►
From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG Service Catalog 2019-6-17
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
A
A
A
Well,
we're
not
exactly
a
core
particle
when
Enys
were
kind
of
an
extension
browser,
so
we're
gonna
you're
doing
our
own
thing,
but
we
certainly
welcome
to
contributors.
So
thanks
for
taking
the
time
to
show
up
and
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
we
probably
go
over
some
stuff
with
you-
that's
not
sort
of
doesn't
need
to
be
recorded,
just
new
person
stuff,
so
kicking
stuff
off.
So
we
added
this
new
section
of
the
meeting
time
last
time
she
has
new
issues
and
I
added
this
thing.
Maybe
I
shouldn't
rat
ones
too.
A
Friday
I
was
going
through
some
of
these
and
trying
to
clean
up
just
zero
three
zero
that
the
milestone
in
general,
given
that
some
of
these
are
sort
of
the
original
reasons,
we
included
some
of
the
things
in
the
milestone,
so
I
deleted
the
old
milestone
issue
that
was
just
a
placeholder
and
just
added
in
the
like
actual
issue
of
somebody
being
like
a
honest
thing
or
whatever
shouldn't
be
lost.
I'm
just
kinda
looks
like
to
update
a
binding
spec
field.
If
the
reconciler
didn't
send
a
binding
requests
will
broker.
A
A
C
Yeah,
because
we
need
to
be
compliant
with
the
probably
OS
API
right.
The
best
idea
is
to
just
enhance
the
USB
API
to
have
the
when
you
return
the
state.
That
is
a
failure
or
not
right.
Now
we
don't
have
if
this
temporary
failure
or
it's
a
permanent
further,
and
because
of
that,
we
also
have
in
issue
in
our
platform,
because
our
brokers
were
spawned
over
the
time.
C
It's
always
get
of
obligation
in
progress,
because
we
could
not
know
that
some
of
the
thermometer,
all
right
and
I
think
that
best
idea
is
to
just
hum
somehow
contribute
to
the
others
BTI
right
and
to
change
the
your.
C
A
C
I'm,
just
good:
no,
no
I'm,
just
talking
about
your
Fanta
Gatien
that
we
have
the
provision
request,
the
previous
provision,
the
provision,
and
that
was
a
whole
cycle
right
and
we
are
not
able
to
proceed
that
because
there
was
a
permanent
failure
on
our
side
so
or
fermentation.
That
must
make
sense.
We
already
discussed
that
all
service
clock
and
there
was
an
information
that
SB
API,
does
not
specify
if
the
failure
was
permanent
or
not,
and
the
idea
is
to
just
change
those
by
API
to
have
that
information
right.
C
C
A
A
C
Yeah
I
similar
that
you
already
implemented
for
the
service
instance
and
service
binding
that
to
remove
the
finalizar.
If
it's,
you
know,
broken
way,
I'm
sorry
again,
and
there
was
an
ad.
There
was
already
an
issue
too
for
the
service
instance
and
for
the
service
binding
as
a
abdomen
future
to
just
remove
them.
If
the
there
is
something
of
the
enough
force,
remove,
does
removing
the
finalize
errs
under
the
Sears
and.
B
C
A
A
It
seems,
like
we've
generally
erred
on
the
side
of
that,
not
being
a
reasonable
expectation
that
we
have
to
get
agreement
from
the
external
OSP
resource
before
we'll
perform
the
action
which
I
think
makes
sense
like
if
you
maybe
this
guy,
doesn't
really
understand
what
that's.
What's
exactly
going
on,
like
the
fact
that
there's
this
broker
server
that
exists
out
on
the
internet
somewhere?
That
will
continue
to
think
we
know
about
it.
If
we
just
delete
the
resource.
A
C
C
A
A
C
A
A
A
New
people
so
Chris
welcome
kind
of
ignore
that
finalizing
name
that
tunes
oh
right,
okay,
so
we
might
have
been
averted,
we'll
everything
up.
So
as
by
way
of
background,
we
recently
moved
repositories
used
to
be
three
minutes:
incubators
catalog
and
we
moved
because
that's
kind
of
an
old,
outdated
organization.
A
C
C
C
A
A
That
seems
like
a
lot
of
effort
right
there.
We're
gonna
have
to
write
something.
That's
gonna,
replace
the
finalize
are
on
every
single
object,
catalogs
responsible,
for
it
seems
like
the
time
to
do
that.
If
we
want
to
do
that,
it's
not
now,
but
when
we
do
the
CRD
migrational
cuz
we're
gonna
be
poking
stuff
on
there.
Anyways.
C
A
A
Next
thing
so
I
don't
know.
Apparently
this
is
the
way
it
works
and
all
normal
Cooper.
These
repositories,
which
we
are
now
one
of
because
we
got
moved
in
six,
so
I
am
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
because
I'm,
an
owner
or
because
I'm
on
the
list
of
people
who
have
write
access
to
the
repositories,
but
now,
when
I
assume
in
a
pull
request,
its
lists
me
as
my
own
approver,
which
means
my
pull
requests
only
require
one
lgt,
immediate
marriage,
which
technically
is
in
violation
of
our
charter.
A
C
A
C
Okay,
and
that
could
only
be
maintained,
errs
can
do
it.
Okay,
but
still
I,
don't
know
if,
with
globally
enabled
in
the
whole
Corinthos
organization,
I
think
that
we
can
try
it
and
when
we
encountered
the
first
issue
with
it,
then
you
can
try
to
change
it
right.
I,
don't
think
it's
too
likely
we're
gonna
drive
by
Ozzie,
Gian's
now
yeah
and
maybe
as
a
side
note.
What
is
the
idea
to
merge
the
pre
request
right
now?
C
A
Today,
our
official
process
is
that
you
need
one
I'll,
just
Hammond
one
approve,
but
they're
allowed
to
come
from
the
same
person.
So
that
means
if
one
person,
if
a
single
maintainer
of
like
says
this,
is
a
good
pull
request.
That's
enough
non,
maintain
your
members
can
still
LG
TM
stuff
to
say,
like
I
think
this
is
a
good
idea,
but
it's
still
ultimately,
unless
now,
however,
if
a,
if
that
happens,
to
a
maintainer
full
request,
they
look
at
automatic,
enlarged.
A
A
Unannounced,
that's
a
good
idea.
I
can't
be.
The
intention
of
our
reasoning
is
that
at
least
two
mains,
a
nerds
have
looked
at.
Every
forward
was
virtually
wrote
it
and
the
person
who
had
to
be
approved
and,
like
I,
said
this
I.
This
is
news
to
me.
Apparently
this,
how
all
of
regular
Cooper
makes
works?
Is
they
oughta
move
it
on
pork
butts?
So
that's
exciting.
A
C
C
A
Kind
of
easy
to
do,
but,
like
my
specific
worry,
isn't
that
we're
gonna
get
like
random
people
that
we
don't
know
LG,
TM
and
stuff.
My
worry
is
that
when
new
people
join,
they're
gonna
work
their
way
up
the
ladder
and
that's
gonna
mean
they're
gonna,
be
a
member
before
they're,
a
maintainer,
which
means
we're
gonna,
have
our
own
members,
LG,
jamming
stuff
or
request
is
issued
by
one
of
us.
That
means
that
for
us,
that's
going
to
get
merged
before
another
maintainer
looks
at
it.
A
A
C
A
A
It
sounded
pretty
serious,
they
were
like.
Well,
you
can't
maintain
a
level
interest.
Maybe
you
don't
need
to
be
safe.
You
should
be
a
sub-projects
mother.
Sitting.
I'm
like
I
would
want
to
do
that
because
I
don't
know
whether
to
be
related.
Anything
I
don't
want
to
get
absorbed,
and
this
obviously
doesn't
care
about
us.
A
Is
what
like
a
week
and
a
half
ago,
or
so
like
anything
anything
in
the
next
two
weeks
or
so
like
yeah?
A
definitive
answer
would
be
great
I'm
not
going
to
beat
you
next
week,
I'm
gonna
be
in
Shanghai
for
contention
hi,
but
by
the
time
I
get
back.
Hopefully
you
could
have
assigned
out
when
you
had
all
that.
A
Cool
currently,
we
need
to
update
meeting
time
a
whole
bunch
places.
A
A
C
About
triage
yeah,
it
was
this
similar
that
what
you
did
right
so
we
can
check.
Even
that
was
the.
The
main
assumption
is
that
if
you
have
any
issue,
then
you
need
to
categorize
that
issue
assigned
to
it.
If
it's
already
invalid,
then
you
can
close
it
and
that's
basically,
all
right,
so
just
not
to
be
always
up
to
date
of
the
new
issues
and
just
not
to
make
it
make
them
stay
all
right.
Okay,
and
in
our
case
we
can
also.
B
C
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
Yeah
I
don't
know,
I
want
to
go
talk
to
people
make
that
but
cuz
like
so
personally.
I,
don't
think
this
issue
hasn't
been
posted
to
label
their
like
I
think
it
does
now
I,
don't
think!
That's
that
useful
I
think
it
would
be
useful.
Have
a
label,
that's
like
hey!
This
issue
is
new
and
is
seven
days
old
and
nobody
has
responded
to
it
yet
I
think
that
would
be
a
lot
more
helpful.
Then
hey
this
thing.
That's
on
your
you
know
one
dot,
Oh
official
GA
milestone
nobody's
looked
at
it
in
30
days.