►
Description
Kubernetes Public Steering Committee Meeting for 20220707
A
Hello,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
july
7th
2022
kubernetes
steering
committee
public
meeting.
My
name
is
christoph
blecker,
I'm
the
good,
be
the
boson
for
today,
a
couple
quick
reminders
before
we
get
started.
This
meeting
is
being
recorded
and
will
be
published
to
youtube.
So
please
be
mindful
of
that
when
you
are
speaking
on
something
second,
this
meeting
the
entire
kubernetes
community
follows
the
kubernetes
and
cncf
code
of
conduct.
A
Er,
please
read
it
if
you
haven't
and
be
excellent
to
each
other.
While
we
are
discussing
things-
and
the
last
thing
that
I
will
say
is
if
this
is
your
first
time
coming
to
a
steering
committee
meeting,
I
would
ask
that,
because
we
have
a
lot
of
folks
saying
we
have
a
very
full
agenda.
Please
use
the
raising
hand
functionality
in
zoom
to
indicate
that
you
would
like
to
speak
on
a
particular
topic.
A
The
topics
that
we
have
today
I
have
attempted
to
time
box
them
to
make
sure
that
we
get
through
everything
that
we
need
to
talk
about
today,
so
I
may
interject
and
try
and
redirect
or
try
and
wrap
up
a
conversation.
So
if
you
do
have
a
point
indicating
that
you're
waiting
to
speak
on
something
using
the
hand,
functionality
would
be
greatly
appreciated.
A
B
Hey
everyone.
Thank
you,
kristoff.
We
actually
have
quite
a
few
things
at
governing
board
level.
Both
are
that's
both
short-term
and
long-term
needs.
I'm
just
going
to
start.
I
only
have
five
minutes,
so
I'm
sure
folks
might
have
questions,
but
we
might
not
be
able
to
get
to
it
feel
free
to
reach
me
on
slack
or
something
afterwards
in
the
syrian
committee
channel
or
dms.
If
you
need
anything
or
have
any
clarifications
that
you'd
like
first
one
is,
we
do
have
some
legal
matters.
B
C
B
So
for
any
legal
matters
that
we
have
go
forward,
we
would
propose
to
that
legal
committee,
and
so
some
of
the
things
that
we
have
going
on
there
is
the
opt-in
legal
private
list
for
maintainers.
That
would
be
us
to
use
similar
to
the
apache
software
foundation.
That's
going
to
be
proposed
the
next
time
they
need
next
time.
D
B
We
are
also
being
excuse
me,
we're
also
waiting
on
answers
to
the
questions
that
we
had
from
the
dno
insurance.
The
last
time
we
heard
from
them
was
on
the
issue
of
any
steering
committee.
Members
want
to
put
that
issue
on
the
on
the
dock.
That
would
be
awesome
for
me,
but
we're
just
waiting
on
some
questions.
It
sounds
like
we
have
insurance,
but
stephen
and
others
have
put
some
questions
on
that.
The
lawyers
need
to
address
first
before
we
close
that
down
and
say.
B
Yes,
we
have
insurance
and
then
also
their
the
legal
fund
resolution
that,
according
to
chris,
we
also
have,
but
we
need
clarifications
on
what
that
is
and
how
to
use
that
from
chris,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
we
also
need
to
do
any
kind
of
proposal
to
the
legal
committee
or,
if
we're
using
general
funds,
for
that
so
also
have
to
get
clarification
from
chris
and
then
dims.
I
see
you
putting
the
real
name
pseudonym
issue:
do
you
want
to
jump
in
with
just
a
high
level
what
that
is.
E
It
doesn't
directly
affect
us
right
now,
but
this
this
specific
issue
is
about
dco
and
what
a
real
name
means
and
does
real
name
actually
mean
a
real
name
for
folks.
So
please
go
look
at
it
read
through.
There
is
one
issue
that
was
closed.
This
is
a
new
issue
that
was
open,
so
read
both
issues
and
chime
in
on
the
cnc
of
toc
mailing
list,
or
you
know,
or
on
the
issue
itself.
Thank
you.
B
B
B
Some
of
those
things
include
the
creative
staffing
fund.
Sorry
for
the
note
takers,
so
I'm
jumping
around
right
now,
but
the
third
bullet
is
a
great
example
of
something
that's
large
and
ambiguous,
which
is
the
creative
staffing
fund.
That
would
be
fellows
contractors
any
a
staffing
arrangement
that
needs
to
be
paid.
D
B
So
cncf
is
on
board
with
that
idea
to
try
to
grow
the
ecosystem.
The
things
again
that
we're
trying
to
that
we're
trying
to
come
up
with
resolutions
for
there
are.
You
know,
making
sure
that
the
maintainers
that
we
have
don't
walk
away
with
institutional
knowledge,
because
they're
not
supported
at
their
day
jobs
for
whatever
reason
how
to
hire
and
how
to
hire
and
retain
contributors
and
maintainers
things
like
that.
B
So
the
other,
the
part
about
the
good
news,
though,
from
a
process
standpoint,
everything
we
need
everything
that
goes
to
the
board
has
to
start
with
a
service
desk
ticket,
even
if
it
is
large
and
ambiguous,
even
if
it
is
something
like
a
problem
that
we
don't
know
yet
or
how
to
solve.
That,
should
go
and
start
in
with
service
desk
first.
So
it's
not
just
you
know,
I
think
all
of
us
were
using
service
desk
as
a
very
specific
function
of
hey.
B
We
need
this
one,
this
one
thing
now,
but
we
should
really
start
to
use
it
as
we
need
all
the
things
from
cncf
and
not
just
necessarily
this.
You
know
one
little
transactional
piece
of
you
know
information,
I'm
looking
at
my
time,
kristoff.
The
next
thing
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about
is
introducing
an
alternate.
B
I
wanted
to
try
to
see
what
what
folks
thoughts
were
about
that
today.
Let
me
explain
the
problem
again
for
folks
that
don't
understand
on
the
call
right
now
the
problem
is:
there's
one
seat
for
the
kubernetes
developer,
rep
on
the
governing
board.
Right
now,
all
other
members,
with
the
exception
of
richie
hartman
who's,
the
developer
rep
for
cncf
projects.
B
All
other
members
have
alternates,
meaning
you
know
if
you
are
at
google
or
vmware
or
any
one
of
the
other
member
companies
that
sit
on
the
gb,
you
have
an
alternate
that
person
can
sit
in
when
you're
absent,
for
whatever
reason
they
sort
of
act.
As
you
know,
again,
your
alternate
your
literal
alternate
in
that
stance.
B
While
we
all
are
carrying
you
know
the
programs
and
resolutions
and
things
of
the
board
that
we're
carrying
it
would
be
very
nice
to
have
someone
as
sort
of
a
partner
that
you
know
you
can
hand
off
these
things
too,
that
you're
not
having
such
a
hard
handoff
with
and
also
you
know.
I
am
a
human
and
sometimes
I
might
need
to
miss
a
meeting.
B
Be
good
to
have
at
least
a
voice
there
and
I
think
right
now
we
are
in
a
good
spot,
because
dimms
is
also
on
the
board
as
a
toc
chair.
So
I
always
know
that
there's
a
voice
there
for
us,
but
when
den
scrolls
off
of
steering,
we
won't
necessarily
have
that
that
voice
I
mean
obviously
dens
will
be
forever
us,
but
it
will
still
be
nice
to
have
an
alternate.
So
I
wanted
to
open
up
quick
conversations
or
discussions
as
to
what
you
all
think
about
that
idea.
F
Do
you
have
a
quick
question?
Yeah
yeah
comment
I
am
in
favor.
I
would
say
that
if
our
current
alternate
is
going
to
be
rolling
off
of
steering
within
the
year,
then
we
choose
one.
That
is
I
mean
if
our
current
rep
is
is
rolling
up
within
the
air.
Then
we
choose
one
that
has
the
full
two-year
term
as
the
alternate
so
that
we
have
that
continuity.
G
B
B
E
B
B
B
It's
literally
an
indoor
situation
depending
on
the
contributors
needs
and
then
obviously,
not
obviously,
but
some
of
our
leads
have
also
asked
for
things
like
recognition,
you
know
schwag
in
the
form
of
coupon
tickets,
and
things
like
that,
so
I
just
wanted
to
at
least
put
an
fyi
to
the
steering
committee
that
I
did
file
all
of
those
use
cases
in
as
a
ticket
for
things
that
we're
going
to
need.
It
looks
like
we
might
not
make
detroit,
but
we're
going
to
still
keep
chugging
along
on
this
initiative.
A
B
A
B
H
The
side
effect
of
that
is,
we
will
be
able
to
support
elections
other
than
the
steering
committee
election
if
sigs
want
to
have
like
an
election
for
chairs
or
something
the
that's
for.
There's
a
work
in
progress,
pr
out,
waiting
on
feedback
and
approval
by
our
tech
leads.
If
somebody
can
paste
that
into
the
notes,
that
would
be
great,
the
notes
were
being
a
little
slow.
H
The
goal
here
is
to
have
our
new
election
officers
picked
and
to
have
them
submit
a
draft
schedule
for
the
election
to
steering
by
the
end
of
the
month.
The
other
thing
that's
going
to
be
happening
concurrently
with
that
is
last
year,
was
our
first
year
using
electo
for
the
steering
committee
election.
H
G
B
A
Moving
right
along
okay,
I
I've
got
the
next
item
we
I
wanted
to
put
out
there.
Do
we
want
to
do
a
steering
committee
session
for
kubecon
north
america
2022
in
detroit?
I
know
we
typically
have
put
on
a
session.
I
want
to
throw
it
out
there
if
anybody
has
any
thoughts
or
concerns
just
wanna.
If
we
do
want
to,
we
just
need
to
get
it
submitted
before
monday.
F
A
F
D
I
think,
as
a
community
member,
one
of
the
main
reasons
you
show
up
at
something
like
the
steering
committee,
you
know
in
person
session
is
because
you're
wondering
is
there
a
path
for
me
to
get
from
here
in
the
audience
to
there,
and
so
I
feel
like
talking
a
little
bit
about
the
behind
the
scenes,
so
that
people
could
understand
what
that
pipeline
looks.
Like
would
probably
help
with
your
future
recruiting
awesome.
Thank
you.
B
A
J
Sure
I
mostly
just
wanted
to
get
this
on
our
radar.
This
proposal
came
in
not
too
long
ago.
It
is
a
little
funky
versus
some
of
our
other
working
groups
that
we
have
right
now,
there's
only
one
stakeholder
sig
and
it
seems
largely
about
integrating
with
external
projects,
to
get
stuff
more
aligned
with
the
gateway
api.
Actually
tim,
you
might
have
a
little
do
you
have?
Is
that
sort
of
sum
it
up.
C
Yeah,
I
think
the
the
impetus
is
there's
a
opportunity
to
align
multiple
projects
in
the
form
of
the
gateway
api
and
the
folks
who
are
driving
the
core
of
the
gateway.
Api
are
kind
of
harried
focused
on
the
core
of
it,
and
so
they
are
putting
their
thumb
print
on
a
working
group
to
focus
on
the
mesh
specific
aspects
of
it.
K
Sorry,
I'm
struggling
to
operate
a
map
because
of
a
numb
hand
from
surgery
this
morning,
but
hey
everyone
haven't
met.
I'm
keith
put
together
the
working
group
proposal
with
contributions
from
lots
of
other
folks,
but
yeah
you've
basically
covered
it.
We
don't
want
to
dilute
or
overwhelm
a
lot
of
the
great
work
happening,
gateway
api
and
a
working
group
has
seemed
like
the
best
kind
of
way
to
go
about
doing
that
work.
K
Another
sub
project
seems
weird
because
we
we're
not
we're
not
owning
code,
and
that
seems
to
be
kind
of
a
big
differentiator
for
working
group
versus
others.
I
I
recognize
really
one
stakeholder
sig
but
open
to
other
comments
or
suggestions
here
around
this.
The
proposal
has
been
linked
in
the
in
the
agenda,
thanks
to
whoever
did
that.
F
Stephen
stephen
so
yeah,
so
I
guess
the
one
bit
of
clarity
around
the
governance
structures
is
that
a
working
group
would
be
across
want
to
be
across
multiple
sigs
and
and
two
there's
some
aspect
of
time.
Boundiness,
so
not
necessarily
a
an
explicit
turn
off
date,
but
an
idea
that
it
may
no
longer
be
required
in
the
future,
so
that,
and
and
also
to
mention
that
for
for
some
projects,
we
do
have
lots
of
sub
projects.
K
Yeah,
that
makes
sense
and
to
address
one
of
the
one
of
the
points
there.
The
goal
is
for
this
to
to
thin
down.
I
I
want
I
want
to
say,
like
the
the
goal
is
for
mesh
concerns
to
be.
You
know,
first-party
consideration
in
in
gateway
api
they're,
just
tense
at
the
moment
that
it
seems
to
be
not
the
focus
of
the
of
the
mainstream
thing.
There's
not.
I
there
hasn't
seemed
to
be
a
lot
of
prior
art
for
something
like
this.
K
A
sub
project
of
a
sub
project,
and
so
the
the
working
group
is,
is
what
we've
kind
of
gone
with.
If
I
I
you
know,
the
pr
has
been
submitted,
not
typically
sure
what
happened
after
this.
If
conversation
just
continues
to
happen
in
github
also
happy
to
chat
with
whoever
else
about
or
in
the
google
doc
for
the
charter,
but
yeah
just
wanted
to
get
this
out
there
and
appreciate
you
bringing
this
up
bob
on
the
agenda
today.
L
G
Yeah
I'll
kind
of
echo
what
steven
was
saying
about
like
normally,
the
reason
we
have
working
groups
is
to
sort
of
understand
where
work
is
intersecting
between
cigs.
I
I
totally
get
like
if
the
folks
working
on
gateway
are
busy,
and
this
isn't
something
else
that
can
be
put
on
their
plate.
You
can
actually
like
have
multiple
work
streams
under
a
single
sub-project.
G
So
if
it's
really,
if
this
is
really
just
trying
to
organize
work
under
sig
network,
a
sub-project
seems
like
the
most
lightweight
way
to
do
that
and
like
this,
this
doesn't
have
to
be
super
formal.
If
you
want
to
split
out
a
work
stream
and
say
like
we're
trying
to
work
with
the
cncf
folks
and
we
need
like
a
zoom
meeting
and
a
you
know,
youtube
link
or
whatever
like
we
can
totally
do
that
without
needing
the
overhead
of
another
working
group.
F
Thanks,
jordan
stephen
same
comments
that
the
infrastructure
is
in
place
to
support
y'all.
However,
you
decide
to
carve
it
up,
but
do
I
I
I
would
say
for
the
for
the
working
group
side
just
be
sure
to
have
support
from
your
sigs
and
and
organizers,
who
will
be
active
because
I
I
feel
like
that
will
make
the
difference
if
you
do
decide
to
go
that
route.
A
Thank
you,
so
I
I've
got
my
hand
up
so
I'll.
Take
the
next
quick
comment.
I
wanted
to
say
that,
while
in
practice
or
working
group,
efforts
have
been
typically
cross-sig
or
have
multiple
stakeholder
stakes,
it's
not
explicit
requirement.
The
only
explicit
requirements
that
we
have
for
working
group
and
I'll
take
the
working
group
governance
stock
and
put
it
in
the
chat.
A
Basically,
you
have
to
not
own
code.
You
have
to
have
clear
entry
exit
criteria
and
not
have
any
organizational
authority
but
influence.
That's
all!
That's
all
that
we
explicitly
require
for
a
working
group,
so
I'm
I
still
want
to.
I
haven't
yet
completely
read
through
the
proposal,
but
like
skimming
it
and
that
kind
of
stuff.
A
I
don't
have
any
strong
objections
to
it
being
a
working
group
if,
if
that
gives
it
the
the
the
the
organizational
structure
that
would
support
this
particular
effort,
but
I
also
agree
like
it
could
just
as
easily
be
a
subproject
of
sick
network
like
it.
I
don't
think
it
makes
a
huge
difference
either
way.
The
the
biggest
difference
with
a
working
group
is.
There
are
specific
overhead
and
reporting
requirements
around
a
working
group
that,
because
there's
needs
to
be
clear,
entry
and
extra
criteria.
L
Hey
I
just
wanted
to
go
like
as
someone
who's
been
active
in
a
gateway
api
subproject,
as
well
as
part
of
this
initiative,
to
whether
it
ends
up
being
a
formal
working
group
or
a
worksheet
yeah.
I
just
want
to
kind
of
like
speak
to
like
the
motivation,
for
this
kind
of
structure
was
to
explicitly
not
have
it
as
a
parallel
effort
as
like
a
sub
project
at
the
same
level
as
gateway
api,
to
avoid
any
kind
of
conflict
around
questions
of
code
ownership.
L
Awesome
project
has
largely
been
focused
on
north
south
and
it
seems
like
there's
a
whole
heck
of
a
lot
of
work
that
is
consuming
the
vast
majority
of
that
participants
in
that
group's
time
currently,
and
that
was
how
the
intent
was
to
like.
Have
this
as
a
focused
effort
for
folks
who
are
interested
in
expanding
it
without
becoming
a
distraction.
C
Thanks
mike
tim,
so
for
the
sake
of
forward
progress,
why
don't
we
just
say
knack
on
working
group
and
make
this
just
explicitly
a
sub
sub
project
and
we'll
run
it
ourselves,
but
I
don't
think
we
need
a
formal
acknowledgement
of
it
from
this
level.
So
it
it
seems
like
it's
just
a
lot
of
overhead
for
not
enough
gain.
So
we
can
take
that
back
to
sig
network,
and
I
to
all
the
folks
who
are
proposing
a
working
group
will
make
sure
that
it's
got
its
legitimacy
within
sig
network.
A
F
For
sure
so
the
so
the
first
one
is
is
related
to
the
second
one,
but
that
is,
I
will
let
paris
kick
off
the
second
one,
and
then
we
can
we
can.
We
can
jump
in
so
as
as
part
of
as
part
of
some
changes
that
were
introduced
are
proposed
to
the
the
steering
charter.
We
recognized
some
places
where
there
were
some
opportunities
to
improve
documentation
really
make
sure
things
are
properly
linked.
F
So
part
of
the
get
foo
within
within
the
pr
was
bringing
bringing
points
that
were
easily
movable
to
a
separate
pr
into
a
separate
pr.
So
249
basically
just
lists
what
our
process
for
enacting
changes
are
and
and
cross
links
some
information
about
our
election
process.
So
from
what
I'm
seeing
out
on
the
pr
at
least
we've
done
some
reviews,
since
we've
had
some
steering
acts
I
would
like
to.
I
would
like
to
call
a
vote
for
that.
A
A
A
A
B
Yes,
so
yeah,
like
steven,
said
this
actually
came
before
the
last.
The
intention
of
the
pr
was
to
document
the
life
cycle.
Clearly,
some
of
that
life
cycle
was
boiler
plate
and
linking
from
other
document
cleanup.
So
we
took
that
off,
which
leaves
us
a
couple
of
sections
left
from
our
life
cycle,
most
notably
removal
which
I
think
we
have
you
know
150,
plus
comments
on
in
itself.
B
B
F
F
Basically,
where
we
are,
there
have
been
a
lot
of
things
that
we've
introduced
in
the
pr
for
the
sake
of
completeness,
and
I
feel
like
some
of
those
points
have
turned
into
turned
into
maybe
boiling
the
ocean
right.
So
so
we
kind
of
backed
out
some
of
those
changes
and
opened
up
a
separate
issue
to
say,
like
hey,
let's
capture,
all
of
the
review
feedback
and
work
on
the
pieces
that
are
kind
of
longer
tail
objectives.
So
what
remains
here,
I
believe,
are
our
two
points
or
what
you
know.
F
One
point
and
another
point
with
multiple
sub
points.
So
the
first
is
how
should
steering
communicate
context
for
a
no
no
confidence
vote
and
the
second
one
is
deciding
on
whether
we
just
defer
discussion
around
vacancies
within
the
the
committee
specifically
around
how
far
down
the
stack
do
we
go
for
previous
runners?
If
there
is
a
if
there
is
a
vacancy
before
we
consider
calling
a
special
election?
F
The
next
is
how
many
seats
should
be
filled
or
can
be
filled
in
that
manner,
and
then
the
last
sub
point
is
deciding
not
to
fill
a
seat
if
the
vacancy
is
happening
within
end
time
before
the
next
election.
So
I
think
those
are
the
ones
that
we
should
discuss.
First
and
foremost,
given
the
review
comments
and
everything
else
is
maybe
in
scope
for
a
separate
discussion.
A
A
I
think
it's
very
important
for
observers
of
the
process
to
be
able
to
look
and
say,
okay,
I
understand
why
this
person
is
being
targeted
for
removal
and
and
then
I
can
see-
and
this
is
how
everyone
I
would
like
to
see
how
everyone
voted
on
it
as
well.
I
think
both
of
those
things
are
important
for
deciding.
A
A
And
and
for
clarity,
david
you're
you're,
just
because
it
wasn't
explicitly
say
there
you're
referring
to
if
this
process
is
to
be
merged
into
the
charter
and
then
be
used,
how
it's
used,
as
opposed
to
the
meta
conversation
about
the
process
that
we're
using
right
now
to
change
the
charter.
You
didn't.
A
F
That's
as
a
community
member
and
a
voter,
I
I
would
want
some
level
of
explanation
to
to
kind
of
help,
inform
my
future
votes,
and
especially
if
that
means
that
someone
that
the
committee
was
interested
in
in
removing
would
be
running
again
and-
and
you
know,
and-
and
I
don't
necessarily
have
the
context-
I
I
think
my
personal
feeling
is
that
that
you
know
this
can
be
potentially
batched.
As
you
know,
not
all
I,
I
don't
think
all
feedback
should
be
public.
F
I
do
think
that
we
have
have
some
responsibility
to
provide
some
sort
of
explanation
around
it
and
I
think
that
that
can
maybe
be
maybe
be
the
aggregate
of
some
of
the
feedback
that
we
we've
received.
The
you
know
I
I
hesitate
to
plus
one
any
suggestions
of
introducing
a
process
that
requires
people
to
provide
public
feedback,
given
that
the
scope
of
steering
includes
both
public
and
private
matters.
A
D
A
Where,
where
you
you
even
have
a
template
and
the
template
gets
filled
in-
and
I
say
so
and
so
has
harmed
a
disadvantaged
group
and
violated
the
trust
of
our
community.
We
have
no
confidence
in
this
individual's
leadership
and
she
should
be
removed
and
then
a
community
member
might
come
up
and
say
well,
okay,
how
did
she
do
that
and
you
get
back
a
response
of
well,
it's
private.
I
can't
tell
you
but
trust
me.
It's
important
and
a
community
member
has
no
way
to
really
have
have
confidence
in
that.
A
A
F
A
I
My
hand
up,
I
don't
want
to
open
a
can
of
worms,
because
this
has
been
sitting
festering
for
a
while
anyway,
but
our
committees
are
chartered
with
the
ability
to
act
in
private
and
there
is
a
fundamental
trust
issue
there
could
have.
Conduct
committee
has
been
struggling
with
that
for
for
years.
I
don't
know
that
we're
going
to
get
an
answer
to
it
here,
but
I
I
really
appreciate
that
it
is
getting
more
consideration
now.
F
So
so
yeah,
I
think
I
I
think,
given
especially
some
of
the
discussion
we've
had
around
voting
requirements
for
enacting
a
a
change
like
this.
I
would,
I
feel
it
turns
into
a
different
question
of
the
community,
has
elected
several
officials
to
operate
in
this
capacity
and
there
is
for
us
to
operate
in
private.
There
has
to
be
some
expectation
of
trust
within
the
community
for
us
to
be
able
to
do
that
stuff
faithfully
for
you.
F
So
I
that
the
I
feel
like
the
the
the
question,
that's
also
being
asked,
is:
do
we
trust
the
steering
committee
and
that's
something
that
is
that's
something
that
was
kind
of
like
hey.
Let's
also
talk
about
disillusion
and
that's
something
that
was
deferred
to
the
to
there's
several
several
bits
of
feedback
in
the
in
the
pr
and
that
was
deferred
to
the
to
follow-ups.
So
I
think
that's
a
much
bigger
question
and,
and
maybe
a
scarier
one.
M
E
Thank
you,
dems,
hi,
so
at
most
what
we
could
go
for
is
public
summary
text
of
the
vote,
and
you
know
a
small
description
of
you
know
why
we
don't
have
confidence
if
there
is
a
longer
text
that
we
used
during
the
process
that
should
be
saved
somewhere
in
private,
so
that
it's
available
for
future
steering
folks
to
go
back
and
refer
to
it.
That
is
the
maximum
that
we
can
do
at
this
time.
E
On
this
topic,
we
cannot
satisfy
everybody
and
we
cannot
satisfy
the
curiosity
and
if
people
don't
have
confidence
in
a
stating,
you
know
there
is
a
time
to
vote
for
sure.
So
that
is
basically
you
know
what
I
would
advocate
for
having
a
public
summary
and
a
private.
You
know
storing
it
for
future
steering.
So
if
you
really
want
to
know
then
get
to
the
steering
go
look
at
what
what
was
the
context.
A
I
think
stems
I'm
actually
david
sorry,
one
sec,
I'm
actually
as
we're
getting
to
the
end
of
our
time.
I'm
actually
also
going
to
allow
folks
who
haven't
spoken
before
to
kind
of
jump
the
queue
there
is.
There
looks
to
be
enough
time
to
steal
everybody
in
the
queue
to
talk,
but
I'm
going
to
let
folks
that
haven't
spoken
before
to
to
jump
it
kirsten.
N
Oh,
oh,
like
my,
I
just
had
one
comment
on
the
pull
request.
It's
a
little
bit
unrelated
to
this
exact
conversation
at
hand,
but
it's
the
idea
that
we're
deferring
conversation
on
some
of
the
points
to
a
later
date
like
in
another
follow-up
pr,
but
if
the
pr
merges,
as
is
there's
no
like
it
becomes
part
of
the
charter
with
no
indication
of
what
sections
are
still
kind
of
a
work
in
progress.
So
that
was
just
my
one.
N
Concern
is
like,
if
we're
saying,
if
you're
saying,
okay
well,
we'll
update
this
section
at
a
later
date
with
a
little
more
detail.
I
think
it
would
be
nice
to
indicate
in
text
that
you
know
which
may
be
with
an
asterisk
or
with
some
sort
of
notation,
to
note
that
that's
not
the
final
representation
of
that
section
of
the
charter.
That
was
just
a
kind
of
concern
that
I
had.
A
I
I'm
a
little
sensitive
to
the
notion
of
having
a
a
private
record
if
artifacts
are
created,
especially
without
a
like
a
document
retention
policy.
I
do
believe
in
the
notion
of
redemption-
and
I
I
kind
of
bristle
at
the
idea
that
people
would
come
into
the
role
specifically
to
go.
Read
the
history
and
see
the
dirt
or
something.
A
F
Yeah,
it's
a
so
to
kirsten's
point
the
yeah,
so
any
content
in
the
charter
and
it
that
merges
would
be
considered
effective.
You
know
on
on
the
the
time
of
merge,
so
before
anything
happens
with
that
that
pr,
I
am
going
to
again
carve
it
up
so
that
it
it's
it
it's
in
discrete
pieces
about
what
changes
are
happening.
F
The
anything
that
is
still
under
discussion
was
entirely
removed
from
the
pr
just
to
be
clear,
so
yeah,
so
there's
there's,
there's
no
worry
of
of
like
what
I
don't
want
to
get
into
an
instance
of
is
is
where
we
like.
We
can
go
back
to
sha
and
say
well.
Well.
The
rules
were
this
at
this
sha.
It
won't
be
like
that.
Anything
that
is
anything
that
is
still
up
for
discussion
is
not
in
the
pr
right
now.
Yeah.
A
B
D
B
A
B
A
I
do
and
I
think
that's
the
reason
why
steering
similar
to
this
decision-making
process
for
changing
the
rules
takes
input
but
ultimately
makes
the
decision
potentially
against
the
input
that
is
given,
but
without
a
requirement
to
specify
why
it
becomes
possible
to
never
explain
it
and
so
having
something
that
says.
You
must
put
your
y
here
and
someone
points
out.
This
y
doesn't
actually
say
y.
A
B
B
B
A
A
30
seconds
here,
I
think
that
having
a
template
can
help
guide
people
to
produce
reasons
why
that
can
be
convincing
right
and
so,
instead
of
just
a
why
a
statement
of
transgressions
with
specific
examples
would
be
great
or
even
adding
more
to
the
template.
Saying
public
sensor
for
x,
y
and
z
or
examples
of
of
inappropriate
behavior,
and
I
think
a
template
can
help
there
a
lot
and
I'll
I'll
leave
it
there
great.
F
C
So
I
think
in
the
pr
I
described
it
as
like
100
words
or
less
right
like
to
me
that
feels
like
it
was
transparent
enough
nothing's
going
to
stop
anybody
from
lying
or
deflecting
or
saying
you
know,
word
salad,
but
I
don't
there's
a
level
of
trust
at
some
point.
The
turtle
at
the
bottom
is
that
I,
I
trust
the
committee
members
to
be
forthright
in
their
statement
here.
I
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
a
cross-examination.
I
don't
think
it
should
be.
I
think
it
is
a
statement
and
that's
it.
A
Thank
you
tim
and
with
that
we
are
at
time.
I
would
like
to
thank
everyone
for
joining
today
and
for
a
healthy
discussion
on
a
long
list
of
topics.
If
you
are
interested
in
the
work
that
steering
does
we
have
an
election
coming
up,
as
was
was
stated
earlier,
if
you're,
if
you
have
interest
in
in
the
role
and
what
we
do
definitely
reach
out
to
us,
otherwise,.