►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync
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
B
B
D
B
Maybe
we
can,
I
know
some
things
are
changed
in
here,
because
this
whole
spec
now
is
also
removing
the
idea
of
stacks.
I
believe
that's
true.
D
B
D
B
B
All
right
that
at
least
gives
me
makes
me
feel
like
I
can
go
forward
with
reviewing
this,
knowing
what
spirit
we're
trying
to
do
it
in
moving
on
to
finalize
project
descriptor
o2.
B
I
think
this
is
still
where
we
were
at
last
week.
Anything
you
want
to
talk
about
here.
C
No,
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
go
through
some
of
the
stuff,
there's,
probably
a
thing
that
javier
did
mention
in
slack
kind
of
you
scroll
up
a
little
bit
just
the
schema
version
stuff.
C
B
B
This
needs
reviews.
Is
there
anything
else,
you'd
like
to
say,
while
we're
here.
C
A
B
B
B
B
If
anyone
wants
to
argue
that
we
shouldn't
do
these
two
non-functional
changes
in
this
api,
I
was
the
one
who
unilaterally
decided
they
should
be
in
here
and
it's
because
it's
driving
me
crazy
that
we
don't
have
an
official
word
for
meta,
build
pack
or
multi-build
pack
or
some
of
these
things
that
keep
coming
up
as
a
sticking
point
in
communication.
I
think
we
could
finish
very
quickly.
I.
B
This
is
all
about
terminology
both
of
these,
like
one,
is
explicitly.
What
is
our
terminology
and
another?
One
is
defining
a
specific
word
that
describes
a
build
pack.
That
is
an
order
of
build
packs
versus
a
bill
pack.
That
is
not
because
we
use
like
three
different
words
for
it,
and
none
of
them
are
in
the
spec
and
it
confuses
people,
especially
people
who
don't
talk
to
us
all.
The
time
people
will
just
drop
the
word
metabolic
places,
even
though
it's
not
in
our
docs
or
this
book.
That
kind
of
thing.
B
So
that's
speculative
planning,
outstanding
rfcs
everyone's,
oh.
D
B
B
B
I
was
just
talking
with
javier
about
this
this
morning,.
B
C
B
D
D
Wait
I'm
confusing
two
rfcs
of
mine.
One
was
the
history
one
which
people
also
wanted
to
build
like
api
for.
B
D
The
annotations
yes,
we
should.
We
should
also
have
an
api
for
buildbacks
without
manifest
annotations.
B
And
then,
but
I
do
think
as
we're
prioritizing
what
our
maintainers
are
working
on
for
sub
teams.
I
do
want
to
talk
about
how
we
can
better
prioritize
tech
debt.
Things
like
the
demon
face
out,
like
the
demon
phaseout's,
like
you
know,
15
api
user
facing,
but
it's
like
85
tech
debt.
The
reason
we
want
to
do
it,
but
I
feel
like
we
as
a
project,
have
a
lot
of
trouble
getting
around
to
stuff
like
that
and
it's
making
it
very
hard
to
do
other
things.
That
should
be
easy.
C
D
D
That's
what
I
mean
how
much
of
the
life
cycle
we've
speaked
out?
If
we
haven't,
then
we
can
just
assume
that,
like
when
the
the
tags
or
like
whatever
we
give
to
the
life
cycle
to
output
to
if
those
tags
contain
like
the
uri
for
a
local
layout,
the
life
cycle
process
is
a
different
kind
of
registry.
I
don't
know
how
much
of
this
pick
they're
violating
at
that
point,
but
like
if
we
introduce
that
feature
that
we
can,
we
can
keep
the
flags
as
they
are.
No
new
flags
introduced.
B
Yeah
I've
come
around
to
being
a
bit
more
willing
to
let
the
life
cycle
get
out
ahead
of
the
spec
and
try
stuff
out,
and
then
we
lock
it
down
and
spike
it
in
the
platform
api.
Specifically,
I
don't
think
that
makes
sense
for
bill
pack
api,
but
I
feel
like
will
need
to
like
you
know,
lock
you
in
terrence,
in
a
room
because
I
feel,
like
terence,
is
very
uncomfortable
with
that.
B
Two
of
you
can
argue
it
out
because
I
feel
like
it
does
strong
proponents
on
either
side
where
I'm
sometimes
caught
in
the
middle.
I'm
leaning
towards
sam's
side
recently,
but
yeah.
D
I
mean
it's
just
whether
we
want
to
spec
out
the
life
cycle
or
not
from
the
perspective
of
a
platform,
whatever
functionality
that
was
offered
has
never
been
changed
nor
like
nor,
with
this
new
feature
change
it,
it's
just
that
it
won't
be
specked
out.
Life
cycle
will
be
doing
things
that
are
not
spectacular,
which
I
don't
know.
If
that's
a
good
thing
that
thing
whether
we
say
that
in
the
spec
anywhere
that
the
life
cycle
must
not
do
anything,
it's
not
gonna.
Look
like
it's
just
a
great
idea.
B
You
know
an
idea:
we've
always
wanted
experimental
features.
We
never
really
figured
out
how
to
execute
them
within
our
framework.
Maybe
the
way
to
do
this
is
not
like
an
experimental,
spec
api.
It's
more
like
if
the
life
cycle
chooses
to
offer
any
additive
functionality
that
isn't
specced.
It
is,
by
definition,
an
experimental
feature
that
you
have
to
flag
on
and
it
will
tell
you
it's
experimental
and
then
it
may
later
join
an
api,
but
it's
experimental.
D
Yeah
that
will
go
nicely
with,
like
everything
else,
what's
been
happening,
that
that
was,
I
think,
like.
If
you
are,
if
we
have
a
consensus
when
they
even
think
I
don't
have
anything,
that's
stupid.
C
Another
topic-
maybe
it's
not
working
group,
but
stack
removal
stuff.
I
know
something
not
only
keeps
bugging
me
about
also,
I'm
sure
more
than
the
two
of
us
care
about
the
ramifications
of
how
and
how
we
should
do
that
and
kind
of
tackle
it.
B
D
I
think
one
other
generation,
we
discussed
this
in
the
back
meeting
with
structured
logging
or
a
way
to
introduce
that
into
a
into
the
project,
but.
D
D
C
That
we've
talked
about
in
the
past
and
have
failed
to
figure
out
what
we
want
to
do
there,
so
is
that
anything
we've
won
for
a
long
time.
B
And
in
the
process
of
doing
it,
I
convinced
myself,
it
was
a
bad
idea
by
trying
to
write
up
exactly
what
it
should
look
like.
I
was
like.
I
don't
think
we
should
do
this.
That's
where
I
came
to
in
the
end.
D
D
More
open,
telemetry
like
and
how
it
maps
different
structured
logging,
libraries
to
common
concepts
so
like
we
get
tracing,
we
get
monitoring
and
we
get
structured
logging
for
it's
also
come
up
in.
In
some
of
the
past.
Conversations
on
our
staff,
like
people
were
interested.
If
we
as
a
project
would
be
into
integrating
with
open
telemetry.
B
D
A
A
D
A
A
That's
what
to
say:
there's
a
lot
of
interactive,
build
packs
that
do
like
their
own
spinners
and
everything,
and
when
I
looked
at
structured
logging
for
similar
things,
I
I
also
backed
out.
I
was
like
this
seems
impossible
for
code
that
I
don't
control
and
that's
kind
of
where
I
land
on
build
packs
as
it's
while
possible
for
a
builder.