►
From YouTube: App Runtime Platform Working Group [June 1, 2022]
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).
B
A
A
A
A
Three
seats
are
up
for
re-election
this
year,
david
yan
and
lee.
I
believe,
feel
free
to
correct
me.
If
these
are
wrong,
I'm
not
trying
to
kick
anyone
off
the
board.
A
F
American
stephon
are
staying
on
for
another
year,
so
there'll
be
three
seats
open
for
both
all
two-year
terms.
A
Yep
and
of
course
they
can
reapply
if
they
want,
I
know
david's
not
going
to
nominate
himself
this
year.
So
there's
some
open
spots,
if
you
or
someone
else
you
know,
is
interested
so
right
now,
let's
see,
we've
had
the
announcement
and
we're
currently
for
one
more
day
in
canada
nomination
period.
So
if
you
want
to
get
a
nomination
in,
do
it
soon
and
then
we'll
start
voting
pretty
soon
pretty
exciting.
A
Let's
see
the
next
thing
I
just
wanted
to
warn
you
all
about
was
there's
a
proposal
for
to
change
the
default
vm
sizes
in
cf
deployment
to
be
much
much
smaller,
to
be
optimized
for
ci
pipelines
so
that
we
don't
spend
so
much
money
in
ci,
where
we
spin
up
these
massive
deployments
and
then
push
one
app
onto
them.
A
I
believe
everyone
that
I
heard
at
the
toc
meeting
was
saying:
oh
you
know
what
sap
or
wherever
they
have.
You
know
you
have
these
large
foundations.
We
already
overwrite
all
the
defaults,
so
we're
not
using
the
defaults
that
shouldn't
affect
us
by
default
or
you
know
shouldn't
affect
us,
but
just
one
of
you,
if
you
think
this
might
affect
you,
it's
an
rfc
right
now,
so
you
can
leave
comments
on
it.
D
Yeah,
it
was
a
question
or
actually
two
questions.
You
split
them
thanks,
so
the
one
is
we
are
dominic
and
I
from
my
team
are
part
of
this
platform
working
group
github
team.
So
we
technically
got
admin
access,
for
example,
gold
or
routing
release,
so
another
team,
member
or
two
team
members
created
prs
and
technically
we
could
just
review
them
and
merge
and
make
you
unhappy,
because
you
had
some
very
nice
comments.
D
I
just
wanted
to
ask
what
is
the
formal
process
and
when
should
we
be
active,
will
you
assign
someone
if
you
want
us
to
review
and
merge
and
maybe
also
what
are
the
processes
for
a
review,
because
you
really
found
nice
remarks,
for
example
the
one
with
the
routing
release
yeah?
It
could
be
seen
if
we
look
at
it,
but
we
are
just
not
so
familiar
with
the
with
these
processes.
Yeah,
maybe
start
with
this
question.
A
So
the
idea
is
here:
we
go
for
a
pr
right,
someone
would
open
it
up.
I
might
assign
a
reviewer
not
have
been
the
best
at
this
still
working
at
automating
it.
I
know,
that's
been
a
struggle
and
eventually
merge
it
in
so
like
from
my
opinion
like
if
you
have
both
of
you
from
the
same
company
on
the
same
team.
You
know
one
of
you
makes
the
pr
one
of
you
merges
it
in.
A
I
think
that
should
be
fine,
like
I
think,
and
if
we
run
into
issues
because
of
the
pipeline,
I
I
think
we'll
just
learn
from
it,
because
I
don't
want
us
to
be
blocking
you,
so
if
you
feel
confident
in
it
like
this
is
why
you're
an
approver-
and
I
trust
you
to
merge
it,
and
you
know
if
something
goes
wrong,
we'll
fix
it.
But
if
you
want
a
reviewer
who's,
not
from
you
know
your
company
or
hasn't
been
so
close
to
it.
Some.
A
You
know
third
party
just
comment
on
it
and
we
can
assign
someone
else
or
feel
free
to
assign
someone
else
as
well.
Does
that
answer
your
question.
A
Let's
see,
are
you
talking
about?
It
was
like
what
web
socket
errors
this
one.
A
D
A
E
A
Like
I
said,
we're
work
I'm
working
on
getting
that
automated,
but
that's
kind
of
wrapped
up
in
all
the
other
automation.
That's
a
little!
I
know
it's
annoying
that
you
have
to
do
an
extra
ping,
but
really
it's
not
a
bother.
I
would
rather
just
be
told
over
and
over
that
hey,
it's
just
still
here.
D
A
Not
pushy
at
all,
okay,
I
would.
Rather
you
tell
us
that
we
are
blocking
you
for
sure
yeah,
but
if
you
feel
confident
merging
it,
I
would
say:
go
for
it.
You're,
an
approver,
okay,
next
question.
D
A
D
So
I
know
for
safe
deployment.
Now
sap
is
more
getting
into
it
and
also
being
involved
in
the
release
process,
and
do
you
think
it
makes
sense
if
we
get
a
better
understanding
of
the
release
process
and
maybe
permissions
for
it
or
do
you
feel
like
it's
good
that
we
have
to
split
as
we
have
it
right
now?
No.
A
I
think
that
makes
sense.
I
know
that's
one
of
the
goals
is
to
have
approvers,
be
able
to
cut
releases,
and
so
I'm
not
trying
to
keep
you
out
of
there.
I
think
one
thing
that's
blocking
us
from
it
right
now
is
moving
things
into
a
place.
That's
public,
getting
the
cff
right
right
now.
What
did
I
learn?
At
the
last
toc
meeting,
I
learned
that
we
spent
five
to
eight
million
of
vmware's
dollars
each
year
on
rci
and
the
cff
doesn't
have
the
budget
for
that.
A
But
in
the
meantime
I
do
think
we
can
add
you
to
our
pipeline.
Like
we
haven't
right
now,
we
would
have
to
you
know,
get
your
github
and
you
know
set
it
up,
so
it
wouldn't
be
open
to
the
whole
community,
but
I
see
no
reason
why
we
couldn't
do
that
for
approvers
and
then
do
like
a
little
introduction
on
what
it
is.
E
A
We
voted
you
all
as
approvers
for
a
reason.
This
is
why
you're
here,
so,
if
that's
something
you're
interested
in,
I
can
definitely
make
moves
to
get
that
happening.
A
Yeah,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
can
do
it
without
giving
you
access
to
all
of
our
private
stuff,
too
yeah.
A
Amelia,
how
to
add
approvers
to
is
the
routing
release
the
one
you're
most
interested
in.
Do
you
want
access
to.
D
A
We'll
start
there
and
then
we
can
go
further
if
we
need
to.
C
Oh
yeah,
thank
you.
Basically,
during
one
of
our
internal
test
validation
process,
we
received
a
ticket
which,
at
the
end,
we
managed
to
correlate
to
the
one
which
is
already
reported
by
some
external
colleague
to
the
upstream
repository
and,
as
we
see
this
as
a
kind
of
a
release
broker
for
the
cf
deployment
version
20.
right
now.
C
What
we
trying
to
do
is
simply
to
disable
dynamic
application
security
groups
which
are
at
the
end
coming
for
enabled
by
default,
but
I
was
wondering
whether
it
will
help
us
to
mitigate
short-term
the
issue
or
not.
What
do
you
think
any
ideas.
C
My
question
basically,
is:
if
we
disable
the
dynamic
application
security
groups,
do
you
think
that
we
should
be
able
to
mitigate
the
issue
or
we
need
to
patch
the
coccf
networking
release
whatever
so
that
we
are
able
to
push
cf-20
in
our
internal
in
our?
I
think.
A
A
Oh,
I
was
gonna
say
I
think
this
could
be
an
example
of
a
of
a
pr
that
would
be
great
if,
like
there
was
someone
who
hasn't
had
as
a
lot
of
experience
in
the
code
base,
you
know
you
know
a
nice
extra.
It
looks
to
me
made.
I
haven't
looked
into
the
actual
bug
yet,
but
I'm
hoping
it's,
you
know
little
change
with
like
a
space
and
a
split
or
you
know
or
something,
and
so
I
think
it
could
be
really
cool.
A
If
maybe
you
could
post
in
the
channel
about
this
and
kind
of
advertise
it
in
that
way.
That's
like
hey
is
there.
Anyone
who
you
know
wants
to
get
a
first
pr
in
or
something.
C
Yeah
at
the
end,
we
are
interested
in
having
dynamic
application
security
group
because
we
have
internal
stakeholder
stakeholders
waiting
for
that
and,
to
be
honest,
I'm
really
interested
to
push
someone
from
my
team
to
contribute
a
fix,
but
as
we
are
soon
about
to
release
cf-20,
maybe
in
coming
few
days,
so
we
are
searching
for
a
short-term
mitigation
strategy
and.
A
Yeah
got
it
so
I
think
turning
off
dynamic
asgs
is
your
best
bet
short
term,
but
if
you
know
someone
from
your
team
that
wants,
you
know
to
get
more
contributions
in.
That
would
be
really
great.
If
you
could
comment
on
that,
I
think
it's
an
issue
and
have
them
claim.
B
C
A
A
A
Coming
up
soon,
I
know
that
my
team
is
gonna
start
doing
this.
I
don't
know
if
I
have
any
more
details
than
that.
A
A
Jamie
is
the
newest
linux
stem
cell
that
we're.
D
A
To
support
yeah
we've
been
using
xenial,
which
I
think
is
out
of
general
support
and
then,
of
course,
you
know
for
our
customers.
They
pay
for
extended
support,
but
we
are
moving
to
jamie
soon.
D
E
A
Yes,
I
am
sharing
my
screen
right.
Yes,
okay,
good,
I
stopped
seeing
the
green
little
bar
and
I
was
like
wait.
Are
you
guys
just
sitting
in
silence
working
group
app
runtime
platform?
A
A
D
You
do
an
awesome
job,
but
if
carson
wants
to
test
them,
it
means
deploying
gemmy
so
having
some
environment.
Everything
of
this
is
deployed
deployed
once
and
see
that
all
still
works,
that's
what
they
do.