►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync: 2021-01-19
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
Cool,
thank
you.
Javier.
Do
we
have
any
new
faces,
I
think
no,
so
I
will
share
my
screen
for
spec
prs.
B
Awesome,
okay,
so
for
the
like
20th
week,
these
are
still
draft.
They
will
get
closed.
I
feel
like
we're
really
close
on
anthony's
specifier.
I
saw
and
they
made
some
changes
today
and
I
requested
a
review
from
you
emily
to
see
if
they
look
good,
I
don't
know
if
you
approve
them
or
not
yet,
but
I
think
we
have
so
once
we
do
that
we
can
actually
finally
close
these
things.
B
This
is
the
doc
file
support
us
spec.
Pr.
Are
you
looking
for
explicit
feedback
on
this
joe
beyond
the
stuff
you're
getting.
C
I
mean
it
would
be
nice,
but
it's
not
urgent.
I
think
there's
some
feedback
that
I
haven't
taken
a
look
at
or
addressed.
So
it's
still,
it's
still
waiting
on
me.
Okay,.
B
A
A
Yeah
yeah,
it
was
through
a
mentorship
program
and
that
time
has
passed.
Would
you
say
that
you
are
shepherding
this
now
javier
correct?
Yes,
I
think
it
might
make
sense,
then,
just
for
us,
if
there's
anything
here,
we
could
talk
about
it.
Offline,
javier
and
I
it's
all
a
bunch
of
minor
detailing
things,
not
big
philosophical
things.
B
A
A
Yeah,
like
the
reason
I
wanted
to
change,
it
is
having
missed
some
of
the
s
bomb
stuff
and
not
having
the
context
fresh.
When
I
read
the
serial,
like,
I
wasn't
sure
what
it
was
referring
to.
So
I
wanted
to
change
it
to
be
less
specific
to
what's
happening
and
more
about
the
intentions.
C
C
B
B
A
Started
describing
my
position
on
the
last
one,
but
I
do
think
this
is
what
we
should
talk
about
today.
But
I
can
let
natalie
lead
this
because
I
know
she's,
the
one
who's
been
thinking
hard
about
how
to
smooth
our
transition
on
the
s-bomb.
B
I'm
happy
to
put
this
on
the
agenda
just
so
we
can
get
through
our
season
stuff.
That's
like
the
first
topic,
if
that's
with
everyone.
B
Okay,
cool.
Can
someone
make
a
note,
so
I
don't
have
to
remember
at
the
end
of
this
meeting
yeah.
Thank
you
for
keeping
us
on
track.
Javier
release
plenty
anything
someone
wants
to
bring
up
here,
I'm
still
pulling.
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
Just
make
up
a
plea
with
regard
to
the
remove
stocks
rfc,
which
I
think
is
maybe
missing
a
milestone
at
this
point,
but
if
we
want
to
move
on
it,
I
think
there's
still
some
open
questions
that
maybe
weren't
hammered
out
in
the
rfc
process
that
it
would
be
good
to
talk
about
just
to
get
clarity,
I
don't
I'm.
You
know
obviously
right
here
right
now,
maybe
not
the
best
place,
but
if
we
could
make
time
for
that.
B
That
would
be
okay.
Do
you
want
to
do
an
offline
non-working
group
meeting
that
is
more
focused
on
that?
Or
do
you
want
that
in
working
group.
B
Okay,
I
can
prob,
I
can
definitely
do
office
hours
and
stuff
tomorrow,
but
if
we
want
on
the
agenda,
we
can
also
at
least
make
a
note
and
then
see
at
the
end.
B
If
there's
other
stuff,
I
feel
like
tomorrow's
jen
has
been
somewhat
packed
because
steven's
back
and
I
felt
like
we
held
off
on
a
ton
of
rfcs
because
of
him,
so
maybe
office
hours
is
the
right
call
or
I'm
also
happy
to
do
a
meaning
that
is
outside
of
the
normal
working
kind
of
things,
because
I
think
it's
a
pretty
substantial
change
backwards,
breaking
change,
so
we
should
probably
handle
it
with
care.
B
B
Awesome
thanks
all
right,
so
rc's
got
11
minutes.
Are
we
still
blocked
on
this
natalie?
Is
that
true,
the
mako
players.
B
B
This
morning,
we're.
A
Kind
of
putting
all
the
different
pieces
together
there
are
some
pse
pieces
for
build
conoco
and
all
that,
so
I
think
we're
kind
of
getting
everything
together
and
seeing
how
it
could
fit
in
life.
C
B
Okay,
I
guess
I
can
take
a
look
and
maybe
bug
you
about
it
when
I
revisit
it
as
well.
A
And
I
guess
my
question
for
joe
is:
I
know
at
one
point
we
talked
about
sort
of,
especially
with
moving
forward
with
the
no
bash
rfc
that
we'd
want
something
like
utility,
build
packs
and
maybe
system
build
packs
in
order
to
move
forward
with
that
and
my
question
sort
of
like
how
far
does
that
chain
extend
like
if
we
had
utility
build
packs
but
no
system
build
packs?
Is
that
still
our.
C
System
built
backs
are
a
part
of
that.
Consistent,
build
packs
are
how
the
heroku
builder
will
continue
to
have
the
bash
capabilities
right
because,
like
we
want
to
have
backwards
compatibility,
even
if
we're
making
decisions
to
remove
things
from
the
life
cycle
to
reduce
complexity,
the
heroku
and
salesforce
stance
is
that
we
want
to
continue
to
support
those
without
users
having
to
manually
go
set,
some
other
utility
build
pack.
C
So
if
a
user
is,
you
know
using
a
custom,
because
it's
very
common
on
roku,
of
course-
and
it's
something
that
we
want
to
support
on.
Salesforce
functions
is
custom,
build
packs
and
if
they
want
to
have
that
bash
capability,
we
don't
want
them
to
have
to
go
manually.
Add
that
so
the
builder
needs
to
be
able
to
inject
that
build
pack
and
that's
what
this
rfc
is
about.
A
C
C
B
B
Cool
for
next
steps
is
it
review,
maybe
emily
jonah.
I
need
to
talk
about
it.
Some
more
sounds
like.
B
A
B
About
this,
no
okay,
I
think
next
steps
are
just
yeah.
C
I
mean,
I
guess
just
I'm:
okay,
if
people
yeah
I'm
okay,
we
need
to
keep
iterating
on
it.
I'm
just
saying
I'm
taking
a
stance
on
those
two
things
and
okay,
we'll
iterate,
but
whatever.
B
Okay,
additional
explorable
layers.
I
know
this
is
one
that
sam
kind
of
retold
when
steve
and
sam
and
I
got
together-
and
so
I
think
this
is
something
one
on
the
agenda
for
tomorrow,
because
that
was
one
of
the
things
we're
waiting
for
steven
to
be
back
on.
B
A
Definitely
not
last
hope,
but
yeah,
there's
def.
There's
a
lot
of
discussion
happening
right
now,
but
I
think
that
makes
sense.
B
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
wasn't
so
hopeful
based
on
how
much
context
you
have
to
you
know
figure
out,
but.
A
B
Cool
images
table-
I
know,
there's
been
a
bunch
of
discussion
on
here
and
some
open
stuff
from
javier
as
well.
Are
we
waiting
basie
to
hear
back
from
the
original
author
or
what
is
kind
of?
I
think.
C
A
Sorry,
I
was
muted,
I
think
for
me
really
there's
only
one
question
is
whether
or
not
we
want
to
expand
on
or
decompose
the
images
uri
into
components.
I
don't
know
that
that's
been
resolved.
Everything
else
to
me
seems
like
we
could
deal
with
it
as
part
of
the
implementation.
B
A
B
A
Yeah
and
joe,
I
know
you,
you
were
kind
of
shepherding
this
a
bit.
I
don't
know
what
your
stance
on
that
is,
but
maybe
we
could.
You
know
hammer
through
some
of
that.
B
B
And
we
want
to
roll
this
into
the
current
project.
Descriptor
independent
of
your
conflict,
stuff
right.
B
C
B
Some
discussion
on
backwards
compatibility,
I
feel,
like
is
kind
of
the
crux
of
it.
Is
this
something
we
want
to
talk
about.
A
B
Okay,
I
would
prefer
not
this
particular
meeting,
but
some.
C
Mean
I
think
we
should
I
hate
like
when
we
get
things
all
wrapped
up
together,
that
don't
need
to
be.
Could
the
the
point
of
contention
be
its
own
rfc,
because
it
seems
like
we
could.
We
could
finalize
this
rfc
and
then,
and
even
with
a
disposition
of
like
we're,
gonna
figure
out
what
to
do
with
the
old
way
and
then
have
a
separate
rfc
on
that?
Maybe.
C
A
C
Yeah
and
for
anyone
that
is
a
build
pack
author,
it
sucks.
So
I
think,
like
giving
some
for
something.
This
significant,
having
at
least
a
release
where
you
warn
and
give
instructions
is
important.
I,
regardless,
I
think,
I
think
we
should.
We
should
find,
be
able
to
finalize
this
and
make
a
separate
rfc
for
whether
or
not
we
remove
the
old
way.
B
B
B
I
feel
like
the
biggest
kind
of
blocker
things
are
just
I
don't
think
people
are
opposed
to
the
actual
moving,
but
we
probably
need
to
hammer
out,
hopefully
sooner
rather
than
later,
the
actual
details
of
what
we
want.
This
to
look
like
like
it's,
I
feel
like
some
of
the
faults
in
the
rfcs
is
that
we
all
agree
with
the
general
idea,
but
then
some
of
the
actual
details
aren't
actually
hammered
out
and
then
there's
a
bunch
of
questions
that
actually
happen,
and
we
actually
want
to
move
on
this
quickly.
B
I
think
we
do
have
to
figure
out
some
of
the
like.
I
feel
like
just
bike
shedding
stuff,
so
I'm
happy
to
take
charge
on
some
of
that
stuff
with
sam,
but
I
don't
know
if
people
have
stronger
thoughts
or
just
want
to
see
a
bunch
of
the
bike
shedding
discussions
for
channel
names
and
things
like
that.
B
But,
like
sam
said,
I
think
in
the
past
he
would
it'd
be
nice
to
get
this
done.
While
we
have
that
free
trial,
where
we
have
all
the
history,
if
we
wanted
to
do
it.
B
So
I'm
happy
to
please
comment
async.
I
guess
on
this,
if
not
I'll,
probably
just
run
it
with
sam
and
then
I
think
we
have
the
approvals
for
at
least
people
being
on
board
with
it.
A
B
B
I
was
just
going
to
prefix
everything
with
build
packs
and
then
change
general
to
just
build
packs,
but
I
guess
to
some
degree:
that's
like
a
discussion
with
service
desk.
B
B
It's
just
related
to
an
integration.
The
project
has
with
something
that's
external
yeah
yeah.
I
know
I
can
never
make
proposals
on
techcon.
I
think
sounds
like
from
what
sam
was
saying.
The
kpac
stuff
is
a
little
probably
stronger
asked
and
I
think
someone
from
kpac
like
matt
or
someone
just
has
to
go
in
and
ask
the
cncf
for
me
that
room
room.
B
I'm
just
going
off
what's
sam
basey
has
found
out
when
he's
done,
the
investigation
work,
I
don't
I'm
not.
I
don't
like
hate,
k-pac
or
anything
and
like
don't
want
them
to
come
over.
So
it's
not
coming
for
me,
something
something
don't
shoot.
The
messenger.
B
Cool
anything
else.