►
Description
Kubernetes Public Steering Committee Meeting for 20220207
A
Hello,
hello:
everyone
today
is
monday
february
7th.
This
is
the
public
kubernetes
steering
committee
meeting.
This
is
a
meeting
that
will
be
recorded
and
available
on
the
internet
later.
So
please
be
mindful
of
what
you
say
and
do
please
be
sure
to
adhere
to
the
kubernetes
code
of
conduct
and
in
general,
just
be
awesome
folks.
So
we've
got
a
few
things
up
on
the
agenda.
A
I
would
encourage
folks
who
are
community
members
who
have
any
topics
that
they
do
not
see
on
the
agenda
to
drop
them
there,
and
we've
got
one
vote
that
we
can
see
if
we
can
take
care
of
today
and
then
a
few
topics
to
discuss
so
without
further
ado,
let's
jump
into
stephen's
votes.
So
I
think
the
only
vote
on
our
schedule
right
now
is.
Is
the
working
group
batch
vote
right?
Do
people
feel
ready
to
to
do
that.
A
A
D
F
F
F
A
F
C
F
Look
like,
and
so
it
sounded
like
they
were
on
board
with
that
and
at
that
point,
once
that's
better
defined.
It
might
be
the
case
that
signal
like
drops
out
as
an
engaged
sig
for
this,
depending
on
what
gets
defined,
which
I
think
would
be
totally
fine,
so
it
what
they
asked
for
was
better
definition
as
the
first
step
and
the
folks
organizing
this
were
happy
to
do
that.
F
F
A
A
Yeah
yeah
yeah,
so
yeah
bob's
weighted
total
right
now
is,
is
five
or
so
compared
to
I
think,
we've
got,
we've
got
fours,
we've
got
a
4.25
4.75,
so
bob
you
do
have
the
most
things.
At
the
same
time,
you
are,
I
think,
the
closest
related
to
a
few
of
the
the
the
sigs
involved.
So
your
call,
I
think
the
next
person
to
potentially
get
more
would
be
either
myself
or
paris.
A
E
I
I
I
F
A
You
know
if
there
is
expected
slas,
you
know
like
this
does
not
having
an
assignee
is
not
having
an
assignee
on
a
task,
an
okay
thing
right,
so
I
think
the
answer
to
that
one
is
is
no.
I
have
there's
there's
a
project
board
that
we
had
before
that
we
were
not
using
in
in
previous
terms
or
kind
of
like
fill
into
disuse,
and
that
has
been.
A
B
A
A
E
Yeah
to
basically
everyone
dedicate
some
time
we
all
power
through,
like
we're
all
juggling
a
whole
slew
of
priorities.
If
we
can
like
collectively
schedule
a
day
or
something
like
that,
where
we
just
go
through
and
try
and
get
through
the
get
through
the
backlog
of
things
where
we
know
we're
available
for
potentially
bouncing
stuff
off
each
other,
like
then
yeah
we
could
we
could
reset
it
and
get
it
into
a
better
state,
cool.
D
B
We
just
make
it
a
thing
to
do
it
like
every
kubecon
like
we
all
make
it
a
point
to
come.
If
we
can
or
virtually
come
and
then
we
have
like
a
four-hour,
four-hour
thing
and
then
we
know
every
every
year
we
have
two
we
have
like.
Every
year
we
have
an
eight
hour
off
site.
Well
because
it's
two
four
hours
I
don't
know
mm-hmm.
That
makes
sense.
A
But
given
we're,
I
mean
given
where
we've
been
partying
for
a
few
months
at
this
point,
what
do
we
want
to
do?
Do
we
do
we
think
it's
something
that
we'd
wanted
to
do
for
kubecon
or
I
I'm
like.
I
think
my
worry
with
the
the
cubecon
suggestion
is
that
we're
kind
of
like
stuck
in
multiple
things
going
into
kubecon
as
well.
A
And
par
your
next
topic,
around
decision
making
process
for
steering
makes
sense
to
be
so
to
to
read
out
the
notes.
How
do
we
know
when
something
is
up
for
a
vote
or
when
something
has
had
a
decent
sla
to
activity?
How
do
we
know
when
to
put
something
on
the
agenda,
so
my
feeling
is
that
some
of
it
will
be
an
artifact
of
actually
like
consistently
walking
the
board.
A
Things
should
fall
out
and
tell
us
like:
what's
you
know,
what's
the
most
active
thing
next
right
so,
like
we've
got,
you
know
annual
reports
and-
and
you
know,
making
sure
we
nudge
along
the
node
stuff,
and
I
guess
any
cleanup
of
of
triage-
you
know
of
triage
items.
I
know
that
tim
you're
also
working
on
some
liaison
docs,
tim
and
paris.
B
I
think,
like
the
things
that
have
manifested
from
this
recently
are
things
like
I
mean.
Obviously,
when
a
sig
has
all
of
its
comments,
it's
ready
for
a
vote
right,
but
we've
had
in
the
past
to
other
experiences
with
other
groups
where
their
stuff
was
in,
but
we
as
a
body
weren't
necessarily
collectively
together
on
it,
so
like
what
is
csla
there
for
certain
things
like.
B
I
feel
like
from
a
contributor
perspective
too,
like
what
it
does
the
contributor
like
expect
from
us
as
far
as
like
fla,
because,
right
now,
it's
like
mostly
going
into
the
ether
and
like
that's
kind
of
like
their
expectations
of
what
happens
here.
So
my
thing
is,
if
there's
certain
things
that
we
can
provide
slas
for,
I
feel
like
the
better,
because
it
also
you
know,
instills
trust
and,
like
all
these
other
great
things
and
like
the
like.
B
How
do
we
know
when
to
put
something
on
the
agenda,
because
we
have
a
hundred
things
sitting
in
the
community
repo
and
the
steering
repo?
So
how
do
we
know
what
priority
is
because,
as
it
stands
right
now,
the
bason
is
the
one.
That's
setting
the
priority
right,
but
is
that
accurate,
like
that's
kind
of
where
I
felt
as
the
basson,
the
last
couple
of
meetings?
B
It
was
oh
wow.
This
is
kind.
This
kind
of
sets
me
up
to
be
the
paris
show
like,
because
I
can
push
the
things
that
I
want
to
push
right
so
but
like
at
the
end
of
the
day,
like
is
that
you
know
an
acceptable
way
for
us
to
do.
Business
is
kind
of
where
I
come
in
here
and
I
don't
really
have
any
suggestions
either
so
that
that
was
more
of
like
this
is
open-ended
discussion.
Obviously,.
A
I'm
I'm
hoping
we
can
maybe
see
some
of
that
from
the
liaisons
working
with
their
sigs
and
and
other
groups
day-to-day,
like
the
maybe
they're.
Maybe
it's
as
simple
as
maybe
it's
as
simple
as
having
a
column
in
the
the
board.
That
says
like
needs
discussion
on
meeting
right
and
we
drag
it
into
that
column.
We
make
sure
we
burn
down
that
column
every
meeting
and
then
you
know
kristoff
has
his
hand
up.
G
Yeah
just
could
comment
like
I
I
I
appreciate
what
you're
what
you're
bringing
up
there
paris.
I
don't
know
that
I'm
personally
that
concerned
about
it
from
in
particular,
like
the
setting
priorities
perspective,
we
don't
have
a
like
one,
continuous
chair,
that
is
always
kind
of
doing
and
setting
those
priorities,
and
that
would
have
that
that
control
in
perpetuity.
G
I
do
think
we
can
and
should
be
better
about
surfacing
things
that
need
to
be
talked
about,
so
that
it
can
at
least
be
determined
like
what's
what
at
least
on
the
list
and
then
having
the
bose
and
just
go
through
and
sort
the
list
based
on
importance
and
urgency
and
that
kind
of
stuff
it's
it's
that
that
part
seems
like
it's
been
working.
I
think
it's.
B
A
F
With
I'm
not
concerned
about
abuse,
I'm
concerned
about
like
visibility
and
just
knowing
who
has
the
ball
like
yeah?
Is
this
thing
waiting
on
steering?
Is
it
waiting
on
the
person
to
open
the
issue?
Is
it
waiting
on
some
external
team
like
what's
the
next
step,
and
I
think
the
important
things
get
pinged
eventually,
but
after
a
lot
of
unnecessary
delay?
So
we
can
tighten
up
that
delay
by
being
here
or
about
what's
the
next
action
and
who
is
it
depending
on.
D
H
Oh
hi,
so
one
one
of
the
things
I
agree
with
what
jordan
said.
I
agree
with
you,
know:
paris,
we
need.
We
need
to
give
some
kind
of
information
to
the
community,
but
you
know
my
my
thought
is
slightly
tangential
to
that.
There's
been
a
bunch
of
times
where
we
say
we
end
up,
saying
hey,
we
are
the
policy
body
and
you
know
we'll
take
our
time
to
do
what
we
do
usually
and
it's
gonna.
H
You
know
so
people
are
waiting
on
us
in
the
sense
that
I've
heard
people
say
hey.
If,
if
I
knew
that
steering
was
worried
about
this,
why
didn't
they
just
come
and
talk
to
me
and
put
me
on
the
agenda
and
like
I
will
come
and
I
would
have
come
and
talked
to
you
and
give
you
more
complete
picture
yeah
and
then
they
they
are
way
they're,
not
really
waiting
on
us
more
than
like
hey.
H
E
So
for
things
like
the
batch
proposal-
or
you
know
these
other
things
that
don't
necessarily
have
a
specific
owner,
maybe
we
should
it's
just
like
okay,
here's,
here's
the
proposal
and
like
have
an
assignee,
that's
essentially
their
job,
to
keep
track
of
that
until
we
get
it
to
a
point
where
we
assign
liaison-
and
it
merges
so
at
least
for
the
items
that
are
basically
without
a
strict
owner.
We
just
assign
a
temporary
owner
till
then.
A
A
I
Yeah,
so
this
is
a
slightly
funky
one
in
in
the
just
as
we
were
coming
on
board.
There
was
some
deduplication
and
clarification
that
we
wanted
to
do
between
code
of
conduct
committee
and
steering
committee
with
respect
to
how
we
resolve
potential
conflicts,
so
formalization
of,
if
you're
on
one
or
the
other.
You
pick
one
if
you're
you've
been
elected
to
both
and
you
you
do
one
and
in
discussion
on
the
issue
there.
There
was
a
question
of
well.
I
Are
there
any
other
conflicts
and
as
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
where
we
could
slot
one
piece
of
text
in
the
right
place?
I
stumbled
on
also
that
we
have
this
election
committee.
I
put
it
in
quotes
it's
not
chartered
formally
as
a
committee,
but
it
actually
operates
as
a
committee
and
properly
so
because
there
has
to
be
confidentiality
and
trust
in
the
process,
they're
collecting
votes
and
then
publishing
a
result.
I
G
G
What
it
believes
is
like
that
assembles
the
election
officers
to
do
that
role
and
then,
but
then
those
folks
are
signed
off
by
the
steering
committee,
the
active
steering
committee
of
of
the
day
and
because
the
the
steering
committee
doesn't
like
directly
handle
the
nominations
for
that
it's
good
x
and
then
the
steering
committee
itself
signs
off
on
that
there's
at
least
two
different
bodies
that
are
signing
off
on
the
folks
that
are
in
that
role.
But
it's
not
a
role
that's
held
in
in
perpetuity.
G
F
A
Yeah,
I
think
we
should
synchronize
this
in
the
in
the
community
repo,
because
we
have
we
have
documentation
on
the
steerings.
We
have
documentation
on
the
steering
staff
as
well,
and
and
tim
has
the
pr
basically
out
for
community
and
steering
so
like.
I
think
we
should
just
get
the
election
stuff
into
either
its
own
repo
or
or
the
community
repo.
I
think
the
community
repo
is
probably
the
right
place
for
it
related
to
relax
elections
and
the
time-bounded
nature
of
the
of
the
the
hats.
A
This
is
something
that
comes
up
in
something
comes
up
in
like
sig
release
as
well
right
where
you
have
release
team,
leads
kind
of
executing
that
role
for
a
bit
of
time.
Same
with,
like
the
emeritus
advisor
for
the
team,
and
then
what
eventually
happens
is
we
kind
of
go
through
the
we
kind
of
go
through
that
that
retro
are
the
the
series
of
retros
that
we
do,
and
we
kind
of
did
the
same
for
the
election
election
committee
this
time
around?
A
Where
there
are
you
know,
one
of
the
concerns
was
that,
because
it
is
a
time-bounded
effort,
there
are
things
that
fall
out
of
the
retro.
That
maybe
you
know
we
don't
have
a
group
of
people
actively
working
on
right.
So
I
believe
that
within
contributor
experience
there
is
there's
work
to
make
like
an
elections
sub
project,
but
I
think
we're
saying
this
just
needs
to
be
a
committee,
so.
E
C
Yeah,
so
I
would
say,
like
yeah,
the
idea
was
brought
up
a
couple
times
to
make
like
elections
like
a
long-standing
group,
because
you
know
if
we
want
to
run
elections
again
for
other
purposes.
There
is
like
a
group
of
people
who
could
facilitate
that,
but
that
that's
a
lot
of
overhead
right
so
like
at
this
current
moment
kind
of
keeping
it
the
way
like
keeping
it
with
the
whole.
C
You
know
it
spins
up
when
it's
needed
is
the
way
forward.
I
feel,
and
if
we
get
more
kind
of
support
or
we
find
ourselves
running
more
and
more
election
kind
of
base
things
we
can,
can
we
can
kind
of
figure
out
how
to
make
this?
A
long-standing
thing
that
that
was
that
was
my
take
that's
my
thoughts
on
that.
I
It's
tim,
so
one
thing
that
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
specifically
so
I
agree
I
I
think
it
should
be
a
short
lived
thing
for
the
purpose
of
election.
I
think
subproject
makes
sense.
The
one
specific
caveat
that
I
was
concerned
about
was
in
the
chartering
process
and
the
governance
harkey
of
things.
I
I
A
Is
there
do
we
have,
I
mean
outside
of
the
outside,
of
the
retro
dock,
for
the
elections?
Do
we
have
a
kind
of
running
list
of
things
that
need
to
be
fixed,
because
I
I
think
we
still
need
to
solve
the
like?
Let's,
let's,
let's
make
sure
that
actually
like
we
burn
down
the
the
issues
from
the
election
retro,
which
could
be
solved
with
the
sub
project.
A
And
are
there
many
other
conflicts
like?
I
know
that
I
know
that
you
know
we
had
the
we
had
the
src
on
a
few
members
of
the
srcp,
maybe
a
meeting
or
two
ago,
and
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
where
they're
looking
at
we're.
Looking
at
proposing
new
members.
Currently,
the
src
essentially
proposes
their
own
members,
and
that
is
that
is
something
that
I
think
can
and
should
be
open
to
the
community
to
to
propose
as
well.
So
how
do
we
process
that.
G
So
I
don't
my
personal
opinion
here.
I
don't
see
any
other
conflicts
that
are
like
explicit
that
are
going
to
be
conflicts,
100
of
the
time
or
even
the
majority
of
the
time
in
in
the
community.
I
think
we've
designed
our
community
to
try
and
minimize
those
conflicts
and
to
extend
trust
wherever
we
can,
and
you
know,
as
long
as
we're
being
transparent
with
with
processes,
then
that
that
gets
us
to
the
goal
of
of
of
minimizing
the
minimizing
those
conflicts.
G
So
like
there
is
there,
where
we've
got
like
a
clear
issue
that
we
need
to
address,
I
think
we
should
address
it.
I
think
if
something
arises
in
the
future,
where
there
is
a
conflict,
we
can
kind
of
revisit
this
policy
and
again
iterate
on
the
iterate
on
the
work
that
we're
already
doing
to
kind
of
formalize
the
practice
that
we've
already
been
doing
but
but
get
by
getting
out.
We
can
iterate
on
that
later.
G
As
far
as
src
is
concerned,
again,
just
like
any
other
body
within
the
community,
I
feel
like
we
should.
You
know
extend
trust
and
encourage
transparency
where
wherever
possible,
but
unless
there
is
a
direct
concern,
the
steering
committee
needs
to
get
involved
and
like
force
the
src
to
change
in
response
to
an
issue.
I
think
the
src,
just
like
every
other
sig
and
community
group
here,
has
a
duty
to
kind
of
govern
themselves
unless,
unless
there's
like
a
specific
reason
that
we
need
to
get
involved.
G
So
if
the
src
is
again
looking
at
that
process,
as
far
as
adding
new
members,
I
think
any
any
community
member
can
say:
hey
src.
We
would
like
you
to
be
more
transparent
with
your
selection
process
around
this,
and
how
can
you
address
this
concern
and
give
src
the
opportunity
to
respond
to
that
and
say,
like
okay,
here's
how
we're
going
to
address
that
concern
around
transparency
and
member
selections.
A
Yeah
so
they're
they're
actually
they're
they're,
aware
of
that
and
then
said
they're
working
on
it
already
the
yeah.
I
think
I
think,
having
that
out,
like
opening
that
opportunity
to
folks
is
my
my
main
concern
because,
as
far
as
I
know
to
to
date
the
elect
you
know,
the
selection
process
for
src
has
is
a
black
box.
C
G
C
G
A
E
I
Out
in
order
to
end
up
in
an
owner's
file
as
a
reviewer
approver,
like
that,
the
the
community
process
is
relatively
lightweight,
you
show
up
and
do
work,
and
maybe
you
say,
like
hey,
I'd,
be
interested
in
helping
if
the.
If
there
are
openings
that
show
up
and
next
thing
you
know
you
get
selected
because
you're
there
doing
the
work.
G
I
I
I
think
we're
good.
I
had
tried
in
my
original
writing
and
I'll
revisit
it,
but
I
tried
to
say,
like
here's,
some
known
issues,
but
generally
the
philosophy
is:
if
there's
a
conflict,
the
individual
will
choose
one
path
and
self-resolve
the
conflict,
and
I
think
the
community
then
is
empowered
to
to
sort
it
out.
In
the
vast
majority
of
cases,
we're
just
going
to
do
the
right
thing.
A
G
I
think
we
talked
about
this
like
very
briefly
momentarily
a
month
ago,
or
so
so
I'm
bringing
it
back
up.
I
I
had
on
my
to-do
list
and
didn't
until
this
morning
open
up
issue
to
to
ask
about
this,
but,
but
basically
so,
we've
got
the
the
maintainer
track.
Deadline
is
a
week
from
today
and
wanted
to
see
if
there
is
interest
in
in
doing
like
in
previous
we've
done,
like
amas
panels,
type
sessions
and
stuff
with
the
steering
committee
at
cubecons.
G
I
think
we've
found
previously
that,
like
there
wasn't
as
much
value
to
the
virtual
ones,
because
we
have
a
public
meeting
virtually
right
now.
If
somebody
for
the
community
wants
to
come
meet
us,
they
know
where
to
find
us
on
a
regular
basis,
but
having
the
opportunity
for
in-person.
Discussion
has
kind
of
shown
some
value
in
in
previous.
So
just
wanted
to
see
like
what
the
appetite
is
here.
If
anybody
has
strong
feelings,
one
way
or
another,
I
know
we've
got
some.
G
H
Yeah,
so
my
feeling
here
was:
let's
put
something
on
the
calendar
and
if
you're
able
to
make
it
good,
if
you're
not
able
to
make
it
we'll
ask
the
as
those
other
people
cncf
folks
to
just
you
know,
remove
it
from
the
calendar
so
that
that's
the
way
I
was
thinking
about
it.
Even
if
we
have
like
two
people
we
should
show
up
and
like
have
a
talk
with.
Whoever
wants
to
talk
to
us.
A
B
So
my
day
today,
y'all
is
so
I'm
gonna
be
all
up
in
my
group's
annual
report
stuff.
So
that's
I
put
it
down
there
as
a
reminder
that
I'm
also
behind-
and
I
will
be
doing
this
today
so
if
y'all
have
not
connected
with
the
chairs
of
your
groups,
yet
today's
a
great
day,
because
I'm
doing
it
too
so
and
yes
definitely
read
the
liaison
doc,
like
we
put
a
lot
more
stuff
in
there
for
y'all
to
like
instigate
with
conversations
and
stuff
like
that.
H
B
A
It's
it's
eye-opening,
it's
eye-opening
in
certain
places,
because
there
are,
you
know
there
are
a
few
things
that
the
tool
does
that
and
there
are
maybe,
like.
I
left
some
some
feedback.
I
think
in
the
in
the
repo
around
like.
If
something
is
you
know,
if
something
is
tagged
as
multiple
cigs
at
the
the
tool
kind
of
says
like
hey,
you
should
you
should
make
sure
it's
listed
as
the
sig
or
something
right
like?
Is
that
an
expectation
that
we
have
you
know
like?
A
I
think
it
allows
you
to
ask
them
like
allows
you
to
ask
some
interesting
questions
about
about
some
of
the
things
that
you,
your
your
sig
or
you
said,
project
owns
so
like
our
a
lot
of
our
stuff
for
sig
release
was
already
up
to
date,
but
there
were
a
few
things
that
fell
out
and
I
was
like.
Oh
that's,
that's
interesting.
We
should
go
poke
around,
so
it's
like
solid,
really,
really
solid
work,
dimms
and
folks
who
have
been
working
on
that
tool.
It's
awesome.
B
We
need
to
make
any
pivots
now
too,
so
that
was
my
next
question.
It's
like
now's
a
good
time
if
we
need
to
make
any
hard
changes
to
either
the
process,
the
deadlines
or
anything
like
that
right
now
we
have
people
who
are
supposed
to
have
drafts
by
like
next
week
at
some
point
and
a
week
and
then
so
it's
like
you
know
two
weeks
of
two
weeks
of
work
to
get
a
draft
and
then
end
of
month
is
emerged.
Pr.
A
F
D
A
Of
yeah,
I
think
something
else
in
terms
of
like
just
this
right
is:
you
know,
make
sure
that
your
sigs
are
also
using
the
opportunity
to
say
like
if
I
wasn't
able
to
easily
get
this
information,
because
I
didn't
have
access
to
a
tool
or
I
you
know,
or
we
don't
have
a
process
in
place
to
do
the
thing
that
the
annual
report
is
looking
for.
Is
that
something
I
consider
moving
into
the
next?
A
You
know
year
or
so
right
because,
like
if
I
you
know,
if
I,
if
I
didn't
know
how
to
find
owners
or
something
right,
you
know,
and
it
wasn't
a
thing
that
we
needed
to
do
day
to
day
I'd
be
like
I
issue.
We
should
probably
do
something
that
allows
us
to
do
that
right
so
that,
like
that's
a
that's,
maybe
a
bad
example,
because
dens
has
a
tool
now
but
like
for
other
stuff
right,
you
know
metrics
on
you
know,
metrics
on
other
places
within
your
within
your
project.
Your
sub
projects.
A
Cool
all
right:
well,
we
are
at
the
bottom
of
our
agenda
so
before
we
can,
we
can
stay
there
at
the
project
board
for
a
hot
second,
but
first
I'd
like
to
to
select
the
next
post
for
march.
So
if
anyone
is
interested
in
doing
that
from
steering
please
so
we've
had,
I
think
we've
had
paris
and
jordan
stiffer
right.
A
B
B
A
E
H
D
B
Oh
speaking
of
stuff
that
we
miss
speaking
of
like
my,
I
got
my
little
finger
out
speaking
of
like
speaking
of
stuff
that
we
miss
like.
I
only.
I
always
want
like
a
cncf
update
here
because,
like
we
do
miss,
I
think,
like
cncf
stuff,
you
know
what
I
mean
a
lot
and
that's
why
I
feel
that's
why
we
invited
eor,
which
I
feel
like
we
should
prompt
like
ascii
or
what's
up,
you
know
what
I
mean
every
meeting.
A
B
B
B
A
K
A
I
A
E
A
B
E
F
A
D
H
D
H
A
E
A
F
F
A
Yeah,
I
you
know,
I
think
I
was
I
was
initially
assigned,
because
this
is
some
shape
of
this
has
happened
to
me
twice
so
allow
me
to
allow
me
to
just
read
through
what's
happening
again,
and
it
probably
is
fine.
To
close,
I
think
it
was
just
language
in
some
doc
somewhere.
That
was
not
as
clear
as
it
could
be.