►
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
Okay,
yes,
welcome
all
to
the
foundation
wave
structure.
Working
group
meeting.
There
are
some
items.
B
First
is
vacation
next
week
I
will
have
vacation
starting
next
week
and
so
and
daejon
is
on
parental
leave.
So
we
have
a
bit
of
a
problem
with
leading
this
meeting.
Basically,
so
it
would
be
nice
if
someone
would
be
able
to
take
over
at
least
like
I.
I
think
I
can
maybe
manage
one
or
something
during
modification,
so
that
we
don't
have
like
four
weeks
of
no
meetings.
B
A
I
mean
we,
I
will
definitely
join
as
well
and
ramon.
We
can
also
talk
about
that.
I
take
one
over
then
later.
C
B
It's
sharing
your
screen
and
going
over
the
board.
I
think
that
that's
mostly
it
I
don't
know
yeah
and
I
think
the
board
is
you
should
have
access
there
right.
Can
you
move
things
over?
Can
you
change
things
in
the
foundation
infrastructure
working
report?
B
Then
over
think
we're
fine,
let's
review
what
we
have
open
in
the
board.
C
B
B
Okay,
oh.
B
B
B
A
D
B
B
But
about
the
becoming
a
reviewer,
so
I
have
started
the
discussion
here
to
have
a
reviewers
team
with
people
that
are
aspiring
to
be
com,
become
approvers
right
so
that
we
can
start
assigning
these
people
in
that
group
to
pr
to
review,
because
currently
people
that
are
in
the
organization
are
not
able
to
actually
be
assigned,
because
you
have
no
provisions
by
default.
B
That's
just
a
cloud
foundry
organization
setting.
So
I
think
this
is
the
first
time
that
someone
actually
has
looked
at
the
roles
as
they
are
defined
and
fun
like
it's
currently
technically,
not
possible
that
with
just
being
an
org
member,
you
cannot
actually
get
those
reviews
that
you
need
to
become
an
approver,
so
yeah,
there's
discussion
going
on
too.
I
think
this
was
discussed
at
the
ufc
meeting
and
most
people
were
in
favor.
There
were
no
major
concerns,
so
I
I
just
need
to
create
an
rfc
to
propose
this
workflow.
B
I
will
look
at
that,
and
I
see
joseph
and
ramon
are
also
they
already
did
one
yeah.
I
I
saw
that
with
behind
on
parental
leave
and
I
think
long
is
also
on
parental
leave.
So
we
currently
have
like
a
really
small
small
pool
of
people
that
actually
do
reviews.
I
don't
know
felix.
You
were
taken
out
of
the
rotation.
A
Good
question
I
mean
I
can
do
some,
let's
try
it
and
see.
I
try
to.
B
A
And
assign
me
if
I
cannot
do
it
and
yeah,
but
I'm
just
wondering
like.
Can
I
review
these
things
because
I
don't
know
basically.
A
No,
no,
I
feel
comfortable,
it's
just
that
one
of
my
team
members
implemented
it
so,
but
but
if
that's
not
an
issue,
I
can
review
it.
A
A
Yeah
yeah
no
problem,
I
mean
especially
around
the
cli
and
the
api.
I
feel
confident
to
review
things.
E
B
B
B
Brian
connie
and
aaron
price,
who
are
currently
trying
to
to
get
approver
status
problem
is
that
baham
also
needs
to
approve
those
prs
and
he's
on
parental
leave.
So
maybe
we
can
do
a
toc
overwrite
or
something
but
he's
also
on
the
tlc.
So
it's
a
bit
parental
leave.
It's
interesting.
B
C
B
Okay:
let's
go
back
to
the
boards.
I've
been
approved,
oh
yeah,
there
were
changes
requested.
I
think
that
were
the
unit
tests
right
and
you
did
that,
okay,
then
I
will
look
at
it
again.
B
I'm
gonna
ping
joseph
to.
B
B
B
C
All
right,
I
just
added
an
extra
sentence
for
the
the
the
one
from
constantine
make
it
clear
default
applies
to
pg
database.
C
B
Was
that
something
we
were
looking
into
no
yeah,
so
the
whole
situation
with
bubble
is
a
bit
difficult.
We're
currently
trying
to
to
get
it
to
move
to
the
deployments
working
group
also
ramona
and
I
have
been
working
to
try
to
get
at
least
one
release
out
of
not
this
state
resource
but
the
bubble
itself,
because
there's
a
few
pr's
that
are
important,
especially
the
new
vm
sizes
and
an
updated
runtime
config
for
gem
for
the
jellyfish,
but
there's
currently
no
ci.
That's
working
so
we're
trying
to
do
a
manual
release.
B
But
that's
interesting,
there's
a
bit
of
technical
depth
in
that
gem
or
in
that
not
gem
that
project,
because
it's
on
a
really
old
version
of
go
and
a
bunch
of
libraries
are
out
of
date.
So
yeah,
that's
ongoing.
C
I
looked
at
it
and
it
looks
okay
to
me,
but
the
problem
is
is
that
we
cannot
test
anything
because
currently
the
bbl,
the
real
estate
resources,
we
don't
have
any
thing
to
test
it
for
because
well
now
we
merge.
So
today
we
merged
it
everything.
So
maybe
now
we
can
look
further
on
it.
B
A
C
Yes
and
that's
correct,
but
it
seems
that
when
it's
built
it
gets
something
from
the
deployment
versions.
That
text
it
seems.
C
B
B
B
C
C
C
B
C
C
B
B
B
C
Yes,
this
is
currently
for
the
stem
cell
infrarepo
we
use
quarks
and
works
is
not
maintained
anymore.
The
problem
goes
even
further.
We
cannot
go
to
the
newer
kubernetes
version,
because
quarkx
is
still
using
a
deprecated
certificate
api,
so
either
we
need
to
move
away
from
quarks
or
we
need
to
find
something
to
fix.
Quarks.
B
B
It
would
be
interesting
to
know
if
there's
like
a
native
way
and
powerful
tools
now
to
do
this,
because
I
don't
think
they
have
secret
generation
now
in
their
scope.
C
Yeah,
I
saw
something
which
uses
then
vault
by
introdu,
but
that's
introducing
another
container
vault
and
then
you
need
to
have
you
need
to
have
a
step
in
between
it.
So
you
make
it
way
more
complex
again,.
C
I
also
don't
understand
why
they
abandoned
this
project
because
there's
nothing
else.
B
B
C
A
A
Interesting
that
the
documentation
page
advertises
to
do
that
via
the
console
cli.
B
B
B
A
B
I
mean
there
should
be
something
in
the
right.
We
have
the
jobs
director
spec
task,
something.
A
A
I
remember
that
we
had
a
situation
where
this
cleanup
job
that
is
then
triggered
on
that
based
on
that
schedule
was
not
able
to
delete
all
the
tasks
during
its
run,
but
only
a
fuzzy
memory
here,
because
it
wasn't
that
there
were
some
versions
where,
but
some
things
were
not
working.
As
expected,
I'm
not
entirely
sure
what
were
the
details.
E
A
And
what
also
would
be
interesting,
what
the
the
main
problem
for
the
person
now,
because
it
has
two
aspects
right:
the
entries
in
the
database,
but
also
the
debug
logs
on
the
on
the
disk
and
usually
for
us.
It
was
much
more
important
that
the
disk
space
is
freed
up,
not
so
much
that
actually
the
database
entries
go
away
and
for
that
one,
someone
could
just
go
to
the
vm
and
delete
those
tasks
as
those
files
in
the
on
the
persistent
disk.
B
B
B
B
B
A
Since
you
mentioned
the
rfc,
that's
a
separate
topic
actually,
but
I
need
to
drop
soon.
There
was
some
discussion
internally
about
the
release
schedule
of
stem
cells,
and
so
I
basically
said
to
the
security
people.
It
makes
sense
to
approach
the
security
people
of
vmware.
A
Also
in
that
security
working
group
and-
and
I
suggested
that
any
discussion
should
end
up
in
such
an
rfc-
and
I
would
expect
like
if
there
some
agreement
will
come
or
that
we
will
come
to
an
agreement
or
they
or
whoever
that
probably
then
the
question
arises
whether
this
needs
more
investment,
etc.
But
I
thought,
like
this
would
be
a
good
way
for
them
to
really
bring
that
to
a
transparent.
E
Yeah,
I
noticed
some
time
ago
that
quite
a
few
teams
are
still
using
this
relent.
Docker
hub
push
bot,
docker
image,
which
hasn't
been
updated.
In
about
two
years.
The
ard
working
group
switched
to
pushing
to
the
cloud
foundry
cf
deployment,
concourse
tasks,
docker
image,
so
yeah
anywhere
anywhere
uses
anywhere.
We
use
the
old
image.
We
should
use
the
new
image.
This
repository
has
some
pipeline.
Looking
files
that
reference,
the
old
image
I
can
make
a-
I
can
make
a
pr
relative
to
it
too.
B
B
B
But
given
the
lack
of
maintainers
robot
bootlegger,
I'm
not
gonna
spend
time
on
that
now:
okay,
yeah
thanks
all
for
attending
this
meeting.
Is
there
any
other
things
people
want
to
discuss.
B
Okay,
thanks
and
yeah
yeah
in
a
few
weeks.