►
From YouTube: Kubernetes Public Steering Committee Meeting 20210802
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Hello,
everyone:
this
is
the
august
2nd
2021
edition
of
the
kubernetes
steering
committee
meeting.
This
is
our
public
meeting.
We
have
a
number
of
topics
to
get
through,
so
let's
kick
it
off.
A
First
up
on
the
agenda,
is
the
working
group
naming
dissolution
request?
Who
added
that
to
the
agenda?
Do
you
want
to
briefly
speak
on
it.
B
C
Some
updates
I
had
spoken
to
celeste
and
steven
just
regarding
like
next
steps.
Their
outstanding
question
on
it
was
who
should
officially
own
the
process,
for
you
know
determining
if
something
should
be
like
the
the
language
evaluation
framework
and
potentially
organizing
how
those
things
get
removed.
C
D
Yeah,
what
I
was
saying
there
probably
was
anything
that
doesn't
have
owner
cigar
owns
right.
So
if
there
is
another
owner,
please,
let's
make
sure
we
have
it.
B
It
seemed
like
there
were
three
kind
of
pieces
there.
One
was
the
like
the
evaluation
framework
which
the
working
group
actually
did
put
together.
So
I
think
that
would
probably
make
sense
to
at
least
link
to
from
like
the
api
review
conventions
and
things
like
when
you're
picking
names
for
fields
and
flags
and
types
and
arguments
and
whatever
like
consider
this
make
that
part
of
what
we
considered.
The
second
beast
was
like
who
drives
evolution
of
that
decision
framework,
and
maybe
maybe
we
don't
really
anticipate
that
evolving
much.
B
It's
kind
of
a
like
look
for
common
uses
and
look
for
state
of
the
art
and
look
you
know.
Maybe
we
don't
imagine
that
evolving
much
so
maybe
that
doesn't
need
a
particular
owner
and
then
the
third
was
the
areas
that
were
already
identified
like
who
owns
the
work,
and
I
think
that
was
largely
distributed
to
the
owners
of
those
components.
So
the
sigs
that
own
those
components
to
prioritize
and
like
for
the
branch
sig
release,
contrib
x,
test
infra
kind
of
that
combination.
B
B
Okay,
I
can
take
the
ai
to
link
to
the
evaluation
framework
docs
from
the
api
review
conventions
and
process.
B
Directory,
probably
I
will
find
that
out.
If
that's
a
good
question,
if
the
working
group
is
dissolving,
should
those
be
re-homed
to
like
the
folder
that
has
the
api
conventions.
Maybe
I
mean
it's
not
just
api
right,
it's
yes,
docs
and
other
things
as
well.
So
if
this
is
getting
re-parented
to
sick
arch,
maybe
you
can
go
to
the
cigars
folder
and
we
can
link
to
it
there
from
various
places.
A
Bob
can
you
why
I
think
your
list
was
the
liaison
for
for
the
working
group.
Are
you
able
to
work
with
them
to
just
make
sure
they
understand
what
the
action
items
are
for
the
the
working
group
chairs
of
like
okay,
here's,
here's
these
and
any
other
action
items
just
make
sure
you
go
and
connect
with
sig
arch
or
whatever
other
group
will
be
owning
them
so
that
we
know
where
the
artifacts
are
going,
because
I
think
that's
the
last
yep
the
last
question
there
before
we
can
just
chatter
them
that
I
can
do.
A
Naming
okay,
thank
you
dims
and
jordan
for
for
taking
notes
on
that.
The
next
one
here
is
kubernetes
and
kubernetes.
Org
membership
should
be
equivalent.
C
Yep,
so
this
is
an
older
issue
that
we
revisited
a
couple
times,
but
the
way
like
our
org
structure
currently
works
is
if
you
join
the
kubernetes
org.
You
are
then
allowed
to
join
any
other
kubernetes
org.
But
if
you
join,
if,
like
you
are
ed
like
read
a6
but
not
kubernetes,
that
relationship
does
not
work
the
opposite
way,
and
originally
there
were
concerns
around
like
the
collection
of
people
that
were
added
to
like
incubator.
C
I
think
that,
like
predates
that
issue
by
a
fair
amount,
but
now
that
incubator
has
been
retired
and
there's
not
a
large
diff
between
like
members
of
that
are
in
kubernetes
sigs,
but
not
in
kubernetes,
it
kind
of
seems
like
it's.
It
should
really
just
be
join
kubernetes,
not
join
this
specific
github
org.
A
Yeah
yeah.
Okay,
sorry,
I'm
just
gonna.
I
was
just
gonna
comment
that,
like
at
this
point,
I
know
some
of
like
the
original
thoughts
and
objections
were
around
like
how
many
stale
folks
we
had
in
the
kubernetes,
org
and
and
the
kubernetes
org,
and
we
didn't
have
inactivity
pruning,
which
is
something
that
we
do
have
now.
B
Yeah,
I
I'm
in
favor
of
this.
I
think
it's
confusing
for
people
to
have
different
different
membership
lists
or
different
requirements,
or
I
think
joining
the
kubernetes
project
is
a
good
like
unifying
metric.
I
linked
to
the
comment
where
I
think
bob
had
looked
at
stats
of
like
who
was
in
kubernetes,
not
kubernetes,
and
ideally
we
could
look
at
that
list
of
folks
and
like
I
would,
I
would
guess
pretty
much.
B
A
A
B
B
Yeah,
I
would
suggest
all
in
favor
of
making
the
requirements
for
kubernetes
and
kubernetes
membership
combined,
say
I
I'm
plus
one.
A
A
A
Did
anybody
I'm
not
sure
who
added
this?
Does
anybody
have
any
comments
on
this.
B
I
think
paris
had
added
these.
She
had
done
a
good
job
of
like
opening
tracking
issues
for
these,
but
I
think
they
kind
of
all
got
assigned
to
her
when
she
opened
them
and
she's
looking
to
sort
of
fan
out
that
work.
So.
D
B
I
think
we
talked
about,
there
must
be
one
it
could
be.
The
existing
chair,
yeah.
C
B
We
talked
about
explicitly
calling
out
who
was
fulfilling
the
tech,
lead
role
and
to
start
to
backfill.
At
the
very
least,
the
people
who
are
chair
in
a
sig
that
only
has
chairs
are
implicitly
filling
the
technical,
and
so
I
think
there
is
value
in
recognizing
those
are
two
distinct
sets
of
responsibilities
and
documenting
like
who?
Do
you
talk
to
for
cheer
stuff?
Who
do
you
talk
to
your
particulate
stuff?
B
Even
if
it
happens
to
be
the
same
person,
and
that
makes
it
clear
that
there
are
two
sets
of
responsibilities
and
they
can
hand
off
one
or
both.
B
So
I
think
the
first
step
would
probably
be
to
describe
what
we
would
suggest
in
terms
of
like
what
the
delta
is,
which
is
just
document
who
the
tech
leads
are,
and
it's
okay
for
it
to
be
the
same
person
just
to
clarify
that
it's
two
sets
of
responsibilities
and
then
take
that
to
the
chairs
and
tech,
leads
meetings
or
list
or
slack
and
get
feedback
on
that
suggestion.
B
I
think
the
first
step
is
to
change
the
governance.
Dock.
Just
to
switch
tech
leads
from
being
an
optional
thing.
To
being
a
you
need,
a
tech
lead
role.
I.
A
A
B
Then,
if
there's
agreement
that
this
is
a
useful
thing
to
do
and
doesn't
increase
busy
work
and
overhead
and
provides
value
to
the
community
because
it
clarifies
these
two
distinct
roles
then
go
through
the
mechanics
of
sort
of
backfilling,
the
cigs
that
haven't
identified
a
technique.
So,
yes,
plus
one
to
kristoff's,
comment
about
getting
feedback
from
the
sig
and
working
group.
Leadership
on
this
proposed
change
to
the
government
stock,
so
it
would
help
if
we
could
describe
to
them
like
what
the
net
change
would
be
for
for
six,
that
don't
already
use
this
role.
A
Great,
so,
on
a
similar
note,
the
next
one
is,
I
think
we
we
basically
reached
this
one
with
the
terms
and
term
limits
for
chairs,
as
well
as
like
a
separate,
discrete
discussion
where
we
were
going
to
again
split
it
out
and
seek
specific
feedback
on
what
is
the
term?
A
How
long
a
term
should
be,
and
then
are
there
such
things
as
term
limits?
Like
can
you
know,
and
a
sig
decide
like
on
a
recurring
basis?
Okay,
we're
reviewing
our
leadership
for
this
term,
and
we
want
to
keep
the
same
leadership
or
we
want
to
change
leadership.
A
It
looks
like
it
looks
like
that
one
is
assigned
to
paris,
whereas
the
other
ones
aren't.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
she
wants
to
drive
that
forward
or
if
she's
looking
for
assistance
for
somebody
else
to
kind
of
take
and
drive
forward
that
that
feedback
is
again.
I
believe.
That's
where
we
arrived
to
last
session
was
specifically
drive
a
feedback
and
a
discussion
around
that.
B
I'm
happy
to
help
drive
this.
You
can
double
assign
me
and
keep
paris
assigned,
I'm
not
sure
if
she
was
actively
working
on
it
or
not
so
bob,
maybe
you
and
I
can
coordinate
these.
These
two
things
seem
like
they
would
be
good
to
sort
of
bring
together
to
the
these
meeting
like
here
are
a
couple
changes,
we're
considering
and
would
like
feedback
on,
so
we
can
get
together.
B
It
looked
like
elena
made
a
comment
on
the
term
and
term
limits
asking
if
the
idea
of
terms
and
the
idea
of
term
limits
could
be
addressed
separately,
and
I
I
think
that's
valuable,
like
the
there
is
a
term
that
individuals
can
reconsider
their
involvement
to
or
commit
to
leading
for
a
season
like.
I
think
the
idea
of
terms
is
valuable.
B
A
Great
and
then
the
third
one
is
the
annual
reports,
actions
and
write
up.
C
E
E
E
Doesn't
work
very
well,
so
I
I
guess
what
I
was
wondering
is:
if
terms
and
term
limits
probably
make
sense,
if
you
have
a
better
minimum
and
then
relating
to
terms
like.
E
Having
a
size
of
1
doesn't
necessarily
work
well,
because
you
want
to
have
some
overlapping
period
where
you
can
take
established
people
to
mentor
new
people
in
that
term,
and
and
that
type
of
thing
is
there,
do
you
want
a
separate
issue
for
like
minimum
role
participant
list,
or
do
we
see
a
conflict
maybe
coming
out
of
this?
If
we
don't
do
that.
A
I
would
suggest
dropping
those
comments
on
the
existing
the
existing
issue
in
the
existing
discussion,
because,
like
yeah,
we
can
separate
a
bunch
of
these
things
out,
but
I
think
separating
them
out
too
much
fragments
the
discussion
when
a
lot
of
these
are
are
related.
That's
why,
like
my
personal
opinion,
is
I
like
that
terms
and
term
limits
are
together
for
purposes
of
discussion,
because
again
they
can
relate
each
other.
You
can't
have
term
limits
without
terms
and
based
on
the
length
of
the
term
that
can
determine
for
people.
A
You
know
it
is
a
term
limit
required
or
a
good
idea
here,
or
what
that
term
limit
looks
like
based
on
the
the
length
of
the
term
and
how
often
you're
reviewing
that
but
yeah.
I
think
those
are
fair
comments
there,
but
my
suggestion
would
be
like
let's
coalesce
those
comments
into
into
that
issue,
so
that
we
can
as
we're
discussing
them.
We
can
consider
those
items
together.
A
Okay
for
the
annual
report
actions
and
write
up
unless
anybody
has
any
objections,
I
can
take
that
one
on
and
try
and
drive
some
of
those
individual
items
forward.
A
A
Okay
last
call
for
comments
on
any
of
those
three
items.
Annual
report,
actions
and
wrap
up
tech
leads
being
mandatory
terms
and
term
limits
for
chairs
on
the
terms.
D
E
B
One
thing
I'm,
I
I'm
pretty
sure
everyone
else
is
aware
of
this
as
well.
Just
the
overhead
of
running
like
formal
elections,
I'm
we
have
a
lot
of
six
and
just
knowing
how
much
effort
it
takes
for
the
steering
elections
and,
like
we
have
a
small
number
of
elections
we
run
now
and
it
actually
takes
a
lot
of
effort.
I
we
just
need
to
be
aware
of
like
what
we're
asking
folks
to
take
on
and
who
would
actually
drive
this
like
you
could
easily
imagine
sort
of
dosing.
B
A
That
looks
like
a
lot
of
folks
are
interested
in
that.
Okay
doesn't
look
like
there's
an
action
item
yet,
but
we
can
review
the
funding
request
when
it
comes
in.
A
Next
one
is
on
the
gb
meeting.
End
result.
Unfortunately,
paris
isn't
here
dims
could?
Can
you
speak
to
this
one
very
briefly.
D
Yes,
we
had
almost
five
to
ten
minutes
on
the
gbe
toc
joint
meeting.
The
last
five
minutes,
so
parish
had
to
rush
through
a
little
bit,
but
we
got
the
word
out.
We
well
not.
We
paris,
paris,
presented
you,
know
four
or
five
slides
and
summarizing
the
stuff
that
we
have
in
our
report
and
essentially
she
told
everyone
to
pass
the
link
to
the
report
to
their
respective
orgs,
highlighting
the
specific
section
about
health
wanted
in
various
eggs,
and
we
are
hoping
to
get
some
feedback
at
some
point.
D
But
we
ran
out
of
time.
We
were
trying
to
point
out
the
obvious
things
tragedy
of
the
commons
and
where
exactly
we
need
help-
and
you
know
sick
testing
and
case
working
group
infra
and
things
like
that.
So
we
didn't
well
we
the
meeting
kind
of
like
disbanded
at
the
end.
So
we
didn't
get
any
specific
thing
from
anyone
saying
that
they're
going
to
get
back
to
us,
but
hoping
we
will
there
is.
There
is
a
lf
meeting
in
napa
valley.
D
Around
the
same
time
as
kubecon,
probably
two
weeks
after
or
two
weeks
before,
or
something
like
that,
so
there
is
going
to
be
another
gbe
toc
meeting
in
that
forum
or
in
kubecon.
At
some
point
I
don't
I
forget
which
one
so
I
think
we
will
send
out
send
out
a
reminder
once
again
before
that
meeting.
D
D
There
is
public
announcements
that
have
already
gone
out,
so
there
was
nothing
specific
new
that
they
were
talking
about
there,
but
the
general
concern
around
safety.
And
what
will
we
do?
And
you
know
especially
people
who
are
setting
things
up
there
and
people
are
who
are
going
to
be
there
before
the
kubecon
and
things
like?
How
are
we
going
to
handle
pr
fallouts?
D
Those
kinds
of
things
were
talked
about
and
it
feels
like
they
have
a
plan,
whether
we
like
it
or
not.
They
have
a
plan
and
it's
gonna
happen.
There
is
no
yeah,
one
thing
for
sure
is
it's
gonna
go
on
and
there
is
no
turning
back
now.
We
are
past
the
time
when
they
would
have
shut
it
down,
and
they
said
you
know
it's
all
good
right
now.
D
Unless
the
state
government
or
the
federal
government
has
a
mandatory
or
the
cbc
comes
up
with
specific
things
to
shut
it
down,
it's
gonna
go
on.
D
C
Is
really
the
dry
run
for
kubecon?
That's
the
one
at
the
I
think
end
of
september
or
might
be.
I
know
it's
it's
in
september
later
september,
but
the
entire
process,
the
entire
team
for
validating
all
the
vaccination
requirements.
A
lot
is
like
the
process
intend
to
be
the
same
and
mentioned
open.
F
Yeah,
it's
actually
the
asp
account
that
opposite
bob
has
mentioned,
so
we
plan
to
run
it
in
like
the
last
week,
the
last
the
last
week
of
september.
It
will
be
held
in
seattle,
so
the
original
plan
was
to
run
at
e
in
dublin,
but
earlier
this
year
we
moved
it.
We've
decided
to
move
it
today
to
the
united
states
and
we
plan
to
run
it
in
seattle.
F
But
yes,
as
bob
mentioned,
we
basically
plan
this
event.
Also
like
considering
this.
This
event
is
a
dry
run
before
kubecon
in
a
few
weeks
in
l.a,
yeah
and
the.
D
Other
thing
was
in
the
la
at
the
venue:
they're
gonna
have
at
least
two
or
more
large
conferences
before
us,
so
we
are
not
going
to
be
the
first
one.
You
know
to
have
the
size
of
a
number
of
people
there.
C
D
Okay,
so
the
yeah,
the
linux
foundation,
member
summit,
which
was
previously
called
open
source
leadership
summit,
is
in
november
number
two
to
fourth
in
napa
valley.
That
was
the
one
that
I
was
you
know
blanking
out
the
they
were
talking
about
people
who
want
to
miss
kukon,
but
want
to
go
to
a
smaller
event.
This
is
an
event
that
we
could
go
to.
D
Cfps
are
open
and
if
we
need
to
and
they
are
sending
out
passes
to
each
org
member
and
if
you,
if
you
run
out
of
passes,
then
we
ping
cncf,
staffs
and
requests.
D
A
Okay,
if
there's
nothing
else
on
that
one,
we
can
move.
A
D
So
there
is
one
feedback
on
this
one
which
is
there's
the
chairs
of
the
working
group
put
together
well
aaron,
put
together
this
document
and
we,
the
other
chairs,
you
know
kind
of
like
said,
okay,
so
aaron
sent
it
forwarded
an
email
to
steering,
but
I'm
guessing
that
we
should
make
sure
that
all
the
sigs
involved
take
a
look
at
this
as
well
before
we
file
a
pr
or
whatever
to
make
it
official
before
steering
gets
a
vote.
I
guess.
A
D
A
Yeah
I'll
make
sure
to
touch
base
and
nikita
just
to
make
sure
that
she
understands
either
that
ask
if
she
can
take
that
on
or
if
she
needs
some,
but
some
some
help
with
that.
If
she's
out
of
office
or
busy
with
some
other
stuff.
D
B
I
mean
if
we,
if
we
just
leave
a
comment
about
getting
the
stakeholders
things
to
weigh
in,
we
can
sort
of,
unblock
and
defer
to
them
and
get
that
going
in
this
week.
Hopefully,
that
can
wrap
up
in
the
next
few
days
or
a
week
or
whatever,
and
don't
have
to
wait
for
nikki
to
get
back.
A
Okay,
I
added
this
next
one
just
to
basically
ask
bob:
is
there
any
update
on
the
next
steps
for
steering
committee
election.
C
I
was
actually
talking
with
josh
about
that
a
little
bit
before
this
meeting.
He
is
not
found,
he
was
taking
the
ai
to
try
and
find
more
sponsors
or
not
more
sponsors,
more
committee
members
and
that
fell
through
the
cracks
and
honestly
fell
through
it
like.
I
was
going
to
talk
to
him
last
week
about
it
too,
and
it
completely
left
my
mind,
but
we
synced
on
it
and
should
have
an
update
probably
later
this
week.
F
A
Okay,
if
there's
no
other
comments
on
the
upcoming
steering
committee
elections,
then
that
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
stated
agenda.
Is
there
anything
else
anyone
wants
to
bring
up
either
from
steering
committee
members
or
from
community
members
at
large.
A
Okay,
if
there's
nothing
else,
then
we
can
end
early
today.