►
From YouTube: Kubernetes Public Steering Committee Meeting 20200915
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
A
Yes,
hello,
everyone,
we
know
what
we're
doing
it
is
september.
14Th
welcome
to
kubernetes
steering
committee.
I
am
paris
pittman.
I
will
hopefully
leave
this
ship
for
us
in
a
forward
motion
for
the
next,
at
least
50
minutes
all
right
and
steering
committee
members.
I
think
everybody's
name's
down
in
the
attendee
list
and
it
looks
like
we
actually
do-
have
some
community
members
with
us
today.
A
Community
members,
if
you
are
here
to
just
listen,
that's
cool
if
you're
here,
because
you'd
like
to
speak
on
a
topic
feel
free
to
pop
that
into
either
chat
or
into
the
doc
and
I'll
make
sure
that
there's
time
for
you
are
there
any
steering
committee?
Let's
kick
it.
Let's
kick
this
off.
Are
there
any
steering
committee
election
officers
on
the
phone
that
want
to
do
any
kind
of
update?
A
A
So
announcement
is
tomorrow
for
ballots:
okay,
yup,
that
was
the
that
was
the
josh
email
that
that
I
got
written
as
well.
So
I
guess
the
festivities
are
gonna
be
starting
shortly.
So
get
your
engines
ready.
My
guess
is
the
appropriate
term.
Maybe
I
don't
know
all
right.
Next
is
our
cncf
update
section.
It
looks
like
I
think,
dims
you
probably
snuck
that
one
in
there
dims
do
you
want
to
comment
on
rotating
folks
on
the
governing
board.
E
One
is
from
kubernetes,
the
other
one
is
from
the
rest
of
the
community,
so
the
rest
of
the
com,
rest
of
the
community
elected
matt
last
time
I
think
matlin
and
we
nominated
who
who's
on
ours
michelle
michelle,
yes,
yeah
michelle
was
representing
before,
and
then
we
continued
her
even
after
she
rotated
out
of
the
steering
committee.
So
the
language
that
says
right
now
is
either
existing
steering
committee
or
past
his
student
committee.
E
One
of
those
people
can
be
nominated
to
represent
us
on,
so
I
opened
it
open
an
issue
there
because
we
need
I
felt
like
we
should
talk
about
it,
a
little
bit
to
see
who
would
do
it
next
and
when
it
is
going
to
be,
and
michelle
is
going
to
rotate
out
in
december.
So
we
need
to
pick
somebody
as
our
next
one.
E
So
there
was
some
discussion
on
that
issue.
Please
take
a
look.
Cra
mentioned
that
maybe
you
should.
We
should
have
a
chair
here
in
steering
committee
and
the
chair
could
automatically
be
part
of
the
gb,
so
there
were
some
choices
over
there.
So
the
point
here
is:
we
need
to
get
our
act
together
by
december,
so
we
could
nominate
somebody
when
the
slot
opens
up.
F
So
we
can
chat
about
it
offline,
I'm
really.
F
E
Yeah-
and
the
thing
also
is
like,
if
more
than
one
people
are
interested,
then
what
happens
right.
So
we
should
make
sure
that
we
have
a
process
in
place
to
say
to
ask
people
for
who's
interested
and
then
figure
out
what
to
do
with
that
information,
and
you
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be.
You
know
we
don't
have
to
write
down
explicit
instructions
to
say
that
oh
we're
going
to
have
a
civs
based
election
or
something
like
that.
E
It
could
be
just
the
steering
existing
steering
members
taking
a
vote
on
a
call
should
be
simple
enough,
and
my
personal
view
is
that
you
know
I
don't
want
to
see
a
chair
for
our
steering
committee
and
I
definitely
don't
want
the
chair
to
do
wt
here
as
well
as
on
the
gb.
That
would
be
just
me
too
much,
but
that's
my
personal
opinion.
B
Yeah,
I
I
I
agree
with
dims.
I
don't
think
I
I
don't
really
want
to
see
a
chair.
I
don't
think
that
that
really
aligns
with
our
kind
of
like
consensus
based
process
and
the
fact
that
we
kind
of
like
rotate
around
a
bozen
is
is
one
of
the
endearing
things
about
what
we
do
in
steering.
So
I
prefer
that
kind
of
model,
and
there
I
don't
yeah.
I
don't
think
we
need
somebody
to
do
just
oh.
By
accepting
this
role,
you
are
automatically
also
committing
to
being
on
the
gd
as
well.
B
I
don't
think
that's
that
necessarily
works
for
us.
I
I
don't
know
I
I.
I
actually
see
the
benefits
of
of
having
something
codified
and
having
doing
like
a
cibs
ballot.
If
we
have
more
than
one
nominee,
if
we
have
only
one
nominee,
there's
no
point
to
running
a
ballot,
but
if
we
have
more
than
one
nominee
doing
a
cibs
ballot.
B
Similarly,
to
how
we
do
conduct
committee
elections,
where
you
know
the
the
the
electors
in
that
are
basically
the
seven
steering
committee
members
and
then
they
appoint
somebody
for
two
years
again,
the
I
I
see
the
benefits
of
that
formal
process
being
that
if
the
gb
developer
seed
is
a
two-year
seat,
you
are
deciding
not
only
for
the
current
steering
committee,
but
next
year
steering
committee,
who
is
going
to
be
on
that
seat.
So
having
it
be
a
little
bit
more
formalized
might
not
be
a
bad
thing.
E
Yeah,
the
only
other
twist
to
hear
that
I
was
wanting
to
check
with
you
all
is
like
how
do
we
ping
the
previous
steering
committee
members
for
any
interest
that,
because,
by
default
all
of
us
are
going
to
be
on
a
call
and
we'll
say:
okay,
are
you
interested
we'll
do
that
dance
here?
But
how
do
we
go
being
previous
steering
committee
members
that
that
was
the
only
twist
there.
A
No,
I
don't
know,
I
guess
just
email,
do
we,
even
I
wonder,
do
we
should
we
even
have
some
kind
of
emeritus
list?
A
A
Right
you'd
have
to
remove
yourself
yeah,
so
I
feel
I
guess
just
like
a
public
notice
to
steering
them
would
be
good
of
who's
interested
and
then
maybe
we
just
run
ballots.
If
we
have
more
than
one-
and
I
guess
like
what's
december,
so
I
guess
we
would
really
need
to
get
our
act
together.
A
A
E
There
were
two
requests
to
e-hor,
one
for
aws
credits,
both
of
them
got
handled.
I
think.
C
Are
you
speaking
about
the
mini
cube
and
about
the
cost
repair
project?
That's
right,
yeah,
so
that
they're
both
handled
so
I've
granted
an
access
to
many
good
maintenance
last
week
and
to
cluster
their
maintainers
around
the
norway.
C
So
if
they
confirm
that
everything
is
working,
we
can
close
the
issues
on
the
project.
A
There
was
high
level
discussion
in
the
last
contributor
strategy
meeting
about
reshaping
maintainer
activities
like
for
a
virtual
cube
con,
because
right
now
we
are
asking
maintainers
to
do
a
lot
of
work,
including
the
maintainer
pavilion,
which
is
like
the
the
show-and-tell
for
your
project,
the
intro
deep
dive
for
their
sega
project,
they're,
probably
their
company,
their
company
talk
the
meet
the
maintainer
ama
and
then
like
random
contributor
summit
stuff.
It's
like
a
lot
of
activities
pretty
much.
A
So
there
was
high
level
discussion
about
reshaping
that
what
that
looks
like,
should
we
have
a
cncf
contributor
summit.
Things
like
that.
So
if
that
is
interesting,
combo
to
you
join
the
join
the
topic
at
our
next
meeting
and
then
that
goes
into
the
steering
session
at
kubecon.
I
think
we
were
it
sounds
like
everybody
in
chat
was
a
plus
one
on
skipping
this
one.
H
This
was
the
private
steering
chat,
so
lucky
started
a
thread,
I'm
not
sure
if
everyone
got
notified
because
it
was
a
thread
he
couldn't
make
it,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
his
point
of
view
was
also
represented,
so
he
was
a
big
plus
one
to
having
the
session
at
cubecoin.
H
Mainly,
this
is
the
biggest
communities
event
and
having
steering
how
they
have
a
presence
in
that
event
would
hold
weight
and
also
show
that
we
care
for
the
community
and
we're
there
we're
present,
and
we
could
also
change
the
format
a
bit,
because
we
have
too
much
engagement
with
our
format
in
the
virtual
conference.
H
So
that's
something
we
could
be
doing
too,
but
he
really
wanted
it
there
and
I
kind
of
agree
with
that.
I
mean
I
don't
have
strong
opinions
on
like
skipping
it
versus
not
skipping
it,
but
it
looks
like
it
might
be
worthwhile
just
to
have
a
session
if
it's
not
that
big
of
a
deal.
What
do
folks
think.
E
I
I
think
my
main
point
there
was
like
engagement
right.
How
do
we
engage
people?
How
do
we
get
them
to
ask
questions
rather
than
it's
a
one-way
presentation
from
us,
which
was
mostly
what
happened
last
time,
because
we
we
didn't
get
enough
interaction
like
the
one
last
year,
which
was
live?
E
That
was
a
really
back
and
forth
kind
of
event,
and
we
didn't.
We
couldn't
have
that
on
the
virtual
side,
so
that
that's
my
main
concern
I
mean
we
should
show
off.
I
guess,
but
then
what
do
we
do?
There
is
a
question.
E
H
A
Dims,
I
see
your
head
first.
So
plus
one
means
have
something
negative.
One
means
no
zero
means
figure
out
figure
it
out
for
the
next
few
hours.
I
Hey
kind
of
neutral
on
it
honestly.
A
Okay,
I'm
also
a
zero
by
the
way
like
I
feel
like
we're
all
like
just
now.
Thinking
about
this,
and
I'm
like
give
me
a
couple
more
minutes
to
marinate
in
it.
You
know,
like
you
know,
let
me
go
eat
some
lunch.
A
Plus
one
plus
one
yeah,
no
lucky
was
a
plus
one,
so
we
had
the
two
plus
ones,
two
zeros
and
three
minus
ones.
That's
our
vote.
I
I
think
what
I'm
wondering
is
like
is
there
any
way,
given
the
virtualized
format
that
we
could
run
the
session
differently?
That
would
make
it
like
not
neutral.
On
my
part,
and
I,
like
you,
paris,
I
don't
think
I've
reflected
on
that.
Well
enough,
but
yeah
I
don't
know,
I'm
curious
what
others
feel
I
mean.
I
thought
we
did
a
good
session
for
what
we
had
afforded
to
us,
but
I'm
not
sure
running
the
same
style.
Section
back-to-back
virtual
is
as
interesting.
E
Yeah
and
we'll
be
taking
up
one
slot
while
there's
so
many
people
get
rejected
for
talks
right.
So
that's
their.
B
A
All
right
next
working
group
report
wrap
up.
However,
I
know
some
of
them
are
just
starting,
so
kick
so
wrap
up.
Slash,
kickoff,
we'll
call
this
section
of
the
of
the
meeting
I'll
go
first,
because
I'm
selfish
working
group
data
protection-
I
did
sent
that
I
set
that
to
the
steering
private
today
for
everybody
to
look
at
good
group
working
group
security
audit
is
supposedly
turning
down
tvd
on
tvd
on
live
developments.
There
derek
what
about
you.
I
Well,
paris,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
sending
such
a
nice
template
at
google
doc
out,
because
I
I
took
that
this
morning
and
kicked
the
process
off
with
the
iot
and
edge
working
group,
because
obviously
I
was
delinquent
on
that.
So
hopefully
we'll
get
a
speedy
response
and
I'll
look
to
attend.
The
next
meeting.
H
E
Yeah,
the
next
one
is
mine,
so
the
lts
I
poked
them.
They
want
to
wind
down.
So
we'll
start
the
process
of
the
lts
group
showing
up
in
siege
release
and
talking
to
them
about
giving
them
an
update
on
what
work.
What
didn't
work
that
kind
of
stuff
and
then
we'll
they'll,
start
filing
the
paperwork
for
winding
things
down.
B
Component
standard
has
sent
in
their
their
report.
I
still
need
to
review
it
and
I
am
delinquent
on
that
policy.
I'm
still
having
issues
with
communicating
with
policy,
but
I'm
hopeful
that
I
will
get
some
more
radio
signal
from
them
soon.
A
I
I'm
not
gonna
lie
to
you.
I
just
sent
y'all
the
data
protection
group
without
doing
a
thorough
review.
So
if
you
want
to
chuck
over
component
standard,
I'm
sure
nobody's
going
to
be
mad
at
you.
They
will
be
mad
at
me.
First,
all
right,
cool
aaron.
What's
up
with
you.
F
A
And
then
is
there,
did
we
decide
that
api
expressions
was
technically
too
new
who's
covering
them.
A
A
Oh,
that's
how
you
know
you're
just
like
way
too
close
to
the
data
you're,
just
like
we're
short
and
then
anybody
else
have
anything
before
we
did.
A
quick
project
board
wrap
up.
K
A
Let's
save
that
for
the
next
private
steering
committee
meeting
and
then
we'll
yeah.
A
Yeah
yeah
100
derek:
do
you
feel
like
iot
and
edge
might
have
theirs
done
in
two
weeks
or
do
you
feel
like
they'll
need
another
they'll
need
another
full
they'll
need
like
a
full
30
days.
A
All
right
probably
won't
make
I
mean
we
can
review
what
we
have
in
the
next
private
for
sure.
Josh
I've
got
you
hold
on
one
sec.
We
can
definitely
review.
I
feel
like
working
group
data
protection,
let's
prepare
to
review
kristoff,
let's
try
to
prepare
to
review
the
component
standard
and
then,
let's
make
sure
that
the
working
that
the
the
working
groups
that
are
winding
down
have
officially
turned
down
by
next
private
meeting.
Is
that
fair
for
everybody
all
right?
A
So
then
we'll
have
like
a
clean,
a
little
cleaner,
a
little
clean,
more
clean
slate
there,
all
right,
josh
came
on
camera
josh.
Do
you
have
something
we
didn't
talk
about?
How
the
ballots
were
going
out
today.
Anything
else.
K
Yeah
yeah
we
just
we
started
emailing
out
the
ballots
for
people
who
aren't
aware
of
the
process.
It'll
actually
take
two
full
days
to
get
all
the
ballots
out
that
we
can
get
out
and
then
at
that
point
we'll
discover
probably
around
50
to
100
voters.
We
don't
actually
have
any
valid
email
for
and
that'll
go
in
kubernetes
dev
in
hopes
that
they
identify
themselves.
K
The
I
would
like
to
have
I'd
like
to
schedule
the
elections
committee
retro
together
with
some
members
of
the
steering
committee,
because
the
elections
committee
will
dissolve
after
this
election,
and
so
it
will
be
up
to
the
steering
committee
to
carry
forward
any
issues
that
need
to
get
taken
care
of
in
the
next
seven
months
before
we
start
with
the
new
elections
committee.
A
Yeah,
what
about
either
a
pro
already
private
meeting
that
we
have
in
october,
maybe
like
with
the
first
with
the
new
steering
committee
members
too
it'll
be
like
new
and
old
retro.
A
D
K
Thanks
the
other
thing,
by
the
way,
if
people
haven't
followed
in
the
issues,
is
that
we're
going
to
try
to
put
together
an
intern
project
to
replace
this
whole
super
labor
intensive
mechanism
of
sending
out
ballots,
because
this
is
really
not
a
good
thing.
A
No
all
right,
thank
you
all.
So
much
last
call
from
anybody
else
for
topics
before
we
do
a
project.
Boardwalk,
really
quick.
A
Yes,
all
right
technology's
on
my
side
today,
all
right
nikita!
Why
don't
you
you
wanna
board
triages
here?
This
was
nikita's
doing.
H
A
C
E
C
Yeah,
at
least
so
they
they've
been
grabbed
with
the
access.
So
it
was
the
original
request
if
they
have
any
any
issues
with
utilizing
the
technology
later,
so
they
can
create
a
dedicated
request,
just
reach
out
to
me
directly,
but
funding
wise.
Both
questions
are
sold,
so
we
can
probably
close
them.
B
A
A
E
Well
that
you
know
we
did
the
mailing
list
things,
but
if
you
wanted
to
do
something
else,
then
people
can
start
asking
us
and
then
we'll
try
to
automate
it.
If
the
volume
is
high.
I
guess.
A
Yeah,
that
issue
is
mainly
just
documentation
of
who
does
what,
when,
where
why,
with
g
suite
and
then
also
a
couple
more
issues,
but
this
one's
old.
What
are
we
doing
with
this
one
clarify
and
improve
how
we
identify
and
close
staffing
gaps
across
the
project.
E
I
I
feel
we
need
to
get
back
to
this
as
part
of
the
review
process,
annual
reports
and
then
we'll
have
to
figure
out
how
to
request
help
from
cncf
or
end
user,
community
or
other
places
to
help
staff
things.
E
So
right
now,
we've
been
doing
ad
hoc
like,
for
example,
the
signal
one
we
went
around
asking
people
saying:
okay
can,
can
you
send
more
people
to
signal
right,
so
we
were
doing
that
on
an
ad
hoc
basis,
but
then
we'll
have
to
do
something
proactively:
give
send
people
a
list
up
the
chain
to
the
to
the
governing
body
or
something
like
that.
E
A
F
It
just
says
clarify
how
we
identify
and
close
talking
gaps
annual
reports
on
how
we
do
this.
We
should
document
that,
if
we
feel
it
needs
improvement,
we
should
describe
what
needs
improvement,
but
I
feel
like
if
this
was
part
of
what
annual
reports
they're
about
we're
talking
about
how
annual
reports
are
going
to
be
used
for
this.
A
E
Yeah,
I
haven't
even
looked
at
it
since
then
probably
low
priority
at
this
point
should
we
make
it
make
it
frozen.
It
already
is
further.
It
is
frozen.
Okay,
let's
not
worry
about.
A
It
right
now
and
then
this
is
another
one-
that's
been
out
there
for
a
while,
and
this
is
an
errand
one
before
you
leave
us
for.
Are
we
formalizing
the
concept
of
subprojects.
F
Of
answering
that
either
by
having
automation,
you
know,
pull
the
names
together
and
with
that,
in
the
same
way
that
we
put
like
chairs
and
tech
leads
and
elite
knees
through
the
use
of
something
like
github
teams
or
something,
but
I
think
there's
a
lot
more
detail
in
the
issue
comments.
F
If
you
click
through
about
why
that's
still
open,
I
sort
of
view
it
as
contributor
experience
is
the
city
that
earns
it
and
if
contributor
experience
thinks
that
the
experience
of
like
sub-projects
as
they
exist
today
is
sufficient,
then
that's
great,
but
I
I
think
there
are
lots
of
legitimate
complaints
about
subprojects.
F
K
I
What
do
other
people
do,
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
hold
on
this
until
we
see
the
output
of
the
working
group
review
just
because
I
feel
like
there
are
some
working
groups
that
are
actually
owning
code
repos,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
when
that
should
have
made
it
a
sub
project.
But
maybe
we
should
just
audit
this
as
an
outcome
of
that
working
group
review.
L
A
Can
kickers
all
right?
Let's
see
that's
more
pruning
and
shuffling
of
github
orgs.
These
are
just
rotten
as
hell
y'all
process
support.
Guess
we
don't
need
that
for
a
while,
I
would
fix
fixed
route
owners.
E
Yeah,
I
think
we
can
close
this
out
for
now.
I
think
we
can
close
this
out
for
now.
There's
been
sufficient
conversation
generated
multiple
email,
threads.
H
Approval
plugins
this.
I
think
this
is
the
approval
granular
approval.
H
Maybe
this
should
learn
test
infra
though,
but
it's
currently
being
worked
on
like
we're
just
asking
that
it
contributes
I'll
I'll
close
this
and
I'll
move.
It.
A
All
right
so
I'll
do
this
one.
This
one
needs
an
update.
This
is
just
talking
about
where
we
are
in
the
working
group
process
and
that's
pretty
much
closed
at
this
point.
I
think
anyway,
incubator
in
favor
of
kubernetes.
I
think
that's
isn't
that,
like
the
same
issue
as
the
end
of
life,
kubernetes
incubator,
what's
the
difference
between
this
one
and
the
other
one.
F
F
A
L
A
And
then
defining
and
scoping
the
term
member,
I
think
a
lot
of
this
was
done,
but
not
all
of
it.
This
was
yes,
we
did
this.
One
like
this
is
the
where
we
were
uncoupling
chair
and
tech
lead
and
some
project
ownership
from
the
one
and
the
term
member
from
that
as
well,
but
we
never.
I
don't
think
we
ever
talked
about
like
community
membership
versus
like
github
work
membership,
and
is
that
the
same
thing.
A
Yes,
that's
the
other
thing
like
and
if,
if
a
sig
does-
and
this
is
a
case
in
point-
if
a
sig
wants
to
hold
an
election
who's,
their
membership
right
like
what
and
that's
their
like,
the
stig
is
free
to
do
any
kind
of
election
that
they
choose.
No
matter
like
if
it's
for
a
role
or
for
like
to
get
a
pulse
right,
so
it's
like
who
who's
their
membership
body.
At
that
point,.
A
This
one,
I
think,
aaron's
comment
was
like
shoring
up
what
we
already
like
uncoupled
from
like
the
chair
and
tech
lead
thing,
and
then
what
did
you
say
here?
Nikita.
E
Yeah,
so
the
one
thought
I
had
here
is
you
know,
while
we
were
thinking
about
the
the
app
for
elections
where
they
log
in
using
their
github
ide,
and
they
can
vote
so
in
the
same
process,
if
we
can,
if
people
can
select
which
six
they
are
member
of
right,
it's
a
self
selection
rather
than
you
know
self.
Identifying
right,
I
I
would
say
I'm
a
member
of
sick
testing,
a
node
but
not
sig
windows
right.
So
I
would
go
in
and
say
that
I'm
interested
in
these
things.
E
So
so
then
we
can
use
that
data
to
form
the
list
of
members.
I
I
don't.
I
wanted
to
be
an
explicit
action
by
somebody
to
say
I
I
am
part
of
this
or
I
am
no
longer
part
of
this,
rather
than
rather
than
going
through
the
mailing
list
as
a
criteria
or
looking
through
owner's
files
as
a
criteria
or
something
like
that.
E
E
F
Like
there
are
a
lot
of
chat
boxes
at
the
top
of
this,
it's
not
clear
to
me
whether
dennis
is
proposing
like
whether
we're
proposing.
Yes,
all
these
check
boxes
are
still
valid
and
we
should
resolve
all
of
them.
Or
do
we
think
that
dim's
jinza's
proposal
will
resolve
some
of
these?
Do
we
think
we
should
get
rid
of
some
of
these
check
boxes
because
they
are
no
longer
relevant
or
are
we
printing
resolution
of
these
check
boxes
or
whether
there
should
be
or
open
to
a
later
meeting.
A
We're
punting
a
lot
of
it
to
later
meetings.
Dimms
is
taking
on
at
least
one
of
those
open-ended
questions
with
which
is
the
definition
of
membership
for
elections,
and
that's
it
we'll
just
keep
talking
about
this
in
upcoming
meetings.
L
Sure
I'm
just
wasn't
intending
to
speak
on
the
call
today,
but
this
is
the
thing
that
hi
folks,
that
I've
thought
a
fair
bit
about
in
other
contexts
and
as
I'm
skimming
the
issue
I
didn't
see
it
mentioned.
E
So
there
is
one
bar
eva,
which
is
github
org
membership.
So
we
would
so
we
wouldn't
open
it
up
to
anybody
on
the
internet
or
anybody
on
github.
So
the
people
who
are
github
org
members,
then
can
select,
and
maybe
we
could
have
up
to
five
or
something
like
that.
So
we
I
need
to
think
through
it
a
little
bit
more
but
yeah.
It's
not
completely
open.
L
F
F
Election,
which
has
an
even
higher
bar
of
not
just
org
membership,
but
also
a
certain
number
of
contributions.
The
question
is
whether
that
is
appropriately
inclusive.
When
we
look
at
how
cigs
decide
to
make
decisions,
because
we
don't
actually
force
or
mandate
or
have
a
policy
that
sigs
have
to
take
notes
or
anything
like
that.
But
when
we
start
talking
about
things
in
the
context
of
sig
membership,
we
don't
actually
have
a
concrete
definition
of
what
a
six
like
six
members.
A
There's
a
lot
for
the
so
it
sounds
like
though
it
sounds
like
there's
sort
of
a
consensus
around
the
idea
that
mailing
list
membership
does
not
make
you
any
other
kind
of
member
outside
of
only
a
mailing
list.
Member
is
that
correct.
Does
anybody
disagree
with
that
statement.
F
A
B
E
A
F
H
E
E
So
how
about
you
and
I
work
on
it-
aaron
I'll,
set
up
a
call,
and
let
me
put
some
thoughts
together
before
that
all
right.
A
So
that
check
box
is
xd
off
and
then,
if
membership
member
can.
A
Oh
yeah,
this
has
to
do
with
us,
I
think,
and
then,
if
it's
decided
to
seek
chairs
and
owners
as
either
a
membership
definition.
Where
should
that
be
posted
and
should
it
be
required
yeah?
What
do
we
think
about
sigs
creating
their
own,
or
should
we
be
the
one
that
creates
this
standard
definition?
I
guess
that's
kind
of
where
that's
the
tldr
of
that.
H
I
I
I'm
not
sure
how
what
what
if
every
sick
would
say
the
same
thing.
E
A
All
right
so
looks
like
we
are
done
this
one,
probably
right
steering
committee
liaisons,
oh
no,
actually
for
committees.
I'm
sorry
should
we.
Yes,
then
that
was
the
discussion
on
this
one
was:
should
we
have
liaisons
for
committees
as
well
to
improve
the
committee
to
committee
conversation
or
no?
That's
the
whole
reason
why
they're
committees.
A
A
Anyway,
so
yeah,
this
is
something
else
that
I
guess
we
need
to
think
about
and
weigh
in
on
the
issue
when
you
get
some
time.
A
Oh
yes,
because
we
did
I've
already
heard
feedback
from
a
couple
of
the
organizers
and
working
groups,
and
things
like
that.
Some
people
were
saying
that
it
might
make
more
sense
to
have
sick
chairs.
Do
the
working
group
annual
reports,
since
they
also
have
to
give
them
status,
updates
and
things
like
that.
A
B
Feedback
as
well,
but
I'm
explicitly
like
minus
one
on
this
because
like
working
groups,
can
have
more
than
one
sponsoring
fig,
which
thing
is
responsible
for
doing
it,
and
also
just
in
general.
The
idea
that,
like
maybe
the
problem
that
the
working
group
is
having
is
a
poor
relationship
with
their
sponsoring
sig.
There
would
be
no
way
for
us
to
get
that
feedback
and,
ultimately,
I
believe
steering
is
like
we're
responsible
for
this
type
of
health.
This,
like
type
of
governance,
health.
E
B
Matter,
I
don't
know
my
my
opinion
as
it
stands
as
of
as
of
today,
without
any
other
like
arguments
going,
the
other
direction
is
no.
I
think
it
should
just
be
every
every
group,
whether
it's
a
working
group,
sig
user
group,
they
all
everybody
who
does
their
annual
report
into
steering
and
then
there's
one
path.
A
And
let's
see,
I
know
nikita
and
I
still
have
work
to
do
on
the
term
limits
we're
gonna
pair
together
on
that
we'll
definitely
have
a
pr
by
next
private
meeting
and
probably
even
earlier,
and
then
says,
refine
rules
on
exceeding
maximal
representation
for
sc
election.
This
is
probably
a
better
conversation
for
post-election
correct,
yes
and
then
rotating
folks.
We've
already
talked
about
that
one
all
right,
so
we're
doing
good
and
we're
at
time
hell
yeah.