►
From YouTube: Steering Committee 20180912
Description
Chat (times may be offset):
00:49:25 Aaron of SIG Beard: Apologies for bad internet
00:49:41 Aaron of SIG Beard: formalize sub projects: in-flight, nothing to discuss
00:51:42 Aaron of SIG Beard: anyone can do the PR
00:51:49 Aaron of SIG Beard: yes
00:52:17 Aaron of SIG Beard: PR this doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AlI89KijzO9_KAqUX_pbumgld1LN0tte2FMdjLw83wY/edit (linked in issue)
00:52:18 Phillip Wittrock: Subprojects or working groups?
00:52:31 Aaron of SIG Beard: Rationalize existing WGs (https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msg/steering/zEY93Swa_Ss/C0ziwjkGCQAJ&sa=D&ust=1532010011381000&usg=AFQjCNGbTyXk1IeMristsoaqKIo5t-OFiA)
00:52:57 Aaron of SIG Beard: Yes Phil plz
00:53:04 Aaron of SIG Beard: Steering committee liaisons: nothing to discuss
A
Hey
everyone.
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
This
is
the
steering
committee
meeting
for
Wednesday
September
12.
We
had
a
private
discussion
earlier
and
now
we're
moving
to
the
public
part
of
this
meeting.
The
first
topic
is,
we
need
to
well
is
an
action
item
that
came
out
of
the
private
discussion,
which
is
we
need
to
review
the
code
of
conduct
committee
charter
as
quickly
as
possible.
So
now
we'll
go
through
the
project
board
that
we
have
a
brand.
Anuja
are
nothing
Aaron.
Do
you
just
share
your
screen
and
then
kind
of
go
through
it?
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
I
got
to
stop
being
on
all
these
things,
so
here
I
tried
to
in
going
through
all
the
six
charters.
I
noticed
that
we
just
were
like
yes,
a
cluster
ops,
that's
basically
like
dead
right
and
then
I
tried
to
find
proof
that
that
happened
and
then
I
tried
to
find
a
document.
That
said
well,
here's
the
criteria
we
use
to
say
we
can
deprecated
SIG's,
because
some
SIG's
got
retired
in
the
past,
but
we
never
really
wrote
down
why.
B
So,
it
seemed
like
super
obvious
that
this
was
inactive
and
so
I
wanted
to
add
a
note
to
our
sig
charter
template.
So
the
the
list
of
governance
rules
that
basically
everybody
just
implicitly
abides
by
and
I
added
something.
That's
like
okay.
So
if
you
don't
do
your
duties
for
three
to
three
months,
you
should
probably
retire,
and
if
you
don't
do
your
duties
in
six
months,
you
must
retire
and
I
got
comments
from
Quentin
on
the
email
thread.
I
sent
out
notifying
people
of
this,
but
I.
A
B
Not
being
really
helpful
right
now,
okay,
how
about
now
my
internet
keeps
dropping
so
basically
do
we
want
to
do.
We
want
to
enumerate
the
list
of
all
criteria
for
retiring
a
sake.
I
came
up
with
inactivity.
Just
like.
Are
you
not
meeting?
Are
you
not
reporting
back
to
the
community?
Are
you
not
keeping
tabs
on
things
suggested
additions
might
be?
Are
you
not
maintaining
your
projects?
Are
you
not
accepting
contributions,
blah
blah
blah?
It's.
C
Like
the
only
comment
that
I
had
with
requests
is
that
when
we,
when
we
actually
enumerated
what
SIG's
working
groups
and
sub
projects
actually
are
SIG's
actually
own
code?
So
if
there's
a
sunsetting
procedure
policy,
we
need
to
at
least
document
it
somewhere.
Somebody
needs
to
take
ownership
of
that
documentation
for
process.
Otherwise
it's
really
weird
right.
So.
B
B
View
this
similar
to
the
way
that
Christophe
put
together
a
proposal
on
how
a
group
of
people
would
administer
github,
and
then
we
looked
at
that
proposal
and
said
yes
looks
good
and
granted
them
that
authority
I
would
have
seen
the
same
thing
here.
I
don't
have
time
to
write
that
how
doc,
but
I'm
totally
happy
to
look
at
somebody
else's
proposal.
For
that
talk
and
say
yes,
please
go
do
that!
B
B
That's
like
I
just
wanted
I
feel
like
our
decision-making,
and
our
consensus
is
important
on
the.
Why
and
I
agree
that
there's
probably
more
things
than
just
organizational
duties
that
could
be
enumerated.
There
I
figured
that
that
we
would
get
to
that
by
spelling
out
more
of
the
technical
responsibilities
of
the
sig
in
the
Charter,
because
we
don't
right
now
we
don't
like
there
are
no
freshness
requirements
or
lackest
I.
B
B
Went
ahead
and
I
I
just
did
a
inactivity
in
an
initial
flora.
Quest
I
haven't
started
a
larger
poll
request.
If
somebody
else
here
wants
to
do
that,
larger
poll
requests
I,
know
Phil.
Maybe
you
were
looking
for
stuff
to
do
and
you've
already
done
such
good
work
on
the
state
governance
template
stuff.
D
A
B
E
B
B
E
B
Me,
yes,
and
so
to
jump
ahead
to
that
one.
Since
that's
the
next
item,
no
nothing
there
yet
either.
If
somebody
else
wants
to
take
it
off,
my
plate
go
feel
free,
there's
a
Google
Doc,
that's
linked
in
that
issue
that
Jace
wrote
and
we
have
done
nothing
with
it.
Since
then,
the
next
step
I
thought
was
that
working
group
doc
looked
good.
Let's
pull
request
it,
but
maybe
we
have
more
to
discuss
since
we
always
have
opinions
on
working
groups.
F
D
B
A
D
A
D
A
A
A
B
I
have
two
updates
one
Sigma
V
M
we're
got
merged
great
the
phone's
ringing.
This
is
gonna,
be
awesome.
Let
me
see
if
that
takes
care
of
itself.
Cool.
Okay.
Second
item
is
more
a
piece
of
etiquette.
I
kind
of
Tim
said
he
wanted
to
discuss
this
during
the
meeting.
So
I
was
reviewing
the
six
scalability
Charter
and
then
kind
of
was
unavailable
for
a
couple
days
due
to
off
sites
and
stuff
I'm
sure
you
all
can
sympathize,
and
there
were
multiple
updates
made
to
the
Charter.
Based
on
some
of
my
review
comments.
B
Tim
then,
additionally
reviewed
the
Charter
and
iterated
on
it
and
then,
when
it
looked
good
to
him,
he
said.
Okay,
cool,
go
ahead
and
merge
the
Charter
while
I
was
in
the
midst
of
finally
reviewing
it
based
on
my
prior
comments.
So
it
felt
like
it
got
reviewed
out
from
underneath
of
me
and
I
felt
like
it
was
really
impolite
of
Tim
to
emerge.
C
C
Fine
with
people
formalizing
some
type
of
process,
I
think
what
was
written
on
the
original
spreadsheet
was
that
there
was
a
primary
in
the
secondary,
and
then
there
was
the
casual
observer
right.
So
the
primary
was
just
as
me
for
that
one,
the
secondary
was
quittin
and
the
non-blocking
observer.
Was
you
and
I
totally
thought
that
you
had
written
comments
and
I
thought
you
were
busy,
so
I
boy
Tech
was
churning
and
he
was
doing
his
level
best
to
try
and
get
something
done.
C
No
I
had
also
not
been
aware
that
boy
Tech
was
trying
to
sign
channel
you
and
that
you
were
spinning
back
to
it.
So
I
may
a
culpa
for
not
like
double-checking,
but
it
was.
There
were
several
days
and
I
knew
that
he
was
actively
working
on
it
and
I
didn't
want
him
to
feel
blocked,
because
I
wanted
to
give
a
bias
towards
action
when
I
knew
that
a
person
was
actively
trying
to
address
the
concerns
or
the
comments
in
a
fairly
short
time.
C
G
I
have
a
medication
here.
How
is
this
different
than
any
other
PR
right,
like
I'm
kind
of
surprised
that
this
our
patient
is
doing
happening?
Mr.
Mitty,
exactly
I
also
agreed
to
this
because,
like
Aaron,
if
you
have
a
problem,
side-channel
somebody
talk
about
it
and
like
and
then
say
to
boy
tech
like
hey,
sorry,
I
still
have
some
concerns.
Please
address
these
things
in
the
follow-on
er
I
dated.
B
I,
don't
talk
to
Tim
in
private
and
then
he
felt
that
to
discuss
this
here.
For
me,
it
was
more
like
because
these
charters
are
kind
of
important
to
get
right
and
we
do
have
this
weird
system
kind
of.
Unlike
other
charters,
we
don't
use
like.
We
can't
use
owners
files
to
assign
certain
steering
committee
members
to
the
PRS
to
say
they
are
approvers
and
whatnot
right,
we're
kind
of
having
to
do
a
social
thing
and
make
sure
that
we
have
at
least
two
steering
committee
room.
Look
through
PR
well.
C
A
C
G
B
G
A
B
Fine,
so
in
terms
of
pushing
the
ball
forward
here,
we're
at
very
few
charters
that
are
out
standing
and
waiting
for
steering
committee
review.
I
think
we
have
two
left
last
time,
I
updated
the
issue.
So
now
do
we
need
to
go
through
and
push
sakes
that
haven't
done
their
charters
to
really
try
and
get
this
done
before
the
steering
committee
election,
or
are
we
going
to
continue
at
the
pace
that
we
have
and
whatever
happens
before?
The
next
batch
of
people
come
in
comes
in
happens,
I.