►
From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG Multicluster 2021 Feb 23
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
D
C
Okay,
we'll
give
it
a
few
minutes.
I
don't
have
a
trivia
question:
does
anybody
have
a
joke
or
something
that
can
burn
a
couple
minutes
while
we
wait
for
folks
to
join.
B
C
C
C
Okay,
I
think
I
think
that
we
can
probably
go
ahead
and
get
started
so
I'll,
introduce
things,
hello,
everybody.
It
is
the
tuesday
february
23rd
2021
meeting
of
kubernetes
sig
multi-cluster.
C
I
have
the
first
thing
on
the
agenda,
so
I
will
hand
it
over
to
me
all
right.
So
the
first
thing
that
we've
got
on
the
agenda
today
is
cluster
registry.
Repo
is
basically
abandoned.
C
I
think
we've
moved
on
from
this
work
in
the
sig,
and
I
have
a
ping
from
steering
committee
asking
us
to
make
a
decision
about
what
we're
going
to
do.
C
So
personally,
I
think
that
we
should
archive
this
repo.
I
don't,
I
don't
think
it's
doing
anything
but
confusing
people
at
this
point,
I
wonder
what
others
think.
F
I
agree
yeah.
I
think
we
last
time
we
talked
about
this
and
it
was
more
than
six
months
ago.
If
I
remember
right,
we
kind
of
came
to
the
conclusion
that,
like
we
think
we're
gonna
archive
it,
but
we'll
have
to
see
what
happens
and
literally
nothing
happened
with
it
since
then,
so
yeah
probably
tells
us
what
we
need
to
know.
B
C
B
C
That's
right,
cube
fed,
doesn't
integrate
with
cluster
registry
anymore.
Okay,.
C
Okay,
so
here's
here's
what
I'm
hearing
that?
No
one,
no
one
objects
on
this
call
in
keeping
with
lazy
consensus.
So
we
don't
just
like
make
this
decision
with
a
few
people
in
a
sig
meeting
I'll
email
the
list
and
see
if
there
are
any
reservations
about
it.
My
opinion
is:
if
anybody
wants
to
keep
it
alive
like
they
can.
C
I
think
that
we
can
basically
archive
it
and
someone
can
propose
a
new
version
of
it,
but
I
don't
think
any
purpose
is
served
by
keeping
it
around
just
cause,
even
if
a
couple
folks
are
using
it,
it's
certainly
not
adopted
as
any
kind
of
standard.
So
I
will
do
that
after
this
and
laura.
I
think
you've
got
the
next
item
on
the
agenda.
E
E
So
my
two
topics:
I
want
to
give
an
update
about
cluster
id,
of
course,
and
the
two
major
points
are
just
update
on
the
naming
survey
and
then
also
that
I've
made
some
changes
to
the
draft
pr,
and
I
think
it's
comment
time
so
just
wanted
to
kind
of
maybe
say
a
few
things
about
that
and
invite
everybody
to
give
it
a
read.
E
So
I
will
start
with
the
naming
part
first,
because
it's
maybe
quick
so
this
is,
I
picked
out
kind
of
the
most
important
question
from
the
survey
and
then
the
three
biggest
contenders.
E
So
just
I
guess
fyi.
This
is
where
it's
kind
of
trending
in
general.
Cluster
property
is
kind
of
the
winner.
If
we
sort
of
ignore
the
other
section
which
I'll
talk
about
in
a
second
cluster
property
is
kind
of
the
winner
when
you
know
hit
up
against
each
other,
and
it's
also
has
more
like
it's
in
love,
it's
than
hate.
E
It's
so
that's
interesting
and
then
cluster
attribute
is
kind
of
like
in
the
in
a
even
spread,
and
it's
kind
of
like
our
third
pick
when
people
judge
it
across
everything
else.
Cluster
fact
I
kind
of
grew
in
here
too,
as
number
three
and
also
had
historically
been
the
most
popular
alternative.
I
was
my
feeling
in
within
the
sig
like
people
who
come
to
the
call,
but
it's
not.
F
E
Well-Hated,
tragically,
so
just
the
update
on
that
not
everybody
is
on
the
same
page
on
that
one
so
yeah.
So
this
is
the
current
kind
of
status
to
speak
a
little
bit
more
about
the
other
section.
E
There
were
a
couple
in
there
like
cluster
claim
reappeared,
though
we
had
kicked
that
out
for
our
own
reasons,
and
there
had
been
some
others
that
I
don't
think
we
would
necessarily
go
with
like
cluster
uid
and
cluster
link,
but
there
were
at
least
these
three
that
I
thought
you
know
might
be
contenders
cluster
attributes
s
came
in
cluster
declaration
with
a
option
and
cluster
element
so
anyways
just
giving
you
some
insight
into
what's
coming
through.
E
I
do
want
to
ping
a
cluster
api
group
again,
because
the
last
time
I
like
really
connected
with
them,
it
was
when
a
spreadsheet
existed,
so
I
don't
want
to
close
it
yet.
But
I
wanted
to
give
you
all
an
update
of
the
status
and
then
I'll
take
you
know,
people's
feelings
about
you,
know
cluster
fact
rep
or
any
of
these
other
graphs
or
even
how
people
feel
about
any
of
these
other
write-ins.
And
if
it's
the
situation,
you
know
if
it's
worth
like
reopening
with
more
options
or
keep
rolling
as
we
are
for.
B
E
Right
yeah,
these
were
just
the
only
ones
that
felt
like
maybes,
but
I
think
you
know
if
us,
as
kind
of
like
the
regular
sega
attendees
or
you
know,
run
in
this,
don't
feel
like
they're
critical
enough
to
like
redo
this
whole
process.
You
know
and
like
get
another
quiz
going
at
least
not
yet,
then
we
can
hold
off
on
that.
F
E
All
right:
well,
that's
the
update
on
this,
and
I
will
come
back
with
it
again
after
I've,
pinged
cluster
api
and
respond
to
slow
down
again
and
then.
My
other
point
is
that
I
think
it's
common
time
for
this
pr.
I've
made
some
updates
and
integrated
the
feedback
as
best
I
could
from
our
discussion
two
weeks
ago.
E
I
think
I
mostly
got
most
of
it.
I
think
one
section
down
here,
I
kind
of
put
the
like
to
kkk
or
not
to
kkk,
and
I
attempted
to
make
sort
of
a
little
rubric
of
what
I
believe.
The
like
things
are
that
people
feel
there's
a
difference
between
the
two
and
also
what
I
gathered
was.
E
You
know
the
truth
of
the
situation
for
either
of
these,
but
I
think
this
which
you
can.
We
can
also
see
in
nod,
markdown
version.
If
I
view
the
file
it
will
render
it
to
me.
Thank
you,
yeah,
so
kind
of
tried
to
organize
these
thoughts
and
also
mention
you
know
some
of
the
things
we
were
talking
about.
So
this
is
the
part
I'm
probably
least
confident
in
but.
E
Oh
sure,
okay,
we
can
change
that,
but
yeah.
I
wanted
to
write
it
somewhere
that
we
could
all
you
know
mole
over
it
more
formally
so,
but
so
hopefully
that
helps
instead
of
hurts
the
situation,
but
other
than
that,
I
also
tried
to
address
all
the
other
unresolved
points,
some
of
the
stuff
that
was
unresolved
in
other
sections,
I
kind
of
moved
it
down
to
the
design
details
section.
So
hopefully
the
comments
get
you
to
the
right
place
and
yeah
I
mean.
E
I
think
I
think
if
everybody
could
give
it
a
read
and
then
make
some
comments
and
then
I
can
do
the
same
sort
of
iteration,
like
you
did
with
the
provisional
I'll,
try
and
distill
any
comments.
I
can't
resolve
alone
into
you,
know
slides,
and
we
can
talk
about
them
here
and
keep
it
rolling.
C
Awesome
any
other
content
around
that
or
things
folks
want
to
say.
F
F
Time
boxing
on
on
the
naming
discussion,
because
that
seems,
like
you
know,
implementable
or
not,
I
think
everyone's
kind
of
seems
to
be
on
board
with
the
concept
we
need
to
figure
out
the
the
kk
or
crd
pretty
quickly,
but
we
can't
really
do
anything
without
a
name.
F
E
C
I
have
a
couple
little
updates
about
some
potpourri
type
stuff.
So
one
is
that
trojan
raised
a
pr
to
put
the
google
doc
contents
into
work,
api
repo-
and
you
can
take
a
look
at
that.
It's
pr
number
four
on
work,
api.
C
My
bias
is:
let's
go
ahead
and
merge
what's
there
since
it's
encoding
what
was
just
in
the
dock
and
we
can
tackle
any
changes
to
that
on
as
follow-on
prs,
but
I'd
prefer
to
like
get
something
up
into
the
main
branch
of
that
repo
to
demonstrate
what
we're
doing
and
like
the
direction
that
we
go
or
direction
that
we're
thinking
about
and
then
finally,
I
have
apparently
been
instructed
in
a
reliable
way
to
add
videos
to
the
youtube
playlist,
which
is
a
bizarrely,
complex
and
hidden
activity
that,
like
I
guess,
was
hiding
in
plain
sight-
and
I
just
didn't
know
for
whatever
reason
and
like
the
knowledge
wasn't
wasn't
kind
of
like
in
an
accessible
place.