►
From YouTube: Kubernetes Public Steering Committee Meeting 20191202
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
B
So
I've
had
a
proposal
submitted
to
create
a
user
group
for
people
using
kubernetes
on
top
of
VMware
infrastructure.
I
think
this
is
there
is
something
in
the
community
structure
that
labels
itself
a
user
group,
but
I
think
this
is
the
very
first
one.
That's
going
on
under
the
procedure
that
was
put
in
place
when
the
cloud
providers
got
folded,
underneath
the
cloud
providers
sake
and
the
I
think
I've
met
the
requirements
for
creating
this.
B
I
certainly
can't
say
any
harm
in
that.
So
I
created
a
PR
with
a
proposed
charter
and
that's
linked
in
the
meeting
notes
for
the
steering
committee
today.
I
think
that
I'm
not
sure
what
the
actual
requirement
is
on
that
charter,
but
I'm,
assuming
that
a
vote
by
a
quorum
of
the
steering
committee
would
be
the
way
that
this
is
done.
B
So
that's
the
way
the
old
original
VMware
saying
happened
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
so
I
put
that
in
there
the
Charter
is
modeled
on
the
Charter
you'd
have
for
a
sake
or
a
working
group,
and
if
the
steering
committee
wants
me
to
I'm
willing
to
do
another
PR
to
actually
change
the
say,
gwar
working
group
life
cycle
doc
to
say
that
a
Charter
is
required.
I
know
that
there
is
potentially
one
other
user
group.
B
C
Have
come
so
in
giving
history
there's
not.
There
was
not
a
requirement
put
in
the
original
document
that
I
think
Phil
had
worked
on
for
user
groups
because
we
wanted
to
lower
the
bar
barrier
for
entry
because
it
was
just
a
user
group.
So
we
figured
so
long
as
it
met
the
criterion
listed
down
there.
It
was
fine
I,
don't
have
strong
opinions
either
way.
I
do
think
that
so
long
as
it
met
the
requirements
that
were
originally
in
the
document.
That
seems
fine
to
me.
D
D
E
Question
for
maybe
dims
or
Tim,
because
I
think
this
was
within
the
last
iteration
of
steering
committee.
So
it
looks
like
the
PR
that
initially
formed
the
user
group
was
put
in
in
September
I.
Actually,
don't
see,
steering
committee
sign
up
for
it
did
steering,
did
steering
talk
about
a
VMware
user
group.
Did
we
approve
it?
Is
there
a
requirement
for
that
as
a
step
in
the
process?
That
seems.
C
Unclear
no,
we
have.
We
talked
the
steering
previously
talked
about
the
formation
of
user
groups
specifically
related
to
the
cloud
provider
issue,
so
we
wanted
to
collapse
cloud
providers,
but
we
wanted
to
have
a
venue
by
which
you
know
people
who
had
wanted
to
do
Q&A,
it's
basically
like
user
support
and
user
user
community
stuff
to
have
a
venue,
but
wouldn't
make
sure,
was
crystal
clear
that
development
was
within
the
main
project
in
that,
because
what
we
also
saw-
and
you
know
this
is
not
me-
we
it's
a
it's
a
royal.
C
We
where
this
is
the
feedback
I
got
from
the
cloud
provider.
Folks
was
that
a
lot
of
these
individual
meetings
would
be
almost
like
user
support
groups
and
they
wouldn't
necessarily
always
focused
on
development
they'd,
be
asking
questions
in
Q&A,
so
we
part
of
steering's
feedback
and
part
of
the
things
that
we
did
was
to
create
that
organizational
structure
we
did
not.
We
did
not
give
any
blessings
the
a
or
nay
for
any
specific
group.
We
only.
We
only
created
requirements
for
what
it
meant
to
create
a
user
group
and
I'm
using
the
Royal.
C
B
On
top
of
that,
here,
I'll
put
a
link
in
the
chat,
but
the
actual
procedure
says
I'll
read
it
to
you,
but
it
says
it
needs
to
sponsors
from
steering
but
says
that
there
will
be
lazy
consensus
in
the
event
of
no
action
within
seven
weekdays.
So
I
I
think
the
documented
procedure
doesn't
actually
require
a
vote
on
the
formation
of
the
user
group.
As
it
stated
now,
here,
I'll
put
a
link
in
the
chat
to
that
section.
We.
A
C
The
organizational
structure
for
the
the
group's
the
way
we've
was
laid
out
was
done
that
way
on
purpose
everything
had
a
rhyme
or
reason,
I,
don't
know.
If
we
actually
put
logic
in
there
or
not,
I,
don't
think
we
did.
Aaron
and
James
can
keep
us
honest,
I
wish
we
can
put
a
little
bit
of
history
behind
why
it
was
there.
That's
probably
our
fault,
all.
D
Right
and
the
other
thing
here
is:
if
we
do
office
hours,
then
office
hours
would
be
for
all
the
cloud
products
not
just
specific
to
specific
providers
right.
So
we
didn't
need
a
escape
clause,
for
you
know
AWS
or
VMware,
or
some
some
other
providers,
because
they
used
to
be
six
full-fledged.
Six
yeah.
B
Let
me
add
a
little
color
here
too,
because
I
took
the
liberty
at
cube,
con
San
Diego
of
actually
hosting
a
lunch
face
to
face
with
it
only
had
our
two
charter
members,
which
are
people
from
Walmart
and
t-mobile.
But
what
happened
was
that
those
two
users
ended
up
going
way
over
chatting
with
each
other
about
common
problems
and
helping
each
other
for
two
and
a
half
hours
and
I.
B
Think
that
if
this
was
to
go
under
the
cloud
providers
say
it
would
be
more
a
series
of
users
asking
for
support
from
the
developers,
whereas
I
envision,
this
user
group
actually
evolving
into
something
of
a
large
group
of
users,
perhaps
helping
each
other
coming
up
with
sets
of
common
problems,
feature
requests
to
present
to
kubernetes
developers,
but
largely
in
a
self-sustaining
user
to
user
discussion.
Room
ya.
D
D
Not
automatically
right
only
if
there
is
people
to
actually
do
the
work
and
do
what
is
necessary.
We
don't
want
to
just
mint
user
groups
if
there's
nothing
backing
it.
If
there's
no
one
coming
to
the
meetings,
if
there's
nothing
happening
there
and
there
is
no
self-organization,
there
is
no
point
having
a
group
in
name
yeah,.
B
I
think
that
you
need
somebody
like
any
sake.
It
actually
requires
a
fair
number
of
hours
to
get
the
meetings
to
organize
an
agenda
so
that
people
join
the
Xoom
and
actually
find
something
interesting
when
they
join
in
I'm,
not
sure.
Certainly
any
cloud
provider
could
try
to
organize
that
and
I
aspire
someday
to
perhaps
the
users
carrying
on
this
without
any
vendor
operation
at
all,
but
I
think
to
get
this
bootstrapped.
B
E
B
And
though
there
is
some
I,
don't
know
that
it's
a
PR,
but
there
was
some
documented
procedure
for
getting
the
slack
channel
and
zoom
credentials
and
I
followed
those,
but
I
don't
think
they
were
technically
PRS,
but
I
was
told
that
they'd
be
approved
pending
the
Charter
approval,
but
I
think
that
everything
on
the
real
list
has
actually
happened,
except
for
this
Charter.
That
appears
to
be
optional.
B
E
Okay,
what
I
would
ask
like
this
is.
This
is
like
a
new,
a
new
thing
for
all
of
us,
because
yeah
looking
at
our
user
groups
like
other
than
VMware,
there
was
big
data,
but
look
big
data
was
a
conversion
from
us
sake.
It's
like
this
procedure
as
far
as
standing
up
a
new
one,
it
looks
like
is
a
brand
new
and
we're
walking
through
it.
E
E
Here's
where
it
is
yes,
I
did
this
here's
where
it
is
so
we
have
kind
of
like
a
document
to
trail
of
like
here's,
where
we
went
through
each
step
in
the
procedure,
and
we
could
also
link
back
to
that
if
we
have
takeaways
of
like
this
word
smoothly,
this
didn't
here's
where
we
can
clear
a
plant
and
like
link
back
to
follow
ups
of
hey.
Here's
where
we're
going
to
improve
the
procedure.
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
How
does
the
rest
of
steering
feel
about
that?
D
B
Stephen
well
I'll
open
the
issue
on
documenting
what
I
think
the
steps
are
and
the
the
process
I
I
went
through
their
status
just
to
I.
Don't
know
what
the
outcome
of
that
the
requested
outcome
of
the
issue
should
be,
but
yes,
I
can
log
what
I
think
the
requirements
are
as
I
interpret
them
and
how
the
process
went
for
me.
D
D
B
D
D
B
C
One
of
the
things
that
might
be
beneficial
for
our
own
history
is
to
outline
some
of
the
motivations
and
ideas
behind
it.
So
if
you
are
appearing
the
main
dock,
we
might
want
to
add
some
other
language
inside
of
there
to
make
sure
it's
clear
why
we
created
this
structure
in
the
first
place,
because
it's
missing
some
history,
so
you
can
assign
me
to
that
one
well,
I
can
do
that.
I.
F
Will
just
briefly
add
the
little
context
that
I
know
Andrew,
psyche
him
and
me
she
put
together
the
initial
proposal
for
how
to
merge
all
of
the
cloud
provider
sinks
into
sick
cloud
provider
and
the
creation
of
user
groups
was
considered
part
of
that
process.
I
linked
an
issue
in
chat
that
talks
about
converting
all
the
cloud
provider
SIG's
to
working
groups.
I
think
that's
incorrect
I
think
they
should
be
converted
to
user
groups,
and
maybe
Steve
is
taking
the
charge
on
that.
F
B
F
You
know
right
as
fears
ask
yourself:
why
is
it
that
you're
doing
this
here,
as
opposed
to
some
place,
that
VMware
has
a
lot
more
branding
and
control?
Perhaps,
but
this
is
definitely
like
user
groups
for
every
cloud
provider
was
part
of
the
original
plan.
I
can't
find
the
proposal
that
Nishi
and
and
Andrew
put
together,
but
I,
know
it's
linked
somewhere
in
our
meeting
notes.
Yeah.
B
E
Can
can
I
make
a
request
on
that
specific
item
like
the
clock
for
lazy
consensus
or
something
like
that
should
start
with
an
email
to
steering
which
I
can
also
jump
in
and
make
a
comment
like
the
reason
that
you
weren't
able
to
email
steering
and
your
your
email
bounced.
That
was
a
technical
on
the
unintended
technical
glitch.
Steering
a
kubernetes
on
IO
is
a
public
emailing
list.
You
don't
need
to
have
membership
to
email
to
it.
E
We
do
get
some
spam,
but
it
was
actually
a
technical
glitch
in
the
Google
Group
moderation
settings
that
was
preventing
folks
from
emailing
to
it
for
an
undetermined
period
of
time.
It's
definitely
fixed
and
tested,
and
anyone
can
email.
Anybody's
I
could
hear
my
boy
scan
emails
during
kuving's.
What
I?
Oh?
It's!
It's
totally.
Ok,
so
we
should
any
clock
for
lazy.
Consensus
should
start
with
email,
not
anything
on
github
I
mean.
B
E
E
E
D
E
Didn't
get
anything
specific
I
did
have
some
conversations
with
people
about
like
how
to
you
know,
contact
steering
if
they
have
specific
issues.
They'd
like
to
raise
I
did
send
an
email
when,
when
Nancy
had
put
out
a
thing
like
you
know,
requesting
feedback
from
the
session,
I
did
email
her
asking
for.
If
there
was
any
feedback
from
our
session
that
was
put
in
through
the
app
but
I
haven't
got
a
response
from
her
yep.
D
A
D
C
E
Think
that,
like
as
a
as
a
direction,
goes
I
think
it's
a
very
interesting
conversation
to
have
I
agree
with
the
idea
of
trying
to
find
incentives
to
get
like
corporate
back
sponsorship
of
dealing
with
technical
debt
and
other,
like
you
know,
unglamorous
work
that
doesn't
get
shipped
as
a
feature.
I.
E
Would
there
be
unintended
consequences
of
something
like
that
if
we
offer
like
in
particular
like
keynote
slot
as
a
carrot
and
how
we
could
potentially
mitigate
some
of
those
unintended
risks
or
unten
consequences,
rather
of
using
that
as
a
carrot?
But
I
do
like
the
idea
of
rewarding
like
what
incentives?
C
C
E
Could
that
I
could
I
can
definitely
try
like
if
you're,
if
you're
taking
the
initial
torch
on
this
Tim
I
I,
could
I
can
put
in
some
cycles
to
try
and
help
you
out
with
them,
because
I'm
very
interested
in
this
conversation
of
like
how
do
we
get
rewards
and
incentives
that
benefit
both
individuals
and
companies
for
doing
that?
Unglamorous
work,
yeah.
C
C
If
I
leave
my
and
double
mark
on
the
community,
what
would
it
be
is
that
the
community
is
sustaining
right
over
a
longer
period
of
time
and
one
of
the
key
things
that
I
see
in
every
community
that
basically
has
a
large
number
of
companies
contributing
to
it
is
that
sometimes
these
larger
projects
implode
with
their
own
technical
debt
because
of
and
refactoring
and
everything
else.
Basically,
the
unglamorous
work
that
no
one
it's
you
know
the
companies
are
not
innately
incentivized
to
be
one
to
wanting
to
contribute
resources
towards
its.
D
Right
so
Tim
I'm
your
partner
in
crime
in
this,
so
there
is
a
issues
41
in
Cuba,
not
a
steering.
It's
called
crafting
policy
on
requesting
help
for
key
areas.
So
the
idea
there
is:
how
do
we
Bob?
How
do
we
have
a
body
of
things
that
we
can
point
people
to
saying
look?
This
is
we've
documented
this?
We
need
help
in
so
many
things,
and
you
know
you
got
to
help
us
and
if
you
help
us,
then
here
is
the
character,
and
here
is
this:
you
know
whatever
right.
So
there
is
a
doc
there.
D
F
Think
so,
like
like
Christoph,
said,
I
think
this
is
a
useful
conversation
to
have
the
only
other
model.
I
can
think
that
this
is
analogous
to
is
that
of
a
bug,
bounty
sort
of
deal
and
I
think
we
have
just
so
much
rich
gold
to
mind
that
I.
Don't
think
we
need
to
worry
about
a
I'm
gonna
code
me
up
a
minivan
sort
of
situation,
so
this
is.
This
is
certainly
worth
exploring.
I
think
it
just.
F
It
starts
to
get
tricky
when
we
talk
about
like
well
how
much
keynote,
how
many
people,
what's
what's
the
bar,
that
sort
of
stuff
like
I,
still
feel
like
there's
going
to
have
to
be
some
level
of
enforcement
at
the
end
of
the
day.
But
you
have
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
I'm,
pretty
sure
we've
had
C
and
C
has
helped
with
a
bug
bounty.
So
this
this
might
be
a
useful
extension
of
that
yeah.
D
F
Okay,
yeah
I
I
continue
to
be
optimistic
or
hopeful
that
we
can
find
some
way
to
use
the
communities
release
process
to
find
a
way
to
you
know,
enforce
what
what
goes
in
and
what
needs
to
wait.
A
little
bit.
It's
another
opportunity
to
build
consensus,
but
I
think
this
is
an
interesting
Avenue
worth
exploring.
F
E
So
happy
to
see
you
back
at
it,
it's
great
to
be
back
I'll,
take
this
opportunity
to
highlight
so
towards
the
steering
members.
So
in
two
weeks
we
are
supposed
to
have
on
December
16th,
our
private
meeting
for
the
month.
Do
we
still
want
to
have
that?
Are
people
going
to
be
around
for
that
or
folks
going
to
be
starting
holidays
early
I.