►
From YouTube: Velero Community Meeting - May 30, 2023
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
All
right,
we're
recording
hello
everyone,
that's
the
official
community
meeting
for
Valero
today
is
May
the
30th
and
with
that
said,
please
keep
the
code
of
conduct
and
just
behave.
I'm
gonna
paste
the
link
to
the
community
meeting
notes
into
the
chat.
So
please
add
yourself,
add
your
topics
there,
I'm
gonna
share
that
or
maybe
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
share
now
since
I
have
one
thing
to
mention.
A
B
Let
me
try
and
share
you
need
to
give
me
access
to
share
really
okay.
Let
me
let
me
off
now
I
think
I
can.
B
Yeah
we
can
yeah
so
couple
of
status
updates.
One
is
the
pr
that
I
was
tracking
in
the
azure
I'm.
Sorry
about
that
when
I
was
tracking
the
Azure
plugin.
B
This
was
for
introducing
AED
support
that
support
like
that
support
was
added
as
part
of
a
previous
PR,
but
we
basically
enhanced
that
functionality
by
introducing
a
new
parameter
in
the
backup
storage
location,
so
that
it's
more
deterministic
and
we
also
introduce
a
new
field,
called
storage
account
URI,
which
certain
users
can
specify
themselves
so
that
there
are
certain
power
users
which
encounter
throttling
of
storage
accounts.
That
tissue
can
be
bypassed
to
this
fix.
They
are
pretty
much
like
these
two
fixes,
but
it's
a
involved
PR.
B
They
spent
in
the
Azure
plugin,
and
hopefully
this
will
will
take
this
out
in
the
next
release.
The
second
one
is
the
support
for
multiple
volume
snapshot
classes
in
the
CSI
plugin
this
this
I
just
recently
like
raised
a
day
or
back
it's
in
a
draft
shed,
but
I
think
it's
still
ready
for
an
early
review.
So
folks,
please
like
see
if
you
can
start
reviewing
it
yeah.
These
two.
A
No
okay,
thank
you
and
show
one
study
status
thing
from
my
side
came
out
that
our
notes
are
too
big,
so
I
have
to
hide
them
like
the
the
year.
2022.
A
A
So
next
thing
I
can
see
on
the
list
is
from
discussion
topics.
Ragu.
A
In
case
you
you
wanna
share,
but
yeah
go
ahead.
C
Right
so
this
is,
this
is
a
PR
that
we
have
been
catalogic
has
contributed
in
this
got
merged
into
main,
but
I
have
a
question,
because
this
problem
is
kind
of
serious,
so
it
should
be
back
ported
to
1.11
and
I
actually
asked
them
whether
or
Dev
so
I'm,
just
wondering
I
mean
how
it
will
be
decided
and
how
it
will
be
done.
You
know
backboarding
to
1.11,
for
example,
foreign.
D
This
this
is
actually
a
part
of
the
process
that
I'm
less
clearing
myself.
Even
as
a
maintainer
I
know,
we
like
we
might
have
a
one
at
11.1
and
11.2
releases
and
I
I
actually
haven't
really
been
involved
in
those
scoping
discussions.
So
I
don't
know
if
we
have
tags
for
those
to
call
them.
You
know
like
similar
to
the
main
release
or.
D
I,
don't
know
if
anyone
else
on
the
call
has
been
in
that
process
before
and
to
know
how
we
normally
decide
for
those
patch
releases.
You
know
what
goes
in.
D
May
be
one
of
those
areas
where
historically,
this
has
been
the
VMware
maintainers
kind
of
getting
together
on
their
own.
To
do
that,
and
you
know
we
may
need
to
put
some
more
kind
of
community
involvement
in
that
process
as
well.
I
know
people
have
asked
something
on
slack
and
you
know,
and
we've
discussed
sometimes
and
sometimes
on
an
individual
PRS.
D
You
know
that'll
be
discussed
or
on
issues,
but
I,
don't
know
if
there's
a
formal
process
and
maybe
there
needs
to
be
and
I
I
haven't
checked
the
governor's
talk
lately,
so
I'm
not
sure.
If
that's
addressed
there
or
not
I,
don't
think
it
is,
but
I
could
be
wrong.
D
D
There's
a
practical
way
of
this
particular
issues,
I
think
I
think
bringing
it
up
in
Blair
Dev.
It's
probably
a
good
thing
to
do
right
now,
I,
just
think.
We
also
need
to
make
sure
that
this
process
is
formalized,
if
not
already
and
well
known
as
to
what
the
how
to
go
about
this
because,
like
you
said
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
where
someone
says
hey.
This
affects
me:
I
think
it
should
be
one
in
the
next
one
at
11
release,
and
then
there
may
need
to
be
a
discussion.
You
know.
D
Is
this
too
big
a
change
I
mean
not
for
this
moment,
but
in
general,
when
that
comes
up,
you
know
we
try
to
avoid
CRT
changes,
for
example,
which
again
this
doesn't
have
but
I'm
just
saying
as
a
general
point
of
view,
sometimes
there's
discussion,
sometimes
we
say
hey
this,
this
other
thing.
We
wanted
it's
a
pretty
big
thing,
but
it
may
be
too
big
of
a
change.
D
You
should
just
upgrade
versus
say
this
is
a
low
risk
fix
and
it's
a
high
impact,
and
we
should
you
know
backboard
it
and
I
know
that
kind
of
thing
happens:
kind
of
on
a
per
issue
basis.
I
just
don't
know
that
we've
formalized
and
it's
in
the
documented
as
to
what
the
process
is
for
someone
in
the
community
to
you
know
bring
this
up
as
hey.
I
want
this
in
the
next
patch
release.
D
Right
yeah
with
this
particular
issue,
ping
again
on
slack
and
okay.
D
If
it
hasn't
come
up,
we
can
try
to
address
it
again
at
the
next
meeting
when
a
larger
percentage
of
the
maintainers
are
at
the
meeting
and
and
if
you
you're
not
available
to
join
in
at
that
time,
if
you
could
ping
shoe
bomber
myself,
you
know
to
have
us
additive
agenda.
We
could
do
that
as
well.
You
know
on
your
behalf,
yeah.
C
Yeah
that'll
be
good,
I
mean
I,
couldn't
join
last
week
and
probably
I
won't
be
able
to
join
in
the
next
Tuesday
as
well.
I
think
just
a
quick
summary
of
this
issue.
Right
I
mean
when
the
backup
runs.
You
don't
see
the
update
status
update
anymore,
like
the
number
of
resources
being
backed
up.
It
stays
at
zero
out
of
zero,
so
I
I
would
consider
that
fairly.
C
D
D
You
know
it
makes
sense
to
me
that
this
should
be
included
in
that
right.
Right.
C
Okay,
I'll
ping,
again
on
the
on
the
devil,
flag
and
we'll
see
before
the
next
Tuesday
meeting
I'll
ping,
you
guys
again:
okay,
yeah.
D
D
So
there's
this
there's
the
kind
of
current
concern
of
what
do
we
need
to
do
to
get
the
discussion
going
for
this
particular
fix
and
then
I
think
it's
a
more
General
concern
is
I,
don't
think
the
process.
For
you
know
the
process
for
man
release
is
1.12
1.13
as
to
you
know,
we
release
candidates
and
we
go
through
that
and
we
we
address.
What's
in
the
scope
that
that's
you
know,
we've
been
working
on
that
process,
making
that
more
Community
friendly
I,
don't
think.
D
We've
had
the
same
level
of
effort
around
deciding
what
bug
fixes
to
back
port
for
the
you
know
previous
patch
releases,
so
1.11.1
1.10.2,
whatever
because
I
know
I
know
we
do
tend
to
have
discussions
around.
Oh,
this
is
an
important
bug
fix
let's
backboard
it
or
this
is
a
CPE.
We
definitely
have
to
export
it,
but
I
think
those
assessions
have
tended
to
be
more
informal
discussions
among
the
VMware
maintainers
and
because
I
really
haven't
been
involved
in
those
discussions
for
the
most
part
and
I.
Think
that
that's
an
issue
in
general.
E
D
Right
that
that's
that's
my
concern
right
I
know
we
do
follow
a
bit
more
of
a
process
around
feature.
You
know,
candidates
for
the
next
release
and
for
bug
fixes.
There's
no
there's
no
real
process
involved.
You
submit
a
PR,
it
gets
the
merge
domain
and
then
it
makes
it
the
next
release
automatically,
but
we
need
to
backboarding
from
Maine
to
1.11
release
Branch,
for
example,
so
that
we
make
it
into
the
next
one
that
11
pass
release.
D
Be
made,
is
it
is
it
you
know?
Is
this
a
low
low
risk
high
impact?
You
know
whatever,
or
is
this
one
of
these?
Oh,
for
example,
hey
here's,
a
change
that
involves
crd
changes,
APA
changes,
that's
too
big!
We
don't
want
that
in
the
patch
release
versus
this
is
just
simple
bug
fix
fix
the
problem.
You
know,
there's
no
risk
low
risk,
let's
back
Port
it,
but
that's
a
you
know,
there's
a
decision
that
needs
to
be
made
on
of
her
PR
per
issue
basis
to
do
that
kind
of
backboarding
and
I.
D
Just
don't
have
much
insight
as
to
how
that
is
generally
handled
now
other
than
I
know.
I've
seen
individual
discussions
I've,
you
know
there
have
been
times
that
other
maintainers
are
ping
me
saying:
hey
should
be
back
for
this
or
they've
asked
me
to
export
something,
but
I
don't
really
know
what
the
overall
process
is,
especially
for
someone
who's
submitted.
Something
you
know
is
in
the
community,
not
a
man,
not
a
maintainer,
and
they
say:
hey
I
want
this
in
the
next
one
that
11
pass
released.
C
C
D
And
again,
this
is
more
of
a
processed
question.
I,
don't
know
if
we've
done
this
before
I,
don't
know
if
creating
a
separate
GitHub
issue,
saying
back
Port
this
PR
to
111
release
branch
and
create
that
as
a
GitHub
issue,
I
I,
don't
know
if
that
I,
don't
I
haven't
seen
that
happen
before
I'm.
Just
thinking,
that's
another
possibility
here.
D
F
Yeah,
just
building
on
what
Scott
said,
some
some
generalized
criteria
and
description
of
what
can
be
backboarded.
What
should
not
be
back
ported?
What
are
the
requirements
for
that.
D
D
D
Place
for
that
kind
of
process-
I'm,
not
you
know,
maybe
maybe
there
is
I'm,
just
not
sure,
but
but
you
know,
I
think
this
is
one
of
these
questions
where
you
know
whether
it's,
whether
you're
talking
about
a
maintainer
or
a
contributor
to
the
project,
you
know
the
question
comes
up.
D
D
Yeah
and
that's
that's
that's
as
a
general
process,
point
of
view
and
then
there's
a
specific
issue
this
week
of
we've
identified
this
issue.
We
know
we
want
this
in
111.
What
do
we
need
to
do
to
get
this
fix
back
ported
and
it
might
be
as
simple
as
hey.
You
know
maybe
create
a
PR
that
Cherry
picks
us
to
the
release,
one
at
11
Branch
and
then,
if
two
maintainers
active
that
goes
in
again,
I,
don't
know
that
that's
the
process
I,
don't
know
that
that's
appropriate,
but
that's
another
possibility.
F
Think
we
could
just
say
at
this
point:
we
should
raise
it
for
discussion
over
some
course
of
time,
so
that
the
folks
and
in
this
time,
zone
and
right,
the
other
time
zone
can
all
have
appropriate
time
to
weigh
in
and
then
yep
yeah.
D
Related
on
a
schedule,
side:
Orland,
do
you
happen
to
know
what
the
current
plan
is
for
the
next
one,
that
11.1
or
whatever?
Is
that
in
discussion?
Or
do
you
have
any
idea.
A
D
Okay,
because
because
again,
if
we
know
when
like,
for
example,
if
that's
if
the
cutoff
for
that
is
soon,
then
you
know
addressing
this
particular
PR
becomes
a
little
more
urgent.
If
the
cutoff
is
in
a
few
weeks,
then
we've
got
a
little
more
time,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
this
particular
PR
is
able
to
be
backboarded
and
included,
and
that
really
strange
before
before
that
release
cut
off.
A
I'll,
try
to
either
speak
with
pradeep
and
provide
you
that
or
he
can
write
into
the
chat,
if
that's
okay,
sure
and
and
by
the
way,
about
the
the
process
of
reporting
step
and
when
and
what
exactly
should
be
some
kind
of
accumulation
between
these.
What
we
do
right
now,
plus
the
versioning
that
we
use
right
I
mean
the
the
method
that
we
do
for
the
versioning
is
actually
having
very
good
description.
A
D
And
in
general-
and
this
is
the
I
think
there
are
exceptions
to
this
most
of
the
time
we
also
want
to
I
mean
basically
past
releases
should
be
bug,
fixes
I
mean
I
mean
the
general
idea.
Is
it's
a
bug
fix,
there's
no
crd
changes,
It's
relatively
low
impact,
and
you
know
no
backwards.
No,
no,
not
a
breaking
change.
D
There
may
be
exceptions
to
that
in
some
cases,
but
again
that's,
but
that
that's
kind
of
the
general
principle
Behind
These
releases
is
that
you're
supposed
to
be
fixing
bugs
here
so,
but
even
that,
even
with
bugs,
though
there's
the
question
of
oh,
this
is
a
minor
bug.
No
one
cares
about
it.
We
don't
need
to
back
Port.
This
first
is
this.
Is
one
that's
impacting
you
know
users
in
a
larger
way,
and
we
definitely
want
this.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
that
should
go
through
pure
rounds
of
discussion
and
we
can
formalize
it.
E
C
Right
I
think
we
can
move
to
the
next
Topic
in
in
my
list.
If
you
can
bring
up
that
as
well.
So
that's
about
the
CSS
snapshot.
We
did
have
a
discussion
two
weeks
back
so
I'm.
Just
curious
in
this
kind
of
you
know,
reached
a
stand,
still
looks
like
so
again:
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what's
the
best
way
forward
right
in
one
person,
I
think
is
it
yeah?
C
Somebody
approved
the
pr
and
I
guess
it
needs
at
least
one
more
approval,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
on
the
issue,
so
Scott
I
think
we,
you
added
a
comment
and
there's
a
clarification
after
that,
so
we
probably
had
to
decide
right
how
to
proceed
with
this
I
mean
it's
kind
of
clear
based
on
the
responses
that
we
can
merge
the
pr
and
still
continue
discussion
about
the
second
level
of
rate
for
the
timeout
or
not.
C
Yeah
I
mean,
if
you
go
to
the
end
of
this
issue,
can
you
just
scroll
down
to
the
end
all.
D
C
Scott
you,
you
raised
an
issue
few
comments
before
this
right.
The
real
question
here
is:
which
weight
are
we
talking
about?
There
are
two
weights
right:
one
is
in
CSA
plugin,
that
is,
for
the
snapshot,
handle
to
be
ready,
and
there
is
a
second
polling
happening
in
the
main
process,
backup
controller,
that
is,
for
the
ready
to
use
field
to
be
set.
So
there
are
two:
this
PR
is
addressing
the
the
first
one
right
in
the
CSI
plugins.
C
D
Wondering
yeah,
yeah,
yeah,
I,
I,
think
and
and
and
part
of
this
too
I
think
this
kind
of
related
to
because
there
was
the
not
part
of
this,
but
yet
the
other
change
in
the
kind
of
data
mover
1.12
or
you
probably
saw
the
pr
there,
where
we're
changing
the
CSI
plug-in
to
split
that,
to
make
the
wait
for
ready
to
be
asynchronous,
whereas
that
first
part
as
to
where
the
you
know
whether
the
so
so
the
available
the
snapshot
handle
is
available,
that
that
the
plugin
is
going
to
wait.
D
Synchronously
for
that,
and
then
they
you
know
it's
not
the
the
ready
to
use
was
the
part
that
was
asynchronous
and
again
that
goes
back
to
I.
Think
that's
I
mentioned
that
only
because
that's
also
relevant
in
this
question
of
you
know
at
what
point
can
post
hooks
run
and
what
point
do
we
not
need
the
the
live
volume?
You
know
anymore
in
terms
of
that.
C
D
Right
I
think
one
of
the
I
think
I
know.
I've
talked
to
shubham
about
this
at
one
point
as
well,
because
we've
had
some
issues
around
the
CSI,
timeouts
I
think
a
hard-coded
time
out
of
10
minutes
in
general
is
about
and
that's
one
of
the
things
we
tried
to
do
in
on
1.11
was
we.
We
made
some
changes
to
basically
try
to
identify
all
the
hard-coded
timeouts
in
Valero
and
make
those
user
configurable
value,
but
at
the
same
time
we
want
to
minimize
the
number
of
parameters.
D
You
know
we
don't
want
15
different
timeout
parameters,
so
if
there
are
multiple
scenarios
that
the
same
kind
of
parameter
makes
sense
to
use,
so
I
think
this,
the
10
10
minute
hard
coding,
definitely
needs
to
go
away.
Some
of
the
colors
see
because
I
I
know
I
was
talking
to
Sheba
about
this.
E
D
Maybe
you
remember,
we
were
talking
about
this
I
think
internally
in
the
context
of
ODP
last
week.
That's
that
hard-coded
10-minute
timeout.
Does
this
PR
address
the
issue
we
were
having
there
as
well.
D
Emily,
if
she,
if
she
is
I,
know
I,
was
talking
to
Emily
and
shubham
about
this
last
week,
not
in
your
VR,
but
about
this
hard-coded
10
minute
timeout
and
in
the
context
of
ODP.
So.
F
D
Really
sure,
if
this
relates
to
what
we
wish
we
were
talking
about
there
as
well,
might
be
good
for
sure
Emily
to
look
at
this
Pierre
as
well
just
to
see
if
that
connects
to
that
prior
discussion.
D
But
but
anyway,
we
were
I
think
we
were
talking
about
a
hard-coded
10-minute
CSI
timeout
right
in
in
the
context
of
some
ODP
problems
that
we're
having
and
one
of
the
questions
was.
Do
we
need
to
be?
Should
this
you
know,
reuse,
an
existing
timeout
value,
this
CSI
timeout
or
some
configurable
family
versus
being
hard-coded.
B
A
couple
of
cents
to
add
right,
so
I
think
it's
I
mean
this
parameter
as
of
today
for
regular
cases.
It
might
not
even
be
working
right
because
it's
today
in
the
waiting
for
ready
to
use
days
and
not
in
the
Snapchat
handle
phase,
I
mean
I'm
just
trying
to
color
that
I
I
am
in
alignment
with
this
PR
I
don't
have
any
appropriate,
but
just
putting
my
two
cents.
We
had
this
conversation
over
the
comments
and
I
think
Jiang.
Also,
if
you
do
it,
yeah
just
yeah.
D
And
I
think
yeah
I
think
Shivam
is
already
on
the
reviewer
list
as
well
since,
since
I
was
talking
to
Sheila
minimally
about
this
earlier,
maybe
I
could
talk
to
them.
If
I
got
it
again
internally
later
today,
and
maybe
and
again
if
this
is
consistent
with
what
we
were
trying
to
go
towards
anyway,
and
it
would
make
sense
and
then
he
could
probably
hack
it
as
well
or
if
you
know
if
he
has
any
concerns,
then
you
know
raise
that
in
review
and
something
go
from
there.
C
C
Okay,
okay,
okay,
all
right
so
yeah
again,
we
talked
about
this
last
time,
not
a
big
issue.
The
dark
change
was
made
in
the
main,
but
I
think
it
kind
of
belongs
in
1.11
docs
as
well,
at
least
if
not
before
yeah
so
I
can
submit
the
pr.
If
you
guys
want
but
I
think
last
meeting
we
said.
D
Yeah
yeah.
That
makes
sense
if
I
could
summarize
this
so
that
I
understand
it.
We
made
the
API
change
and
I
think
1.9,
and
then
we
Nev
we
forgot
to
update
the
doc
section.
So
when
the
doc
section
got
updated,
it
was
only
on
Main.
E
C
D
C
D
It's
a
minute,
that's
fine,
it
looks
like
Shivam
was
yeah.
He
did
the
original
one
here
to
the
main,
and
was
this
change
only
made
to
main,
or
was
it
also
made
for
111
or
we
did?
Was
this.
D
Got
it
so
you
should
confirm
to
make
sure
that
I'm
right,
my
memory
is
that
it's
one
nine.
We
added
that
if
I'm
correct,
then
we
want
to
put
this
in
1
9,
10
and
11.,
but
you
should,
if
you're,
going
to
submit
the
pr
just
confirm
that
that's
the
right
relief
that
we
first
added
it.
D
Want
it
to
whatever
release
we
added
it
forward.
Sure
I
can
confirm
I,
think
that
was
one
nine
I'm,
just
not
100
certain
off
top
of
my
head.
A
D
I
I
was
going
to
talk
to
you.
We
can
talk
offline
as
well.
I
was
thinking
that
it
would
make
sense
to
submit
a
joint
proposal
for
myself
and
one
of
the
other
maintainers
based
out
of
Beijing
for
a
talk
on
Valero,
and
we
can
kind
of
talk
offline
about
what
you
know.
What
that
should
be,
whether
it's
data
mover
Focus
or
something
else,
but
I
think
that
would
make
sense.
Yep.
A
Yeah,
as
we
I
think
we
we
we
spoke
about
it
once
or
twice:
yeah
I
shouldn't
be
in
that
and
I
think
I'll
try
to
drive
the
if
they're
possible
to
to
do
a
kiosks
or
something
like
that.
If
we
can
have
some
other
representation
there
yeah.
D
C
D
F
D
D
Know
several
of
us
from
different
companies
as
well
yeah.
A
D
D
There's
historically,
one
of
the
problems
that
we've
had
with
getting
talks
approved
at
kukon
is,
you
know,
I,
think,
there's
a
perception
that
you
know
we're
too
vendor
specific
in
some
of
this
stuff
and
they
wanted
things
to
be
a
little
more
kubernetes
General,
and
if
we
can
try
to
focus
the
talk
kind
of
in
that
way,
that
would
be
great.
But
again,
obviously
we
still
want
to
focus
on
things
we're
doing.
A
Yeah,
and
are
you
going
to
apply
for
to
con
itself
or,
for
example,
Cloud
native
con
because
there'll
be
like
not
Cloud,
nativecon,
sorry,
open
source
Summit,
because
there'll
be
like
the
one
that
we
did
in
in
Austin?
Yes,
so.
D
I
think
so
so
yeah
yeah
I'm
less
clear
how
that
works
when
they're
together,
because
I
know
it
open
source
Summit.
You
know
they
had
a
kind
of
kubernetes
related
track,
which
is
I,
think
where
we
ended
up.
B
D
Has
a
kubernetes
or
Cloud
native
aspects:
one
is
also
clicked
on
there.
So
so
I
guess
we'd
have
to
look
at
the
categories
of
proposals
to
see
what,
if,
if
there's
a
possibility
to
get
a
Valero
talk
on
the
open
source,
Summit
side
versus
on
the
kubernetes
in
the
coupon
side,
I'm,
not
sure.
E
D
I'm,
what
I
mean
is
that
for
the
for
the
conferences
in
the
US
and
Europe
they're
totally
separate,
so
you
know
we
had
a
talk,
approved
it
open,
source,
Summit
and
I.
Don't
remember
exactly
what
the
category
you
know,
sort
of
track
that
it
was
under,
but
I
think
there
was
a
kubernetes
related
track.
D
A
D
Terms
of
the
talk
approval
process
is
the
open
source
Summit
side
versus
the
coupon
side
handled
differently,
or
is
it
the
same
committee
receiving
all
of
them.
A
Okay,
I'll
check
that
and
I'll
ping
you
in
in
the
in
the
blur
Dev
about
this.
E
E
D
A
My
good
feeling
says
open
source
Summit.
We
have
a
better
chance
to
to
get
approved,
but
that's
that's
my
just
my
filling
nothing
else,
but
I'll
check
that
with
the
because
I've
applied
for
to
be
in
the
kubecon
review
board
again
so
as
I'll
check.
If
that
applies
also
for
the
open
source,
Summit
or
not,
and
we
can
decide
from
there
helping
Daniel
as
well
in
the
chat.
If,
if
he's
willing
to
yeah
another.
D
Another
question
I
had
because
I
know
one
of
the
things
that
I
noticed
in
the
rehearsals
is
that
they
said
the
proposals
for
all
of
the
talks
need
to
be
in
English.
The
Talk
itself
could
be
in
English
or
in
Chinese.
D
There
some
value
in
doing
a
bilingual
thing,
with
Daniel,
giving
a
presentation
in
Chinese,
or
should
we
just
do
the
whole
thing
in
English,
I
mean
I
I,
don't
know
how
big
the
market
is
there
for
Valero,
if
that,
even
that
makes
any
sense
or
if
she
just
feel
English.
A
Are
in
terms
of
Market
I
I
cannot
say:
maybe
pradeep
can
provide
some
some
data
there,
but
again
I
think
if,
if
the
talk
is
in
Chinese
I
think
the
chances
are
higher.
D
E
D
Yeah
and
obviously
this
is
a
question
of.
D
Right
right,
exactly
and
and
obviously
over
both
speakers.
Clearly
it's
going
to
be
half
and
half
at
most.
You
know
my
part's
going
to
be
in
English,
obviously,
but
I
just
didn't
know
if
it
made
sense
to
sort
of
split
that
out
and
have
a
kind
of
a
bilingual
talk
or
if
it
just
made
sense
to
do
it
now
in
English,
since
the
Nexus
speakers,
you
know
such
that.
A
Depends
how
you
presented
it
if
it's
like
a
theater
kind
of
setup?
Maybe
it's
gonna
be
very
catchy.
I,
don't
know,
but
apart
of
that,
I
really
don't
know,
but
yeah
I.
E
A
Okay,
let's,
let's
start
from
there,
let's
see
the
the
trucks
and
the
reviews
stuff,
and
then
we
can
talk
with
Daniel.
D
And
I
think
I
forget
that
the
deadlines
in
mid-june
I
think
I,
don't
remember
exactly.
A
Yeah
I'm
not
sure
if
it
makes
sense
to
reuse
the
thing
that
we
try
to
apply
with
a
few
coupons
already
with
the
panel
discussion.
Remember
we
did
it
back
in
the
day.
A
D
Didn't
I
wasn't
I
remember
we
did
that
I
was
I,
wasn't
there
for
that
one
myself
I
mean
things
have
changed
since
then.
That
might
be
a
good
base
to
start
with.
Yes,.
D
Think
we
should
definitely
have
a
panel
proposal,
especially
any
of
the
other
difference.
Do
you
remember
who
was
on
that
panel?
Last
time
it
was
Dylan
and.
A
It
was,
it
was
me
Dylan,
someone
else
from
Red
Hat.
It
was
formed
from
Dell
and
I'm
missing
the
fifth
one,
but
it's
this
VMware
I
had
Dell
I,
think
yeah.
A
Oh
no
and
Dave
and
Dave
they've
switched
from
Custom.
He
was
the
fifth
one.
D
But
he
was
but
he
was,
he
was
still
a
VMware.
Then.
D
A
D
D
D
Do
you
have
any
insight
as
to
whether
that
percentage
approval
might
be
different
with
the
Beijing
image,
a
smaller
conference,
but
it
might
be
a
smaller
number
of
people
submitting
where
that
ratio
of
submitted
to
approved?
Is
that
going
to
be
better
odds
this
time
or
is
it
going
to
be
about
the
same.
A
E
A
A
They
think
that
they'll
be
around
2
000
show
UPS,
so
I
think
the
the
overall
approved
talks
would
be
less
because
they'll
be
much
smaller
conference.
But
then
you
have
the
the
open
source
Summit,
which
make
it
a
little
bit
bigger.
It's
I.
It's
super
hard
to
compare
both
and
and
to
reuse
the
same
numbers,
because
it's
a
different,
totally
different
setup.
A
E
A
Okay,
let
me
review
cfp
and
okay,
so
for
the
rest
of
the
folks
who
are
listening
and
not
active
in
that
conversation.
A
If
you
want
to
be
part
of
these
talks
and
and
part
of
the
panel
and
you
can
you
think
you
can
bring
value
to
the
conversation
me
or
Scott,
so
we
can
work
out
the
whole
Logistics
around
this
one
and
if
you
want
to
be
on
stage
and
be
famous
so
yeah
and
you
it
would
be
great
if
we
have
more
diversity
into
some
companies
on
stage,
as
well
as
the
the
Day
stuff
that,
like
a
mandatory
for
any
CCF
events
or
Linux
foundation,
events
anyway.
A
E
A
If
you're
interested
in
joining
us
on
stage
or
in
this
particular
case,
Scott
team,
I'm,
not
sure
if
I'll
be
on
stage
but
I'll,
be
the
center
of
organizing
all
this
stuff,
so
just
drop
a
line
in
slack
and
we
can
we
can
we
can
we
can
make
it
all
right.
A
A
Yeah,
so
by
the
way,
how
is
going
there?
Do
you
think
you
can
share
something
like?
Is
it
going
well
with
the
with
these
offerings?
Do
you
face
some
issues
with
the
core
open
source,
Valero
and
stuff.