►
From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG Multicluster 20180424
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
B
B
C
B
E
E
Okay,
been
coordinating
about
that
offline,
make
sure
that
Nikhil
is
ready.
I
believe
they
were
planning
to
come
to
this
meeting
in
order
to
discuss
that
with
the
sake
I,
don't
know
what
exactly
they've
done
there
so
I
think
for
now.
Perhaps
we
we
let
that
item
go
and
see
if
there's
anything
else,
that
people
want
to
discuss
and
wait
for
them
to
show
up.
E
Hey
you're
fun,
so
I
have
a
small
update
about
the
a/v
cluster
registry.
On
Friday,
we
had
a
meeting
mm-hmm
to
talk
a
bit
more
and
to
decide
about
whether
the
object.
E
The
idea
that
one
of
the
ideas
here
being
that
potentially
like
to
have
a
system
level
namespace,
which
you
could
put
a
list
of
clusters
in
which
would
be
considered
a
cluster,
a
global
namespace,
we're
all
users
of
a
of
a
certain
API
server
of
a
certain
environment,
could
know
to
look
for
cluster
objects.
That
is
still
very
undeveloped
and
is
still
very
much
something
that
we
need
to
continue
to
flesh
out.
E
There's
some
syncing
up
going
on
offline
about
who
exactly
is
going
to
be
able
to
do
the
work
necessary
to
move
to
a
CR
T.
There
is
some
legwork
involved
and
naturally
most
of
the
people
are
busy,
especially
now
with
cube
con
approaching
and
other
internal
projects
that
people
are
doing
there
will.
It
might
not
happen
as
quickly
as
we
would
like,
but
there
is
an
intention
to
do
that
soon.
B
F
F
E
So
I
believe
that
Nikhil,
if
there
is
any,
was
there
anything
more
there
that
you
wanted
to
discuss.
I
believe
that
Nikhil
and
Christian
are
on
the
ball.
G
G
Can
you
see
my
screen?
Yes,.
D
D
Okay,
we'll
have
to
like
annotate
the
comment
with
a
item
number
or
something.
Otherwise,
it's
very
I
mean
what
the
comment
applies
today,.
B
I
D
I
apologize
for
not
having
given
this
feedback
earlier,
I
guess.
My
one
concern
is
that
we
already
have
a
an
agreed-upon
mission
that
we
finalized
a
while
back
and
I.
Think
it
reasonably
well
covers
what
we're
trying
to
do,
and
then
there's
a
bunch
of
things
in
here
which
are
not
really
part
of
a
mission
there.
I
guess
is.
I
D
In
the
Chuck
part
of
the
Charter,
we
have
a
mission,
we
have
a
thing
called
a
mission,
and-
and
there
are
words
there
and
they're
different
than
the
words
we
have
here
and
I
I
also
disagree
with
some
of
the
words
we
have
here,
because
they
don't
actually
form
like
plethora
of
homegrown.
Scripts
is
another
mission,
for
example,.
D
I
D
Can
look
at
that
specific
PR
thing
I
was
referring
to
was
when
we
renamed
from
cig
Federation
to
cig
multi
cluster.
We
wrote
a
mission
statement
and
the
Charter
and
we
all
commented
on
it
and
we
agreed
upon
it
and
we
ratified
it
and
we
committed
it
to
the
description
of
the
cig
and
I
believe
that
all
wait.
So
what
all
is
busy
doing?
There's
a
new
template
out
there
trying
to
sort
of
standardize
these
things
across
the
SIG's
so
we're
transferring
that
into
a
new
template.
D
I
I
I
D
B
Yeah
to
remove
confusion,
I
I
think
this
particular
slide
could
be
as
is,
but
changing
the
text
into
whatever
exists
as
a
mission
at
the
community
signal
to
closure,
page
and
Quinn
and
Christian
whatever
you
wanted
to
capture
here,
which
you
say
probably
the
heading
was
changed,
can
be
the
next
slide
or
with
the
correct
heading
in
sections.
Does
it
make
sense.
I
D
Also
I
think
what
Christian
mentioned
is
useful
to
just
give
a
summary
of
what
we
discussed
in
August
and
what
we
agreed
upon
and
again.
We
we
circulated
in
the
sig
a
an
announcement
that
we
wanted
to
make
about
exactly
that,
and
we
agreed
upon
the
words
and
people
commented
and
we
went
backwards
and
forwards,
and
then
we
made
the
announcement
and
I
think
we
just
need
to
use
those
ways
here
to
avoid
confusion,
not
put
a
bunch
of
different
words
here,
some
of
which
I
think
are
contentious
and
at
the
least
confusing.
D
It
wasn't
called
status.
It
was
called
mission
which
made
it
more
confusing
and
there's
no
mention
of
August
or
day
to
anything
there.
So
it's
not
clear
whether
that
status
is
status
in
August
last
year
or
status
today,
all
so
I'll
just
clean
it
all
up
and
make
think
it's
useful
to
have
a
summary
of
where,
in
August
and
I
think
it's
useful
to
have
a
mission,
and
we
have
most
of
those
words
and
put
it
here
and
then
perhaps
a
current
status,
which
is
different
than
we
were
in
August.
You.
I
G
I
I
D
I
G
B
F
I
F
A
I
B
I
J
My
own
personal
opinion
here
is
that
a
road
map
might
be
better
expressed,
as
these
are
the
features
that
we
want
and
like
a
higher
level
than
these
particular
types,
for
example,
scheduling
some
type
of
DNS
solution,
similar
to
what
was
in
v1
that
kind
of
level
this.
This
is
probably
a
little
specific,
interesting
types.
Let.
D
F
Me
just
separate
it
from
like,
like
this
list
here,
like
employment
across
clusters
or
coordinated
like
rather
than
like
naming
deployments
as
I'm
sort
of
a
feature
point
just
say:
cross
custard
deployments
or
cross
cluster
service
discovery
because
those
are
features
and
how
we
implement
them.
You
know
we
don't
have
to
define
that.
The
fact
that
it's
based
on
services
is
this
kind
of
just
incidental
I
would
say
that
just
communicates
better
I
mean
we.
F
J
What
this
slide
is
actually
about
is
that
we
want
to
provide
this
type
of
functionality
for
important
parts
of
the
v1
API,
and
maybe
we
can
just
say,
for
example,
deployment,
services,
etc
and
I.
Think
the
the
biggest
takeaway
from
this
slide
is
that
a
goal
is
to
be
able
to
add
this
type
of
support
for
basically
arbitrary
types
across
arbitrary,
federated
API
groups
or
I'm.
Sorry,
our
arbitrary
aggregated
API
groups
or
CR
DS
via
creating
some
CR
DS
without
the
Inca,
or
is
that
just
a
distraction.
I
B
I
also
have
a
similar
solution
like
we
have
one
first
point
as
all
kubernetes
types.
The
second
point
could
be
higher
level
features
and
then
the
sub
points
in
each
of
them
might
be,
for
example,
plus
cursed,
cross
cluster,
coordinated
applications,
service
discovery,
load,
balancing
like
that,
rather
than
listening
deployments
and
services
and
ingress
and
jobs
or
that
kind
of
stuff.
D
I
F
The
goal
is
enabling
simple
replication
via
configuration,
so
if
someone
wants
to
set
up
the
right
configuration,
any
type
is
fair
game.
It's
just
a
bag
of
data
from
the
Federation
perspective,
whether
it
makes
sense
from
an
authorization
or
a
clustered
management
perspective
is
an
entirely
different
issue.
I
B
I
B
I
I
J
So
I
I
posted
a
work
in
progress,
PR
to
get
things
rolling
and
then
the
other,
the
other
parts
of
getting
the
donation
stuff
worked
out.
Kind
of
distracted
me
from
that
I'm.
Actually
Clinton
right
now
typing
a
comment
in
the
slides
to
ask
you
to
please.
Let
me
know
once
you
update
the
cig
mission
statement
in
those
slides
and
I'll
make
sure
that
the
verbage
and
the
PR
matches
I
will
I
will
put
a
link
into
the
chat
chat.
If
folks
would
like
to
discuss
the
the
chart,
PR
really
quick.
D
Yeah
from
what
I
remember
that
Chadha
PR
was
basically
empty,
so
there's
actually
a
template
that
is
published
by
the
steering
committee
as
to
what
they
would
like
us
to
provide
and
I.
Don't
think
that
the
PR
I
saw
had
any
of
that
in
it.
So
I
think.
Perhaps
a
good
starting
point
is
to
take
the
template
fill
in
everything
that
we
already
know,
because
most
of
it
is
information
we
already
have
just
in
different
places.
Yeah
is.
D
J
D
D
D
Thought
they
were
the
same
thing,
but
it
seems
there
are
different
templates.
Basically,
it
is,
it
is
a
statement
of
this
is
who
we
are,
and
this
is
how
we
run
and
I
thought
we
had
to
have
those
in
place
in
order
to
create
a
repo
and
the
SIG's
could
kubernetes
sinks
organization.
We
that's
what
I
felt
you
were
doing
place.
J
We
had
to
demonstrate
that
we
were
working
on
them.
Okay,
so
just
for
the
record.
I
have
time
in
my
schedule
today:
they're
like
sort
all
this
stuff
out,
so
I
did
not
want
to
leave
it.
I
I
will
take
that
as
an
action
item
to
sort
through
today.
Okay,
great
thanks
cool
I
I,
definitely
think
it's
not
super
clear
from
the
content
on
the
site
exactly
what's
required,
so
I'll
try
to
sort
that
out.
J
J
J
J
D
B
B
Yeah
meanwhile,
earlier
I
had
a
chat
with
Paul
and
I
did
I
think
this
topic
was
raised
once
before.
Also
so,
I
had
a
look
at
the
different
charters,
I
mean
there's
only
two
or
three
six,
which
they
actually
did
complete
updating
this
charter.
So,
as
mentioned
the
main
gap
that
I
see
what
we
need
to
update
the
template
might
not
exactly
be
the
same,
or
they
might
not
be
a
clear
template
which
gives
the
listing
that
this.
B
J
B
What
I
was
saying
is
that
it's
I
think
it's
not
necessary
to
exactly
comply
with
all
the
requirements
that
are
listed.
So
in
that
Governance
Committee
steering
governance,
there
is
a
governance
requirements
so
that
lists
out
what
you
basically
need
to
have
in
your
Charter
right.
So
what
I
was
saying
is
we
need
not
have
all
and
every
requirement
satisfied.
We
can
probably
complete
these
two
things.
One
is
roles
and
responsibilities.
There
is
a
signature
and
say
that
it
is
women
for
now
that
should
be
sort
of
complete
from
RN.
J
B
J
J
E
J
J
D
Believe
I
noticed
that
this
Thursday's,
the
community
meeting
and
also
sig
architectures
and
I-
guess
Monday
Monday
has
sig
apps,
but
if
we
have
okay
with
overlapping
with
that
I
think
Monday
is
a
possibility
and
we
yeah
we've
been
doing
the
federation
ones,
I
guess
on
Mondays
and
those
are
no
longer
happening
so
that
that's
not
as
open
for
a
lot
of
people.
Okay,.