►
From YouTube: Steering Committee Meeting 20180215
Description
Recording of the Steering Committee meeting. See also:
https://github.com/kubernetes/steering
Chat (times may be off):
00:11:51 Michelle Noorali: my internet is crap so if I drop off just give me a minute and I’ll come back
00:29:55 Aaron Crickenberger: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1799
00:32:16 Michelle Noorali: having some technical issues on my end. gonna drop off.
00:32:45 Michelle Noorali: there’s some money set aside by the cncf to pay contractors to backfill tests
00:32:55 Michelle Noorali: $600k
00:33:03 Michelle Noorali: Brian should have context
00:33:17 Michelle Noorali: is there anything we’d like to do there ?
00:33:21 Joe Beda: Thanks Michelle!
00:34:29 Timothy St. Clair: “Subject to change”
00:44:27 bburns: I prefer certificating
00:44:43 Sarah Novotny: :D
00:58:35 Timothy St. Clair: +1
B
A
A
Our
in-flight
sprint
make
sure
that
looks
good
discuss
what
we
want
to
bring
up
with
the
next
governance
board,
meeting
communication
infra
some
code
of
conduct
stuff
that
kinda
came
up
and
Project
Graduation,
so
we're
gonna
try
and
keep
us
moving
through
these
current
sprint,
I,
just
kind
of
carried
everything
forward
that
we
hadn't
completed
last
time,
something
you
know
about.
That's
the
pull
request
out:
Sarah,
updating
project
values
where
you
or
that
we.
C
C
C
D
C
E
C
C
C
G
A
G
G
We
discussed
that
it
should
be
broken
up
into
the
requirements
section
that
basically
talks
about
all
the
things
you
need
to
meet
in
your
charter
or
say
government
stock,
and
if
you
meet
those
requirements,
then
like
we're
pretty
happy
with
it,
and
the
templates
are
really
just
a
way
of
giving
you
ways
of
checking
off
those
boxes
without
having
to
reinvent
everything
yourself.
So
now
it's
broken
up
into
several
documents.
G
Is
there
a
step
by
step?
I
get
10
step
process
for
getting
this
done.
That's
there
there's
a
couple
items
I,
think
that
need
to
be
resolved.
That
are
still
comments.
One
is
the
sub-projects
aspects
still
need
to
be
tweaked,
describing
in
the
template,
how
to
delegate
authority
to
sub
projects
and
delegate
technical
leadership,
and
what
that
would
look
like
one
thing,
I
think
we
have
resolved
is
what
is
the
name
for
the
leads
that
are
not
technical
leads,
but
to
the
operational
and
governing
stuff,
and
it
sounds
like
we
can't.
F
E
E
But
I
may
not
always
be
clear
to
everybody
what
issues
are
covered
by
what
sub
project
and
there
may
not
be
some
projects
full
octave
for
all
the
areas
in
the
fall
under
the
domain
of
a
specific
sig.
So
I
think
there
are
a
few
things
like
cig
architecture
and
maybe
API
machinery
that
has
picked
this
out
and
some
amount
of
detail
but
I
think
most.
The
SIG's
are
have
not.
A
So
I've
had
a
question:
come
up
at
me
from
a
couple
different
states
where,
if
we
are
getting
six
to
dictate
what
they
think
their
scope
is,
do
they
need
to
run
their
charter
through
the
steering
committee
for
a
final
stamp
of
approval
or
what's
the
process
there
I
think
we
should
do
that?
Yes,
it
was
part
of
the
original
work
that
we
pre
election
was
that
there
would
be
a
ratification
process.
Yeah.
E
A
I've
kind
of
scalability
and
contributor
experience
both
ping
me
like
hey,
you
did
a
charter
because
we
noticed
they'll
put
out
this
huge
PR
and
we
wanted
to
see
like
what
we
should
do
about
it
so
like
putting
out
a
checklist
or
a
template
is
step.
One
step
two
is
giving
folks
a
clear
process
for
how
their
Charter
gets
approved.
B
So
another
thing
that
I
think
we
need
to
resolve
is:
how
do
we
track
membership
sort
of
what
is
the
canonical
place,
owners
files
versus
email
lists,
we've
gone
back
and
forth
on
that
I.
Think
that's
I
have
a
topic
of
discussion
later
on
that
that
gets
into
that
too.
So
we
can
pump
that
to
that
yeah.
B
But
I
think
they're
there
there
may
be
some
yeah
those
we
can
talk
about
that
I.
So
for
me,
it
seems
like,
like
the
sub-projects
is
just
work
on
how
to
actually
sort
of
get
that
stuff
spelled
out.
So
it's
not
it's
not
I,
don't
think.
There's
anything
super
contentious
there.
I
think
the
contentious
thing
is
the
name
for
the
sort
of
the
non
TL
physician
the
organizational
leader
well,.
B
So
so
yeah
I
think
part
of
that
is
like
what
do
we
call
that
I
think
there's
a
certain
amount
of
like
people
who
are
active
enough
in
the
sig
to
be
considered
contributors
to
some
degree
and
that
doesn't
have
to
be
technology?
And
my
and
and
I
know
this
is
an
agreed
upon.
But
my
gut
is
that
then
the
transitive
closure
of
all
those
people
across
all
the
SIG's.
Are
they
going
to
be
the
people
who
vote
for
like
steering
committee
and
are
actually
become
sort
of
the
the
people
with
standing?
E
Yeah,
ideally
from
my
perspective,
those
roles
would
be
as
concrete
as
possible,
so
we
give
it
so
we
distinguish
between,
like
the
casual
participants
who,
just
you
know,
China
in
on
things
versus
people
who
are
actually
doing
some
kind
of
useful
work.
Even
if
it's
non
technical
I
do
want
to
capture
that
distinction.
Somehow
yeah.
B
Well,
good,
so
the
interface
to
the
sit
to
the
sig
is
going
to
be
they.
They
should
maintain
a
member
list
or
a
contributor
list
of
folks
who,
materially
you
know,
help
the
signal
right
and
this
can
be
across
whatever
that
means.
For
that
sig
yeah
I
mean
it
could
be
running
surveys,
it
could
be
whatever
and
so
I
think
I
think
and
then
and
then
we
can
have
some
suggestions
for
the
Charter
in
terms
of
you
know,
for
the
sample
charter
in
terms
of
what
that.
B
E
B
A
A
B
G
D
Like
well,
you
could
do
it's
typical
and
in
other
venues
to
do
like
+1,
non-binding
right
and
+1
binding
and
the
binding
are
those
who
have
it
can
cast
the
vote
and
the
non-binding
is
just
like
to
weigh
in
to
let
them
folks
know
that
I'm
listening
on
this
mailing
list,
I,
don't
have
a
binding
position
here,
but
I'm
still
gonna.
Let
let
my
voice
be
heard.
Yeah.
B
G
That's
that's
correct.
Maybe
we
should
take
a
step
back
and
I
put
a
comment
on
the
PR,
but
I
should
I'm
sure
not
everyone's
looked
at
it.
So
one
thing
I've
suggested
is
I
have
like
the
requirements
piece
now
a
readme
in
a
short
template,
and
it
might
be
easier
to
just
like
converge
on
those
and
publish
those
and
say:
okay.
We
at
least
agree
on
the
requirements
of
what
goes
into
the
Charter
and
here's
kind
of
a
bare-bones,
okay
and
then
go
through
and
try
and
later.
E
C
E
C
C
G
E
B
E
B
G
B
E
G
H
Have
gone
through
and
addressed
all
comments,
I'm
about
to
push
up
I.
Did
it
just
what
meeting
I'm
about
to
push
up
the
response
to
the
comment,
and
then
there
was
nothing
particularly
groundbreaking
or
revelatory
in
the
comment
stream.
I
didn't
think
just
a
little
edit.
So
I
think
what
those
comments
are
up
to.
We
should
be
ready
to
merge.
I,
don't
know
what
I
don't
know
by
which
process
we
want
to
merge.
Do
we
want
everybody
on
the
committee
to
ldcm?
Do
we
just
want
you
know,
but
I
think
we're
ready
to
go.
A
Okay,
I
I
feel
as
though,
in
terms
of
actually
implementing
this.
We
still
have
some
unanswered
questions.
The
biggest
open
one
for
me
was
what
we
were
going
with
teams.
So
as
far
as
I'm
aware,
I've
set
up
all
the
automation
necessary
to
make
things
happen.
The
automation
that
hasn't
been
set
up
is
the
/
approve
command
and
these
tied
to
merge
stuff
part
of
that
starts
to
get
tripped
up
on
what
we're
actually
requiring
in
terms
of
process
and
automation
of
all
of
the
repos
that
are
created
in
this
org.
A
A
A
Would
appreciate
some
steering
committee
attention
on
that
pull
request
that
I've
linked
at
our
meeting
notes
and
I'll
put
it
again
in
chat
just
to
try
and
Kris
making
the
ground
around
the
teams
with
through
evidence
we
maintainer
so
I
want
to
use
this
to
rename
all
the
incubator
teams
to
follow
this
convention
and
make
sure
it's
enforced.
Southwest
org.
I
So
Brendan
I
had
one
question:
I
thought
when
we
last
met
and
discussed
your
Google
Doc
before
it
went
in
proposal
form,
we
went
back
and
forth
on
if
it
was
an
org
per
sig
or
just
one
global
org
to
hold
sig
related
repositories
I
unless
I'm
mistaken
in
your
PR.
If
I
recall,
you
had
sig,
you
had
orgs
/,
sig
and
I
thought
that
that
was
still
a
challenge
for
us.
A
mine,
I.
H
F
I
H
I
H
B
I
E
D
E
H
Just
well
the
practice,
the
practice
right.
The
practice
right
now
is
you
need
to
get
big
approval
right
and
for
now
in
a
way,
because
the
the
big
architecture,
slash
steering
committee
are
the
ones
who
own
the
organization
you're
going
to
have
to
basically
come
to
that.
Come
to
us
say:
hey!
This
fig
is
endorsing
this
person
or
this
repo.
Could
you
create
it
for
us
yeah.
D
I
I
was
just
thinking
if
we
expect
a
month
from
now
to
have
40
of
these
things.
Then,
like
40
people,
we're
gonna
try
to
come
up
with
the
process
so
like.
If
there's
a
in
the
first
week,
we
anticipate
20
folks
to
come
out
of
the
woodwork
like
we
should
least
have
some.
You
know,
send
an
email
to
your
sake,
mailing
list.
You
know
confirming
lazy
consensus
or
toward.
I
F
A
A
E
E
I
would
like
to
start
getting
the
cigs
and
subprojects
kind
of
bought
into
this,
and
we
talked
about
it
a
couple
of
times
at
this
point
and
I
do
want
to
use
it
as
a
carrot
or
a
stick,
depending
on
your
point
of
view
before
we
get
start
for
a
bunch
of
six
that
they
at
least
need
to
identify
where
there
cody's
so
I.
Think
it's
fine
to
start
asking
for
help
from
three
boners.
For
this.
A
E
And
maybe,
if
we
can
just
describe
what
we
think
we
want,
we
can
get
someone
from
the
contrabass
or
someone
else
to
start
working
on
that
a
tool
to
do
that
and
what,
in
parallel.
While
we
continue
to
identify
the
rest
of
the
sub
projects
and
create
the
owners
files
that
don't
exist
in
things
like
that,
yep.
E
A
E
Talk
about
that
yeah,
so
we
have
the
initial
conformance
test
suite
for
certification
doesn't
actually
the
coverage
is
really
low.
We
need
to.
There
are
a
bunch
of
things
we
need
to
do,
but
one
of
the
things
we
that
needs
to
be
done
is
more.
Tests
need
to
be
written.
So
within
the
conformance
efforts,
some
folks
are
working
on
proposal
to
address
one.
One
aspects
of
the
coverage
gap
in
the
hope
is
to
create
something
fairly
automated
in
concrete's
that
can
get
reasonably
broad
coverage.
E
There
is
what
CN
CF
they
need
the
steering
committee
to
approve
this,
and
basically
it
will
come.
The
conformance
working
group
is
going
to
take
a
proposal
to
stick
architecture
and
I'm
gonna,
say
yea
or
nay.
So
far,
I
haven't
been
happy
entirely
with
the
exact
concrete
proposals,
so
you're
still
iterating
on
that.
So
sega
architecture,
you
know,
would
officially
make
a
request
to
the
steering
committee
to
approve
that
and
we
can
pay
that
to
dan.
So
the
steering
committee
approval
is
one
part
of
what
they
need.
E
The
other
part
is
they
want
assurances
that
it's
not
going
to
have
to
be
continuously
funded
at
the
same
level
forever.
So
we
need
to
put
measures
into
place
to
ensure
that
as
development
and
kubernetes
continues,
the
gap
doesn't
grow
again,
so
sick
architecture
will
create
some
kind
of
policy.
This
is
you
know
to
be
GA
or
whatever
you
need
to
have
these
types
of
conformance
tests.
So
again
there
there
are
some
technical
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed
that
were
being
discussed
like
I.
E
But
you
know
we
make
some
statements,
saying
that
and
then
also
there
are
optional
features
that
shouldn't
be
in
the
default
conformance
profile.
So
there
are
a
bunch
of
issues
there
that
we
need
to
sort
through,
but
if
we
give
Dan-
and
it
seems-
you
have
assurance
that
we
will
do
something
there-
we
probably
don't
need
to
know
exactly
what,
then
that
will
be
sufficient
to
unlock
that
many
contractors
have
been
identified,
which
is
why
the
number
is
somewhat
specific,
but
there's
sort
of
a
clock.
E
C
D
Been
crossing
the
streams
and
part
of
the
reason
for
splitting
out
that
sig
testing
common
sub
project
area
is
to
sort
of
have
a
landing
home
for
reviews
and
all
this
other
stuff
that's
going
to
be
flying
through
here,
because
we
have
if
they're
gonna
unleash
dragons.
We
need
a
way
to
kind
of
like
manage
it,
so
they're
trying
to
get
a
group
together
and
then
punt
it
back
to
the
different
SIG's
I.
D
D
Think
in
the
beginning
it
was
fair,
but
I
think
people
are,
people
are
actually
stepping
up.
Now
like
there
are
people
who
are
doing
a
lot
of
Doc's
work
and
if
they
get
those
changes
in
I,
think
that's
a
really
good
thing,
and
so
they've
made
tooling
and
they've
made
modifications
and
if
they're
able
to
get
like
an
entire
doc
site,
stood
up
I
think
that's
a
good
effort.
People
are
making
progress,
I
think
the
in
the
beginning.
It
was
kind
of
cat
wrangling,
but
I.
D
E
This
is
yes
yeah
and
it's
called
CN
CF
whatever,
but
I
mean
a
lot
of
the
people
involved
like
ten
and
people
from
Google
you
know
are
the
same
people
who
are
also
engaged
in
the
kubernetes
community.
The
tests,
the
working
group
itself,
does
not
own
any
tests
or
test
infrastructure,
or
anything
like
that.
So
you
know
if
new
test
infrastructure
gets
developed,
it
will
be
in
some
proven.
Eddie's,
repo
and
it'll
be
better
insuk
testing
and
all
the
conformance,
adding
any
tests
to
conformance
needs
to
be
approved
in
state
architecture.
E
So
it's
not
like
running
completely
independent
wild
with
no
connection
to
kubernetes
at
all.
It's
just
a
lot
of
the
discussion
did
start
with
a
bunch
of
vendors,
because
vendors
are
the
people
who
are
very
anxious
about
it,
and
you
know
we
wanted
to
get
their
buy-in
so
that
they
would
actually
run
the
conformance
test
and
try
to
get
certified
so
and
when
we
could
try
to
change
all
the
mailing
lists
and
whatever
I
don't
know
how
much
value
there
is
to
that.
B
A
E
E
Yeah
at
some
point
you
know
some
simple
things
we'll
need
to
do
as
well
need
to
ask
six
to
go,
identify
test,
their
behalf
that
they
believe
should
be
conformant.
So
we
can
bet
that
inside
architecture
and
and
get
those
approved.
For
example,
all
the
node
conformance
tests
are
not
in
the
official
conformance
suite
for
certification,
and
there
are
questions
about
you
know.
How
can
we
get
those
and
into
the
conformance
test
without
having
them
all
need
to
be
rewritten.
G
B
So
I
kind
of
stepped
in
this
a
little
bit
under
me
to
piss
people
off
so
I.
You
know
I
think
we
have
this
general
theme
of
we're
trying
to
drive
some
level
of
consistency
across
the
project.
That's
that's
in
tension
with
with
certain
sort
of
sub
projects
that
that
sort
of
have
have
gone
their
own
way
and
there's
there's
some
that
have
gone
their
own
way.
You
know
in
some
ways
more
than
others.
Communication
methods
and
styles
is
one
of
the
things
here.
B
I
think
this
is
a
larger
issue
than
than
just
this
is
like
how
prescriptive
do
we
want
to
be
over
time
in
terms
of
you
know,
hey
if
you're
part
of
the
kubernetes
community,
then
then
you
have
to
participate
in
these
ways,
but
one
of
the
things
coming
out
of
that
was
this
question
of
like
right.
Now
we're
using
Google
Groups.
You
know
pretty
extensively.
B
This
touches
on
the
sig,
the
the
sig
charter
stuff
around.
How
do
we
track
membership
fills
thing
out?
The
gate
was
like
hey:
let's
use
Google
Groups
as
the
canonical
thing
there's
a
question
of:
why
do
we
even
need
groups
and
then
there's
the
then
there's
the
whole
issue
of
like
well
Google
Groups
is
not
really
accessible
in
China,
and
so
that
Billy
is
exclusionary
to
a
bunch
of
folks
and
there's
a
bunch
of
other
infrastructure
that
we
have
that's
not
accessible
in
China,
so
blah
blah
blah.
B
B
E
B
It
is
but
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
see
is.
That
is
that
is
that,
right
now
you
know
every
time
we
create
or
manage
a
Google
like
the
Google
Groups
are
kind
of
out
of
date.
If
we
wanted
those
to
mirror
like
owners,
there's
you
know
it's
either
a
lot
of
work
to
sort
of
do
to
something
you
know
move
to
something
that
we
can,
that
we
can
automate
and
build
tool
ability
around
I.
Don't
think
automation.
E
E
I,
disagree
that
that's
the
same
thing
to
do
so
to
fine
RUP
Google
groups
have
the
same
issue
that
gap
teams
do
which
is
they're,
not
transparent.
You
cannot
arbitrary
people
cannot
see
who
the
members
are.
If
you
add
members,
there's
no
way
to
make
comments
about
that.
The
audit
logs
are
not
visible
by
basically
anybody.
E
A
G
I
mean
I
I
think
that
that's
a
good
great
if
that
canonical
sources
in
the
mother's
mother
place
with
a
history
and
whatnot,
but
that,
like
as
a
practical
matter,
that
we're
going
to
be
using
Google
Groups
to
reach
two
people
and
invite
them
to
events
and
share
Doc's
with
them.
So
they
need
to
be
up
to
date.
I
think.
E
A
G
E
G
B
So
I
think
one
point
here
is
that
there's
a
sick
mailing
list
that
has
all
interested
parties,
whether
they're
members
or
not,
right,
you
know,
and
then
there's
then
there's
sort
of
do
we
need
mailing
lists
for
contributors
for,
for
you
know,
for
the
other
sort
of
ranks
in
a
sig
yeah
the
pay's.
There
is
a
lot
less
critical
because
you
know
but
I,
but
I
also
think
that
there
may
be
cases
for
that
to.
H
A
H
I
A
A
In
places
where
we
can't
publish
and
fully
public
Docs,
we
need
to
switch
to
personal
Gmail's
or
whatever
that's
what
I've
done
down.
That's
fine
I
mean
that's
I,
think
it's
a
reasonable
point
of
guidance
to
say
like
if
you
want
to
share
a
dock
with
communities
community,
you
need
to
do
it
from
a
publicly
visible
place
that
doesn't
change
the
conversation
about
whether
we
want
to
use
groups
to
manage
all
sig
members
or
whether
we
need
to
at
all.
G
E
That's
fine,
they're
I
mean
they're,
also
regular
sig
meetings
where
things
can
be
discussed.
Github
team-wise
github
now
supports
threads
with
teams
which
I
found
out
when
people
started
playing
the
kubernetes
maintainer
and
that
actually
somehow
showed
up
above
the
rest
of
the
gab
notification.
Noise
I
should
look
at
why
that
is
actually,
but
you
know,
I
think
there
are
I
think
it
doesn't
seem
to
come
up
often
I.
We
had
the
kubernetes
sig
Meads
mailing
list
and
yeah.
E
Maybe
that's
not
entirely
up
to
date
and
we
should
keep
it
up
to
date,
but
I
think
in
practice.
It
shouldn't
be
that
hard
to
keep
this
up
today,
and
there
shouldn't
be
that
many
occasions
where
we
need
these
kind
of
private
communications.
I
mean
most
of
the
time
people
give
me
rice
slack
if
they
actually
need
something:
cuz
I,
don't
hate
engine
any
kind
of
email
from
anybody
to
any
list
right.
D
I,
don't
think
we
should
be
prescriptive.
I
guess
is
like
the
the
general
theme
there
are
so
many
methods
of
communication
that
we
now
have
that
most
of
the
time,
just
spamming,
whatever
list
has
been
specified,
seems
reasonable
enough
to
get
new
general
coverage,
and
if
we
need
more,
you
know
side,
channel
or
sidebar
communication.
We
do
that
almost
exclusively
in
slack
today,
right
I
mean
I,
don't
want
to.
A
D
A
D
E
A
Somewhere,
one
of
these
$600,000,
our
contractors
maybe
needs
to
be
paid
to
write
the
github
meta
organization,
bot,
which
reads
a
bunch
of
yeah
mole
because
of
course,
Hamill,
and
it
turns
that
into
github
groups,
github
Org
members
teams,
maybe
Google
Groups.
Whatever
else
we
need
to
sync
it
to
but
I
think
the
canonical
source
of
truth
means
of
live
in
a
github
repo.
So
one
of
the
things
that's
on
the
side,
so
hang
on,
we
got
a
couple
more
things.
A
B
Specifically
excessive
from
China
with
Google
Groups
is
poor.
Okay.
This
is
this
is
stuff
that
we've
heard
anecdotally
joining
Google
Groups
requires
you
to
have
a
Google
account
which
some
people
object
to
in
addition
to
that,
and
that
becomes
yet
another
barrier
from
China,
I
think
discoverability
and
listing
all
these.
All
these
mailing
lists
is
actually
difficult.
Also,
we
have
some
level
of
consistency
with
things
diamo,
but
as
we
introduced
sub-projects
and
mailing
lists
that
might
be
associated
with
those
we're
gonna
introduce
more
fragmentation.
B
B
Where
do
we
want
to
have
you
know
each
sub
project
have
their
own
community
page
and
have
their
own
thing
and
that's
the
larger
question
of
like
how
integrated
do
we
expect
sub
projects
to
be
here,
alternative
to
group
to
Google
Groups
for
that
level
of
functionality
and
then
and
then
the
final
thing
is
that
Google
Groups,
the
public
Google
Groups
sucks
because
it
doesn't
have
an
API
right.
So
we
can
fix
that
per
your
proposal
before
right,
who
moved
it
to
Kate's
dot,
to
Kate's
dot
IO
as
being
the
thing,
that's
that's
hosting
it.
B
If
we're
gonna,
do
that
I
think
it
behooves
us
to,
but
that
still
has
the
problems
of
you
need
a
Google
account
to
be
able
to
actually
sign
up
for
this
thing
and
I
it'll
still
have
problems
in
China
right,
so
it
doesn't
solve
those
issues,
so
I'm
open
to
alternatives.
I
just
don't
know
of
any
yeah.
So
one
of
the
guys.
B
B
E
One
more
thing
about
China
for
the
people
who
can
access
the
mailing
list
from
China.
The
spam
filter
seems
to
catch
most
of
the
Chinese
language.
Emails
that
are
sent
no
I,
don't
know
that
it
makes
sense
tab
both
English
and
Chinese,
and
the
same
mailing
list.
Probably
they
would
when
I,
create
their
own
Chinese
language
mailing
lists.
If
they
don't
speak,
English
or
will
be
English
will.
B
G
B
A
C
A
E
C
E
C
A
Right,
Brian
I
know
you
had
an
interest
in
putting
the
code
of
conduct
Committee
on
our
sprint
this
month,
but
we
have
three
minutes
left
I,
don't
see
us
getting
anything
substantively
done
here.
I
did
have
something
I've
been
carrying
on
this
agenda
for
a
little
while,
which
is
say,
contributor
experience
under
the
community
management
sub
project
has
been
taking
on
moderation,
responsibilities
and
ensuring
that
each
of
our
communication
channels
is
a
safe
and
friendly
place
to
have
communication,
including
slack
moderation,
Google
Groups,
github
issues,
all
that
stuff
is
this
within
their
purview.
A
C
A
Right
now
is
there's
a
group
of
people
who
are
making
moderation
decisions
on
behalf
of
the
community,
which
is
great,
but
there's
no
like
visibility
between
the
steering
committee
and
the
people,
who
are
doing
moderation
for
us
to
make
sure
that
things
are
being
done
in
a
consistent
manner.
Yeah,
but
right,
I,
guess,
that's!
Okay!
That's
something!
I
would
expect
the
code
of
conduct
committee
to
care
about.
We
don't
have
that.
So
we
are
the
code
of
conduct
committee
and
we're
just
trusting
them
to
do
the
right
thing.
Yeah.