►
From YouTube: Steering Committee 20180801
Description
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qazwMIHGeF3iUh5xMJIJ6PDr-S3bNkT8tNLRkSiOkOU
Chat (times may be off):
00:08:07 Aaron "SIG Beard" Crickenberger: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qazwMIHGeF3iUh5xMJIJ6PDr-S3bNkT8tNLRkSiOkOU/edit#
00:14:41 Sarah Novotny: Are we recording?
00:14:49 Timothy St. Clair: yes
00:15:00 Sarah Novotny: awesome. thanks.
00:15:16 Sarah Novotny: Now I see the Blinky light.
00:18:50 Joe Beda: So -- SIG-Auth got merged. https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/2431
00:19:12 Joe Beda: Going to update the comment
B
C
C
C
C
E
C
A
C
F
C
F
C
So
first
in
the
list
is:
what
do
we
need
to
do
for
steering
committee
elections,
so
thankfully,
Paris
and
George
have
documented
everything
they
did
and
they
more
or
less
told
us
what
the
next
steps
are.
So
we
need
to
select
election
officers.
I
have
talked
about
them
personally,
they're
cool
that
they
want
to
bring
along
a
third
person
to
shadow,
so
they're,
not
pretty
so
failure
for
this.
We
need
to
define
what
the
exact
dates
are:
quitting:
you're
cool
you're,
your
date
seemed
good
and
then
yeah.
C
A
G
C
Leg,
but
so
as
your
currently
a
member
of
the
steering
committee
and
as
a
current
member
of
the
steering
committee,
you
and
Tim
I
think
already
came
to
consensus
on
what
our
definition
of
a
member
of
standing
is.
That
was
one
of
our
I
was
actually
that
was
like
one
of
our
first
responsibilities
is
steering
came
as
a
steering
committee,
so
good
thing,
we
got
to
it
just
a
few
months
before
the
next
election,
but
I
see
no
problem
with
you.
C
G
H
This
is
just
a
matter
of
let's
summarize
the
discussion
area
that
we've
we've
already
had
in
putting
in
a
consumable
form-
and
you
know,
and
and
there'll
be
a
chance
for
all
of
us
to
take
a
final
look
at
it
before
this
goes
out
to
make
sure
it
hangs
together.
So
I
don't
think
this
is.
This
is
more
like
a
let's.
Let's
make
sure
that
we
don't
leave
this,
you
make
it
up
as
we
go
along
so.
E
I
put
this
on
the
agenda
for
later
in
the
meeting,
but
I'll
just
point
out
that
there
are
a
number
of
things
like
this,
where
it'd
be
handy,
to
be
able
to
invite
other
people
to
this
meeting
so
that
we
don't
have
to
like
relay
information
to
them.
Some
other
way,
like
the
election
committee,
walked
on
the
agenda
in
advance
if
we
could
potentially
invite
them
to
the
meeting
to
discuss.
C
That
so
I
understand
that,
but
I
guarantee
you
the
election
to
me
would
be
like
well.
This
is
why
we
like
RTFM.
This
is
why
we
wrote
the
doc
and
we
outlined
very
clearly
in
the
talk,
what
you
the
steering
committees.
Responsibilities
are,
and
so
these
are
the
first
three
steps
and
we
ought
to
document
our
decision
in
writing
for
what
we
think
the
criteria
are
for
members
of
state
and
as
far
as
I
know,
we
did
this.
C
C
C
Okay,
cool
next
item
document:
how
working
groups
should
be
formed,
I
totally
said
I
would
take
people
and
we
would
turn
the
thing
into
a
PR
and
I
did
not
do
that
at
all.
Do
you
still
have
interest
in
getting
this
done
in
the
next
two
weeks?
So
this
is
basically
taking
this
document
here,
turning
it
into
a
full
request
having
a
meeting
to
iterate
on
it.
I
can
absolutely,
after
this
meeting
schedule
something
for
us,
either
later
this
week
or
early
next
week
to
ensure
that
we
get
to
it.
I
I.
H
C
H
B
C
C
C
Codify
steering
committee
liaisons
for
SIG's
in
the
six
Hamill
again
I
said
I
would
do
this.
I
absolutely
haven't
I
promise.
I
will
get
this
done.
It's
going
to
involve
poking
people
to
fill
gaps
in
mistakes
and
the
priv
out
at
leanest
early
next
week.
Okay,
that
leaves
us
if
the
charters
Mehta
issue.
C
A
D
D
So
there
I
feel
like
for
instrumentation
I
think
you
alluded
to
like
if
they
own
more
add-ons
and
I
wasn't
quite
sure
in
that
case,
when
talking
to
Frederick
that
they
felt
like
people
who
had
ever
actually
worked
on
those
I.
Don't
ever
join
that
sig
call
and
so
I
guess
what
I
was
wondering
is
if,
in
some
cases
we
have
associated
ownership
of
a
sig
where
the
people
never
joined.
C
Yeah,
the
so
anecdotally,
like
I,
know
somebody
who
is
a
member
of
the
sake
who
is
in
the
owners
files
for
some
of
the
add-ons
related
to
fluid
D,
and
so
my
impression
is
that
kind
of
implies
that
sake
owns
these
add-on.
Somehow
it's
kind
of
unclear
to
me,
who
else
would
be
the
best
sake
to
own
these
two
Don's
in
general.
So.
C
Well,
that's
that's
what
prompted
me
to
ask
the
question,
because
I
saw
it
in
the
context
of
this
thing
seems
to
be
about
defining
like
the
best
practices
for
metrics
collection
pipeline.
Sorry,
yeah
metrics,
like
exposing
things
right
and
constructing
a
pipeline
to
do
that,
and
so
it's
not
like
I'm
trying
to
pin
some
sort
of
reference
implementation
of
said
pipeline
on
this
sig,
but
it
seemed
like
there
were
a
number
of
add-ons
that
they
had
that
were
like
examples
of
how
these
things
might
be
consumed,
and
so,
if
this
sake,
isn't
doesn't
own.
C
D
So
I
think
it's
trying
to
say
that
I
guess
all
I
was
trying
to
call
it
as
I
felt
like
I'm
curious.
If
there
are
other
people
who
are
reviewed,
SiC
charters
have
identified
items
that,
like
this
sig
sigelei
didn't
think
they
ever
actually
owned
or
that
the
sig
lead
felt
like
was
never
actually
discussed
in
the
context
of
their
sig,
and
maybe
we
could
group
those
things
and
so
the
add
ons
one
was
the
one
that
came
to
mind,
but
there
could
be
others.
I.
Think.
E
E
Yeah
I
mean
we
do
need
to
pay
attention
to
that
with
SIG's
as
well.
I
we
need
to
figure
out
some
health
signals
of
six,
and
certainly
cluster
ops
and
instrumentation,
and
probably
some
of
the
other.
The
cloud
provider
SIG's
are
all
sort
of
in
the
danger
zone
or
already
proposed
that
they
get
folded
into
other
activities
and
for
my
opinion,
about
the
instrumentation.
E
Six
specifically,
is
that
the
main
purpose
is
to
ensure
that
it's
possible
to
get
signals
out
of
the
system
about
the
system
itself
and
about
applications
running
in
the
system,
as
opposed
to
you
know
blessing
any
particular
implementation
of
the
pipeline.
There
are
add-ons
which
were
widely
used
for
some
time,
like
keep
stir.
C
D
E
C
You're
claiming
ownership
of
that
as
in
scope
for
what
it's
worth
my
I
think
my
I
was
needling
straight
in
on
add-ons
I.
Get
a
Derek's,
broader
point
that
we
don't
want
to.
Let
them
all
in
told
groups,
but
in
this
case
I'm
addressing
the
fact
that
there
are
literally
no
SIG's
that
owned
any
add-ons
whatsoever
or
even
the
concept
of
add-ons.
That
I
can
tell
you.
C
E
So
add
ons
I
previously
said
that
cluster
life-cycle
own
that
in
concept,
although
there
is
currently
no
single
add-on
mechanism,
the
cube
up
cluster
directory
add-on
mechanism
is
deprecated,
cops
has
its
own
add-on
mechanism
and
cube.
Atm
has
like
Kluge
hard-coded
add-on
thing.
The
last
time,
I
checked
sure.
C
It's
just
the
situation
is:
there's
this
directory
in
the
tree
called
cluster
add-ons
that
doesn't
have
like
a
default
set
of
owners.
Many
of
the
individual
add-ons
themselves
do
have
people
as
owners,
but
no
six
as
owners,
you
can
make
that
a
lot
of
these
are
like.
Oh,
these
are
all
vendor
implementations
of
an
example
thing,
and
do
you
want
me
to
just
go
through
and
assign
them
to
things?
I
could
probably
do
that.
C
We
could
that
I,
guess
I'm
asking
this
might
be
a
situation
where
we're
identifying
a
gap
and
our
as
we
look
to
you
know,
sign
scope
for
all
stakes
to
make
sure
we're
getting
the
appropriate
amount
of
coverage.
We're
also
finding
gaps,
and
so
is
this
something
we're
like
this
is
ownerless.
There
are
is
no
sig
that
owns
any
of
these
things,
and
we
must
have
a
plan
to
kick
it
out,
or
do
we
hold
up
also
charters
until
we've
concretely
assigned
to
ownership
of
all
these
things?
Well,.
E
If
there
are
things
we
should
look,
take
an
opportunity
to
potentially
deprecated
things
or
take
things
out
if
they're
not
really
relevant,
I
mean
everything
in
the
cluster
directory
is
kind
of
suspect.
At
this
point,
in
things
in
can
trigger
suspect
as
well,
so
I
mean
there
may
be
there
may
be.
Some
of
that.
I
would
bet
a
lot
of
these
things.
If
they're
not
deprecated,
have
it's
clear
what
sig
should
own
them.
Yeah.
E
A
A
whole
meta
topic
like
how
do
what's
the
Sun
setting
for
a
bunch
of
things
that,
as
we
as
we
read
a
file,
these
charters,
there's
a
bunch
of
thing
that
gets
orphaned
or
no
longer
has
a
home
or
hasn't,
isn't
a
sub-project
of
a
sig.
What
is
our
process
for
forgiving
them
like
a
sunset
period?
For
like
you
can't
you
don't
have
to
go
home,
but
you
can't
stay
here
like,
for
example,
tons
of
things
that
are
an
incubator,
that
you
know,
don't
necessarily
fall
underneath
this
Charter
forgiven,
sig
or
sub-project.
C
Them
but
I
want
to
I
want
to
punt
off
on
incubator
for
now,
I
think
it's
really
important.
We
get
coverage
of
the
KKK
a
tree
like
in
this
case.
Maybe
it
does
make
sense
to
say
that
say
cluster
and
lifecycle
as
the
owner
of
a
Don's.
The
concept
owns
this
directory,
but
we
assign
the
individual
SIG's
that
make
the
most
sense
to
these
individual
add-ons
and
then
y'all
are
all
incentivized
to
get
this
out
of
the
tree
as
fast
as
possible,
because
you
know
you
want
it
sunset
yeah.
C
D
Like
like
Reese
poets,
but
I
would
feel
that,
like
everything,
that's
here
is
like
cute
core
cube,
which
is
what
cube
cube,
is
to
me
and
then
these
add-on
directories
when
I
look
at
them.
They
like
assemble
a
distribution
and
I,
don't
think
like
we
own
necessarily
saying
which
add-ons
belong
in
the
distribution
or
not
so,
like
maybe
I'm
mistaken
on
that,
but
there's
plenty
of
other
ways
that
people
could
deploy
Prometheus.
For
example,
you're
you're.
E
E
C
G
B
E
E
D
C
A
E
A
E
A
Yeah
so
we
have
were
you
actually
have
finished,
we've
wordsmith
our
Charter
and
we'll
submit
it
this
week
and
we've
defined
core
add-ons
and
everything
else.
Those
are
needs
to
gaps.
So
the
there's
a
set
of
core
add-ons
and
I,
don't
I'm
not
intimately
familiar
where
this
lands
I
know
that
people
have
had
and
starts
of
multiple
versions
of
cation
management
and
I
think
we
would
have
to
take
a
look
at
it.
So.
A
C
Look
at
it
as
can't
pass
conformance
well
without
it.
I
still
keep
coming
back
to
it
sounds
like
either
said
cluster
lifecycle
or
say
gap
should
like
own
the
default
things
and
then
specific
sake
should
own
the
other
things
and
whoever
is
the
default
owner
of
these
add-ons
should
drive
deprecating
them
and
I
hate.
This
trend
of,
like
I,
didn't
write
this
garbage.
Why
are
you
handing
it
to
me
to
become
the
janitor,
because
this
isn't
the
first?
C
D
C
C
E
Well,
one
thing
that
I
found
works
well
for
not,
but
other
topics
was
going
to
the
six
to
explain
what
we're
trying
to
do
and
what
we
were
looking
for,
because
there
were
a
lot
of
misunderstandings.
That's
very
expensive,
but
part
of
the
point
of
distributing
six
amongst
different
steering
committee
members
was
to
have
that
level.
Engagement
now
for
me,
July
was
almost
a
total
loss.
So
I
don't
do
anything
about
this,
but
I'm
planning
to
get
back
to
it.
E
H
B
E
C
We
we
have,
we
have
auto
leavers,
we
can
use
I,
don't
think
we're
really
at
that
point
where
we
want
to
use
those
right.
That
sounds
a
little
like
too
much
too
soon,
because
yeah
July
has
been
kind
of
nutty
and
summer
has
been
kind
of
muddy,
but
I
think
like
like
huge,
huge
thumbs
up
to
Brandon
for
actually
going
through
and
going
across,
all
the
charters
and
like
updating
all
of
them,
I
think
like
I'd
love
for
us
to
kind
of
take
consistent
next
steps
on
the
rest
of
the
charters.
C
Maybe
the
appropriate
thing
to
do
here
is
since
I
see
there
are
five
charters
under
the
charters
needing
a/c
review.
We
could
just
kind
of
walk
through
them,
see
where
they're
at
and
see.
If
we
can
walk
away
with
like
what
are
the
next
steps,
we
should
be
taking
cuz.
It
sounds
like
it's
you
you
need
to
like
find.
H
A
C
C
Six
scalability
I
know
I
can
think
this
real
quick,
Tim
and
I
both
paint
and
like
wood
Tech's
out
on
paternity
leave
and
bob
has
been
on
available.
So
I'll
go
see
if
I
can
ping
in
person.
Hey
look
here's
another
charter
that
actually
seems
to
happen.
Service
Catalog.
This
looked
like
it
was
Brandon
and
Michelle.
C
C
C
Multi
cluster,
no
response
so
I
since
I
just
can't
seem
to
pull
the
spreadsheet
up
unless
somebody
else
has
dug
up
the
link,
I
think
really
like
are
actually
them
should
be
to
go
through
and
chase
the
the
people
responsible
for
often
on
these
things
down
like
if
your
name
is
on
the
spreadsheet,
for
this
particular
charter,
you
should
go
show
up
at
this
next
meeting
and
I.
Think
like
proving
that
you
attended
the
meeting
would
be
a
good
way
for
us
to
verify
that
you
can
comment
on
this.
C
E
E
Okay,
the
main
concern
there
is,
this
analysis
historically
done
a
number
of
things
that
we
consider
out
of
scope
for
the
kubernetes
project
as
a
whole.
All
right
figure
out
whether
to
grandfather,
those
things
or
sort
of
to
clear
them
out
of
scope
and
if
they
want
to
discuss
that
stuff
during
their
meeting
and
it's
fine
but
doesn't
have
to
be
in
the
charter
necessarily
yeah.
E
C
E
E
C
C
E
And
that's
where
we
need
to
figure
out
what
cigar
cookies
doing,
identify
the
sub-projects
and
how
it's
going
to
be
affected
that
well,
we've
done
some
work
on
clarifying
some
of
the
major
efforts
and
creating
backlogs
for
those
things.
So
I
think
we
have
a
starting
point
for
that,
but
we're
really,
since
our
architecture
in
some
sense,
is
still
getting
off
the
ground
and
we're
figuring
out
how
to
be
effective.
It's
it's
not
a
clear
cut
of
just
like
documenting
what
has
been
done
historically
in
that
sig.
E
C
C
G
So
wonder,
sorry,
just
on
the
general
topic
of
these
child
is
not
being
ready,
I
wonder
if
it
isn't
worth
just
getting
in
general
across
all
the
SIG's
get
in
there.
What
what
is
there
you
know
sooner
rather
than
later,
even
if
they
have
DVDs
in
them,
because
we
can
always.
You
know
these
things
are
living
documents
they're
going
to
change
over
time,
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
try
to
make
them
all
perfect.
C
H
Worry
that
if
somebody
checks
something
in
with
an
expansive
scope
and
then
they
point
to
it,
saying
like
look
it's
in
scope
and
we're
like,
but
we
never
really
finalized
that.
Then
it's
going
to
be
very,
very
difficult
for
us
to
actually
tweak
that
over
time.
Right
like
once,
these
things
are
checked
in
they're,
seen
as
approved.
A
The
scope
anywhere,
where
we're
at
right
now
should
we
should
we
have
like
a
meta
argument
that
says
all
these
charters
aren't
quote
unquote,
something
like
provisional
for
now
and
will
be
reviewed
and
rationalized
again
in
six
months
time
period.
It's
not
some
time
window.
So
that
way
we
have.
We
have
a
clause
by
which
to
come
back
to
review
these
things,
because.
F
A
B
A
Depends
who
we
have
I
mean
to
be
honest,
like
we
are
you're
the
most
over
committed
group
of
people
to
be
in
a
steering
committee
I've
ever
seen.
So
if
people
had
resources
or
time
devoted
towards
doing
this,
I
think
it'd
be
possible,
but
we're
already
like
sig
leads
and
I
have
other
leadership
responsibilities
and
other
things
ongoing.
It's
very
difficult
for
us
to
commit
to
doing
some
of
this
work
so.
C
My
I
had
a
chat
with
Michele
before
she
started
pushing
on
all
of
us
about
this,
because
yeah
I
think
really
like
where
we
are
over
committed,
so
we're
trying
to
dwindle
it
down
to
like
the
smallest
scope
of
work.
That
still
seems
to
provide
value
which
is
getting
a
swag
at
scope,
correct,
but
then
I
think
we
totally.
We
do
need
to
make
it
clear
like
this
is
going
to
be
an
iterative
process.
C
We
are
not
itching
things
in
stone
to
be
handed
down
from
on
high
and
used
to
hit
people
over
the
head
right.
So
to
me
like
having
some
of
these
things
merged
before
the
so
it's
the
same
community
meeting
where
we
talk
about
the
code
of
conduct
committee
I
think
it
would
be
great
to
kind
of
hash
some
of
this
out
and
try
and
present
that
tone
of
hate
we're
really
trying
to
go
forward
and
really
just
focus
on
scope.
C
The
smallest
bit
of
work
that
we
can
and
then
kind
of
point
to
some
examples
of
how
it's
been
done
well
and
emphasize
that
this
is
an
iterative
process,
because
yeah
I've
heard
discussions
a
couple
of
times
now
about
how
there
are
some
SIG's
that
maybe
need
to
be
reformed
or
merged
or
whatever
right
and
so
like.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
the
door
is
open
for
that.
Well,
as
you
say,
10
rationalizing
right
like
we,
you
have
to
make
clear
that
step.
C
E
Yeah
I
think
people
SIG's
who
have
started
on
this
we'd
be
happy
to
get
something
merged
at
least,
but
they
feel
like
progress
has
been
made.
I
think
if
we
take
the
position
that
you
know,
let's
just
get
them
updated
to
to
the
templates
and
have
some
non
objectionable
scope,
even
if
it's
not
the
full
scope
in
place.
That
might
be
a
good,
a
good
starting
point
and
for
sure
all
of
the
cloud
provider
SIG's.
E
C
So
that's
more
or
less
all
the
charters
that
this
issue
lists
is
needing
review
or
in
process.
I
think
what
I
will
take
max
item
to
do
is
to
since
I'm
already
going
through
and
making
sure
I've
got
liaisons
design
for
all
of
these
different
SIG's
as
I'm
doing
that,
I
will
go
through
and
pinging
to
make
sure
you're,
gonna
chase
down
you're
sick.
C
C
E
And
the
other
just
thought
I
had
when
discussing
these
issues
is
it
would
be
handy
to
be
able
to
invite
some
some
non
steering
committee
members
to
this
meeting
when
relevant.
For
you
know,
election
stuff
or
code
of
conduct,
stuff
or
charter
stuff
or
whatever
like
weird
yeah.
It
was
mentioned,
we're
all
very
a
lot
of
like
people.
There
are
people
who
want
to
help,
but
it's
super
hard
to
get
engaged
with
the
steering
committee
at
the
moment,
because
most
of
our
interactions
are
private.
F
No
I
know
actually,
it
was
quite
funny.
Jase
brought
this
up
today,
he's
like
I'm
trying
to
help
you
all
with
the
projects
and
such
on
github,
and
maybe
we
could
consider
having
someone
who
is
the
designated
note-taker
member
community
member
at
large,
who
sits
and
doesn't
vote
but
helps
on
the
call
with
us
so
that
we
can.
He
said
he
when
watching
them
and
ended
up
shaking
his
fist
and
grumping
at
the
he's
like.
But
I
did
the
thing,
and
it's
here
kind
of
things
and.
F
E
F
F
E
There's
at
least
opportunity
for
other
people
to
participate,
listen
on
the
calls
participate
in
email
discussions,
contribute
to
project
diligence.
Things
like
that.
I
mean
it
still
takes
bandwidth
to
an
effort
to
try
to
onboard
these
people,
but
probably
in
the
long
run,
less
effort
than
trying
to
do
everything
ourselves
or
at
least
more
effective
than
doing
everything
ourselves.
Especially
since
we
have
you
know.
After
this
election
we
only
have
a
year
left
for
the
bootstrap.
C
C
Jase
has
been
incredibly
helpful,
but
my
devil's
advocate
position
is,
if
you
brought
in
Jase
to
like
help
run
this
meeting,
so
he
could
yell
at
us
in
person
instead
of
at
the
screen,
we'd
be
the
fact
that
are
just
like
appointing
yet
another
Googler
to
come
in
here
and
I
want
to
hear
from
the
non-google
steering
committee.
Whimpers
doesn't.
B
B
Better
I,
don't
know
necessarily
how
I
feel
about
a
standing
person.
I
think
I'm
think
that
might
not
be
perfect,
but
I
think
that
if,
if
people
have,
if
we
know
in
the
agenda
or
even
just
say
like
hey,
if
you
can
tell
us
that
you
sonna
singing
the
agenda
and
you
have
expertise
and
you
can
help
your
I
think
that's
a
good
thing
to
have
come
to
this
meeting.
I,
don't
think
it
has
to
yeah.
B
G
Now,
for
what
it's
worth,
the
the
CNC
FTSE
has
similar
problems
they're
all
over
where
people
and
they
have
Chris
who's,
not
actually
on
the
TRC,
but
but
who
does
a
lot
of
this
stuff
and
make
sure
the
right
people
are
there
at
the
right
time
and
that
the
agendas
are
set
up
and
a
lot
of
the
backroom
work
happens
and,
and
that
seems
to
be
reasonably
efficient,
Brown
you're.
Also
there
I
mean
that
that
seems
to
be
relatively
effective.
Yeah
doesn't
actually
have
a
vote
or
anything
like
that.
E
This
is
true
and
then
he's
I,
don't
know
if
he's
entirely
full-time.
Just
on
that
I
think
he
has
a
broader
Linux
Foundation
role,
but
having
a
person
dedicated
to
doing
that
stuff
does
help
a
lot,
and
it
also
helps
that
there's
an
appointed
chair,
Alexis
who's
responsible
for
making
sure
that
there's
an
agenda
and
I
guess
we
had
talked
about
having
a
rotating
position
for
someone
to
do
that.
But
we
haven't
been
that
good
at
clarifying
who
that
person
is.
E
A
I
think
the
analogy
is
very
on
point
with
regards
to
government
I:
don't
have
a
firm
position
really
think
Jase
does
a
good
job
I'm!
Okay,
with
that
I
do
think
that
there
needs
to
be
some
criteria,
for
you
know
bringing
people
in
and
bringing
people
taking
people
out.
So
so
there's
some
rotation
right
well,.
E
I
would
say
when
and
where
relevant
like
it's
working
groups
are
on
the
agenda
and
Jase
is
working
on
that
Jase
can
come
to
discuss
that
or
like
the
code
of
conduct
committee
I
mean
Michelle
was
driving
that,
but
once
if
you
have
an
actual
code
of
conduct
committee,
if
there's
code
of
conduct
related
stuff
that
needs
to
get
discussed,
it
would
be
good
if
they,
some
representative
of
that
committee
could
show
up
at
this
meeting
sure
seem
judges.
It's.
D
E
So
in
one
case
and
issues
about
like
working
group-
let's
say
so-
the
short
answer
is
no.
We
didn't
have
a
broad
call
to
beg
people
to
help
on
things.
I
of
the
issues
were
publicly
known
and
I.
Think
people
were
waiting
for
us
to
to
do
something.
The
code
of
conduct
thing
Ashley
started
as
a
CNC
up
thing
rather
than
as
a
kubernetes
thing,
so
that
is
sort
of
shifted
he
got
sucked
into
it
from
that
side,.
D
Yeah
I
guess
my
only
thought
is
like
for
if
we
do
have
people
going
and
together
some
seed
information
or
draft
ups
and
backs
whoever
initially
writes
that
drive
could
have
like
elevated
influence
because
it's
hard
to
change
of
Draft
after
it's
out
so
Sarah
Lee
or
it's
a
harder
battle.
But
as
long
as
like
we
put
forward
the
idea
that
hey
we're
looking
to
get
some
assistance
in
this
particular
area,
they're
volunteers-
and
it
seems
I-
guess.