►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync - 1 June 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).
A
C
Hello,
hello:
let's
get
started.
B
B
Yeah,
well,
let's
all
get
back
into
it.
Now's
the
moment
all
right,
we
started
the
stream
see
any
faces.
B
C
B
B
For
tomorrow,
my
suggestion
is
going
to
be
rfc
rfc.
B
It
is
unrealistic
to
expect
anyone
to
have
read
anything,
that's
in
draft,
so
I
don't
expect
people
to
have
read
it
yet,
but
I
would
like
to
get
it
in
a
state
where
it
could
be
undrafted,
and
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
start
talking
about
what's
in
there
tomorrow,
regardless
of
how
many
people
have
read
it
yet
because
my
suspicion
is
going
is
that
we
would
like
to
move
the
other
rfcs
through
the
new
process
at
this
point,
unless
someone
wants
to
make
a
case
that
there
are
things
that
are
close
to
the
line
that
we
want
to
get
through
the
old
process.
A
Yeah,
I
guess
the
part
that
I've
noticed
a
little
bit
more
so
is
through
the
new
governance
changes.
It
does
seem
like
some
of
the
toc
members
have
stepped
back.
A
A
Yeah,
an
assumption
of
sorts
or
uncorrelated
words.
D
It
might
be
correlated.
I
can't
speak
for
other
people.
I
think
the
governance
stuff
also
lagged
because
of
instant
stuff.
For
me,
at
least
on
my
part
of
just
not
being
able
to
prove
and
move
the
changes
forward
faster.
B
I
don't
think
anyone
has
interpreted
the
fact
that
it's
going
to
change
as
an
invitation
to
step
back
in
advance
of
the
changes.
I
think
people
realize
we
need
to
formalize
the
changes,
but
there
are
you
know.
One
of
the
reasons
we
want
to
do.
These
changes
is
because
it's
getting
hard
to
get
a
certain
level
of
engagement
and
different
activities,
so.
D
Sounds
good
rfc.
D
A
B
C
A
I
think
I'm
trying
to
remember
where
we
ended
up,
but
I
believe
natalie
had
brought
up
the
idea
of
stack
removals
and
her
sam
and
I
had
a
brief
conversation
about
it.
I
don't
remember
if
we
needed
to
continue
having
conversations.
E
Yeah
we
we
actually
talked
about
it
for
for
most
of
the
last
working
group,
basically
just
sort
of
airing
the
list
of
uncertainties,
and
I
think
where
we
ended
up.
There
were
two
parts
to
it.
E
One
was
about
whether
we
need
to
hold
docker
files
on
stack
removal,
and
I
think,
where
we
ended
up
was
no
docker.
Files
can
proceed
but
as
an
experimental
feature,
and
when
we
get
to
the
point
of
wanting
to
promote
it
out
of
that
status,
we
had
we.
We
need
to
have
resolved
the
stack
removal
question,
so
we
kind
of
acknowledged
that
and
then
we
also
talked
about
the
the
spec,
the
spreading
out
of
the
requirements
across
different
specs,
the
distribution
spec
and
the
platform
spec.
And
what
are
the
problems
with
that?
C
D
B
B
C
Boom
community
team
up.
C
B
C
C
A
Calling
it
leads.
D
B
I
guess
the
backfilling
of
reason
here,
maybe
one
of
the
reasons
I
brought
it
up
is
because
I
would
like
the
toc
to
continue
attending
the
leads
sync.
I
don't
want
the
name
to
indicate
that
people
should
not
come,
because
I
think
it
would
be
healthy
to
have
the
toc
talking
to
the
leads
in
that
form.
A
D
D
It
doesn't
have
to
be
this
meeting,
but
I
think
that's
still
a
good
thing
to
have
somewhere
and
I
think
it
will
be
healthier
to
in
the
sense
that
probably
will
only
be
things
that
have
been
already
championed
versus
everything
right.
It's
like
the
team
leads
are
the
ones
that
are
gonna
push
stuff
forward,
so
it
will
be
the
team
leads
kind
of
driving.
I
think
that,
like
hopefully
the
rfc
thing
will
not
be
me
or
emily
or
whoever.
D
B
What
I
would
like
instead
is
given
that
you
know
this
group
of
leads,
especially
for
rfcs,
that
are
project
level.
Rc's,
you
know,
is
the
approving
group,
even
if
it's
vlac
consensus
and
I'd
like
to
use
this
meeting
when
we're
all
together
to
bring
people's
attention
to
rfcs
that
either
are
getting
ready
for
a
vote.
So
it's
like
you
know,
trying
to
make
sure
that
there's
no.
B
Danger
of
it,
failing
not
that
we
have
to
have
the
conversation
about
all
the
mechanics
here,
but
just
sort
of
letting
this
meeting
be
a
place
where
we
can
share
out
the
status
of
different
rfcs
in
like
a
high
level
summary
so
that
people
know
when
to
look
and
when
voting
windows
are
likely
to
open.
So
we
can
have
the
best
chance
of
everything
moving
smoothly.
Instead
of
waiting
to
the
last
minute
to
find
disagreement,.
B
A
I
guess
my
concern
is
that,
coming
to
this
meeting
to
say,
hey
this
is
now
starting.
The
you
know.
Process
seems
unideal
right.
I
feel
like
there
should
be
better
ways
to
do
that.
Having
conversations
is
probably
the
most
valuable
thing,
I
guess
identifying.
What
we
should
be
having
conversations
about
is
maybe
the
the
challenge.
B
B
They
can
be
an
rfc
in
search
of
a
champion,
and
this
is
why
I
want
to
dig
into
the
details
about
rcrc,
because
I
think
there's
plenty
of
things
people
going
to
want
to
nitpick
over.
What
I'm
mostly
suggesting
is
that
a
team
lead
has
to
volunteer
to
take
on
an
rfc
and
that
there
are.
It
is
totally
possible
that
there
could
be
an
rfc
for
which
we
cannot
find
a
champion,
and
it
doesn't
mean
it's
not
a
good
idea.
B
It
just
means
we're
not
going
to
be
working
on
it
in
the
near
future,
and
we
could
pick
it
up
again
later,
but
I
think
one
of
the
failures
of
our
process
in
the
past
is
when
we're
just
assigning
people.
B
People
can
have
too
much
on
their
plate
or
not
as
much
of
a
sense
of
ownership
because
they
just
got
assigned
to
it.
I
want
people
to
be
opting
in
to
saying
yes,
I'm
going
to
take
this
to
a
place
where
it
could
get
approved.
D
I
I
I
guess
I
would
like
us
to
see
us.
I
mean
this
is
unrelated,
I
guess
javier's
thing.
So
maybe
we
should
talk
about,
but,
like
I'd
like
to
see
us
close,
more
rfcs
that
we're
not
actively
working
on
yeah
as
part
of
that
process
or
park
them
or
whatever,
where
closing
doesn't
have
to
be
this
like
super
negative
output,
but
it's
just
not
capacity.
A
D
And
that
that
includes
basically
rc's
they're,
championing
at
least
some
like
yeah.
This
is
moving
along,
or
maybe
I
need
help
from
so-and-so
team
if
I
wasn't
able
to
basic
connect,
async
or
something
obviously
like
preferring
stuff.
Async
is
good,
but
so
I
think,
taking
advantage
of
the
fact
that
people
will
attend.
The
meeting
is
also
maybe
useful
to
him.
B
C
Created
a
pull
request
on
the
spec
repository
to
assign
code
owners
and
to
remove
the
current
code
owners,
which
is
like
three
members
of
the
core
team,
any
the
existing
core
team
toward
that
and
before
it
can
take
place.
A
C
For
buildback
implementation
for
platform
platform
lead
for
descriptor
and
distribution
for
distribution,
but
we
discussed
this
in
the
last
team.
Lead
meeting
with
the
rest
of
the
team
leads,
and
I
think
we
wanted
both
the
stakeholders
for
each
of
the
spec
represented
there.
Somehow.
A
B
A
D
I
mean
if
we
don't
have
if
we
want
to
put
on
distribution,
we
can
also
just
make
toc
own
that
for
now
and
come
back
to
it.
If
you
really
want.
C
C
C
C
B
C
B
C
C
So
that's
the
only
place
where
I
find
it
difficult
to
spec
things
out
beforehand,
but
we
should
mandate
it
that
any
buildback
related
changes
should
be
fully
specced
out
in
the
rfc
process,
because
I,
the
life
cycle,
never
dictates
the
buildback
spec.
It
always
implements
it,
but
it
always
dictates
the
platform
spec
in
some
way
or
the
other.
I've
never
seen
an
rfc
where
we
fully
described
the
platform
spec,
and
then
the
lifecycle
ended
up
implementing
it.
That
way.
B
A
B
D
B
B
D
I
I
guess
to
me
it's
just
like
these
things
aren't
painful
like
going
through
these
things,
aren't
painful
they're,
no
ops
right
like
like,
I
feel
like
if
we're
actually
delinquent.
That's
when
it's
painful
and
that's
because
that
was
true
on
the
toc
right
like
like
it
was
painful
because
we
weren't
improving
stuff
and
not
merging
it
but
like
if
the
team
leads
are
doing
stuff
and
or
it's
a.
D
It's
a
non-conversation
topic
right
yeah,
like
I
think.
B
It's
probably
largely
do
our
due
to
our
delinquency,
but
I
do
find
it
painful
because
it
turns
what
could
be
one
of
the
few
opportunities
for
this
group
of
people
to
like
talk
and
strategize
about
real
things
into
sort
of
like
a
rote
process
where
a
lot
of
it
is
just
like.
Please
approve
the
person
I
need
to
approve,
isn't
even
at
the
meeting
I'll
click
on
the
next
one
and
wait
30
seconds
for
github
ui
to
load.
You
know.
C
D
Yeah
that
was
supposed
to
be
a
sign
that
it
was
painful.
We
should
do
something
different
about
it.
I
mean
the
what
the
inverse
of
that
was.
Spec
pr's,
we're
just
not
gonna
get
merch
right,
so
I
feel
like
it
was
the
less
painful
of
the
two
actually
in
the
long
run
for
the
project.
Even
it
wasn't
very
fun,
but
I
think
it's
like
a
bad
luck.
If
we
have
pr's
that
are
open
for
months
right
and
they're
not
moving
forward
as
well,
but.
A
And
these
are
all
standing
items
right
like.
I
would
hope
that
we
have
more
fruitful
conversations
about
topics
that
come.
You
know
at
ad
hoc
sort
of
like
right
now
with
the
spec.
You
know
organizational
and
ownership
aspect
of
things.
D
Yeah,
I
think
one
of
the
things
too
that
would
potentially
like
to
see
change
is,
like
probably,
the
team
league
meeting
not
be
30
minutes,
because
I
feel
like
it's
just
hard
to.
E
Could
we,
because
I
know
we've
been
doing-
we've
been
doing
like
half
hour
this
public
meeting
and
then
we,
you
know
we
typically
have
the
private
meeting,
but
I've
heard
it
said
that
the
private
meeting
is
for
anything
that
we
can't
discuss
publicly,
which
there's
often
not
anything
that
we
can't
discuss
publicly.
You
know
we're
talking
about
they're,
not
recurring
items
is
what
I'm
saying,
and
I
wonder
if
we
could
take
care
of
that
stuff
in
slack
and
really
call
a
private
meeting
when
it's
absolutely
necessary
not
have
a
standing
one.
A
I
I
would
love
to
see
that
as
well
right.
I
think
that
forces
us
to
use
our
public
channels
even
more
effectively
and
then
just
schedule
those
private
meetings
to
have
the
actual
people
necessary
for
those
meetings
to
be
available
as
well.
E
D
I'm
not
like
I'm
not
pushing
that
we
should
have
it
I'm
just.
I
think
that
was
the
symptom
of.
Why,
like,
I
think
he
was
trying
to
clear
space
on
his
calendar
like
him,
him
and
ben
were
really
booked,
but
that's
not
actually
a
good
excuse
to
keep
doing
it.
D
A
So
what
what
does
that
mean
right
now
as
a
sort
of
action
I
have?
It
seems
like
we
have
a
consensus
here
within
this
group
right
that
we
would
have
this
meeting
and
maybe
even
expand
this
meeting
to
be
a
full
hour.
Does
that
fall
into
this
rescheduling
thing
that
joe
has.