►
From YouTube: Steering Committee 20180328
Description
Chat transcript (times may be off):
00:06:36 Aaron Crickenberger: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qazwMIHGeF3iUh5xMJIJ6PDr-S3bNkT8tNLRkSiOkOU/edit# meeting agenda / notes
00:09:48 Clayton: charter review spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i_8oM1KlmXo90zIIgNTdOg-M6xesTggFLnTkgmscMlI/edit#gid=0
00:12:18 Aaron Crickenberger: I have my hand up when you have a chance
00:16:29 Michelle Noorali: https://t.co/aXF9eV7XvZ
00:16:48 Michelle Noorali: https://t.co/ryuZq5JuEe directions if really want them :)
00:19:27 Aaron Crickenberger: ^5 Michelle for the typo fixes lol
00:19:41 Michelle Noorali: :) haha happy to help
00:20:25 Quinton Hoole: Who gets to vote: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PtNDBBdkDCyNXVau9v4oWGgBGgdFfL6IAtWuhM_HNzY/edit#heading=h.vlo3cwkmsazx
00:30:04 Joe Beda: perms fixed
00:32:48 Joe Beda: I hope that is a hotel room Michelle!
00:33:09 Michelle Noorali: Oh lol it’s my parents house
00:33:20 Joe Beda: fancy :)
00:35:50 Quinton Hoole: +1
00:38:02 Phillip Wittrock: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1979
00:38:44 Sarah Novotny: lgtm'd
00:41:57 Quinton Hoole: +1
00:42:18 Michelle Noorali: Someone will manually delete :P
A
Okay,
so
I'm
now
recording
it
is
March
28.
This
is
the
steering
committee
meeting.
It
looks
like
we
don't
quite
have
Orem
and
we'll
probably
have
an
abbreviated
meeting,
because
of
that
some
other
folks
have
to
leave
first
off
I
wanna
introduce
Alexandria
here,
Alexandria
storm
who's,
a
college
student
who's
shadowing
me
today,
and
so
hopefully
nobody
objects
to
her.
Her
sitting
in
I.
Don't
think
we're
gonna
be
discussing
anything
super
controversial.
We're.
C
A
D
D
A
A
Let's
see,
how
do
you
have
the
spreadsheets
someplace
I,
don't
think
we
do
I
know
I,
know
Brandon
created
that
I
think
what
we
should
do
is
come
up
with
the
expected
number
of
SIG's
that
everybody
should
sign
up
for.
Have
people
sign
up
for
him.
I
think
one
question
is:
is
that
should
you
sign
up
for
a
state
familiarity
with,
or
should
it
be
something
that
you
don't
have
familiarity
with?
I
are
on
the
side
of
familiarity,
because
I
think
that
that
other
child
makes
things
go
smoother
and
we
can
have
a
steering
committee.
A
A
Extremes
and
and
I
think
you
know
if,
as
we
review,
charters
I
think
it's
worthwhile
calling
out
the
scope,
which
is
going
to
be
the
big,
the
big
thing
sort
of
like.
How
does
that?
How
does
that
sig
define
themselves
and
then
any
deviations
from
our
template?
We
should
take
a
look
at
it.
Make
sure
that
that
they
look
saying
I
think
so
far.
Nobody
is
using.
E
So
one
thing
I've
been
doing
is
going
to
some
SIG's
to
actually
explain
what's
going
on,
because
I
still
think
there's
a
lot
of
confusion
and
not
a
complete
understanding
of
what
we're
asking
so
I
went
to
cluster
lifecycle
this
week
and
talked
to
them
like
they
have
input.
They
also
have
the
issue
that
they
don't
understand.
Some
projects
yeah
a
couple
of
working
groups
that
actually
should
be
sub
projects,
so
helping
them
understand.
E
What's
a
that
difference
and
where
we're
going,
what
the
intention
is
there,
as
well
as
the
the
Charter
which
they
hadn't
looked
at
the
template
or
the
governance
guidelines
at
all
and
help
them
understand
what
we're
looking
for
in
the
Charter
I
think
we
need
to
do
more
outreach,
judging
by
like
in
all
of
this,
seem
to
be
totally
news
to
them
and
they
have
a
lot
of
sub
projects.
So
you
know
figuring
out.
E
C
Can
I
suggest
that
maybe
using
the
spreadsheet,
maybe
we
each
take
the
small
number
of
SIG's
that
we've
signed
up
for
and
go
and
do
exactly
that
for
them
to
a
QA
and-
and
you
know,
answer
whatever
questions
they
may
have
and
make
sure
they're
on
track
towards
producing
a
sane
one
of
these
things.
I.
E
Think
that
would
be
great.
The
other
thing
I
was
going
to
mention
is
a
number
of
SIG's
have
created
repos
and
community
sinks,
or
rather
that
I
think
they
were
all
created
by
some
steering
committee
member,
not
all
of
those
SIG's
I,
don't
believe,
met
the
requirements
for
being
allowed
to
do
that
right.
So
we
said
that
they
were
those
projects.
We're
gonna,
have
to
identify
their
sub
projects.
E
For
example,
the
Sigsworth
would
have
to
identify
their
sub
projects,
or
at
least
bet
to
list
its
in
six
diamo
already,
and
some
of
those
things
did
not
do
that
and
they
got
repos.
So
we
need
to
hold
the
line,
and
if
you
can
communicate
this
to
Tim
Sinclair
to
name
names
Joe
that
would
be
I
will
I
will
I
I
will
take.
F
A
D
E
A
I
think
one
one
idea
here
that
may
make
sense,
and
this
will
also
help
us
keep
the
number
of
SIG's
under
control-
is
to
have
a
primary
sort
of
you
know,
steering
committee
Ambassador
per
se
right
so
that
you
get
to
know
those
folks.
You
end
up
being
a
point
of
contact.
You
end
up,
you
know
explaining
some
of
these
things
well,.
C
A
C
D
Yeah
this
keyboard
is
loud,
so
I
was
just
suggesting
that
we
don't
have
the
process
documented
right
now
for
how
people
what
people
need
to
go
through
Thai
there,
because
that
was
something
that's
further
down
on
the
agenda
and
I
think
the
fryin
suggest
it
should
be
written
down.
So
we
all
know
that's
the
process
that
needs
to
be
followed,
reminding
people
hate
charter,
a
sub
projects,
who's
got
the
authority
to
create
the
repo
stuff
like
that,
yeah.
E
A
D
So
and
one
other
thing
I'll
put
out
there
if
for
the
idea
of
having
somebody
go
around
to
each
and
every
sink
contributor,
experience
is
already
trying
to
do
that
on
like
a
quarterly
basis,
just
to
talk
about.
What's
going
on
from
a
contributor
experience,
perspective
and
I
think
the
more
information
that
we
can
feed
to
them
in
terms
of
what
the
steering
committee
is
suggesting
in
terms
of
project
governance,
the
less
late
work
we
would
have
to
do
so.
D
First,
in
other
words,
so
that's
what
I've!
That's
what
I've
been
that's,
why
I've
been
trying
to
be
an
active
participant
in
contributor
experiences?
That's
a
lot
of
where
the
mechanics
and
logistics
of
this
stuff
rolls
out
anyway,
but
I
think
that
could
that
could
save
us
time,
though
I
do
think
at
least
for
this
charter
thing.
We
should
sign
up
to
do
individual
outreach.
A
A
Yes,
vice
versa,
and
and
let's
just
try
at
least
get
names
down,
and
then
we
can
and
then
we
can
set
a
schedule
for
that
and
of
what
needs
to
get
done
and
I
think
you
know
double
clean
double
duty
in
terms
of
of
like
the
the
sub-project
structure,
the
the
chartering
you
know
and
and
being
a
point
of
contact
a
friendly
face
for
answering
some
of
these
questions.
I
think
because
Brian's
been
doing.
A
D
C
A
F
A
F
A
F
A
Let
me
start
out
here
quinion.
You
can
interrupt
me
if
you
think
you
think
I'm
miss
dating
stuff,
so
we
started
off
pretty
far
ranging
and
I
think
we
scoped
this
down
a
little
bit
to
answer
a
concrete
question,
because
this
is
the
thing
that
I
think
really
matters
the
most
and
we
need
to
get
our
act
together
is
who
and
how
will
you
know,
we
determine
how
we
do
voting
in
the
next
steering
committee
election
right,
because
we
don't
want
to
be
in
a
position
where
we're
making
stuff
up
as
we
go
along.
A
There's
these
dual
tensions
that
we're
feeling
between
delegating
sort
of
the
voter
rolls
to
sig
so
that
they
can
define,
but
then
also
having
some
control
so
that
SIG's
don't
get
in
the
system,
and
it's
that
tension
that
I
think
is
caused.
The
most
discussion
between
us
there's
there's
really
two
proposals
that
you
know
and
Quentin
came
up
with
one
and
I
came
up
with
with
the
other,
but
there's
a
lot
of
overlap
between
these
things.
A
The
one
proposal
and
and
again
I'm
paraphrasing
some
stuff
like
putting
wrote
down
so
I
may
not
have
all
the
details
is
to
really
say
that
that
it's
it's
more
like
a
representative
democracy
where
people
inside
of
a
sig
vote
for
members,
and
then
those
members
in
you
know
determine
who
inside
of
the
sig
gets
to
represent
that
sig
and
those
folks
get
to
vote
in
the
steering
committee.
There's
an
open
question
of.
A
Do
all
SIG's
then
get
an
equal
number
of
members
to
vote,
or
do
we
determine
that
some
SIG's
are
more
important,
more
impactful,
more
valuable
than
others,
and
we
give
an
uneven
number
I.
Think
some
of
the
worries
is
that
there
may
be
SIG's
which
are
too
skewed
towards
one
vendor,
both
in
terms
of
the
value
that
they
add
and
the
membership,
and
there
are
other
SIG's
that
are,
you
know,
pretty
ineffectual
in
terms
of
not
adding
a
lot
of
value.
A
Not
being
very
active
and
then
there's
this
issue
of
stigma
packing
where
a
sig
might
sort
of
you
know
say:
hey
we're
gonna
make
everybody
a
member,
and
then
they
end
up
dominating
the
election.
So
if
we
have
some
sort
of
limit
at
the
sig
level,
that's
that's
one
way
to
approach
this
quinton
is.
Is
that
a
good
summary
or
am
I
missing
any
of
the
details?
There
yeah.
C
A
E
A
A
We
still
have
the
issue
that
we
may
have
a
particular
sig
that
becomes
too
vendor
heavy
or,
as
is
ineffective
and
has
a
lot
of
members
out
of
proportion
to
the
value
that
that
sig
is
bringing
to
the
community
one
of
the
ways
that
we
could
approach.
That
is
like
some
number
of
months
before
the
before
the
election.
A
We
could
take
a
snapshot
of
all
the
members
and
then
we
could
review
in
context
the
number
of
people
in
any
particular
role
the
amount
of
impact
from
that
SiC
in
that
and
that
thing
and
then
we
could
actually
determine
whether
that
particular
group
is
qualifying
or
non
qualifying,
and
then
only
the
quality
and
we'd
err
on
the
side
of
qualifying
and
only
the
qualifying
groups
would
get
to
vote.
So
that
way,
if
we
ended
up
with
you
know,
I'll
take
an
example.
A
Here
is,
like
you
know,
and
obviously
with
with
the
repeal
you
know,
looking
to
move
to
the
CN
CF.
It
changes
things,
but
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
people
who
are
chart.
Maintainer
z--
right
should
be
in
a
chart.
Maintainer
actually
qualify
you
to
voting
for
four
or
voting
for
steering
committee
I.
Think
that's
a
discussion
that
we
could
have
I,
don't
know
what
the
right
answer
there
is,
but
it's
one
of
those
things
where
it's
a
lot
of
people.
E
A
Well,
but
I
think
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
worried
about
is
not
the
list
of
people
today,
but
will
a
sig
go
through
and
actually
create
a
situation
where
they
end
up
packing
and
actually
making
people
members
looking
forward
to
the
the
election
and
I
think
the
advantage
that
we
had
last
time
is
that
we
didn't
tell
anybody.
We
were
going
to
do
this,
so
there
wasn't
any
time
for
anybody
to
game
the
system
right.
C
A
The
SIG's,
so
the
other
thing
is,
is
the
the
question
of
like
look.
If
you
are
qualifying
through
multiple
SIG's
sure
you
get
multiple
votes
or
you
should
get
one
vote,
I
think
if
we
view
it
as
sort
of
sig
representation
and
if
a
sig
takes
you
to
represent
them,
then
multiple
SIG's
pick
you
to
represent
them.
Then
that
implies
multiple
votes.
F
I,
don't
think
we
intend
ever
intended
it
to
be
sig
representation.
I
think
we
always
intended
it
to
be
skin
in
the
game.
I
remain
I,
remember
the
original
discussions,
and
it
was
basically
like
prove
that
you
have
skin
in
the
game
which
to
me
says
it's.
The
sig
membership
was
just
a
way
of
demonstrating
that,
but.
A
To
be
fair,
Brennan
I
mean
all
that
stuff
was
done
before
we
had
the
elections,
and
so
I
think
the
story
changes
dramatically.
Now
that
we
have
folks
on
the
steering
committee
that
were
elected
and
I
think
you
know
we
could
be
important,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
necessarily
be
restricted
by
it.
Fair.
F
C
You
think
that
part
is
too
contentious,
but
I
guess
there
is
an
element
and
I'm
fairly
happy
with
one
person,
one
Bert,
but
you
know
if
you
had
an
individual
who
may
be
made,
you
know
reasonably
substantial
contributions
across
multiple
say
or
maybe
an
individually
makes
very
large
contributions
in
multiple
SIG's
should
they
have
more
say
in
the
election
than
someone
who
makes
a
large
contribution
in
anyone,
sick
and
yeah
I
know
they
shouldn't
and
I.
Think.
F
Yeah
I,
don't
think
we
I,
don't
I,
guess
I
I,
don't
really
want
people
to
think
that
they
are
I.
Guess
I,
think
that
the
steering
committee
is
is
beholden
to
the
community,
not
to
the
SIG's,
and
so
therefore,
the
SIG's
at
some
level
shouldn't
care
who
is
elected
to
the
steering
committee
or
they
shouldn't
care
because
their
SIG's
they
should
care
because
they're
members
of
the
community.
D
But
I
strongly
agree.
I
also
kind
of
have
concerns
that,
like
when
you
were
referencing,
the
charts
maintain
errs
example.
I
understand
it
was
just
like
it
could
be
interpreted
as
assigning
importance
or
weights
to
certain
sub
projects
within
the
kubernetes
community,
which
I
think
is
probably
also
something
we
don't
want
to
do.
Okay,.
D
F
D
D
B
D
F
A
I'll
give
you
another
example
of:
let's
say
that
we,
these
cloud
specific,
cigs
right
and
I'm,
not
gonna,
name
names.
So,
like
you
know,
we
have.
You
know
cig
ABC
cloud,
okay,
and
we
find
that
the
the
leads
there.
It
tends
to
be
dominated
by
one
company
and
it
gets
to
the
point
where
they
add
300
members,
okay
and
and
the
value
that
they're,
adding
to
focus
disproportionately
benefits
that
particular
company
and
all
the
employees
are
for
that
company.
You
know
employed
by
that
company
that
will
skew
our
steering
committee
elections
pretty
dramatically.
A
E
A
F
I
mean
maybe
the
right.
The
answer
is
to
actually
apply
the
same.
I
mean
I'm,
I'm
I'm
with
Ryan
I.
Don't
think
this
is
gonna,
be
a
problem
actually
but
like
maybe
we
can
apply
the
same
representation
guidelines
to
voting
membership
that
we
do
to
the
steering
committee
and
say
like
look.
No
more
than
thirty
percent
of
the
voting
population
can
be
from
any
one
company
period.
End
of
story.
That's.
F
E
F
I
think,
actually,
that's
probably
enough,
like
I
mean
I
think
this
is
in
some
ways
come
to
comes
back
out
of
the
same
decision
we
said
before,
which
was
like
you
can
either
restrict,
who
is
eligible
to
vote
or
you
can
restrict
who
is
eligible
to
be
a
candidate,
but
you
probably
don't
have
to
restrict
both,
and
it
might
be
the
same
thing
here.
It.
A
F
A
F
I
mean
I'd,
be
okay,
with
setting
up
limits
on
either
company
representation
in
the
voting
blocks
or
sig
representation.
In
the
voting
blocks,
and
just
saying
like
hey,
you
know,
100
divided
by
number
of
SIG's
equals
the
percentage
that
you
get
to
fill
in
the
voting
blocks,
or
maybe
double
it
to
make
sure
that
bigger
SIG's
get
better,
you
know,
can
have
better
representation
or
whatever.
F
E
E
A
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
kind
of
like
the
having
skin
in
the
game
as
denoted
by
presence
in
owner's
files.
Kind
of
demonstrates
that
people
are
actually
contributing
value
to
the
community
in
theory,
and
so,
if
some
company
decides
to
flood
of
owner's
files
with
a
bunch
of
people
in
theory,
if
we're
doing
this
right,
they
should
be
flooding
the
community
with
value
because
they're
actually
contributing
to
kubernetes
and
so
they're
I
think
they
should
have
some
sort
of
say
what
you.
A
Can't
do
anyway,
but
I
think
there's
I
mean
so
so,
first
of
all,
I
just
clearly
there's
you
know
if
somebody's
adding
value,
that's
great,
not
all
value
benefits
the
community
as
much
as
other
value.
Right
again,
the
cloud
specific
stuff
tends
to
benefit.
A
single
company.
First
is
working
on,
say,
a
release
team
right,
which
is
obviously
a
thankless
task
and
and
I
think
you
know
we
have
folks
that
are
working
full-time
on
this
stuff,
putting
their
their
blood
and
sweat
into
it.
And
then
we
have
somebody
who's.
A
A
D
A
D
A
B
G
G
Agree
more
with
Brian's
on
devil's
advocate
point,
which
was
we
already
have
a
lot
of
meetings
during
coop
con
and
we're
doing
a
lot
of
face-to-face
things
and
I
can
use
that
time
to
talk
to
people
who
thank
you,
ladies
or
other
things,
so
I'm,
okay
with
us
not
doing
it.
If
that's
the
way,
we're
going
string.
D
D
E
E
A
G
E
C
Was
gonna,
say
Michelle
and
I
had
dinner
a
few
weeks
ago
and
and
I
mean
it
was
enormously
valuable,
just
to
get
to
know
Michelle
a
bit
better.
Not
you
know,
actually
you
know
each
other
well,
I
would
I
would
be
supportive
of
a
you
know,
totally
optional
social
thing.
If
somebody
wants
to
set
it
up
and
say
you
know,
put
your
name
here.
If
you
want
to
join
for
dinner
you're,
not
there,
that's
fine!
If
you
rather
want
to
do
something
else's.
B
B
C
D
B
D
E
A
Honest
I
mean
there's,
there's
a
certain
amount
of
like
if
we
put
the
users
in
there
there's
the
you
know,
there's
the
discussion
of
like
who
the
users
are.
What
is
in
scope,
what
is
out
of
scope
and,
to
some
degree
that's
defined
by
the
contributors,
and
so,
if
there's
a
user
that
you
know
segment
that
is
not
well
represented
as
a
contributor,
then
I'm
not
sure
like
how
much
we
owe
them.
Yeah.
D
B
B
D
E
D
D
If
I
can't
do
incubator,
what
can
I
do
instead
and
we'll
do
the
things
that
Brian
said
where
it's
like
well
make
sure
you're
on
the
up-and-up
with
a
charter
and
all
of
your
sub
projects
are
represented
in
city
animal
and
then
reach
out
to
the
steering
committee
mailing
list,
and
somebody
from
the
steering
committee
will
say.
Yes,
this
looks
good
and
we'll
go
from
there.
Sound
like
it
gets
drawn
in.
A
D
A
D
A
Feel
like
we
need
to
make
them
feel
like
more
of
a
thing
right,
figs
feel
like
a
thing:
they
get
a
mailing
list.
They
have
meetings.
I
think
we
need
a
little
bit
more
sort
of
structure
around
declaring
something
a
sub
project
versus
not
I.
Think
we
also
like
the
tooling
around
figuring
out.
Where
do
we
have
code?
That's
not
allocated
to
a
project
or
sub
project
or
sig
I
think
getting
that
clean
places
can
be
critical.
A
A
And
I
think
doing
something
doing
something
along
the
lines
of
and-
and
you
know,
maybe
it's
something
simple
but,
like
you
know,
right
now,
six
dot,
yeah
mole
causes
a
bunch
of
directories
to
be
created
that
have
readings
so
that
looks
like
oh.
This
is
a
thing
that
has
a
real
entry
if
we
create
sub
directories
from
SIG's
for
each
sub
project
and
just
put
the
name
in
there,
so
there's
a
directory
with
a
readme
and
it
looks
like
who's
responsible.
A
It's
sort
of
promoted
from
being
a
bulleted
list
on
the
repaint,
something
for
the
cig
that'll
make
it
feel
like
it's
a
much
more
concrete
thing
that
you
know
that
people
can
build
around.
Is
that
silly
I?
Don't
know
that,
doesn't
it
it
seems
silly,
but
it
also
seems
like
it
might
be
effective.
Can.
D
A
D
That's
what
I'm
kind
of
maybe
trying
to
drive
towards
is
like
who,
who
is
actively,
who
is
doing
the
behavior
that
we
want
to
incentivize.
So
it's
going
to
say,
like
helm,
is
one
of
our
most
active
sub
projects,
but
maybe
we
should
look
elsewhere
and
so
trying
to
figure
out
what
other
active
sub
projects
for
doing
behavior
that
is
appropriate,
and
how
can
we
incentivize
them
to
do
more
of
that?
Behavior
necessarily.
A
You
it
I
mean
a
lot
of
the
things
that
are
active.
You
know,
sub
projects
are
not
really
viewed
as
totally
separate
things
right
and
I
think
that's
part
of
what
we
needed
to
define
this
so
that
things
like
the
the
reschedule
err
you
know
is
is
a
sub
project,
but
really
it's
sort
of
seen
as
part
and
parcel
right
and
so
I
think
there
there's
a
question
of
how
much
formalism,
how
much
other
ISM
do
we
want
around
sub
projects
versus
hey
it's
an
organizational
structure,
slow
creepy
eyes.
A
D
A
Don't
have
anything
top
of
mind
if
folks,
after
hearing
the
the
issues
that
were
wrestling
with
one
enjoying
Quentin
and
Tim
and
me
by
in
terms
of
figuring
out
this
whole
sig
representation
thing,
it's
not
too
late
to
sort
of
raise
your
hand,
but
I
will
understand
if
you
want
to.
Let
us
wrestle
with
this
stuff
yeah.
C
B
G
Just
I've
been
working
on
that
code
of
conduct
committee
thing,
but
then
I
decided
to
go
to
Hawaii
last
week,
so
that
can
happen
so
anyway,
just
wanted
to
let
you
all
know
that
I
approve
of
your
prioritization
Michelle.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
took
a
week
off
before
the
Hawaii
week
too.
So
definitely
haven't
done
any
steering
committee
things
since
the
last
meeting
this
week
will
be
this
upcoming
week.
G
Well,
focus
I'll
focus
on
the
code
of
conduct
committee
and
last
week
we
discussed
the
pros
of
pros
and
cons
of
having
a
kubernetes
specific
code
of
conduct
committee
versus
a
CNC
cf
wide
code
of
conduct
committee.
So
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
drop
a
list
of
pros
and
cons
from
that
discussion
and
put
that
in
a
format
that
people
can
take
a
look
at
awesome.
A
A
quick
question
Michelle
so
I
mentioned
that
that
that
helm
is
looking
at
joining
the
CNC
F
is
an
incubator
project.
I
know
you
were
keeping
that
kind
of
on
the
down-low.
We
were
gonna
post.
This
recording.
Is
there
a
timeline
for
when
you're
gonna
make
that
be
a
little
bit
I'm?
Now
we're
not
gonna
advertise
that
but
I.
You
know
it
was
included
here
and
I
want
to
be
respectful
of
that.
So
let
me
know
when
you
think
the
recording
should
go
out
or
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
can
redact
it
really
yeah.
G
D
B
D
Becoming
a
CN
CF
project
is
a
natural
fit,
and
the
steering
committee
is
in
support
of
this
I.
Personally
wonder
how
many
other
projects
are
interested
in
taking
a
similar
path
and
whether
or
not
there
are
any
precedents
that
we
need
to
be
careful
about
setting
here.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
my
only
thing,
but
like
I,
don't
really
see
it
me
other
than
like
some
kind
of
more
formal
announcement
than
it
being
talked
about
on
a
video
recording
like
we're
totally
supportive
of
it.
I've.
C
Got
a
feeling
that
that
will
sort
itself
out
in
the
sense
that
projects
will
decide
whether
they
want
to
become
part
of
communities
of
policy
and
CF
and
if
they
get
into
CN
CF
in
the
CN
CF.
Yes,
he
says
this
doesn't
belong
here.
Why
don't
you
try
to
the
metas
or
vice-versa
it'll
kind
of
figure
itself
out?
I
only
need
to
do
anything
other
than
evaluate
project,
because
my.
D
Understanding
is
it's
the
sort
of
thing
where
the
CNC
F
is
really
only
for
projects
that
are
currently
sub
projects
of
kubernetes
or
anywhere
within
the
kubernetes.
The
various
organizations
that
we,
the
CNC
F,
would
be
interested
in
making
sure
that
the
steering
committee
approves
of
such
movement.
They
do
not
want
it
to
be
perceived
as
the
CNC
F
is
stealing
projects
out
from
under
us,
and
so
there's
like
any
editorial
decision.
We
feel
like
making
they're
cool
with
that.
I
think
largely
we're
just
trying.
A
G
A
Actually,
that's
a
really
good
point,
because
this
was
occurring
in
media.
The
other
day
is
that
I
think
amongst
at
least
like
we
had
a
good
discussion
of
this
before
we
had
this
during
the
steering
committee
elections
and
I
think
we
came
up
with
a
good
definition
of
the
difference
between
cig
working
group
and
committee.
I.
Don't
think
we
have
that
written
down
anywhere
really
well,
so
I
think
somebody
needs
to
go
ahead
and
document
that
I'm
happy
to
take
that
on
as
part
of
my
other
stuff.