►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync: 2021-12-15
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
Yeah
no
worries
are
there
things
that
you
want
to
talk
about
before
you
headed
out
that
you
want
to
prioritize
in
the
first
half.
No
thank
you
for
asking,
but
no,
no,
no!
No,
not
this
time.
A
Oh,
should
we
get
started.
A
So,
starting
at
the
bottom,
this
acid
package
stuff
is
dependent
on
anthony's
vr
being
merged
in.
I
did
look
at.
It
did
look
at
ober
this
last
week
and
I
might
just
merge
it
in
independent
of
other
people
improving
it
just
because
it's
not
an
rfc,
so
I
don't
think
it
has
the
same
level
of
kind
of
restrictions
around
it.
Let's
talk
about
the
builder
distribution,
spec
stuff.
C
A
Okay,
I
know
I've
looked
through
it
and
I
feel
mostly
fine
with
it
with
the
direction
we're
going.
C
Yeah,
unfortunately,
he
wasn't
able
to
make
it
in
time
and
yeah.
I
don't
know
that,
there's
enough
or
too
much
more
pressure,
the
mentorship
did,
you
know,
come
to
a
conclusion.
Everything
went
well
with
that.
We
just
had
this.
You
know
left
over
to
finish
up
on
our
site.
C
A
Cool
good
to
I
did
bug
joe.
I
don't
know
if
he's
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it,
have
you
talked
with
natalie
at
all
on
her
thoughts
here?
Obviously,
jesse
did
chime
in
yeah.
C
A
Let's
see
so,
I
reviewed
a
bunch
of
other
stuff,
all
kind
of
came
from
natalie.
They
all
seemed
like
less
than
related
to.
Basically
this
276
from
rfc
95
updating
the
platform
spec
around
performance
with
restoring
stuff
from
s-bombs.
I
agree
for
me
that
option
one
seems
to
be
the
choice
that
I
would
vote
for.
Just
kind
of
keeping
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
various
files
seems
to
make
sense,
but
if
others
have
thoughts,
please
do
shine
in
on
the
issue.
A
And
then
yeah,
so
we
have
basically
278
and
280
that
I
think
are
related
to
that
to
these
kind
of
other
ones
that
are
small
and
simple.
But
I
don't
expect
much
movement
seeing
as
half
of
the
core
team
is
on
vacation.
So
I
imagine
this
stuff
is
going
to
be
a
version
for
the
holidays.
A
That's
all
I
had
for
the
spec
pr
stuff.
Zane
wouldn't
have
anything
related
to
spec
changes.
I'm
missing.
A
I'm
gonna
take
the
silences
and
now
milestone
stuff.
I
did
talk
a
bit
with
joe
on
project
script
4.2
and
he
said
that
he
had
a
one-on-one
with
you
up
here
where
both
of
you
got
to
catch
up
on
stuff
and
he's
going
to
come
up
with
a
plan
for
getting
0.2
out.
I
guess,
but
I
don't
exactly
know
what
that
looks
like.
C
Yeah,
I'm
not
sure
I
know
we
didn't
talk
about
like
the
release
or
or
basically
anything
to
do
with
versioning,
but
I
think
initially
I
was
under
the
understanding
that
we
would
try
to
release
project
descriptor
o2,
as
is
for
the
most
part,
because
it's
already
been
implemented.
C
So
maybe
there's
a
slight
confusion
there
and
we
should
clarify
that
is,
is
joe
out
for
the
rest
of
the
year.
Already.
A
No
he's
around,
he
just
has
other
meetings.
I
think
for
this
slot
I
mean
one
thing's,
maybe
to
think
about
for
the
new
year
going
forward
is,
I
feel
like
he
does,
have
conflicts
a
lot
of
times
during
these
this
time,
so
he
hasn't
made
a
lot
of
them.
A
We'll
see,
but
he
is
around
so
if
you
ping
him
on
slack,
he
will
respond.
I
think
he
is
at
least
here
until
next
week.
I
think
he's
out,
but
he's
around
for
the
whole
of
this
week.
So
if
you
need
to
talk
about
something.
A
Cool,
that's
it
that's
all
I
had
for
kind
of
mouse
and
stuff.
I
moved
all
the
kind
of
opaque
point,
eight
and
point
nine
issues
that
now
they
opened
on
the
respective
milestones
as
well.
B
I
had
a
question
about
project
descriptor
or
two:
is
it
any
reason
like
why
we're
not
releasing
it
like
all
the
issues
are
already
done
and
like
they're
implemented
in
platforms
already,
like,
I
think,
like
a
few
months
ago,
we
confirmed
whether,
like
this
was
going
to
be
merged
or
not,
and
I
believe
terence
said
that,
like
this
is
like
this
is
already
being
decided
and
emerged
and
like
are
there
going
to
be
changes
to
project
descriptor
or
two
at
this
point,
because
then.
A
I
don't
think
so,
but
I
don't
yeah
I
mean
I
I
just
I
want
to
catch
up
with
joe
to
figure
out
what
issues
he
has
that
is
preventing
him
from
wanting
to
release
this.
Like
from
my
point
of
view,
I
shared
you
know,
I
feel
like
what
I
said.
A
few
months
hasn't
changed
like,
like
javier
said
right.
It's
implemented
as
as
well
as
you
did
right
like
it's
implemented.
A
It's
out
there
like,
I
feel
like
there
should
be
a
spec
release
for
it
if
it's
out
in
the
wild
and
it's
being
used
via
software
at
this
point
and
then
anything
else
like
we
can
also
release
a
project,
descriptor
0.3
that
isn't
a
burn
the
world
like
that
could
just
add,
like
the
images
table,
for
instance,
from
that
one
rfc
like
if
that's
what
we
decided
to
do
as
a
project
like
it
is
not,
I
don't
know
it
doesn't
seem
crazy
to
me.
If
that's
the
path,
we
want
to
go
down.
A
The
yeah
I
mean
I
I
felt
similarly
to
some
agree
with,
like
even
the
builder
spec
like
I
know,
emily
had
some
concerns,
but
I
felt
like
it
was
better
to
get
something
out
there
in
the
wild
that
would
that
was
reflecting
what
people
were
actually
doing
with
builders
and
then
kind
of
iterate
on
that.
But
I
think
I
was
in
the
minority
in
that
respect
on
the
core
team
so
and
we
still
don't
have
a
builder
extent
in
spec,
but
at
least
some
of
that
stuff
is
being
moved
into
distribution.
B
A
B
A
Yeah,
I
agree
I
mean
I
can,
after
this
set
of
meetings
for
cmb,
I
can
maybe
just
open
the
pr
that
merges
the
sentiment,
because
that's
part
of
the
release
step
and
then
at
least
there's
like
a
async
way
to
potentially
have
some
of
those
conversations
as
well.
A
Starting
on
the
bottom,
as
far
as
I
know,
this
is
still
blocked.
This
is,
should
we
move
this
into
block
until
basically,
some
of
those
poc
implementation
stuff
is
done
at
this
point
seems
like
steven
as
the
original
author
one
could
explicitly
not
merged.
Until
some
more
details
were
hashed
out
so
yeah.
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
at
least
put
it
in
a
status
where
we
don't
have
to
bring
it
up.
Every
week,
yeah.
A
So
I'm
just
gonna
reflect
what
he
said
there.
A
Well
system
bill
packs.
I
think
this
is
actually
blocking
on
me.
A
Oh,
I
need
to
sync
with
joe
on-
I
guess
some
of
this
stuff,
but
I
think
I
had
open
stuff
from
last
time.
I
reviewed
this
of
things
that
just
need
to
get
resolved
one
way
or
another.
A
A
C
Yeah,
I
I
do
think
that
there's
some
impact
to
new
discussions
happening
that
would
invalidate
the
converter
itself,
at
least
that
sort
of
purchase.
A
Are
those
related
discussions
you're
having
with
joe
and
you're
one
of
them?
Are
there
things
coming
out
of
those
discussions,
or
is
it
still
just
discussing.
C
C
I'm
not
sure
what
we
want
to
do
with
it,
but
I
would
definitely
say
it's
probably
not
worth
merging
in
at
this
point.
If
we're
not
gonna
implement
it.
A
A
A
I
think
the
only
kind
of
open
thing
was
this
part
that
stephen
asked
about,
but
I
think
with
him
out.
It
may
not
get
resolved
until
after
the
holidays.
B
I
think
we,
we
also
brought
it
up
with
the
kpak
folks,
and
they
were
going
to
leave
some
details
here
about
the
implementation,
since
they
already
have
a
working
implementation
on
their
site,
mostly
around,
like
the
config
format
and
passing
variables
to
those.
B
Yeah
other
interesting
things
to
note
container
d
now
supports
cosine
signing
by
default,
so
I
don't
know
if
that
would
be
useful
for
the
game.
Integration
parts
in
the
future
or
not,
but
both
compose,
which
is
like
the
open
source
version
of
docker
compose
and
container
d
with
node
button
last
supported.
So
if
pack
ever
moves
to
those
things
instead
of
talking,
we
might
be
able
to
solve
it.
A
Yeah,
I
feel
like
the
big
open
question
more
than
some
of
those
technical
implementations
is
like.
Do
we
actually
want
this
in
life
cycle
or
not,
which
it's
unclear
where
people
kind
of
sit
on
that
particular
thing?
I
know
that
was
a
point
jesse
brought
up
last
week
when
this
was
introduced.
B
A
I'm
okay
with
it
in
life
cycle,
for
what
it's
worth.
A
A
B
But
I'm
waiting
for
approvals,
I
don't
think
there's
any
like
there's
nothing
controversial
about
the
rfc.
It's
just
whether
we'll
implement
it
or
not.
So.
B
B
I
mean
we,
I
think
we
already
will
be
breaking
that
with
like
some
of
the
sperm
and
life
cycle
stuff
so
like
there
are
fields
in
the
output
image
that
the
life
cycle
uses
for
its
own
bookkeeping
versus,
like,
although
they're
respect
versus
things
that
we
want
users
to
rely
on.
So
I
I
don't
know
what
what
what's
the
take
on
duplication,
the
the
other
thing
for
what
it's
worth
is
since
we
currently
attach
them
as
labels.
B
Labels
have
an
issue
where,
if
you
like
from
a
base
image,
the
labels
carry
over
the
annotations.
Don't
so
like
a
bunch
of
this
information
is
like
the
original
comment
of
the
source
that
created
the
image,
the
base,
image
and
other
things
like
that,
which
should
technically
be
invalidated.
If
you
create
a
derivative
image
out
of
it,
but
that's
not
possible
with
labels.
A
A
Yeah,
I
guess
I
am
for
the
idea,
one
of
the
things
that
I
I
guess
see
was
I
haven't
dug
in
because
I
know
you
have
sam
but
like
what
does
the
actual
transition?
Look
like
like
what?
What
will
it
look
like
so
for
us
to
use
the.
B
A
Tool
right,
like
I
know
you
detailed
that
here,
but
I
guess
like
what
do
obviously
like.
We
can't
just
have
the
same
room
names
and
things
like
what
it.
What
is
the
mapping.
B
That's
up
to
us
to
decide
apparently
like
when
whoever
does
the
emerge,
I
guess
they
can.
They
can
choose
whether
to
keep
the
original
names,
whether
to
remap
them
to
a
new
name,
so
it
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
prefixed
with
build
packs.
We
can
have
it
be
that
way,
but
we
can
also
do
some
things
like
the
the
buildbacks
general
channel
becomes
the
mailbags
channel
and
everything
else
becomes
spellbacks
hyphen,
something
if
you
want.
A
Right
is
it
worth
trying
to
detail
some
of
that
plan
out
or
do
you
want
that
out
of
scope.
B
Oh,
I
I
don't
know
I
I
can
I
I
don't
know
if
people
will
have
preferences
like
this
is
this
is
like
naming
and
stuff,
so
I
don't
have
a
strong
preference
either
way.
A
I
know
I
I
would
personally
love
to
see
something
I
when
I,
when
I
was
around
during
the
kind
of
when
ember
did
a
similar
move,
like
moving
from
slack
to
discord.
I
know
a
lot
of
those
details
were
kind
of
flushed
out
a
little
more
just
because
you
have
the
link
to
the
yes.
I
can
find
that
and
edit
on
the
pr.
B
So
I
I
don't
know
what
the
migration
for
those
kind
of
channels
would
look
like.
I,
I
asked
the
kpac
team
to
confirm
like
what
their
restrictions
are
around
the
move
and
whether
they'd
be
happy
to
move
with
us
or
whether
they
want
to
move
to
a
different
slack.
B
A
Okay,
it
might
be
worth
just
mentioning
that
in
here
too,
some
of
those
things
you
just
said
I'm
I
mean
I
for
me
personally,
like
I
don't
know
if
I
have
a
strong
opinion
or
not
like
I'm
fine
with
them
moving
along
under,
like
a
bill,
packs
prefix
of
just
like
bill
packs
platforms
or
something
right
like
here's,
a
bill
pack
platform.
A
A
Yeah,
I
think
they
definitely
keep
it
because
I
know
if
you
upgrade
you
get
all
that
history,
but
it's
definitely
like
the
bottom
paywall.
So
I
don't
think
they're
like
deleting
it,
but
maybe
you
can
upgrade
with
the
company
mx
and
then
just
immediately
cancel.
A
If
it's
prorated,
that's
probably
the
move
honestly
yeah
yeah,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
investigating
at
least
reached
out
to
someone
at
slack
through
in
our
internal
slack
about
it,
who
I
was
talking
to
about
getting
us
a
open
source,
something
something
for
our
thing
and
then
kind
of
linked
to
this
rfc
and
said
we're
looking
to
move
in
scenes
have
slack,
and
can
we
actually
get
our
history
along
with
it
to
export
so
I'll
see
what
they
say,
but
they
also
may
be
out
for
the
holidays
because
they
weren't
online
cool
and
the
last
one
is
kind
of
the
migration
technology.
A
A
But
I
think
it's
just
waiting
on
people
to
review
so
cool.
Well,
that's
all
I
had
are
there
things
we
want
to
talk
about
for
tomorrow.
A
Okay,
do
you
want
to
just
do
those,
or
do
you
want
to
hold
off
until
more
people
are
around.
B
Yes,
we
can
hold
off.
Are
we
doing
the
working
group
and
stuff
tomorrow.
A
B
Covered,
oh,
I
think
there
was
like
the
label
stuff
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about
large
labels
and
I
don't
know
what
181
is
all
the
multiple
app
directories
proposal,
but
that's
the
actual
rfc
isn't.
A
B
C
A
B
A
Okay,
yeah,
I
mean:
do
you
want
to
talk
about
this
tomorrow
or
do
you
want
to
wait
till
there's
a
bigger
road.
B
Given
that,
like
it
was
you
me
and
stephen,
I
would
wait
for
steven
to
also
be
there.
Okay,
we
originally
came
up
with
this
one.
A
Cool,
I
guess
it's
only
three
of
us.
Javier,
do
you
have
thoughts
on
tomorrow.
C
Sorry
I
had
to
switch
over
no
again,
given
my
what
I
would
assume
would
be
a
light
audience.
I
think
some
of
the
things
I
want
to
talk
about
require
a
little
bit
more
attendance.
A
Yeah,
I
wonder
if
that's
the
case,
if
we
should
just
cancel
it,
then
because
then
we
don't
yeah
just
people
being
on
holidays.
If
we
want
that
larger
kind
of
audience
like
should
we
just
wait
till
the
new
year,
but
if
you're
waiting
for
steven
he's
like
out
till
middle
of
january,
so
I
mean
I
feel
like
that:
yeah
that's
like
a
month
away,
so
you're
talking
about
like
four
weeks.
B
A
Yeah
given
given
that-
and
I
don't
want
to-
I
feel
like
penalize
issues
that
we
talk
about
tomorrow.
I
think
we
should
cancel
tomorrow,
just
because
I
think
the
group
will
be
smaller.
A
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think,
it's
up
to
each
sub
team.
What
meetings
they
want
to
have?
I
don't
know
if
you
had
a
preference,
for
they
see
the
bat.
If
you
want
to
do
that
on
friday,
why
not.
A
I'm
happy
to
have
it
or
cancel
it.
So
what
do
you
want
to
do
there,
sam
or
whatever?
I
guess
like
people
are
actually
around
for.
A
Cool
all
right
thanks,
everyone.