►
From YouTube: 2020-03-10 Rook Community Meeting
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
Okay,
the
recording
has
started-
and
this
is
the
March
10th
2020
rook
community
meeting.
As
usual,
we
will
start
with
our
milestone.
Checkup
I
believe
since
the
last
meeting
that
we
did
a
1.2.5
and
we
don't
have
any
plans
for
another
1.2
patch
release.
Travis
did
1.2.5
any
anything
of
note
to
mention
with
that.
No.
B
I
mean
it
happened
a
couple
Fridays
ago,
I
guess
we
could
mention
that
here
but
yep
and
for
the
next
one
there's
no
burning
issues
that
I'm
aware
of
I
think
there
is
one
issue:
I
want
to
backport
at
least,
and
there
might
have
been
one
other
bone
backported
that
I'm,
forgetting
which
one
I
was
but
I.
Think
if
we
you
know,
we
could
wait
a
couple
more
weeks
or
something
before
the
next
update
that
topology
one
in
that
review
column
is
the
one
no.
B
A
B
Primarily
because
Spring
Break
was
the
week
of
March
23rd
when
we
wanted
to
ship
and
I
thought
hey.
If
there's
no
rush
for
their
release,
if
we
basically
delay
it
a
week,
then
I
can
have
a
better
Spring
Break
for
the
family
vacation
and
do
a
swim
when
I
get
back.
But
if
somebody
else
wants
to
drive
the
release,
that's
totally
fine
happy
to
let
that
relief
still
happen.
If
you
we're
interested
in
in
it,
otherwise
I'll
be
happy
to
drive
the
release
when
I
get
back.
I'll
speak
on
that
most
that
week.
A
My
gut
feel
is
that
you
know
there's
not
a
super
pressing
need
from
you
know
their
release
to
be
published
in
out
and
available
from
a
you
know,
critical
feature
or
a
consumption
perspective.
You
know
that
release
date
was
driven
by
both
our
quarterly
cadence
desire
and
then
also
you
know
getting
it
in
time
for
before
Ike
you've
got
inter
damn
so
with
that
constraint
removed.
Then
I
think
that
you
know
week
later.
Is
it's
not
an
issue
for
me
at
all.
A
A
Spreading
plague
that's
going
on,
but
we'll
we'll
make
do
and
we'll
continue
moving
forward
and
I'm
glad
nobody's
gonna
be
exposed
to
something
that
they
don't
need
to
be.
So
that
is
great
anyway
at
some
point,
but
yeah
god-willing
anyway.
Any
more
to
share
on
releases
was
about
what
not
to
1.3
coming
up
anything
else
to
share
on
that
topic.
I.
C
Think
it's
fine,
but
since
most
of
us
also
have
done
Street
related
tasks
to
achieve,
then
maybe
they
will
get
more
priority
than
what
we
have
upstream
because,
like
I
think
the
priority
might
be
changing
during
cycle
2
shifting
a
little
bit
at
least
so
yeah,
maybe
like
most
of
the
time
it
will
work
but
sometimes
yeah.
It
won't.
But
that's
fine
I
guess.
A
Okay,
that's
that
sounds
reasonable.
Let's
move
ahead
into
the
community
topics
section,
so
the
first
thing
we
have
been
here
I'll
give
an
update
on
the
graduation
process
with
the
CNC
F.
So
we
presented
our
formal
final
presentation
to
the
storage
special
interest
group
the
day
after
our
last
community
meeting
here,
so
that
was
on
Wednesday
February
26
that
largely
went
pretty
well,
we
had
all
of
our
due
diligence
done
the
graduation
criteria
as
published.
We
fully
complied
with
and
exceeded
most
of
them
in
a
lot
of
cases
as
well.
A
A
Evidence
for
all
of
those
as
well.
We
had
previously
before
the
presentation
met
with
saad
al
li
and
confirmed
with
him
that
he
would
be
able
to
sponsor
us,
as
a
technical
oversight
committee.
Member
to
you
know
talk
through
some
of
his
initial
questions
and
concerns
and
address
those
as
well.
So
things
went
pretty
smoothly
with
that.
Aaron
Boyd
presented
behalf
of
the
storage
sig
to
the
technical
oversight
committee
and
their
latest
I
think
was
this
last
week.
A
They're
regular
TOC
meeting
and
the
recommendation
from
the
special
interest
group
for
storage
was
the
rook
should
graduate
so
it's
kind
of
in
the
hands
of
the
technical,
Oversight
Committee.
Next
they
were
discussing
I
think
yesterday
or
today
about
if
they
will
take
the
recommendation
from
the
special
interest
group,
just
as
is
and
go
immediately
to
a
vote
or
if
they
will
want
to
have
us
present
to
the
technical
oversight
committee
directly
in
an
upcoming
meeting
there.
A
A
The
formal
write
up
a
proposal,
so
if
we
need
to
present
again
its
again
no
problem
with
that
I
think
it
would
be
awesome
if
it
was
just
the
recommendation
from
the
sig
just
was
taken
as
is,
and
the
technical
oversight
committee
went
ahead
and
did
a
vote
and
we
didn't
have
to
present
to
another
time.
But
you
know
we
will
do
what
it
needs.
A
What
needs
to
be
done
to
continue
with
this
process
here,
but
we
appear
to
be
with
no
big
obstacles
or
concerns
being
raised
by
the
sig
that
we
appear
to
be
in
fairly
decent
shape,
so
yeah.
If
you
want
to
follow
along
with
the
TOC
proposal,
the
official
proposal,
it's
like
they're
in
the
dock
here
for
pull,
request
366
in
this
TOC
repo.
So
you
can
find
that
in
the
agenda
there
and
any
other
things
to
add
on
that
Travis.
A
A
Yep
all
right-
and
then
also
you
know
with
the
big
intent-
was
to
get
graduation
completed
before
to
con
Amsterdam,
which
is
now
no
longer
a
thing
in
spring
2020
again,
so
you
know
we
want
to
keep
the
momentum
going.
We
do
not
want
to
lose
this
momentum
and
be
in
a
situation
like
other
recent
CNCs
projects
have
been
where
some
of
them
have
been
trying
to
graduate
since
October
of
last
year.
B
A
Right,
yeah
and
we
can
take
up
with
like
I,
don't
know
if
you
think
you
met
Moka.
She
works
at
uptown
she's,
the
head
of
marketing
there.
She
is
she's,
been
working
with
the
CN
CF
about
how
to
do
press
releases,
and
you
know
channels
to
to
do
media
coverage
and
stuff
like
that.
So
she
is
leading
that
charge
and
has
a
lot
of
ideas
and
will
do
a
lot
of
legwork
on
that.
You
know
for.
B
B
A
B
Just
last
week
we
where
we
discussed
bringing
that
repo
so
yesterday
I,
went
ahead
and
created
that
and
one
of
the
options
for
creating
a
repo
was
to
make
Li
clone
from
another
repo,
so
I,
just
cloned
from
the
other
one.
They
picked
up
all
the
merge,
all
the
commits
history
and
all
that
so
we're
good
to
go.
They
it
does
still
need
a
license.
I
meant
to
do
that.
I'll.
Do
that
today,
hopefully,
and
we'll
get
it
squared
away.
C
A
Awesome,
it
sounds
good
and
now
charts
did
you
that
it
was
the
Reaper
was,
can
be
moved
on
to
the
rook
organization
right.
B
C
A
That
should
do
it,
click
to
verify
tada
all
right
awesome.
Yes,
this
is
really
cool.
I,
like
this
a
lot
hey,
alright,
so
yeah,
we
did
have
a
overall
issue
about
migrating
or
enabling
the
some
more
advanced
operator,
runtimes
that
control
the
runtime
or
operator
framework
within
the
Brooke
project
as
a
whole.
Travesty
that
you,
you
made
a
update
here
to
to
track
as
individual
projects
source
routers
now
yep.
B
Issues
was,
it
is
how
many
controllers
I
found
that
needed
conversion.
Each
one
really
will
have
its
own,
don't
risks
and
our
own
code
changes.
There's
no
like
that's
just
not
one
theory.
We
really
need
a
separate
PR
for
each
one,
so
yeah
Sebastian
has
been
working
focusing
on
starting
that
process
and
putting
some
good
patterns
in
place.
So
thanks
again
for
that
I
just
a
note
here
that
we
did
open
them
for
individual
ones
and.
B
Yeah
question
I
guess
I
want
to
bring
up
about
this
is
we're
still
reusing
the
1.14
go
client
I'm
wondering
if
we
need
to
update
to
a
newer
client
go
I,
think
there's
some
implications
there,
and
maybe
we
could
delay
doing
it
until
after
we're
on.
We
got
paid
to
the
go
modules.
We've
got
that
PR
in
process
for
progress,
but
just
something
to
consider
that
we
should
probably
update
our
client
before
we
go
too
far,
and
hopefully
there's
not
too
many
breaking
things
with
that
either
and.
A
B
Nothing
critical
that
I'm
aware
of
there's.
There
will
be
other
benefits
besides
affecting
control
runtime
like
there's
a
new
property
available
in
1.16.
What
does
it
know
the
topology
spread
constraints
and
then
something
like
that
that
allows
us
to
spread
pods
across
nodes
more
evenly?
That's
the
one
I
guess
I'm,
hoping
for
with
updating
to
1016.
B
C
I've
looked
at
it
recently
and
maybe
I'm
wrong,
but
it's
like
really
x'
order,
3
or
something
maybe
I'm
thinking
about
a
different
package,
but
because
I've
noticed
that
some
of
the
some
of
them
work
in
the
method
I've
been
implementing.
They
are
part
of
the
newer
version.
Now
so
I
was
like
oh
yeah.
Maybe
we
should
have
date
and
just
use
what's
in
the
controller
package,
but
yeah
I
think
we
think.
But
now
it's
like
zero
to
three
and
then
we
could
go
to
zero.
That's
fine!
Okay!.
B
A
A
Cool
yeah
I
was
reading
that
because
I
don't
know
how
many
months
ago
it
was
not
too
many
and
not
too
few
say
that
did
we
we
in
another
project
we
switched
over
to
using
the
version
to
the
controller
runtime
and
they
changed
some
of
the
patterns
and
some
of
the
best
practices
and
some
of
the
way
you
set
up
like
controllers
and
stuff
like
that.
So
you
know
on
the
topic
of
updating
the
Clank.
A
Oh
you
know
those
are
all
somewhat
intertwined,
so
that's
something
to
be
aware
of
as
well,
but
if
we're
already
on
the
you
know,
first,
two
of
the
controller
one
time
and
if
the
code
that
we're
using
there
is
in
sync
with
the
publish
box
for
the
controller
runtime,
then
you
should
be
bit.
That
means
we're
already
on
and.
B
A
Yeah
and
hopefully
you
know
the
transition
to
go
modules,
I
can
help
out
with
that
I
I've
been
having
pretty
good
experiences
with
go
modules
where
things
just
kind
of
get
figured
out
pretty
dang
well
by
the
modules
resolver,
so
that
can
help,
but
definitely
something
that
has
degraded.
For
me,
my
experiences
in
visual
studio
code,
the
like
going
to
deaf
mission
and
like
the
CPU
usage
for
five
years
to
do
code,
has
gone
up
and
stuff
like
that.
It's
not
super
smooth
for
me.
Yet
on
that
side,
that
I
need
to
figure
something
out.
C
A
B
Just
just
looking
at
design
Docs,
so
nuba
committed
design
Docs
last
summer
and
they're
not
moving
or
not
planning
on
implementing
that
they
got
their
own
operators.
So
I
was
just
planning
to
remove
those
just
there's
an
FYI
from
the
repo
and
ozone.
Then
the
design
doc
was
committed
last,
like
November
and
I.
Don't
think
I've
seen
any
activity
on
it
yet
so
I'm
not
going
to
remove
those
design
ducks
yet
but
I
guess
it's
a
sign
that
I
mean
when
we
add
a
storage
provider
or
potentially
out
of
storage
writer.
B
A
B
He
does
so
I'm
just
curious
for
other
perspective.
I
mean
it's
kind
of
awkward
when
people
comment
on
github
issues
that
that
happened
to
get
hit
by
the
this
deal,
but
but
the
so
with
the
stale,
but
I
think
it's
been
working
really
well.
Actually
they
help
us
close
things
that
nobody.
If
we
pay
attention
to
it,
then
they
been
open.
If-
and
you
know,
every
three
months
we
get
this
reminder
you're.
Basically
it
says:
hey
I
mean
it
closes.
A
B
That
yeah,
so
you're
saying
there
I
think
it's
been
a
good
thing
and
just
to
know
there
are
two
labels
that
will
make
the
bot
ignore
the
thing
security
and
reliability.
So
the
reliability
was
one
I,
just
added
to
the
bot
to
go
along
with
those
control,
runtime
issues
that
I
open.
So
I
guess.
My
question
is
what
a
beautiful
to
have
other
labels
I,
don't
think
I
want
like
ignore
bot
label,
because
then
it
would
probably
get
overused.
A
Yeah,
what
your
one
that
I
can
think
of
is
that,
like
a
common
scenario,
that
I
believe
that
we
run
into
this,
for
is
for
something
that
has
community
demand
that
you
know,
users
or
consumers
of
Brooke-
wants
to
see
this
functionality,
but
there
hasn't
been
engineering.
Resources
to
you
know
be
able
to
devote
to
it
to
implement
it.
A
So
it's
it's
kind
of
a
mismatch
there
of
people
want
wanted
to
happen,
but
there's
not
progress
being
made
on
it,
but
it's
still
an
important
thing
for
the
community
to
see
so,
potentially,
maybe
like
a
community
demand
or
a
community
requested
or
something
that
that
label
could
be
on
there.
And
then
you
know
if,
if
folks,
if
don't
do
that
by
default,
but
if
somebody's
like
bad
BOTS,
you
know
I,
really,
we
won't
be
really
want
this
functionality
like.
Please
don't
you
know,
stop
trying
to
close.
B
B
You
know
this
is
the
stale
bot
is
triggered
like
four
times
or
more
over
the
last
year
and
change
and
the
same
guy
has
been
triggering
it
to
stay
alive.
Well,
is
someone
gonna
work
out
of
it
or
not,
and
this
specific
issue
I
mean?
Maybe
this
is
something
already
solved
by
crossplane
and
we
won't
do
it
at
work.
You
may
have
specific
that's
on
that
specific
one,
but
yeah.
A
And
I
saw
that
coming
to
my
inbox
yesterday,
so
I'm
happy
to
add
some
comments
on
to
that
or
provide
an
opinion
on
that
one.
So
yeah
I
think
it's
a
potentially
you
know
it's
a
case-by-case
basis.
So
yes,
this
is
something
that
you
know
we
would
like
to
get
into
Brooke,
but
we
just
haven't
gotten
the
interviewing
resources
to
put
it
into
the
next
milestone
or
because
each
milestone
is
a
three
month.
You
know
a
quarterly
window
rights
of
a
sudden
one
milestone.
Then
it
would-
and
nobody
touched
it
after
that
it
would.
A
A
case-by-case
basis
of
using
that
label
in
it,
it
wouldn't
be
necessarily
used.
You
know
very
broadly
or
widely
to
just
quiet
down
this
Dale
bot,
because
no
bot
does
I
think
good
work
for
a
lot
of
you
know
reminders
for
us
for
a
lot
of
different
issues
that
haven't
been
getting
the
attention
that
didn't
you.
B
Right
so
even
yeah,
the
community
requested
things.
If
we
get
a
reminder
every
three
months
that
nobody's
working
on
it.
That
seemed
like
a
good
thing
too,
but
if
someone
gets
annoyed
by
the
stale
bot
and
leaves
the
project
because
of
it,
that's
not
a
good
thing
either,
although
if
that's
the
only
concern
they
have
with
the
project,
then
that's
not
terrible
either.
Yeah.
A
I
think
the
costs
are
like
you
know
the
risks
or
what
we
you
know
the
detriment
of
using
a
community
request
type
of
label
for
things
that
folks,
you
know,
consumers
or
users
of
Brooke
find
important
is
fairly
minimal,
that
you
know
that
we
might
have
issues
that
stay
open
for
longer.
But
you
know
that's
that's,
in
my
opinion,.
C
C
A
B
Just
open
that
up
yesterday,
it's
it's
not
a
major
rework
of
the
doc,
its
I
kind
of
was
scrubbing
the
docs
and
cleaning
some
things
up.
Maybe
just
one
thing
I
want
to
point
out
to
the
wider
audience
is
that
the
prereqs
section
changed
where
there's
only
a
single
prereq
dark
with
no
child
documents
in
that
in
the
doc
hierarchy.
A
A
A
C
B
C
So
the
did
I
comment
on
that
issue
than
you,
I.
A
Think
back
in
the
days
we
were
talking
about
doing
the
DNS
stuff,
but
not
you
know
cuz
it.
The
issue
was
first
opened
the
movie
Internet
and
that
the
fly
with
no
description
at
all
or
why
and
that's
why
I'm
gonna
came
by
later
on.
I
was
like
wait.
Why
we
are
you
doing
this?
I,
don't
understand
what's
going
on
here,
so.
C
A
A
A
I
could
not
figure
out
what
was
going
on
with
that
cuz
like
I.
Have
everything
unchecked
of
like
require?
You
know
the
like
identity
account
or
whatever
I
could
not
figure
that
out
still
so
you
might
have
to
open
up.
Do
it
in
a
new
place
or
a
different
place,
because
I
think
I
think
that
the
account
I'm
using
to
create
the
Google
Group
is
what's
causing
issues
they're.
B
A
A
A
Well,
all
right
I
will
put
that
on
my
little
notepad
here:
okay
cool,
so
yes
have
been
the
net
fly
thing
I
mean
there's
not
like
distraught,
like
Alexander
I.
Think
you've
had
a
lot
of
probably
more
of
the
interaction
with
you
know,
doing
github
pages,
doing,
updates
to
the
work
that
IO
static
site
and
using
github
pages
etc.
Do
you
have
an
opinion
about
Luke's.
C
A
Yeah
I
want
to
think
about
a
little
bit
more
cuz
I
mean
like
some
like
meeting
again
here.
A
bit
saying
is
that
it's
like
I
mean
who's.
Gonna
use
these
other
tools,
I
mean
what
is
like
the
site.
Does
it
need
more
changes
like
what
development
work?
Does
it
need
I,
don't
I'm
a
little
I,
don't
I
just
don't
feel
like
this
is
like
something
we
really
need
to
do
not.
B
A
So
yeah
pretty
much
well,
so
it
seems
like
what
I
wanted
to
bring
up
on
this
meeting
here
is
that
nobody
has
like
strong
opinions
on
it.
Easy
really.
It
sounds
like
so
I'll
respond
to
Luke
with
you
know,
I'll
think
about
it,
a
little
bit
more
in
response
to
Luke
and
see
if
there's
a
really
compelling
reason
to
take
that
on.
If
not
I'm
gonna
see
it
strict
to
need
to
do
that,
it's.