►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync: 2021-12-1
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).
C
D
B
B
D
A
C
A
D
I'll
put
a
plug
in
for
the
put
a
plug
in
for
the
image
extension
draft,
just
to
get
some
feedback
on
that,
because
it's
going
to
be
a
big
one
and
yeah,
we
could
just
get
some
eyes
on
it.
D
Generally,
the
structure
and
like,
for
example,
there's
a
new
there's,
a
new
spec
that
goes
with
a
new
spec
file
that
goes
with
this
and
and
how
things
are
arranged
and
feedback
on.
What's
missing
like
oh
well,
we
didn't
even
talk
about
such
and
such
would
be
great.
You
know
that,
like
I
don't
mind
filling
out
more,
like
I
don't
mind
doing
all
the
writing,
but
I
feel
like
I
need
help,
knowing
what
I'm
missing
and
how
the
structure
of
it
might
be
wrong.
You
know
what
I
mean.
D
A
Think
we
we
talked
about-
or
at
least
I
remember,
suggesting,
moving
to
folders
for
some
of
the
specs,
and
so
you
could
have
like
fill
pack
api,
but
then
have
multiple
files
or
platform
api
or
something
is
that
a
thing
where
amenable
to
here
is
that
something
we
would
have
to?
A
I
feel
like
it's
structural
right
and
it's
not
really
a
like
change
the
project
or
anything.
Is
that
a
thing
we
would
want
to
do
in
here?
So
I
feel
like
this
is
like
the
perfect
habit
for
something
like
that
right.
It's
like
we
don't
necessarily
want
a
new
api,
but
we
definitely
don't
want
it
in
that
way.
D
Yeah
yeah
yeah.
I
think
maybe,
although
I
do
worry
about
like
how
long
this
is
gonna,
take
and
resolving
merge
conflicts
which
is
a
little
bit
more
like
logistical
but
like.
Maybe
we
can
do
it
more
narrowly
for
this
and
then
refactor
everything
else
or
something
like
that.
B
Aside
from
how
the
organization
works,
I
think
making
a
decision
about
should
a
image
extension
have
an
api
version.
That's
separate
from
the
build
pack
api
version.
I
could
see
that
I
could
see
like.
I
think
I
lean
towards
not
having
as
many
apis
in
the
future,
but
I
can
see
good
arguments
for
it
because
it
is
a
separate
artifact
right.
It
could
have
its
own
interface
to
change
it
separately
for
build
pack
right
so
like
maybe,
if
we
solve
that
first
and
then
we
can
defer
some
of
the
more
complicated
organizational
stuff
later.
D
D
B
A
So
I
feel
like
the
the
only
one
that
I've
seen
for
just
specs
up
is
like
distribution
author
instance
to
be
kind
of
with
all
the
prs
and
stuff
that
tremolo's
been
doing
seems
to
be
the
one
that's
coming
out
next.
A
Is
there
stuff
in
the
pipe
I'm
going
to
wait
on
natalie
here
a
little
bit
for
platform
09?
I
know
we
just
did
08
right,
but
we
punted
stuff
out
to
0.9.
B
Cool,
I
think,
s-bomb
merging
and
what
that
looks.
Like
probably
still
some
open
questions
we
get
to
talk
through
those
things
too.
A
Is
there
anything
for
bill
pack?
Oh
wait.
C
I
know
we
had
that
that
we
wanted
the
kind
of
there's
like
a
handful
of
features
that
go
together,
which
are
the
removal
of
shell,
specific
logic,
the
process,
specific
working
directory
and
the
it's
not
here,
but
the
utility
build
packs
that
are
officially
supported.
C
It's
probably
a
good
idea
if
we
start
talking
about
how
that
would
be
coordinated,
so
we
don't
end
up.
You
know
there
are
multiple
teams
involved
here.
So.
A
A
I
feel
like
that
was
a
long
time
ago,
like
I
wonder
if,
like
those
kind
of
things
that
are
easier,
we
can
probably
just
cut
like
a
smaller
bill
pack
08
with
that
stuff
and
then,
as
we're,
basically
figuring
out
how
to
remove
shell
and
deal
with
the
utility
stuff
in
like
a
0.9.
What
do
we
think
about
that.
D
D
I
don't
know,
are
you?
Are
you
talking
about
implementation
versus
bringing
the
stuff
into
the
spec.
A
Just
sound
like
from
natalie
there
was,
and
just
thinking
about,
like
there's,
probably
some
details
to
work
out
with
like
when
we
remove
shell.
We
want
to
have
some
stuff
in
place
right.
D
And
so
you're,
just
saying
so,
you're
you're
saying
maybe
zero
eight
should
not
include
that
and
should
only
include
the
stuff
that
is
either
ready
to
go
or
closer
to
ready.
C
C
Cool,
I
think.
A
That
is
it
for
release
planning.
As
far
as
I
know,.
E
E
I
was
recently
trying
to
implement
platform
o7
and
there
are
things
that
are
missing
in
the
platform,
o7
branch
and
tag
which
are
implemented
by
the
life
cycle.
So
they
like.
There
are
a
couple
of
flags
that
have
been
removed
in
the
spec,
but
they're
present
in
the
life
cycle
and
they're
required
by
the
life
cycle
for
the
platform
o7
api,
and
I
was
stuck
because
the
spec
said
one
thing.
The
dock
said
one
thing
so
to
go
and
look
at
the
implementation
to
figure
out
what
the
actual
platform
o7
api
was.
D
E
E
C
E
A
E
E
A
A
A
I
think
it's
worth
bringing
up
again.
I
would
like
to
pull
ben
in
because
I
think
he's
the
one
that
felt
the
strongest
on
it
on
the
it
frozen
in
time.
A
Okay,
well,
I'm
gonna.
Maybe
we
can
grab
him
on
the
leadership
meetings
or
something
that
same
is
around
four
two.
E
B
A
Blanket
should
window,
it
should
filter
it
out
for
you
on
the
readme.
B
B
This
is
pretty
new.
I
haven't
seen
this
yet.
Do
you
want
to
put
this
on
the
agenda
for
working
group.
D
Oh
yeah
yeah
sure
that'd
be
great.
I
think
I
mean
probably
I'm
not
sure
if
it
needs
a
lot
of
discussion
as
much
as
reviews,
but
there's
something
to
discuss.
C
A
A
Yeah
that
that
and
how
strong
the
stance
we
want
to
take
on
basic
deprecating.
I
think
you
took
the
stance
of
doing
nothing
but.
C
B
A
You
scroll
down
joe,
has
a
line
here
and
I
I
think
it's
worth
talking
about
how
much
we
care
about
that.
Oh,
he
calls
it
out
and
the
discussion
might
be
easier
to
find
that
way.
Discussion.
Sorry
yeah
just
go
to
the
discussion,
because
sam
asks
basically
discussion.
A
Yeah
there
it
is
in
the
quote:
oh
yeah,
yeah.
C
A
D
I
think
we
have
three
of
these
that
I
think
maybe
javier
put
in
the
notes
that
I
think
we
should
bring
up
tomorrow.
D
Yeah
there's
the
one
javier
opened,
there's
this
one
and
then
there's
also
the
addition
of
images
to
the
existing
project,
tommall,
which
I
think
kind
of
sparked
this
discussion,
because
yeah
it
opened
a
can
of
worms
on
like
do
we
even
have
project
come.
C
B
B
E
B
C
D
B
D
B
C
B
A
This
is
so
pending
on
the
spike.
I
believe.
A
So
the
there's
a
large
list
of
stuff
that
I've
captured
down,
there's
190,
which
is
the
positional
mbar
arc
thing.
I
assume
we
think
that
won't
take
very
long.
A
It
seems
right
to
me
goodbye
to
start
there's
project
descriptor.
I
think
that
will
probably
be
the
most
bike
chatty
one
potentially
I
don't
know
how
much
has
been
talked
about
it.
While
I
was
out
there
is
what
is
186
run.
A
A
Export
layers,
so
that's
sams,
if
there's
time
there
reminder
view
system
built,
packs
and
then
large
labels.
So
that's
everything
on
the
list.
A
We
should
probably
pick
like
three.
Maybe
four.
B
B
Okay,
we
could.
I
was
suggesting
if
there
are
ones
that
you
want
to
make
sure
we
talk
about
at
the
earlier
one,
and
then
we
can
defer
ones
that
you
care
less
about
the
less
uk
friendly
time.
That
might
be
a
strategy.
B
Got
it,
those
two
are
in
the
top
three,
so
probably
be
good
with
this
order,
then
everybody
else
is
comfortable
with
it.
A
I
think
joe's
proposing
to
do
the
mvar
stuff
async.
If
there's
a
bunch
of
stuff.
E
A
So
do
we
want
to
do
project
descriptor
first,
I
feel
like
we
put
it
first.
We
have
to
be
very.
We
very
much
need
to
time
box.