►
Description
Kubernetes Public Steering Committee Monthly Meeting for 20220502
A
A
A
A
So
first
things.
First,
we
do
have
some
cncf
updates.
I
am
starting
on
our
governing
board
resolutions
this
week
for
all
of
our
legal
requests.
The
membership
tiers
and
more
y'all
will
see
those
when
we,
when
we
get
those
ready
and
then
I'm
gonna
actually
skip
to
the
open
ended
question.
Are
we
good
for
cube
gone?
We
asked
this
last
time,
but
we
did
end
up.
Having
some
loose
ends.
A
All
right
loose
ends
are
good
with
kubecon.
That
brings
us
to
the
last
cncf
update
that
we
have
on
the
agenda,
which
is:
are
we
good
with?
What's
in
this
dno
insurance
comment?
I
think
steven
and
please
tell
me
if
I'm
not,
if,
if
I'm
not
accurate,
I
think
you
have
some
open-ended
questions
and
priyanka
so
that
she
would
get
back
to
us.
Is
that
correct.
C
C
A
And
then,
once
we
do
have
that
clarity
say
that
clarity
comes
in
today
and
everybody's
all
great,
with
it
everybody's
good.
Where
does
this
live?
That
was
the
next
question
that
I
had
for
us
like.
Do
we
want
to
put
this
in
governance
md?
Do
we
want
to
put
this
in,
like
all
three
of
our
st
our
committees
like
readmes
like?
Where
do
we
want
this
artifact
to
go,
so
that
would
ultimately,
ultimately
close
all
these
issues.
C
A
Okay,
I
think
the
only
place
that
committees
live
in
governance
is
governance.md.
So
that's
why
I
put
it
there
and
not
cigs
governance
and
stuff.
Like
that
and
tim,
I
saw,
I
see
a
shaked
head
as
well.
So
sounds
like
we're
all
good
there.
So
once
we
get
the
clarification,
then
we'll
put
some
type
of
copy
in
governance
md
for
us
to
vote
on
and
close
these
issues.
E
A
C
A
G
That's
okay!
I
I'm
coming
to
you
from
pycon.
I
wanted
to
ask
about
the
gb
resolutions
that
you're
working
on
specifically
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
you
and
I
talked
about
at
one
point-
was
proposing
there
be
requirements
for
full-time
engineers,
staffing,
cncf
projects
for
companies
that
are
members
and
sponsoring
and
have
seats
on
the
governing
board.
A
Yep,
that's
one
of
the
proposals.
One
of
the
proposals
will
be
at
the
addition
of
maintainers
with
the
platinum
tier
and
then
some
type
of
discount,
according
to
the
size
of
your
company
and
the
maintainers
that
you're
staffing
and
things
along
those
lines.
So
yes,
and
would
love
to
have
your
your
eyes
on
that
and
plan
on
asking
you
for
your
review.
G
A
D
So
I'll
make
one
comment,
quick
since
the
I
said
it
before
the
recording
started
cloud.
Foundry
is
potentially
interested
in
taking
over
the
sub
projects.
However,
they
would
go
off
a
fork
that
we
create
when
the
sub
projects
themselves
are
archived
a
couple
users
chimed
in,
but
it
isn't
enough
to
actually
keep
it
around
and
I
think
cloud
foundry
is
a
better
home
for
the
stuff
as
the
the
primary
user
of
it
all.
H
D
E
A
A
All
right
so
now
we
move
down
to
the
funding
section.
We
have
one
for
apple
dev
account.
We
have
another,
that's
extremely
old
alibaba
credits,
one
like
so
what
do
we
do
with
it?
And
then
we
also
have
a
sig
windows
contractor
request
as
well.
They
did
flesh
out
some
things
on
the
issue
with
chris
as
far
as
intern
versus
contractor
et
cetera.
So,
let's
just
go
through
the
first
one,
with
apple
dev
account.
A
C
C
Yeah
so
my
and
I'll
leave
this
on
the
issue
as
well.
I
guess
my
concern
would
be
creating
a
if
we
create
a
developer
account.
I
want
it
to
be
able
to
or
if
there
is
the
sense
of
a
developer
scope
team
for
kubernetes,
so
it
can
be
used
for
multiple
people.
I
don't
want
it
to
just
be
for
mini
q.
Also,
is
this
a
thing
that
we
need
to
do
because,
like
brew,
install
mini
cube,
works
fine
without
having
to
go
through
some
of
this
stuff?
A
To
follow
up
with
that,
it
would
have
to
be
an
individual
and
not
a
team.
That
is,
that
is
the
apple
requirements
and
we
also
do
not
qualify
for
the
nonprofit
status.
So
a
pretty
much
our
only
our
only
use
case
right
now
is
or
excuse
me.
The
only
implementation
case
is
through
an
individual
that
cncf
has
said
that
they
would
be
happy
to
reimburse,
but
that
does
impose
risk.
So
I
was
looking
forward
to
talking
about
the
risks,
so
you
feel,
like
that's
extremely
risky,
for
us
to
do.
C
J
C
Yeah
that
yeah
from
the
ideally
the
release
process
is
running
unattended
in
some
pipeline.
So
yeah,
that's
that's
yet.
Another
risk
like
doing
having
one
individual
with
access
to
this
that
has
to
run
on
your
machine
doesn't
sound
like
the
move,
so
I'll
I'll
I'll
dig
in
a
little
bit
as
well,
but
I'm
I'm
plus
one.
If
we
can
do
it
in
an
unattended
way
where
multiple
people
have
access
to
and
and
negative
one.
If
it
is,
it
can
only
be
an
individual.
H
A
A
All
right
we're
really
going
through
right
now,
all
right
so
sig
windows-
I
put
placeholder
here,
but
they
but
jay
has
gotten
back
on
the
issue
as
of
this
morning
and
it
sounds
like
they
do.
Need
someone
with
kubernetes
experience
and
not
and
not
an
intern.
Chris
had
asked
them
on
the
issue
if
this
would
be
cool
with
an
intern.
A
A
A
C
E
The
main
question
I
had
talked
about
the
project
being
well
scoped,
one
engineer
for
three
months.
I
just
wanted
to
get
a
double
check
on
that,
like
three
months
is
not
even
a
full
kubernetes
release
and
so
just
wondering,
if
that's
a
realistic
scoping
for
this
anyway,
that
that
seems
pretty
aggressive
to
just
to
me.
I'm
context-free
on
this,
but
yep.
A
Yeah-
and
I
thought
that's,
why
that's
why
I
immediately
jumped
to
the
fact
that
this
is
not
an
intern
like
for
a
three
month,
like
usually
three
months,
we're
teaching,
interns,
kubernetes
like
and
then
like,
and
then
maybe
another
three
months
would
be
needed
for
the
actual.
You
know
what
I
mean
for
the
actual
assignment
itself,
so
that
was
what
I
was
initially
concerned
about
as
well
and
like
in
that
kind
of
an
ask
yeah.
So
I.
E
A
A
A
E
Yeah,
I'm
most,
I
see
a
lot
of
windows
folks
on
there.
I'd
like
to
kind
of
hear
from
some
of
the
network
folks
as
well
and
just
get
a
sense
that,
like
yep,
we're
competent
enough
in
this
design
like
we're
not
going
to
hire
a
contractor
and
then
spend
two
of
the
three
months
like
hammering
through
design
questions
right,
all
right,
yep
I'll
I'll
reach
out
to
attend.
Mark
all
right.
D
E
A
I
think
this
should
be
a
height.
This
should
be
a
high
level
thing
for
us.
As
far
as
like,
I
feel
like
these
more
requests
like
this
are
going
to
come
in,
based
on
my
conversations
with
other
leads
and
chairs,
and
I
wonder
if
like
we
should
get
our
house
in
order
too,
so
like
jordan,
if
you
feel
like
that's
like
the
best
way,
maybe
we
should
do
like
a
contractor
cap.
A
E
A
A
Let
me
get
back
to
our
agenda
here
all
right,
and
then
we've
got
this
ancient
one
for
ali
alibaba
funding
for
mini
cube.
What
do
we
want
to
do
with
this?
It's
been
open
for
forever,
and
I
don't
know
if,
like
we
can't
get
up,
get
a
hold
of
ally,
I
don't
know
like
cncf
has
tried
to
get
a
hold
of
valley.
Cncf
says
hold
up
wait
for
cloud
credits
program
like
40
times.
A
C
A
J
J
A
A
A
All
right,
so
we've
got
our
terminology.
I
added
it.
This
year,
we've
added
owner,
slash,
maintainer
contributor
ladder,
kept
contributor
snapshot.
This
year,
we've
got
number
of
contributors
number
of
new
sigs,
we're
I'm
still
working
on
emeritus,
I'm
running
getting
someone
to
run
us
some
scripts.
For
that
the
two
just
represents
leaders
that
I
could
manually
count.
A
A
A
A
G
G
A
A
A
All
right
I
asked
in
mile
and
enhancements
kirsten
is
gonna
try
to
pull
something
for
community
milestones,
but
most
of
this
stuff
has
to
do
with
features
like
stable,
graduations
caps
reviewed
jordan.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
if
you
can
or
want
to
or
have
cycles
to
pull
the
api
endpoints
included
in
conformance,
but
all
this
stuff
all
of
this
stuff
was
last
year's.
I
A
Yep
so
let's
start
up
at
the
top,
so
this
is
what
we've
got
so
far
for
accolades.
We've
got
working
groups
like
we
formed,
we
formed
structured
logging
and
then
also
the
data
protection
white
paper
came
out
which
was
really
good
and
then
the
next
accolade.
We
had
feature
maturity
and
stability,
which
goes
and
kind
of
talks
about
all
of
the
stuff
that
we
were
proud
of,
that
went
to
ga
and
and
then
we've
got
like
new
leaders
that
have
stepped
up.
A
A
H
A
That's
maturing,
so
that's
what
we've
got
so
far
for
accolades.
So
it's
way
too
many.
We
should
probably
trim
these
down
to
five
like
five
good
ones
and
like
right
now,
you
can
see
that
we've
got
a
lot
that
are
already
like
maturing
themselves,
so
I
feel
like
feature
maturity
and
stability
is
a
good
one.
Docker
shim
removal
is
a
good
one
and
eddie,
I
see
your
hand
photo
one
sec.
Dr
shim
removal
is
a
good
one
and
then
I
think
the
rest
can
be
up
for
us
to
discuss
eddie.
G
G
A
Yeah
I've
got
that
down
for
us
for
a
talking
point
eddie.
I
just
want
to
get
through
this
really
quick.
First,
though,
okay
yeah,
I
want
us
to
get
the
summary
off
like
that,
is
the
the
residual
of
the
summary.
As
far
as
I'm
concerned,
anything
that
doesn't
get
us
the
summary
out.
I
don't
want
to
talk
about
it.
A
D
H
E
A
So
next
is
themes
and
trends,
and
I
did
put
trends
after
themes,
because
I
know
a
lot
of
people
had
questions
about
what
it
is
to
mean
like
what
a
theme
is-
and
these
are
commonalities
that
many
or
all
groups
have
with
the
reports
or
it's
things
that
we've
pulled
out
where
we
said.
That's
interesting,
that's
like
what
a
trend
is.
We've
got
a
lot
here:
we've
got
prioritizing
quality,
independent
contributors
still
playing
a
critical
role
in
the
project,
archiving
emeritus
scene,
sun
setting.
A
B
C
A
All
right,
and
then
that
takes
us
to
growth
areas
which
are
areas
of
the
project
that
we've
identified
as
having
a
growth
opportunity,
so
it
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be,
like
you
know,
mean
or
like
you
know,
something
that
is
a
detriment.
I
guess
is
what
I'm
trying
to
say,
or
it
could
be
a
need
that
we
really
need
to
grow
in
so
we've
got
what's
project
health
anyway.
This
stems
from
a
bunch
of
our
leads
and
chairs,
and
things
like
that.
A
Who've
said,
like
I
don't
measure
anything,
and
should
I
measure
something,
and
I
don't
know
what
to
measure
that's
where
that
stand.
That's
where
that
stems
from
every
group
needs
more
reviewers,
but
that
actually
might
be
like.
I
don't
know
that
might
be
the
solution
to
the
fact
that
our
velocity
is
slowing
down.
I
don't
know
if
that's
technically
the
growth
area
instead
and
then,
last
but
not
least,
the
nine
to
five
contributor
is
almost
over
and
we
have
to
adjust.
E
E
A
H
A
E
To
be
careful
about,
like
there's
some
degree
of
editorializing
here,
which
is
you
know,
unavoidable
and
fine,
I
do
want
to
be
careful
about
drawing
conclusions
that
we
can't
like
point
to
data
for
so
like,
for
example,
the
quality
paragraph
I
actually
did
go
through
and
like
sweep
all
the
back
ports
that
we've
done
for
the
past
couple
years
and
made
sure
the
ones
were
addressing
regressions
were
tagged
with
regressions.
And
then
I
could
confidently
say
like
yes,
back.
Ports
for
regressions
were
up
for
122
and
123..
D
A
Areas
right
I'll,
try
to
hit
him
home,
then
all
right.
So
then
that
takes
us
into
the
help
wanted
section
which,
luckily
for
us,
is
populated,
with
the
exception
of
what
bob's
saying,
which
is
people
just
put,
that
they
needed
help
without
linking
to
things
and
it's
just
kind
of
at
an
all,
well
state
for
this.
So
I
feel
like
next
time
we
do
annual
reports.
We
just
need
to
not
accept
things
that
don't
have
links,
so
if
they're
saying
that
they
need
help
for
something
it's
a
link
or
they
don't
need
help.
D
A
J
A
A
All
right,
so
that's
it
that's
the
end.
So,
as
you
can
see,
we
still
have
a
lot
to
do,
especially
up
at
the
top
with
getting
this
together
ray
with
sig
docs
is
our
editor
and
ray
is
also
going
to
help
us
put
words
to
paper
here
too,
so
that
we
can
get
this
out
asap
because
we've
already
got
stale
stuff
in
here.
So
we
need
to
get
this
out
like
with
the
fire,
but
I
think
we're
almost
there.
A
I
E
A
E
A
A
So,
for
instance,
here
we
go
so
sig
node
in
the
help
wanted
section.
I
put
no
report
just
because
that
was
helping
me
get
through
doing
things,
and
I
was
you
know
I
wasn't
checking
but
so
option
number
one
is
we
leave
this,
as
is
with
no
report
or
option
number
two?
Is
we
just
completely
remove
node
from
this
list?
H
K
E
D
G
H
G
Yeah,
can
we
can
we
dig
into
why
folks
haven't
done
them
right?
So
I
wrote
three
of
course,
this
year
right,
like
not
misting,
my
own
porn
sense,
but
the
two
of
them
were
at
six
that
I
was
active
with
that.
If
someone
didn't
step
up
to
do
it,
it
wouldn't
have
gotten
done
right.
So
the
identification
there
is,
you
know
going
back
to
everything
like
we're,
we're
weakening
in
our
foundation
of
leadership
and
bandwidth,
and
so
what
are
the
other
things
that
haven't
gotten
them
done?
G
E
Just
to
speak
to
the
one
that
is
on
my
plate,
it
was
actually
a
leadership
bandwidth
issue
and
they
actually
just
brought
in
like
several
new
folks
to
help
lead
that
group
so
and
I'm
asking
literally
in
the
background
asking
them
if
they
can
help
complete
the
annual
report
for
the
previous
year
because
they
were
involved.
So
that's
the
only
data
point
I
have
and
I
agree
it
is
worth
digging
into,
but
in
my
case
like
they
actually
did,
make
a
change.
So
I'm
happy
to
see
that.
A
A
With
no
report
sweet
all
right
and
then
I
think
we
have
one
more
point
here:
yeah.
The
other
thing
is
like
discrepancies,
because
we've
got,
for
instance,
ui
who's,
not
meeting
and
still
not
meeting,
and
they
report
it.
They
reported
in
last
year
that
they're
not
meeting,
so
I
feel
like
we
either
need
to
make
our
governance
requirements
current.
A
That
would
include
them
in
that
or
we
need
to
write
new
governance
that
or
get
them
to
a
point
where
they're
meeting
there's
a
couple:
different
discrepancies,
governance
that
are
governance
related
that
were
brought
up
with
some
of
the
annual
reports.
So
I'm
going
to
put
that
on
our
agenda
for
next
time
too,
which
is
how
do
we
get
current.
A
E
H
E
D
One
other
thing
like
I
know:
we've
we've
talked
a
little
about
talked
around
about
it.
A
little
bit
is
like
linking
out
more
to
the
caps
and
just
being
able
to
auto
populate
like
more
of
the
sub
projects,
and
things
like
that
in
there
just
to
try
and
remove
some
of
the
the
manual
collection
and
linking
a
lot
of
this
stuff.