►
From YouTube: GMD.Weekly.Hangout.December.12.2018
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,
so
everyone
we
record
these
meetings.
If
you
don't
want
it
recorded,
we
can
unrecorded
later
on
or
not
publish
it
on
your
request,
I
guess
we
can't
actually
unrecorded
that's
not
how
that
works,
but
we
can
unpublish
it
so
the
use
the
pull
requests
we
have
today.
The
first
one
is
a
first
draft
of
code
contributions
by
new
contributors
and
I'm.
C
A
A
A
A
A
F
F
D
A
And
I
think
I
think
there's
there's
some
aspects
of
this
pull
request
for
and
it
looks
I
hear
you
saying:
Armstrong
I
think
maybe
there
are
some,
so
you
generated
some
of
the
structure,
sure
yeah
and-
and
it
seems
like
whatever
you
generated
it
from
may-
have
been
an
old
version.
The
first
comma
just
looks
like
the
name
of
the
working.
F
F
Introduction
needs
one-line
description,
one
per
one,
paragraph
description
and
a
short
section
that
links
to
Z
and
I
matrix
repo
and
explain
how
this
repo
fit
into
our
overall
chaos
matrix
effort.
So
this
di
D
and
I
matrix
creeper
that
it
should
point
to
so
it
was
just
you
see
whether
he
I
was
understanding
it
through
two
points.
So.
A
So
there's
a
I
just
think:
there's
some
I'm
looking
at
the
pull
request.
I
just
think
there
are
some
changes
that
need
to
be
made
to
it
and
so
there's
a
couple
of
ways
that
we
could
make
those
changes.
One
is
you
could
go,
you
can
close
the
pull
requests
and
just
make
so
many
changes
like
hey-zeus
suggests
that
the
biggest
one
I
see
is
just
this
at
the
very
top
here
they
want
the
structure
to
be
like
growth,
diversity,
inclusion,
but
we
don't
want
the
whole.
A
You
know
the
name
of
the
repository
is
not
diversity.
Inclusion.
This
was
growth,
maturity
decline
line,
so
changing
it
to
DNI
is
just
it's
not
the
same
name
that
my
we
want
to
follow
the
same
structure,
not
reading
everything
you'd.
A
E
F
Just
for
example,
like
I
explained
earlier,
certainly
we
might
not
be
installing
things
yet
so
like
this
structure
that
is
generated
the
structures
that
are
using
yeah.
Certainly,
we
need
an
introduction
right,
so
introduction
is
explained
we
need
bugra.
We
have
a
background.
We
surely
will
have
a
background
right.
What
are
the
other
things
like
antenna?
Yeah?
We
need
that
one,
the
contributing
here,
maybe
we
need
our
own
workers
should
go
inside
this
document
and
what
should
not
good
like
understand.
F
A
Tank
in
the
serve
been
Lloyd
Ben's
comment,
which
comes
from
Richard:
let's
best
practices
as
intro
table
conference,
background
usage,
contribution
license
or
contribute
license.
Those
seem
seem
like
the
right
headings
for
this
working
group.
Security,
for
example,
doesn't
seem
relevant
to
me.
I,
don't
know
what
other
people
think
not
that
it's
not
relevant,
but
it's
not
a
central
concern.
F
D
F
A
A
D
B
B
If
the
goal
here
is
to
make
these
these
two
structures,
aligned
I,
propose
that
maybe
we
put
together
a
team
between
both
groups
and
just
have
them
do
the
over
question
both
places,
because
we're
we're
dealing
with
the
situation
where
one
of
us
is
always
playing
catch-up
like
we're
trying
to
make
ours.
Look
like
D&I
they're,
trying
to
make
theirs
look
like
ours.
B
A
I,
don't
wanna
make
this
gonna
make
another
committee
I
don't
make
this
more
work
than
it
is
I,
think
I
think
I
think
we're
gonna
and
I'm
not
sitting.
What
you're
saying
is
like
necessarily
wrong.
I'm
just
saying
I
think
I
think
you're
right.
We
are
chasing
sort
of
a
moving
target
and
I
haven't
looked
at
inclusion.
E
We
have
not
started
on
the
read
me:
it's
an
action
item,
okay,
so
it's
going
to
coordinate
with
Bend
on
okay,
aligning
the
read
me
all
right,
so
let's
strum
our
sights,
it's
nichole
working
right
and
then
it
from
GDP
it's
Armstrong
and
then
Ben
is
on
both
so
okay,
yes,
I,
maybe
could
coordinate.
That
would
be
good,
I.
Think.
A
A
A
A
Yeah
make
it
shrink
some
alignment
with
the
headings
that
bend
notes
an
issue
55
and
then
or
then
we
will
merge
this
PR
and
expect
the
cross
group
iteration
to
continue.
Does
that
make
sense?
You
know
I
think
we
can
wrap
this
PR
up
without
we
don't
have
to
close
all
of
the
coordination
across
the
working
groups
to
wrap
this
PR
up.
I
think
this
pull
request
adds
value
independently
and
we
don't
have
to
get
everything
into
one
pull
request
or
one
commit.
In
my
opinion,.
A
F
E
B
A
That's
I
think
that's
a
key
takeaway
but
I'm
saying
that
I
think
we
can
close
this
pull
request
and
continue
that
work.
So
we
don't
have
to
wait
for
them
to
finish.
We
don't
have
to
wait
for
the
cross
group
alignment
of
ramiz.
We
can
make
these
changes,
which
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction
and
then
once
we're
finished
making,
then
we
close
this
poll
request
and
we
issue
another
one
when
the
two
groups
come
together
and
have
additional
changes
that
they
want
all
lying
around.
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
Is
you
mean
just
okay
still,
oh
well,
actually,
fifty
fifty
five,
fifty
one
fifty
forty
eight
forty
four
forty
three
II
looks
like
forty
three
was
closed
up
yep.
It
was
closed.
Okay,
so
both
of
these
issues
are
basically
continued
from
I.
Don't
think,
there's
anything
so
the
the
readme
is
sheet.
What
we
were
discussed
saying
the
prepare,
google
Summer
of
Code
proposal
is
assigned
to
I.
Believe
that's
assigned
to
hey
soos
yeah
issues.
A
Waiting
all
right
so
I'm,
just
looking
at
the
you're
breaking
up
Kevin,
so
it's
hard
to
track,
but
I'll
I'll
just
say
that
it
looks
like
most
of
these
issues:
either
they
continue.
They
don't
have
a
resolution
right
now
and
several
of
them
are
assigned
to
me
and
actually
have
so
I
need
to
go
and
catch
up
and
work
on
my
use
cases
before
our
next
discussion.
We
excuse
me
our
next
discussion.
D
A
B
B
El
hey
soos
had
in
the
email
list,
hey
soos
had
talked
about
setting
the
agenda
prior
to
next
week,
so
part
of
that
would
be
at
the
end
of
every
meeting.
We
would
add
in
the
agenda
items
that
we
want
my
admin
out,
the
sure
it's
got
I
think
added
the
notes
to
archived
enough
we'll
have
the
agenda
for
next
meeting
posted
all.
A
Yes
and
terms
of
agenda
items,
I
don't
have
anything
other
than
our
ordinary
review
of
issues
and
pull
requests
other
than
the
the
2019
plan,
so
probably
I
think
the
2019
plan
yeah
and
things
anything
other
than
the
normal
yeah
I.
Don't
I,
don't
have
anything
other
than
the
normal.
Besides
that
2019
planning.
A
You
know
what
I'm
gonna
change
my
mind
on
that
I'm
gonna
say
that
let's
add
a
discussion
about
risk
and
risk
and
value
and
I'll
report
to
this
working
group
on
the
risk
and
value
discussions
that
I
had
last
week
in
Japan
I'll,
probably
create
a
few
pull
requests
inspired
by
things.
I
learned.
A
What
did
you
learn
mostly,
that
there
is
a
very
active
risk?
I
guess,
a
group
that
could
I
think
be
interested
in
working
with
risk
in
Japan
and
in
the
Asian
region,
and
the
significant
block
for
that
region.
Participating
in
this
working
group
as
a
sort
of
a
large
umbrella,
is
the
time
that
we
have
our
call,
and
certainly
why
I
wasn't
here
last
week
and
I
think
I
think
that
there's
some
there's
some
desire
to
have
a
call.
A
A
A
That
would
probably
start
doing
that
either
probably
early
in
the
new
year.
Ok,
because
she's
really
interested
in
it
and
there's
a
strong
group
and
and
the
Asian
region
who's
interested
in
it.
So
she
implied
that
she
would
be
willing
to
kind
of
run
it
yeah
I.
Don't
think
that
she
said
that,
but
I
think
I
think
that
we
can
ask
her
to
help
with
that.
I
think
I
think
that's
a
strong
part.
A
C
A
Well,
I
think
we
can
keep
it
in
this
working
group.
I
think
we
we
have
a
call
did
I
call
it
serve
two
purposes:
one.
It
could
be
I
think
it
would
focus
most
on
risk
and
compliance
risk,
but
I
think
it
would
also
be
a
time
that
would
engage
the
different
region
globe.
Okay,
induction,
so
if
we
keep
it
inside
this
working
group,
I
still
think
administrative
leave,
thats
easy
ER
to
keep
my
head
right.
I
think
it's.
C
A
A
A
Yeah
there
was
like
a
head
scarf:
okay,
some
kind,
yeah
I
know
it
was
I
had
to
asked
what
it
was,
but
it's
pretty
cool,
okay
and
there
were
some
other
like
I,
got
some
a
bunch
of
Zephyr
stickers.
Okay,
I'm
good.