in
there.
So
it
sounds
like
what
I'm
hearing
is
to
not
carry
it
forward
in
q4.
Does
anyone
feel
like
we
should
carry
this
forward
in
q4.
A
Hearing
nothing
major,
I'm
gonna
put
no
for
carrying
forward,
but
I
do
think
once
again,
like
the
previous
action
it'd
be
worth
syncing
with
erv
to
make
sure
that
everyone's
on
the
same
page,
make
sure
that
your
view
agrees.
I
feel
like
it
might
be
unfair
to
to
make
this
decision
without
your
visa
input.
So
all
that
in
here
with
your
view
for.
A
Confirmation
all
right,
the
next
item
here
I
carried
over
from
the
q,
3
review
and
so
zach,
I'm
not
sure
if
there's
still
funding
for
cncf
to
fund
contractors
for
docs
improvement.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
talk
to
that
a
little
bit.
A
A
Right
so
optimizations
with
css
and
craft
cleanup
here
for
css
that
celeste
was
leading,
I
believe,
that's
related
to
the
massive
cleanup
effort
that
was
already
done
and
accomplished.
So
I'm
going
to
actually
wipe
this
from
here.
A
A
Strike
that
and
I'll
just
say
see
earlier
performance.
A
A
Going
while
we're
on
this
topic
of
contractor
funding,
is
there
anything
folks
could
think
of
or
consider
for
something
that
might
be
well
scoped
and
and
even
just
pitching
an
idea
and
not
being
willing
to
to
fully
own
that
issue?
Is
there
anything
that
folks
could
come
up
with
that,
potentially
be
a
good
use
of
a.
A
Cool
not
hearing
a
a
ton
from
anyone,
so
we'll
leave
that,
as
is,
if
things
come
up
at
least
the
the
awareness
is
there,
that
the
cncf
is
willing
to
fund
it,
considering
that
as
well
scoped
and
actionable,
so
definitely
something
to
keep
in
mind,
and
I
think
it's
worth
believing
this
on
the
quarterly
review
with
maybe
without
the
carry
forward.
You
know
disclaimer
on
this,
just
because
it's
something
worth
talking
about
as
long
as
that's
still
the
case
yeah.
That
seems
reasonable.
A
All
right
lower
barriers
to
entry
with
video
for
before
doc,
sprint
days
before
so
this
came
up
last
quarter
where
I
want
to
say
steve,
perry
and
potentially
a
couple
other
folks
from
sig
docs
brought
this
up
of
creating
kind
of
the
the
get
started:
videos
for
contributing
to
sig
docs.
A
A
So
I
guess
lacking
there
before
I
say
we're
lacking
willingness
to
drive
this
forward
or
ownership.
Let
me
ask:
is
there
anybody
who
would
be
willing
to
lead
this
effort
forward
for
as
far
as
creating
videos
and
content
for
contributors?
So
you
can
take
a
look
at
the
outline
guide
there
and
also,
let
me
say
that
by
volunteering,
saying
you're
interested
in
doing
something
like
this
is
not
a
full
dedicated
commitment,
just
if
you're
interested
in
taking
ownership
being
the
point
of
contact
there.
Obviously
this
could
be
discussed.
A
E
So
I
just
have
one
comment
and
I'm
just
looking
at
the
video
content
that
was
discussed
and
all
of
this
is
covered
in
the
contribution
contributor,
seg,
sorry,
contributor,
x
or
something
yeah.
A
To
be
honest,
I
I
have
no
idea.
I
know,
contributor
experience
does
a
lot
of
similar
pieces
as
far
as
contributing
to
kubernetes,
but
I
don't
believe
they
do
specifically
like
here's,
how
sig
docs
does
it
here's
how
the
merging
strategy
things
of
that
nature?
I
think
this
is
more
tailored
for
sig
docs,
but
do
you
know
if
they
have
videos
for
sick
and
trip
x.
E
Well,
like
every
kubecon,
they
have
something
and
that
video
is
always
up
right
and
I'm
looking
at
the
content.
If
you
look
at
it,
it's
a
lot
of
like
just
like
get
stuff
like
it's
not
really
related
to
sick
dogs,
in
my
opinion,
other
than
maybe
like.
E
Actually,
I
don't
see
anything
except
making
a
request
to
kubernetes
website.
So
maybe
we
should
talk
about
changing
the
content,
to
make
it
more
specific.
Just
like
docs,
then.
G
I
am
a
recently
new
contributor
and-
and
I
can
understand
the
drive
for
this-
in
that
it
was
the
the
kubecon
videos-
are
rather
long
and
they're
out
of
date-
kind
of
quickly.
You
know
just
because
of
the
churn
of
things,
and
so
it
was
a
rather
large
thing
to
read
that
or
to
to
consume
those
in
order
to
become
competent
and
it
was,
but
it
was
comforting
to
have
a
video
version,
like
you
know,
I'm
kind
of
a
text
person,
but
a
lot
of
people
really
favor
the
video.
G
So
I
can
see
the
drive
of
this
I'm
just
reflecting
on
it,
but
there
seems
like
there's
so
much.
I
think
you're
so
right.
Anna
then
like
a
lot
of
this
is
just
kind
of
it's
almost
like
git
should
make
this
for
us
right,
but
to
make
it
all
as
one
video
might
be,
because
it
will,
it
will
go
out
of
date
so
quickly
when
things
change,
some
of
these
things
may
change,
and
then
you
have
to
redo
the
whole
video.
G
A
So
I
believe
some
of
the
further
context
on
this
is
back
in
the
the
before
time
when
we
had
in-person
meetings
and
were
able
to
do
doc,
sprints
in
person
a
lot
of
that
doc
sprint
at
least
the
first.
You
know
first
section
of
it.
A
Let's
say
four
hours
of
it
give
or
take
is
sent
is
spent
onboarding,
new
contributors,
saying
here's
how
you
configure
git
here's,
how
you
sign
the
cla:
here's,
how
like
basically
the
on-ramp
to
contributing
to
docs
was
spent
majority
on
setting
up
initially
and
then
the
actual
sprint
happened,
maybe
after
the
second
half
of
that
session.
G
This
is
goofy,
but
since
this
would
help
all
cncf,
as
anna
pointed
out,
a
lot
of
this
stuff
is
relatively
generic
to
any
project.
G
A
So
I
don't
necessarily
think
it's
goofy
by
any
means,
but
what
I'm
curious,
though,
is,
if
you
make
them
for
all
cncf,
I
don't
think
it
necessarily
will
benefit
sick
docs
in
particular,
and
then
also
going
along
the
guidelines
of
being
well
defined.
I
think,
and
I'm
just
spitballing
here
talking
out
loud.
I
think
you
could
easily
scope
up
a
draft
and
say
here's
the
videos
you
want,
but
much
like
everyone's
talking
about
how
quickly
they
go
out
of
date.
A
A
I
think
there
might
be
some
some
edge
cases
there,
but
I'll
be
curious
to
hear
zach's
thought
on
this
being
a
current
member,
a
current
employee
of
the
cncf.
C
So
I
would
be
for
it
in
theory:
here's
the
thing,
the
knowledge
and
the
on-ramp
required
to
be
able
to
create
that
a
video
like
that
requires
a
fairly
significant
amount
of
time
and.
C
So
I
guess
I'm
not
convinced
that
if,
if
we
have,
if
we
pay
a
contractor
to
create
the
video
that
we
as
a
community,
would
then
continue
to
maintain
that
content.
C
Somehow
it
would
be
like
if
we
knew
for
sure
that
we
were
going
to
have
like
200
people
showing
up
to
a
doc
sprint
and
needed
to
create
an
intro,
because,
like
one-on-one
attention
scales
poorly
in
that
kind
of
an
environment,
then
I
would
absolutely
say
sure:
that's
worth
a
one-time
expenditure,
but
I
mean
video
exactly
as
jim
points
out.
Video
content
stales
as
the
contributor
workflow
changes
and
in
kubernetes
like
six
months,
is
a
geological
age
practically.
C
C
C
I
would
be
what
I
would
love
to
see
in
a
funding
request
is
a
conversation
with
signature
x
about
like
their
own
process
for
maintaining
their
own
tips
and
tricks,
and
maybe
like
working
with
sig
contrivex,
to
use
a
process
if
they've
got
a
process
that
works
well
for
them
piggybacking
off
of
that
process.
Rather
than
trying
to
reinvent
the
wheel
ourselves
or
paying
a
contractor
to
reinvent
it.
Does
that
make
sense.
A
G
Yeah
I
mean
the
the
the
process
can
be
could
be
critiqued.
I
mean
like,
like
anna
said
right
now,
it's
like
a
kind
of
a
long
video
that
is,
that
is
a
you
know,
and
we
found
that
it
was
out
of
date.
When
we,
you
know
the
latest
one
was
out
of
date
by
the
time
we
got
to
it.
I
mean
one,
tell
me
if
I'm
going
too
deep
here,
but
it's
an
interesting
problem
is,
can
the
can
somebody
create
the
meta
process
for
creating
them
right?
G
It's
like
it's
a
screen
record.
We
use
this
app.
We
make
sure
that
the
document
is
up
to
date.
You
do
the
document
reading
it
as
you
go
making
commentary,
you
know
it's.
We
track
it
and
get
in
some
way,
and
that
means
that
they're
triggered
to
be
updated
when
the
relevant
docs
are
updated,
or
I
mean
could
but
they're,
but
they're
smaller
chunks,
instead
of
the
hour-long
video
that
that's
currently
being
made.
Maybe
I
I
mean
we
might
be
getting
a
little
bit
too
deep
in
the
weeds
here.
A
Yeah,
and
definitely
this
is
something
that
we
could.
We
could
further
discuss,
potentially
on,
like
the
the
sig
ducts
slack
channel,
but
yeah.
I
think
this
conversation
is
very
healthy
and
in
the
right
direction.
We're
agreeing
that
you
know
short
snippets
of
videos
would
be
good
and
having
a
matching
process
or
whether
it's
a
meta
process
or
not.
I
think
there's
general
alignment
there.
I
think
what
we're
lacking
is
as
a
clear
owner
to
say,
or
I'm
going
to
guide
this
through
for
an
entire
quarter.
A
A
meta
process
would
be
a
great
outcome
for
something
like
this
or
a
path
forward,
and
I
I
don't
think
something
like
this
exists,
but
what
I
think
would
be
great
is
something
like
there's
the
latex
text
editor
where
you
can
write
basically
a
document
as
code
and
then
publish
it
in
any
sort
of
different
format.
You
want
it's
kind
of
like
writing
in
markdown.
The
benefit
is,
is
easily
you
know,
formattable
or
changeable.
Once
you've
actually
created
the
markdown.
The
theme
could
then
be
laid
on
top
of
it.
A
You
know,
and
that's
really
what
I
would
love
to
see.
Something
like
this
have
happen
is
the
ability
to
make
those
minor
changes.
Those
nits
you
know
for
oh,
this
is
now
called
this,
or
this
has
been
changed
here
or
you
know
making
those
edits
worse.
Not
like.
Oh,
you
know,
we've
changed
this
one
thing
and
sig
docs.
Now
I've
got
to
recreate
a
10-minute
video
on
how
to
contribute.
A
H
B
B
H
H
I
I'd
be
willing
to
drive
kind
of
looking
at
videos
in
terms
of
a
limited
scope
and
some
smaller.
B
Videos
yeah,
I
think,
that's
a
great
suggestion,
because
if
you
could
break
up
the
you
know
the
the
little
pieces
of
of
what
we'd
have
to
do
for
getting
the
cla
sign
and
configuration-
maybe
not
maybe
three
out
of
the
four
pieces
don't
go
out
of
date
and
and
and
we
do
have
get
more
more
value
out
of
it.
So
that's
a
great
suggestion.
B
G
Feel
like
an
interloper,
so
I
haven't
been
ready
to
volunteer
for
something,
but
I
I
have
some
experience
and
and
I'm
very
interested
in
how
this
sort
of
thing
works.
So
I'd
happily
work
with
somebody
on
that.
I
don't
like
I
said
too
much
of
an
interloper
to
say
that
I
should
take
ownership
over
anything.
But
but
let
me
help
sounds
great.
A
Jeffrey
appreciate
you
stepping
up
for
that
and
joel
I
I
have
you
down
here-
is
willing
to
pair
up.
So
I
think
with
the
owner
on
this
makes
it
easy
to
carry
this
forward,
and
I
think
what
we
should
do
is
move
forward.
Would
that
actually
have
to
look
at
smaller
scopes,
joel
willing
to
pair
up
on
that,
and
then
we
can
review
it
again
at
the
q4
review,
like
I
said,
probably
in
early
january,
and
see
what
the
updates
are,
then
that
sounds
good
with
everybody.
A
So
the
next
item
is
the
remove
third
party
and
dual
source
content.
I
know
a
bulk
of
this
work
has
been
completed
and
talking
about
how
do
we
close
up
for
good,
and
this
came
up
at
a
sig
ducks
weekly
meeting,
and
it
was
more
about
outlining
the
contributor
guy
to
have
clear.
A
A
A
I
think
this
is
more
about
closing
the
loop
on
there,
so
I
think
this
this
might
be
worth
moving
to
more
of
a
a
weekly
discussion
or
move
it
to
the
weekly
meeting
rather
than
the
quarterly
review
and
see
if
we
can't
close
the
loop
on
on
third-party
content
did
folks
have
any
other
further
based
context
on
this
or
opinions.
C
Jim,
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
have
the
document
open.
Can
you
sorry?
Let
me
just
take
a
oh.
That's
not
it
either.
Do
you
mind
reading
what
the
specific
action
item
is.
C
I
see
yeah
that
there's
still
lots
of
third-party
content
and
dual
source
content
that
needs
to
be
removed.
I
think
it
would
be
a
great
sprint.
Honestly,
I
don't
know
there
hasn't
been
a
ton
of
enthusiasm
for
like
pursuing
it
as
an
ongoing
project.
C
Like
tim,
I
know,
has
opened
a
few
pr's
to
remove
content
and
there
have
been
a
handful
of
other
folks,
but
in
terms
of
like
a
well-coordinated
ongoing
effort,
nothing
has
emerged.
So
I
think,
like
I
would
I,
like
your
suggestion,
jim
of
shelving
it
without
forgetting
it.
I
really
do
think
it
would
be
an
excellent
like
a
the
the
core
of
a
sprint.
C
One
thing
I
do
want
to
note
about
third
party
content
is
that
we've
faced
some
pushback
within
the
sig
about
removing
some
content
that
absolutely
fits
the
bill
for
removal,
but
because
I
don't
know
for
whatever
reason
folks
feel
attached
to
it
or
worry
about
it.
They've
pushed
back
on
removing
it
and
it's.
C
I
guess
I
want
to
make
the
point
here,
as
I've
made
elsewhere,
that
the
time
to
discuss
all
of
this
there
was
an
ample
five
month.
Long
comment
period
for
whether
or
not
to
pursue
a
removal
policy
with
these
specific
criteria
that
period
passed
with
abundant
comment
and
all
of
that's
been
folded
into
the
form
that
the
final
pr
actually
took.
So
at
this
point
it's
a
done
deal,
let's
not
re-litigate,
whether
or
not
to
remove
content.
All
of
the
discussion
happened.
C
It's
on
us
now
to
fulfill
the
policy
that
the
community
agreed
that
we
would
take
on.
So
I
mean
have
all
the
feelings
you
want
about
content,
but
if
it
doesn't
meet
the
policy,
let's
treat
it
accordingly.
G
B
Cap
we
can
so
so
we
don't
have
to
like
re-add
that
to
a
style,
guide
or
contributor's
guide.
Necessarily,
I
mean
it's.
It
really
is
just
something
we
need
to
make
sure
the
approvers
are
aware
of
and
familiar
where
to
find
as
they
worry
about
what
they
approve.
Yep,
it's
in
the
contributor
guide,
no
okay,.
F
So
just
a
suggestion,
maybe
it's
something
that
the
group
would
like
to
if,
if
we
can't
have
a
sprint
spread's
a
great
idea,
but
to
maybe
periodically
or
make
it
something
that
you
do
every
couple
of
weeks
is
come
up
with
a
list
of
content
that
you
know
should
be
looked
at
for
review
and
for
removal,
and
that
way
at
least
it
brings
it
to
light
so
that
people
it's
not
a
shock
if
their
content
does
get
removed.
F
So
it's
something
that's
out
there
and
says
this,
and
we
think
this
needs
to
get
removed
and
and
why
or
or
not,
why
but
a
point
to
the
content
guide,
but
I
think
at
least
identifying
it.
Otherwise,
it's
it's
not
there.
Maybe
there's
still
a
list
of
pages
that
should
be
removed
or
content
in
a
page
that
should
be
removed
in
the
issue.
There's
an
issue,
that's
open
right,
so
I
think
just
keeping
it
active
is
probably
the
way
to
go
about
it.
A
Awesome
yeah-
and
I
I
completely
agree
with
that,
and
so
it
sounds
like
the
best
path
forward
would
be
to
move
this
to
the
weekly
meetings
not
lose
track
of
it.
Make
it
a
regular
effort
to
continue
the
discussion,
and,
as
that
alluded
to
is
that
we
have
the
policy
in
place.
It's
clearly
defined,
and
so
it's
not
really
a
question
about
whether
or
not
certain
content
should
be
removed.
It's
more
or
less
saying
this
is
the
content,
that's
going
to
be
removed
and
here's.
Why?
Basically.
B
So
so
have
we
thought
about?
You
know
we
used
to
do
what
were
called
bug
squash
days
and
so
maybe
a
process
where,
if
you
see
the
third
party
content,
but
you
don't
have
time
to
remove
it,
maybe
you
can
open
up
an
issue
and
as
we
get
a
whole
bunch
of
them,
maybe
we'll
we'll
pick
a
day
and
call
it
not
bug
squash,
but
third
party,
squash
and
and
then
we'll
just
sit
there
and
people
just
start
trying
to
to
to
knock
off
removing
the
third-party
little
sections.
B
A
Yeah,
that's
a
great
idea.
I
is
this
something
you
would
like
to
help
lead
or
organize.
B
B
A
But
as
far
as
the
overall
idea,
it's
great
you
know,
let's,
let's
label
content,
let's
open
issues,
let's
track
this
the
weekly
meeting,
and
if
somebody
wanted
to
organize
something
like
a
major
doc's
purge,
I
think
that
would
be
well
supported
by
sick
docs.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
I
I
I'm
a
little
tight
on
time
until
my
my
my
latest
book
is
done.
The
riley's
kind
of
beating
me
up
that
that
we're
a
little
behind,
so
I've
got
to
be
very
careful
until
that,
that's
finally
done
and
then
I'll
I'll
be
able
to
to
be
a
little
more
aggressive
with
with
that
that
kind
of
stuff.
A
Great
all
right
so
remove
unnecessary
complexity,
align
docs
to
certification,
exams,
lower
in
the
bar
for
understanding
kubernetes.
I
took
ownership
of
this.
I
have
not
done
any
work
on
this.
A
There
has
been
some
conversations
between
the
cncf
and
the
cka
certified
kubernetes
administrator
exam
and
how
we
can
better
align
there.
I
don't
believe,
there's
any
formal
outcome,
so
I'm
gonna
give
myself
a
poor
rating
of
zero.
Maybe
arguably
a
point
one
or
something
similar
to
that
with
some
of
the
discussion
going
on,
but
give
yourself.
A
C
I
think
that
the
willingness
to
act
was
there
on
our
part
that
if
I
recall
correctly,
it
came
down
to
the
willingness
of
the
exam
admins
on
the
cncf
side
to
provide
really
specific
information
about
like
test
content
and
whatnot,
and
I
don't
recall
them
ever
following
up-
and
I
remember
prompting
them
at
one
point
and
I'm
still
not
getting
a
response
back.
C
So
I
think
it's
fine
to
accurately
assess
the
the
state
of
progress,
but
I
would
like
that
accuracy
to
include
that
we
were
present
and
willing
to
engage
in
that.
J
A
So
as
far
as
carrying
forward,
I
I
feel,
like
we've
kind
of
talked
out
loud
about
this,
and
and
it's
really
like
the
the
willingness
is
there.
The
ball
is
not
really
in
our
court,
and
so
I
would
vote
this
in
a
sense
of
no
let's
not
carry
this
forward,
but
willingness
to
act
if
asked
upon
folks
think
that's
fair.
I
So
I
just
want
to
bring
up
one
thing
as
well.
I
know
this
isn't
about
the
past
quarter,
but
there
is
a
new
cert
test
coming
up
the
cks,
and
this
is
something
that
I
might
be
able
to
help
drive
as
well
good
because
the
company
I
work
for
we
do
a
lot
of
training
with
the
ck
ck
ck,
cccad
exam
and
the
cks
exam
and
in
the
near
future,.
I
But
I
think
we
have
to
look
at
how
the
docs
align
with
the
cks
test
that's
coming
up
in
a
few
weeks
and
also
with
the
new
cka
exam.
It
was
updated
in
september
as
well,
and
let
me
drive
this
since
I
am
also
pretty
involved
with
the
with
those
exams.
A
Awesome
yeah
that'd
be
great,
appreciate
you
stepping
forward
for
that.
The
one
thing
too,
I
would
mention,
is
with
savita's
involvement
in
the
I
always
screw
this
up,
the
sig
security
docs
channel
and
the
subgroup
going
on
there.
It
might
be
worth
pairing
up
with
them
and
making
sure
that
there's
alignment
there
as
well
as
far
as
the
revised
cka
exam,
I
did
assist
with
some
of
the
creation
there.
A
Now
it's
a
lot
of
the
the
stuff
is
under
nda,
but
from
what
I
can
recall
from
that
cka
exam,
the
content
and
the
the
documentation
presence
needed
to
take
that
that
cka
exam
hasn't
changed
in
the
sense
of
there's
nothing
in
the
cka
exam,
that's
not
in
the
docs,
essentially
more
or
less
so
so
the
ck
shouldn't
be
as
big
of
a
concern
there.
I
mean
in
my
opinion,
but
the
cks
one.
Definitely
I
haven't
taken
it.
A
I
don't
have
any
context
in
it,
so
I
think
pairing
up
with
that
sig
and
taking
our
ship
there'd
be
great.
K
Sorry
so
I
I
actually
took
both
cks
and
the
new
ck
as
beta
tester.
I
can't
give
any
you
know
detailed
information
about
it,
but
all
I
can
say
about
those
is
cka,
no
problem.
It's
basically
the
the
this
new
scope
is
more
like
narrowing
to
the
administration
rather
than
like
running
workloads
and
stuff.
So
it
shouldn't
be
a
problem
but
cks.
K
I
couldn't
get
information
like
much
information
to
complete
the
exam
on
documents,
because,
like
a
lot
of
new
concepts
such
as
you
know,
hardening
kubernetes
clusters
like
running
runtime
security
on
top
of
kubernetes
and
such
this
information
are
completely
lacking
on
the
documents
right
now
so
yeah.
As
for
the
aligning,
I
think
there
will
be
some
improv
there
there
there
will
be
some
necessity
of
improving
the
documentation
and
like
adding
contents
depending
on
the
demand.
I
think
also.
K
I
had
to
take
the
survey
after
taking
the
exam
like
what
was
like
precisely
not
enough
to
complete
the
exam.
So
maybe,
if
they
take
our
feedbacks
correctly,
I
think
cks
team
would
add
some
content
on
doc.
But
I
don't
know
about
that.
G
G
G
A
I
do
think
this
is
a
slightly
a
more
complex
issue
in
the
sense
of
there's
different
people
within
the
cncf
that
are
creating
the
content
that
are
creating
the
questions
that
are
creating
the
exam
overall
and
then
I
know
they
partner
up
with
individuals
in
the
kubernetes
community
to
create
the
test
questions
and
what
the
answers
look
like
in
defining
the
criteria
there
of
you
know
what
is
passing
this
question
versus
not
how
the
grading
criteria
is
so
I
don't
know
if
they
would
have
an
idea
of
what
docs
they're
looking
for,
but
potentially
the
working
group
or
the
folks
that
they
have
writing
the
doc
or
writing
the
the
test
could
help
with.
A
But
you
know,
I
think,
that's
definitely
something
that
ray.
As
you
mentioned
you
could.
You
could
help
run
with
more
than
happy
to
get
you
in
touch
with
the
cncf
folks
there.
If
that
helps,
but
I
think
it
might
take
a
like
an
ambassador
from
sig
docs
to
to
help
kind
of
connect,
the
dots
there,
at
least
from
what
I've
seen
or
known.
A
Cool
and
so
so
what
I
ended
up
doing
is
I
I
broke
out
the
unnecessary
complexity
online,
doctor
certification
exams
that
I
was
taking
ownership
of
I'm
still
going
to
leave
that
as
no
but
willingness
to
act,
as
I
feel
like
there
was
some
effort
there
that
that's
kind
of
left
on
standby,
and
then
I've
created
a
new
action
item
or
new
list
for
tracking
about
a
lining,
specifically
the
cks
certification
exam.
I
think
with
cohai's
experience
as
well
as
my
own.
A
The
cka
is
most
likely
in
good
shape
when
it
comes
to
documentation,
but
it
sounds
like
cks
could
definitely
use
a
review
and
a
an
extra
set
of
eyes
on
that.
So
I
appreciate
ray
you,
you
taking
that
and
we'll
add
that
to
our
list
here.
A
Any
comments
on
this
brad
that
you'd
like
to
add.
B
Oh,
I
think
we've
got
great
potential.
I
sort
of
make
sure
I
think
you
scheduled
the
next
meeting
right
you
put
on
the
calendar
yeah.
I
didn't
remember
what
the
date
was
and
we're
called
seeing
the
date,
but
I
think
we
have
lots
of
great
topics.
We
got
lots
of
great
topics
and
we've
got
lots
of
great
folks
with
really
cool
expertise,
and
I
think
it's
it's
gonna
do
really
good
to
have
that
tribal
knowledge.
Sharing
that
we're
doing.
A
A
For
think
we're
full
steam
ahead,
solid.
Yes
on
that,
and
I
think
that
the
the
work
being
done
there
for
localization
is
beneficial
in
multiple
layers.
There,
especially
connecting
the
different
teams
like
I
was
mentioning
earlier.
It
seems,
like
folks,
were
inventing
their
own
processes
and
solving
their
own
challenges
when
they
shared
a
common
thread
of
localizing,
the
kubernetes
documentation,
so
yeah.
This
is
awesome,
work.
A
A
I
guess
that'd
be
more
of
the
proposals
then,
as
I
said,
if
you
have
any
more
goals
to
review,
but
this
would
be
things
that
were
set
in
q3
that
we're
talking
about
now.
So
I
would
imagine
if
they
were
in
the
q3
dock.
They
probably
don't
need
to
be
added
here,
but
give
you
an
opportunity
to
bring
that
up.
If
that's
the.
A
Case
all
right,
so
moving
on
to
the
year-long
2020
goals
and
real
quick
just
wanted
to
time
check
with
folks
here
I
know
we've
been
been
going
at
it
here
for
for
a
little
bit
of
time.
I
did
lie
to
everybody
and
said
this
is
probably
going
to
be
quicker
than
historical,
quarterly
meetings.
So
my
apologies.
There
do
folks
need
a
break
right
now
or
are
we
okay,
trudging
forward.
A
A
A
All
right
so
moving
on
feel
free
folks,
if
you,
if
you
need
to
take
a
bio
break
or
anything
like
that,
feel
free
to
turn
off
your
video
or
whatever,
and
do
what
you
gotta
do.
And
I
said
this
is
a
relatively
long
process
here.
So
moving
on
to
the
the
year-long
2020
goals,
improving
the
docs
process
here,
where
it
says,
review
pr
review
process
for
pr
wrangling.
A
Yeah,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
this
improving
docs
process
is
overall
sig
docs.
I
don't
really
remember
the
exact
scope
on
this
and
without
celeste
here
I
don't
really
know
if
we
can
accurately
discuss
any
actions
being
done
there.
I
know
pr
wrangling
has
been
been
going
well.
I
was
anyone
on
the
call
have
any
further
context
on
the
improving
docs
process
for
the
long
reaching
2020
goal.
A
All
right
so
for
automating,
major
and
minor
release
content
so
create
a
process.
That's
just
updating,
release,
content
to
the
release
team
release,
notes
and
create
a
new
releases
page,
the
assessment's
at
a
point,
five
from
quarter
three,
and
I
think
it
should
stay
at
assessment
of
five.
There
is
an
issue
that
I'm
not
going
to
pull
up
very
quickly
here,
where
I
opened
it
to
track.
A
We've
made
some
progress
about
0.5
worth
of
progress
as
far
as
switching
the
sig
docs
merge
strategy,
but
as
far
as
automating
with
the
kubernetes
release
tool
corel,
there
hasn't
been
much
effort
there.
A
I
think
mainly
because
there's
a
few
things
up
in
the
air,
there
is
a
downloads
there,
there's
a
kubernetes
release
page
that
has
been
merged
into
kubernetes
one
of
the
release
teams.
So
it's
like
a
a
way
to
go
to
a
web
page
and
see
what
the
current
releases
are.
So
a
quick
way
to
see
what
the
latest
binaries
are
for
cube
api
server
for
cube
cuddle,
you
name
it
you
can
go.
There,
click
a
link
and
download
it.
A
There
is
some
active
effort
started
by
tim,
to
use
the
github
api
to
pull
into
different
versions
and
create
a
list
there
which
somewhat
conflicts
with
this
downloads
page
and
there's
a
lack
of
direction
on
that
overall
initiative,
and
I
believe
I
saw
I
think
it's
karen-
who
commented
about
just
what's
the
status
update
on
this
release
page
because
we've
been
in
this
kind
of
limbo
for
about
two
quarters
now,
so
I
would
still
like
to
look
into
automating
it
with
krell,
I'm
still
willing
to
own
that,
but
there's
kind
of
a
lot
of
various
pieces
there,
there's
automating
the
release,
notes,
there's
the
actual
tooling
that
can
be
used
to
automate
some
of
the
release
content.
A
I
think
this
could
use,
maybe
some
scope
clarification.
If
anything,
I
think
right
now
might
be
too
broad,
but
in
general,
I'm
still
interested
in
at
least
the
the
corel
automation
piece
of
that
many
questions
or
comments.
I
know
it's
kind
of
all
over
the
place
there.
It
is
a
complex
there's,
a
complex
area
to
cover-
and
I
guess
one
bullet
point
but
care.
Do
you
have
something
to
add.
F
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
I
think
it's
important
to
keep
it,
but
I
also
think
it's
important
to
maybe
have
a
a
meeting
or
a
session
where
you
introduce
what
k
rel
is
or
krell
is
because
I
think
from
a
from
the
docs
team,
I
kind
of
stay
I'm
not
as
involved
with
the
release
team
as
you
are
or,
and
so
I
have
no
idea
what
that
tool
does.
So
I
think
it's
important.
F
Maybe
there
should
be
an
introductory
meeting
or
at
least
a
little
workshop
or
something
that
explains
what
it
is
and
and
how
docs
could
benefit
from
it
or
the
the
integration
with
it
or
whatever.
So
that's
all.
A
Awesome,
yes,
strong,
plus
one
of
that.
I
know
there
there's
that
kind
of
weird
blurry
line
between
docs
and
and
the
release,
team
and
100
agree
some
more
education
and
just
introductions
to
the
krell
utility
and
and
to
be
totally
frank
with
the
folks
on
this
call
is
I
wasn't
too
familiar
with
the
tool
myself,
and
I
think
that
was
a
lot
of
my
reluctance
to
get
involved
with.
A
You
know
changing
a
lot
of
the
coding
behind
there,
but
as
of
roughly
a
week
or
two
ago,
I
worked
with
the
release
engineering
team
to
cut
a
kubernetes
release,
which
is
predominantly
driven
by
this
qrik
krell
utility.
So
I
feel
a
little
bit
more
comfortable
about
using
it.
I
feel
a
little
bit
more
comfortable
about
giving
that
introductory
meeting,
so
I
think
we're
in
good
shape
to
kick
something
like
that
off
alongside
scope,
clarification.
I
Cool,
so
I
got
one
more
thing
to
add
about
crowl
and
automated
release
notes.
So
since
january
there
is
a
new
corel
sub
command
to
generate
release,
notes
and
the
process
to
automate
with
generation
release.
Notes
has
it's
it's
hard
to
say
if
it's
done
or
not,
I
was
part
of
that
team
until
recently,
so
let
me
go
check
with
the
release
notes
team
on
how
far
the
automation.
K
E
That
actually
reminds
me:
they
actually
recorded
a
video
of
onboarding
the
shadows
with
this
tool
and
that
video
is
shared,
and
I
could
share
that
link.
I
don't
know
if
this
covers,
I
didn't
watch
it,
so
I
don't
know
if
this
covers
the
things
that
we're
looking
for,
but
it
might
be
worth
watching
so.
A
Awesome,
do
you
mind
sharing
that
either
in
the
agenda
or
on
the
chat
here
when
you
get
a
chance.
A
A
Awesome,
thank
you
and
right
and
I'll
definitely
keep
both
of
you
in
the
loop,
as
as
we
further
learn
more
about
how
we
can
use
krell
for
the
doxa
automation
piece,
and
I
believe
I
kept
a
little
bit
up
with
the
automating
release
notes.
A
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
there
was
historically
the
issue
where
maybe
a
pull
request
needed
release,
notes
that
were
there,
but
not
present
or
needed,
but
not
present,
or
they
were
present,
but
not
adequate
enough,
and
so
the
tooling,
I
believe,
allows
the
release
team
to
go
in
and
substitute
certain
release
notes
for
certain
pr's
to
either
be
more
clear,
be
more
specific
link
or
reference
certain
documents
or
cves
that
came
out
just
making
the
overall
generation
of
those
notes
easier.
The
release
notes.
A
A
Cool,
so
this
one
is
about
still
content
an
opportunity
to
automate
or
prune
led
by
sixer
users.
I
took
ownership
of
this
issue
itself.
This
is
an
ongoing
issue.
I
there
hasn't
been
much
work
done
that
I'm
aware
of,
but
essentially
the
the
problem
is.
Is
we
don't
have
a
system
in
place
to
identify
still
content
or
content
that
needs
to
be
updated?
A
That
hasn't
been
touched
in
a
while
is
inaccurate.
You
know
pretty
much
needs.
Revision
needs,
review,
needs,
improvement,
and
so
the
goal
here
was
potentially
adding
metadata
to
markdown
docs
of
different
stakes
who
own
certain
pieces
of
content,
potentially
writing
a
script.
That
would
say
this
page
hasn't
been
updated
in
x
number
of
days,
maybe
ping
the
sig
and
make
sure
it's
still
accurate
to
a
certain
degree,
there's
a
lot
of
great
ideas,
and
I
think
it's
still
a
worthy
effort
to
continue
on
tracking.
A
L
I
was
a
little
late
to
get
to
the
mute
button.
I
I
this
is
something
that
actually
sounds
really
interesting.
So
if
that's
something
I
can
sort
of
put
my
name
down
for
and
then
maybe
I
can
follow
up
to
see.
A
Awesome
yeah
absolutely
so
as
far
as
next
steps
for
this,
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
to
get
in
touch
with
myself
or
I
know,
celeste
is
willing
to
help
out
with
this
and
just
brainstorm
ideas.
Really.
I
think
it
just
takes
action.
You
know
figuring
out
how
many
docs
are
out
there.
What
kind
of
metadata
would
need
to
be
added?
What
does
the
process
look
like?
There's
a
lot
of
meta
processes
to
this
overall
evaluation
that
need
to
be
kind
of
hashed
out,
and
I
see
that
as
the
next
couple
steps
there.
A
All
right
moving
on
kubecon
doc,
sprints,
unfortunately,
are
still
postponed.
I
I
kind
of
left
this
in
here,
not
necessarily
as
a
joke,
but
you
know
in
this
when
we
first
did
our
quarterly
review
and
we
talked
about
you-
know
real
life
events
being
postponed
for
some
reason
I
thought.
Maybe
it
might
not
be
the
case
now
and
it
might
be,
it
might
be
a
little
different.
A
Unfortunately,
you
know
I
don't
see
in-person
conferences
returning
anytime
soon,
so
just
kind
of
leaving
this
as
a
reminder
that
it
is
worthy
to
track
the
kubecon
doc
sprints.
Unfortunately,
in-person
events
are
are
kind
of
what
kind
of
in
limbo.
I
guess.
A
Moving
on
to
the
api
reference
generation
and
sorry
to
punt
this
one
to
you
zach,
I
know
we've
touched
on
this
one
earlier
we
talked
about
the
google
seasons
of
docs
involvement
and
some
of
the
reference
generation
pages
in
progress
there.
I
didn't
have
the
correct
context
to
properly
assess
this
piece
here.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
any
additional
context.
C
Sure
so
what
I
guess
gosh
how
to
do
fast
context.
This
has
been
a
goal
of
mine
for
three
and
a
half
years:
improving
the
the
quality
and
the
experience
of
generated
api
references
when
we
migrated
to
the
doxy
theme
for
the
website.
C
Doxy
offers
built-in
support
for
rendering
swagger
specs
or
open
api
specs
in
a
pretty
way
what
we've
discovered
and
what
philippe
has
discovered
that
philippe
martin
is
the
the
intern
who
is
doing
this
project.
What
philippe
has
discovered
is
that.
C
The
way
that
doxy
renders
an
api
spec
isn't
resource
centric.
It
doesn't
start
with
with
the
actual
api
resources
that
people
use
it
starts.
It
follows
the
actual
spec
path,
which
is,
I
suppose,
technically
correct,
but
distinctly
unhelpful.
It
doesn't
follow
actual
cognitive
patterns
that
humans
use.
C
So
if
you
want
to
see
an
example
of
what
let
me
see,
if
I
can
find
it
really
quick,
it's
kate's
ref
dot,
io.
Let
me
paste
the
link
really
quick.
C
All
right,
I
pasted
it
into
zoom
chat.
This
is
what
a
resource
driven,
spec
or
reference
generation
looks
like,
and
this
is
ultimately
what
we'd
like
to
like
to
preserve.
C
This
also
reflects
the
the
current
state
of
how
apa
references
are
generated
in
the
documentation,
they're,
just
not
rendered
in
a
pretty
or
easy-to-render
way.
So
the
good
news
is
that
philippe
also
built
this
site
the
case,
so
tim
has
been
tim
and
karen
and
chi
ming
have
both
given
extensive
feedback
to
philippe
about
things,
to
consider
in
implementing
doxy's
swagger
support
and
the
the
deeper
that
folks
dive
into
feedback.
C
The
more
apparent
it
is
that
doxie
likes
to
do
things
in
a
very
specific
way,
and
it's
very
difficult
to
get
doxie
to
deviate
from
that
path,
but
that
there
are
options.
So
what
felipe
is
doing
right
now
is
looking
at
a
way
to
adapt
or
adapt
katesref.io
the
the
logic
driving
how
this
is
rendered
to
he's,
looking
at
how
to
include
this
in
the
website
repo
in
a
way
that
doesn't
create
like
a
site
mini
game.
C
So
I
spent
some
time
reviewing
the
code
base
with
him
earlier
for
how
to
generate
this,
and
I
have
some
concerns.
I
think
my
my
chief
concern
is
that
this
the
logic
underpinning
how
kate's
ref.I.o
is
rendered,
isn't
very
user
friendly
or
very
maintainer
friendly?
Sorry,
so,
right
now,
there's
the
semantic
logic,
the
render
logic
and
the
view
logic
aren't
separated.
C
So
if
you
want
to
do
things
like
change
the
layout
or
the
color
you're
playing
in
go
rather
than
in
css,
and
that's
obviously
not
tenable
for
for
our
maintainer
base
or,
frankly,
like
it's,
not
good
practice
to
have
the
view
logic
intermingled
with
the
render
logic
or
the
sorry,
the
generation,
the
reference
generation
logic.
C
So
I
guess
my
principal
feedback
to
philippe
about
taking
this
approach
is
to
follow
best
practices,
make
sure
that
this
doesn't
create
a
site
within
a
site
and
to
cast
an
eye
towards
because
developer
happiness
as
a
chief
outcome,
but
also
maintainability
over
the
long
term.
So
I
think
philippe
has
heard
my
concerns
and
is
working
to
to
alleviate
them.
I
know
that
if
you
look
at
he's
got
a
pull
request
open.
I
don't
have.
C
C
If
you
search
for
prs
authored
by
him,
it's
in
the
open
pr
list,
if
you
look
at
the
preview
for
the
pr
that
he
has
open
right
now,
you
can
see
both
the
swagger
rendering
in
doxy
and
also
the
kate's
ref,
rendering
and.
C
So
it's,
I
guess,
it's
possible
to
to
see
and
give
feedback
about
both
approaches.
Although
at
this
point
I
am
going
to
ask
folks
to
to
well
I'm
going
to
ask
philippe
to
consider
closing
his
current
pr
and
opening
a
new
one
that
focuses
on
the
implementation
of
this
particular
logic
for
catesref.io,
rather
than
trying
to
make
sense
out
of
the
current
extensive
backlog
of
feedback
for
an
approach
that
may
no
longer
be
relevant
here.
C
So
I'm
going
to
ask
him
to
close
this
pr
open
another
one,
and
I
would
ask
folks
to
focus
on
the
maintainability
and
focus
on.
I
guess
like
an
mvp,
a
minimum
viable
product,
rather
than
looking
at
all
of
the
things
that
could
be
better
looking
at
the
things
that
are
required
for
this
to
merge
and
making
sure
that
it's
iterable
after
that
point
and
the
iterability
is,
I
think,
the
chief
concern.
C
So
that's
what
I've
got
any
questions
about
that.
A
I
don't
have
any
questions.
I
appreciate
the
the
deep
context
on
there
and
definitely
understand
a
lot
more
than
I
did
coming
into
this.
Anyone
else
have
any
questions
or
comments
regarding
the
generation.
A
A
All
right,
yeah,
so
hearing
nothing.
I
know
this
is
one
of
those
you
know
longer
goals
the
the
2020
goals
for
docs,
and
this
isn't
really
a
question
of
whether
or
not
to
carry
it
forward
because
it
is
a
google
season
of
docs
but
but
definitely
something
worth
keeping
an
eye
on
for
sure.
A
As
there's
progress
being
made
quick
side
note,
I
did
find
out
recently
that
it's
called
google
season
of
docs
instead
of
google
summer
of
docs
or
google
summer
of
code,
because
the
original
creator
of
google
season
of
docs
lived
in,
I
believe,
australia
or
somewhere,
where
it
wasn't
summer
during
this
time.
Well,
yes,
and
do
you
have
more
context
on
that
zach,
because
I
I
only
heard
that
in
passing
I
was
like
that
is
interesting.
It's
not
the
summer
of
docs,
it's
the
season
of
docs
and
thought
I'd
share.
C
Yeah,
it's
sarah,
I'm
trying
to
remember
her
last
name:
sarah
maddox
lives
in
australia
and
yes
for
for
her
it's
deep
winter.
I
think
by
the
time
that
the
the
season
concludes.
It
will
be
summer
for
her
and
winter
for
us.
So
yes,
it's
a
more
global
friendly
name.
A
Cool,
so
in
the
agenda,
we
have
a
10-minute
break
here
with
the
two
remaining
proposals
that
I
see.
I
would
be
happy
to
move
forward
and
hit
these
proposals
and
and
call
it,
but
do
folks
feel
like
they
need
a
break
or
move
forward.
A
Here,
nothing,
let's
power
forward,
all
right
cool,
so
the
first.
The
first
proposal
that's
brought
up
here-
is
the
the
great
beast
of
capitalization.
So
this
was
brought
up.
There's
been
a
a
few
emails
on
the
sig
docs
mailing
list
generally
about
our
our
capitalization.
What
do
we
call
an
object?
How
do
we
identify
the
different
objects?
A
There
there's
a
lot
of
opportunity
to
to
bike
shed
on
this,
but
I
think
it's
a
worthy
goal
that
we're
trying
to
to
obtain
is:
how
do
we
make
the
information
easier
to
consume?
Make
it
easier
to
read,
make
it
understood
by
more
folks.
I
I
think
the
effort
is
definitely
a
worthwhile
effort,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
somebody
wants
to
give
a
little
bit
further
context
on
what
the
proposal
is.
A
I
I
doubt
we
will
come
to
a
unified
standard
or
anything
in
this
in
this
meeting
here,
but
is
there
anything
we
can
outline
and
and
share
so
feel
free
to
take
that
away
from?
I
would
like
to.
H
So
I
linked
a
specific
pull
request.
I
made
talking
about
right
now.
The
style
guide
prohibits
saying
explicitly
like
the
term
object
and
I'm
suggesting
we
change
the
style
guide
to
say
it's
okay
to
use
object
where
it's,
where
it
would
help
clarify
what
you're
talking
about,
but
don't
overuse
it.
So
that's
a
specific
example
of
a
change
I'd
like
to
make,
but
if
anyone
has
any
since
I'm
very
new
here,
if
there's
a
better
avenue
to
have
this
discussion,
I'm
looking
forward
to
hearing
it.
C
Well,
I
think
that
specifying
when
we're
referring
to
an
object
would
actually
be
helpful
because,
as
the
discussion
on
the
email
list
went,
one
of
the
I
think
what
emerged
quickly
from
that
discussion
is
that
there
is
no
easy
way
to
provide
like
universal
capitalization
guidelines
that
apply
to
all
things
in
all
situations,
because
it
gets
really
difficult
to
disambiguate
when
you're
like
referring
to
something
like
a
capital
o
object,
the
object
object,
so
I
think,
like
adding
a
greater.
C
I
guess,
adding
greater
specificity
in
language
when
referring
to
various
components
or
specifically
to
objects
would
actually
be
helpful.
C
I'm
not
sure
that
we
can
fully
define
overuse,
but
I
think
we
know
when
we
see
it.
So
if
we're
comfortable
with
a
certain
degree
of
ambiguity-
or
I
guess
fuzziness
around
what
constitutes
overuse,
then
I
am,
I
think
it
would
be
a
worthwhile
change
to
make.
H
G
I,
when
I
start
documentation
projects
from
the
ground
up,
I
still
use
the
microsoft
style
guide,
the
mstp
4.0,
which
I
think
was
last
updated
over
10
years
ago,
and
it
and
I
love
it
so
much.
I
think
I'll
get
the
whole
thing
tattooed
on
a
micro
dot
somewhere
in
my
body,
but
it
does
not
use
capitalization
as
distinctions
for
anything,
that's
not
a
brand
or
a
proper
noun
and
blending.
That
is
something
that
I
just
from
my
perspective
as
some
of
those
documentation,
I
find
hard
to
adopt
right
and
it's
you
know.
A
Yeah-
and
I
think
so,
it's
kind
of
like
multiple
different
pieces
here
and
we're
talking
about
you
know
capitalization
talking
about
you
know
declaring
when
something
is
an
object
or
when
it's
not.
A
You
know,
I'm
personally
in
the
opinion
of
if
folks
feel
strongly
enough
about
something
and
they're
willing
to
create
the
pr
engage
with
the
wider
community
get
general.
You
know,
alignment
there,
I'm
100
for
the
discussion.
I
don't
have
an
incredibly
strong
opinion
on
the
outcome.
I
have
a
stronger
opinion
on
the
folks
willing
to
do
the
work
and
make
the
changes
needed
to
see
those
changes
reflected
in
the
docs.
A
I
believe
zach
ultimately
reflected
similar
sentiments
in
the
email
thread
saying
you
know
if
you
want
to
open
up
a
pr
and
and
propose
these
changes,
let's
have
the
discussion
in
a
pr
or
in
an
issue,
and
I
I
think,
as
far
as
a
quarterly
proposal,
I
don't
know
if
this
necessarily
needs
to
be
a
quarterly
discussion
to
be
had
I'm
not
against
having
the
discussion
quarterly
as
well.
It
seems
more
properly
something
that
could
be.
You
know
squashed
or
discussed
in
a
weekly
meeting
per
se.
A
Alongside
an
open
pr,
like
you
have
here,
or
you
know,
similar
I've
done
the
work,
here's
you
know
what
what
I
believe,
we
should
be
doing.
Here's,
why
x,
y
and
z,
and
having
that
future
discussion
will
be
very
valuable,
and
I
guess
my
question
would
be.
Has
that
not
been
the
case
jeffrey
or
I
guess
what
what
would
be
your
expected
outcome
for
something
like
this.
H
H
G
I
would
also
say
that,
speaking
as
a
new
contributor,
the
style
guide
was
fine,
like
I
understood
what
the
rules
were
and
I
was
able
to
consistently
apply
them
as
they
are,
and
that's
the
thing
that
I
really
care
about
is
like.
If
I
know,
if
I'm
right
or
if
I'm
wrong
and
then
a
reader
can
see
it
consistently.
C
Now
so
I
don't
know
that
this
frankly
needs
more
discussion.
It's
received,
if
anything
too
much
discussion
in
the
sense
that
there
is
a
well-documented
abundance
of
opinions
and
not
a
whole
lot
of
driving
forward.
Having
opinions
is
easy,
getting
things
done,
isn't
so
easy.
I
am
willing
to
entertain
changes
trying
to
there's.
We
had
a
new
contributor
out
of
that
discussion
and
I
feel
bad
for
her
because
I
don't
think
that
her
new
contributor
experience
was
very
quick
or
very
easy.
C
I
think
it
was
fairly
representative
in
that
it
was
a
change
that
was
processed
a
lot
and
got
a
lot
of
review,
but
I
don't
know
that
it's
the
sort
of
experience
that
people
say
like
yeah
wow
sign
me
up
for
more
of
that,
and
that
is
I
don't
know
that.
That's
anything
that
we
need
to
worry
about
or
change
over
much,
but
I
do
want
to
see
a
greater
bias
towards
action
rather
than
processing
down
to
the
the
bottom
of
every
possible
iteration
of
an
opinion
and
its
implications.
C
I
think
that
the
style
guide
is
fine
too.
I
think
we
could
have
better
examples
in
it,
but
I
don't
feel
any
great
need
to
remedy
capitalization
for
the
style
guide.
I
think
the
context
for
the
the
reason
we
were
having
the
discussion
in
the
first
place
is
that
folks,
from
red
hats
came
over
and
said
we're
not
clear
about
how
to
apply
these
guidelines
to
our
own
documentation.
C
Can
you
be
consistent
with
how
you're
doing
it?
So,
I'm
all
about
collaborating
and
making
sure
the
the
community
is
mutually
intelligible,
and
you
know
smoothing
the
path
for
the
developer
experience
as
much
as
we
can.
At
the
same
time,
jeffrey,
I
think
the
the
the
title
for
this
proposal
was
very
apt
in
calling
it
the
great
beast,
because
there
is
no
satisfying
it.
C
So
I
think
that
the
the
specific
proposal
that
you
have
made
about
allowing
object
to
be
used
in
documentation
judiciously,
I
think,
that's
a
very
reasonable
accommodation
to
make-
and
I
I
feel
like
I've
already
talked
too
much
about
this,
so
I
guess
I
would
put
it
that.
Yes,
let's
move
forward
with
the
specific
proposal
that
we
have
and
let's
not
waste
a
whole
lot
more
time,
working
through
every
possible
iteration
of
it.
H
So
I
I
agree
with
you:
tim
commented
on
my
pull
request
that
he
thought
it
should
be
brought
up
for
further
discussion
and
he
put
like
do
not
merge
on
the
pull
request.
H
C
I
think
that's
absolutely
appropriate
to
come
back
with
a
comment
and
said:
hey
we
discussed
this
at
annual
planning.
Here
was
the
discussion.
Here's
the
consensus,
hold,
cancel.
H
Okay
sounds
good.
Thank
you.
A
Yeah
I
was
gonna
echo
that
too
it
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
pushed
back.
It's
I
think
the
discussion
was
just
had
and
it
sounds
like
there's
general
alignment
there
that
action
speaks
louder
than
inaction
or
opinions,
and
it's
only
the
specific
pr
is
good
to
go.
A
Cool
we
appreciate
you
bringing
that
up
and,
like
I
said,
as
you
just
come
up
in
the
future,
I
do
think
you
know
bringing
about
a
weekly
meeting.
We
can
hash
it
out
and
once
again
have
that
bias
for
action
would
definitely
be
the
overall
overarching
opinion.
I
would
say.
A
Cool
any
other
questions
or
comments
around
the
the
great
beast
of
capitalization,
and
it's
also
kind
of
ironic
all
in
capital,
letters
all
starting
with
capital
letters
all
right.
Moving
on
to
the
last
and
final
proposal
here
about
removing
manual
steps
from
the
release,
anna,
I
don't
know,
do
you
want
to
take
this
one
or
talk
a
little
more
about
it.
E
Yeah
so
I
know
a
lot
of
people
on
the
call
are
not
very
familiar
with
the
release
process
for
the
docs,
but
so
what
really
it
comes
down
to
is
that
there's,
an
enhancement,
that's
gonna,
be
part
of
the
release
and
that
enhancement
owner
creates
a
doc's
pr
if
needed,
and
then
what
our
team
does
is
basically
add
the
my
labels
like
milestone,
and
then
we
make
sure
that
the
code
was
merged
before
we
can
merge
our
docs.
E
But
let
me
just
like
pause
there.
So,
like
those
two
steps,
I
feel
like
could
be
automated
or
it
should
not
be
a
manual
process,
and
I
just
wanted
to
bring
this
up
and
talk
about
it
and
whether
it
was
worth
pursuing.
E
I
guess
for
the
next
quarter,
I
guess,
but
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
automate
like
adding
the
milestone.
I
I
don't
know
exactly
how,
but
maybe
we
can
discuss
that
too.
A
So
this
is
about,
if
I
have
a
documentation,
that's
going
to
go
in,
for
example,
the
dev
120
release,
so
it's
not
going
to
be
merged
into
master
just
yet
until
120
comes
out,
when
I
open
up
that
pr,
potentially
and
me
being
end
user,
customer
docs.
A
Author
of
pr,
when
I
open
up
that
pr,
some
sort
of
automation
would
add
a
milestone
and
a
hold.
Is
that
what
I'm
hearing.
E
A
I
personally
don't
have
any
questions
about
this.
I
do
question.
I
guess
I
do
have
questions,
but
I
do
consider
how
easily
that
could
be
automated
and
much
like
the
link
checker.
A
E
Yeah,
that's
another
thing
that
I'm
actually
going
to
fix
in
our
role
handbook
because
or
not
role
handbook,
but
one
of
the
documentation
that
we
have
out
there
for
folks.
It's
thought
like
they
should
apply
the
milestone,
which
then
would
notify
us,
but
I
actually
don't
get
notified
at
all
for
that.
So
it
actually
doesn't
work
out
fixed
like
this,
so
we
should
remove
that
instruction
or
something
but
anyways.
That's
not
the
point.
E
E
Of
course,
I
would
need
to
research
a
little
bit
more,
but
I
think
the
really
the
one
thought
I
think
would
be
very
beneficial-
would
be
the
hold
label
for
the
kk,
because
there
are
times
where
it
could
happen
that,
where
we
kind
of
missed
that,
because
it's
not
very
visible
in
the
docs
pr,
whether
the
kubernetes
code
got
merged,
then
or
not.
So
if
we
had
anything
to
make
sure
like
a
safeguard
even
for
us
like.
I
think
that
would
be
really
helpful.
C
So
I
wonder
I
guess,
with
the
caveat
that
it's
been
a
while,
since
I
looked
at
what
what
functionality
prow
has,
I
wonder
if
it's
possible
to
either
through
power,
maybe
through
github
actions,
to
automate
adding
labels
based
on
branch
so
like,
if,
if
people
open
a
pr
against
the
development
branch
against
dev
dash
one
dot
whatever
to
automatically
add
the
milestone
label
and
the
hold
label
to
those
prs?
C
If,
if
that's
something
that
we
can
automate
through
prow
or
through
a
github
action,
that
seems
completely
reasonable
to
me.
I
am
you
know
all
for
automating
toil.
So
if,
if
there's
a
solution
available
that
that
absolutely
seems
worthwhile
anna.
E
F
No,
I
I
I
would
second
what
zach
said
I
I
do
agree,
I'm
just
going
to
ask
anna
what
is
the
the
the
most
important
thing
that
you
find
it's
not
working
for
you.
F
I
think
for
me
from
what
I've
noticed
and
I've
I've
been
through
a
few
releases
that
it's
you
know,
setting
the
milestone
label
and
making
sure
you're
on
the
right
branch
and
if
your
feature
is
actually
going
in
or
not
and
and
getting
technical
approval
and
then
docs
approval,
so
I
think
I
think,
actually
trying
to
put
a
label
on
it
as
soon
as
the
pr
is
created
and
that
automatically
creates
the
at
least
the
milestone
and
alerts
you
or
alerts
the
the
lead
the
docs
release
lead.
E
Yeah,
I
think
that's
pretty
much
all
the
steps
karen,
you
got
it,
but
I
think,
like
the
alerting
and
yeah,
I
think
I
like
that
idea
of
having
once
the
pr
is
open
it
just
labels
that
like
hold
and
the
milestone,
and
then
we
can
do
the
action
where
we
remove
the
hold.
If
you
know
the
kkk
gets
merchant
or
something
that
could
be
the
first
step,
I
guess
do.
F
One
other
thing:
do
authors:
is
there
any
anything
with
the
feature
that
it's
assigned
a
technical
reviewer.
F
Automatically
or
or
is,
does
someone
have
to
sign
up
and
say
I'm
responsible
for
for
approving
this?
Oh,
my
god,
that's
not.
F
But
for
can
that
also,
you
know
correspond
to
getting
the
technical
review
for
the
doc.
Sometimes
you
need
it.
Sometimes
you
don't
so
it
all
depends.
E
Yeah,
I
think
that's
actually
a
really
good
idea.
It
doesn't
well.
I
don't
know
what
functionality
does
that,
but
like
we
get
assigned
automatically
when
pr
gets
created
right
so
like,
can
we
somehow
use
the
owner's
file
of
that
seg
to
like
assign
someone
or
maybe
maybe
it
doesn't
work
like
that,
because
they
probably
have
a
schedule
too
right.
A
Yeah,
I
would
echo
that
more
automation,
the
better
where
it
makes
sense.
You
know
where
we
can
easily
find
winds
here.
I
know
that
many
moons
ago
the
the
tech
reviewers
is
more,
I
guess
as
needed
so
like
when
you're
looking
at
an
enhancement
and
you'd
say
this
is
way
out
of
my
jurisdiction.
This
is
like
storage.
I
have
no
idea
if
this
is
accurate
or
not,
I
might
go
in
ping,
sig
storage
for
technical
lgtm.
A
However,
if
it's
something
very,
I
don't
wanna
say
straightforward,
but
maybe
something
that
seems
like
it
makes
general
sense
to
me.
I
see
the
enhancement
we
remove
this
flag
and
the
prs
removing
that
flag.
Usually,
then,
I
take
the
liberty
as
a
documentarian
to
say
all
right.
Let's
listen
to
me
approve
it.
A
Let
it
go
out
the
door
with
the
release,
but
it
would
be
awesome
to
just
attach,
when
you're
doing
an
enhancement,
who's
going
to
review
the
the
tech
docs
or
be
the
tech
reviewer
for
the
doctor,
I
think
that'd
be
beneficial
for
sure.
E
I
can
take
that
as
an
action
item
and
talk
to
the
enhancement
team,
because
I
actually
been
improving
their
side
too,
adding
like
dogs
requirement
in
the
enhancement,
issue,
template
and
stuff.
So
maybe
that's
also
something
that
I
can
put
in
there.
A
Yeah
definitely
and
definitely
a
strong
plus
one
for
this
overall
initiative
to
automate
these
these
components.
But
I
do
wonder
I
seem
to
find
a
handful
of
prs
that
are
against
master.
That
should
be
against
the
dev
branch
and
I
don't
think
that's
a
solution
or
I
don't
think
it's
something
that
could
be
solved
necessarily
on
this
call.
A
But
but
I
don't
know
how
that
to
me:
that's
a
bigger
problem
like
all
right.
We
can
figure
out
a
way
to
automate
when
a
pr
gets
opened
up
against
development
branch.
Maybe
these
actions
then
occur,
but
if
someone
opens
up
against
master,
I
wonder
if
there's
a
way
to
potentially
fix
that
as
well.
Just
talking
out
loud.
A
Well
and
much
like
karen
was
talking
about
as
well.
I've
done
pr
wrangler
shifts
where
I'm
like
borderline
ready
to
it
looks
good
to
me
and
approve
of
pr
than
I
realize
is
for
an
enhancement
or
for
a
dev
dock,
or
something
like
that.
I
have
to
put
the
brakes
on
and
switch
it
up
or
request
them
to
move
that
so,
like
I
said,
I
wouldn't
discourage
that
conversation
to
to
displace
the
conversation
or
automating
what
we
can
automate,
but
something
worth
keeping
in
our
minds
as
well
and
zach.
C
No
just
plus
one
to
that
last
bit
there.
I
wouldn't
let
the
fact
that
this
is
also
a
question.
Stop
you,
anna
from
automating
the
pieces
that
you
can.
E
A
E
Yeah,
so
I
actually
got
a
question
from
the
enhancement
team
asking
like
what
is
the
point
of
placeholders
and
I
kind
of
said
it's
to
like
make
sure
that
enhancement
owners
are
aware
of
doc's
requirement
earlier,
and
then
they
get
ready
for
it,
because
we
don't
get
that
much
time
after
code
freeze
right,
but
at
the
same
time
I
kind
of
agree
with
them
in
the
sense
that,
like
before
the
code
freeze
everyone's
so
focused
on
the
code
itself.
E
Right
like
no
one
really
cares
about
dogs
and
it
takes
us
a
lot
of
pings
just
for
them
to
create
a
placeholder.
And
I
guess
it's
more
of
a
question,
and
I
I
I
think
that's
10
times.
Please
correct
me
if
that's
wrong
or
if
there's
a
better
reason
why
we
have
placeholders.
But
I
like
to
understand
a
little
bit
more
about
placeholders
and
whether
is
that
something
that
we
can
like
automate,
possibly
also
yeah.
A
So
I
believe
I
can
give
a
little
bit
of
context
on
placeholders,
or
at
least
what
purpose
I
see
them
serving
and
folks
can
feel
free
to
agree
or
disagree
with
this.
But
I
think
it's
a
matter
of
getting
someone
to
do
something.
You
know,
I
think
it's
finding
that
level
of
involvement
that
we
can
ask
the
very
bare
minimum
involvement.
We
can
ask
from
an
enhancements
owner
saying:
can
you
just
create
the
placeholder?
A
Much
like
you
were
talking
about
during
code
freeze,
everybody
is
focused
on
getting
that
feature
merged,
getting
all
the
different
pieces
in.
Maybe
they
can't
be
bothered
with
the
docs,
but
the
very
least
they
can
open
up
a
placeholder
pr
and
do
that
one
initial
step-
and
I
would
say
hopefully,
if
I
was
an
author
of
an
enhancement
instead
of
opening
a
placement
pr
and
already
going
through
the
the
effort
of
doing
that.
A
Maybe
I
would
just
create
the
documentation
needed
hopefully,
and
if
not,
maybe
I
am
so
swamped
getting
my
enhancement
into
kk
or
kubernetes
repos.
Maybe
all
I
can
do
is
open
the
placeholder
pr.
But
now
I've
taken
that
single
step
of
action.
Saying
I'm
serious
about
this
enhancement,
I'm
the
owner
of
this
enhancements
documentation
and
now,
from
the
release
team's
perspective,
there's
a
single
person
to
contact
for
that
documentation
as
well
as
now.
A
A
Let
me
contact
him
and
say:
where
is
his
pr
at
so
I
would
be
against
automating
it
just
because
I
think
the
bar
is
very
low
to
ask
for
opium
placeholder
pr,
but
that's
under
the
understanding
that
I
have
of
we're
asking
you
to
do
the
bare
minimum
it
takes
to
to
get
started
this
process,
given
code
freeze
and
all
the
other
expectations
at
hand,
any
other
questions
or
thoughts
or
comments,
agree,
disagree,
etc.
A
F
I
agree
with
you.
I
also
I
like
seeing
the
placeholder
prs
come
in
because
I
think
it
gives.
I
don't
look
at
the
list
of
enhancements
or
I'm
not
very
actively
looking
at
them.
So
I
really
like
it
when
I
see
a
placeholder,
because
then
it
gives
me
a
heads
up
and
say
I
know
something's
coming
it's
not
there,
but
it
should
be
coming
so
it's.
I
think
it's
really
good.
I
think
it's
good
for
the
docs
to
at
least
have
that
there.
E
Okay,
then
it
sounds
like
we
should
keep
the
process
that
we
have
right
now.
So
that's
okay!
I
just
wanted
to.
Let
know
a
little
bit
more
insight
into
it.
A
A
A
Good
job,
jim
thanks
yeah,
I
got
big
shoes
to
fill
out.
I
think
zac
you
set
the
bar
pretty
high,
there's
no
no
official
dance
party
and
I
I
regret
to
inform
everyone.
There
probably
won't
be
a
dance
party
as
long
as
I'm
chairing
these
so.
A
Cool
well
here
nothing.
I
appreciate
everyone
taking
the
time
out
of
their
evening
or
morning
to
to
have
this
discussion,
and
I
look
forward
to
some
more
action.
This
next
quarter,
I'll
talk
to
y'all
later
thanks
all
thank.