►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync: 2021-01-26
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
C
A
B
B
Stop
teasing,
I
can
run
the
meeting.
None
of
your
faces
are
new,
so
I'm
moving
on
to.
B
That's
the
right
one:
okay,
skipping
things
at
the
bottom
that
are
in
draft
distribution,
spec.
D
I
just
recently
made
some
changes
based
on.
I
think
some
of
the
last
outstanding
items
that
you
and
I
were
talking
about
emily.
I
think
that
should
be
good
to
go
now
so
yeah.
Let
me
know,
I
think
otherwise,
everybody
else
I
believe,
has
already
signed
off.
B
D
And
now
we
could
bring
it
up
in
a
working
group.
If
we'd
like
to
talk
about
whether
to
encompass
that.
In
this
I
mean
no
matter
what
I
think,
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
have
a
larger
discussion
about
it,
because
I
also
like
to
get
rid
of
it.
But
I
know
that
there's
counter
arguments
to
be
made.
B
B
A
Am
I
mean
we
can?
I
guess
I
don't
feel
too
strongly
about
it.
Like
I
don't
yeah,
I
don't
know.
I
like
the
idea
that
the
builder
contained
an
order
tunnel,
but
I'm
not.
I
guess
I'm
not
it's.
Okay,
I'm.
D
Fine
with
whatever
I
mean
no
pressure,
we
don't
have
to
make
the
decision
right
here
right,
it's
just
more
or
less
what
we
want
to
do.
Yeah.
A
Yeah
I'll
defer
it
to
you.
If
you
want
to
talk
about
it
later,
we
can,
if
you
want
to
put
it
on
like
an
agenda,
to
talk
about
some
of
the
time
that
works
for
me,
okay,
cool!
Thank
you
all
right.
C
Yeah
I
haven't,
I
saw
some
of
this
stuff
come
through
and
I
haven't
kind
of
gone
through
it
all
I'm
still
pulling
together
release
notes
when
I
get
a
chance
for
and
kind
of
putting
all
this
stuff
together
that
people
can
also
review,
because
I
think
joe
did
that
last
time
as
well.
A
A
B
B
Yeah,
okay!
Yes,
I
think
that
is
a
good
idea
natalie
that
we
can
merge
and
then
merge
over
it
if
we
want
to
remove
it,
so
we
don't
have
to
get
this
little
fix
hung
up
on
whether
we're
removing
the
key
or
not.
B
With
that
in
mind,
I'm
just
gonna
give
it
an
approval
now,
so
we
can
merge
it
now.
I
think,
with
my
approval,
we
have
enough
rent.
C
Yeah
yeah,
if
someone
feels
strongly
about
removing
the
key,
I
guess
open
the
pr
before
that.
I
have
that
discussion.
There.
C
B
So
I
think
this
is
technically
not
enough
approvals.
We
need
joe
or
stephen.
C
B
F
A
C
I
I
would
just
like
to
clean
house
on
those
draft
pr's
and
get
stuff
up
to
date
and
not
have
anthony's
pr
drag
on
forever
as
well.
So.
B
I
agree
that
it
seems
like
we
could
merge
this
with
the
rebase
or
we
do
an
update.
We
don't
like
to
rebase
right.
C
F
C
B
C
C
B
E
Yeah,
I
think
it's
not
as
simple
as
just
like
reviewing
it,
because
we
need
to
probably
check
with
natalie
and
some
of
the
folks
that
better
understand
what's
going
on
with
the
poc
and
make
sure
it's
actually
online.
With
with
that
right,
I
don't
want
to
just
theorycraft
here.
E
I
am
interested
in
like
if
you
think
the
structure
because,
like
I
think
I'm
introducing
a
new
spec
file
and
then
I
think
I
changed
it
based
on
steven's
feedback
to
not
add
a
new
api
version
and
stuff
like
that,
that
I'm
hoping
we
can
sort
out
without
the
details.
But
then
the
details
will
depend
on
the
pc.
B
Okay,
so
I
think
that
takes
us
to
the
end
of
our
spec
review
here.
So
next
on
the
agenda,
we
have
spec
release
planning.
C
I
feel,
like
there's,
been
a
lot
of
interesting
stuff
happening
with
the
life
cycle
patch,
on
the
things
that
may
be
worth
just
going
through
one
more
time
for
the
xbomb
slash
bomb
legacy
bomb.
B
To
make
that
a
requirement
was
there,
was
there
something
else
you
wanted
to
say
on
that
topic?.
C
I
just
wanted
to
just
go
through
basically
that
from
the
pr
so
yeah
so
were
technically
you're
allowed
to
do
it
in
point
seven.
We
just
didn't
specify
it.
That's
what
you're
saying.
C
I
think
that's
a
potentially
separate
conversation,
that's
a
separate
conversation
dig
into
during
release
planning.
I
just
want
to
just
talk
and
get
on
the
same
page
since
a
lot
of
kind
of
stuff
happened
in,
I
think
pr's
and
other
discussions.
C
A
B
And
then
coming
back
to
the
milestones
for
other
things
that
are
going
into
08,
I
think
we
probably
want
to
take.
B
A
B
A
B
A
F
B
Okay,
so
moving
on
to
outstanding
rfcs,
I'm
gonna
try
to
go
fast
here,
make
build
layers
read
only
for
subsequent
build
blocks.
This
label
is
blocked,
so
I'm
skipping
it.
I'm
skipping
both
blocked
things.
Moving.
C
A
C
C
We
were
blocking
on
before
the
holidays.
I
think
you
were
there
actually
when
we
blocked
it
on
some
of
the
poc
and
other
security
stuff.
You
wanted
to
oh.
A
C
A
C
A
Right,
yes,
the
rfc
is
blocked
on
wanting
an
outcome
around
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
implement
conoco
docker
demon
and
build
versions,
and
I
think
we
resolved
that
we
are
going
to
implement
conoco
and
build
a
first
and
in
parallel.
So
I
think
this
can
proceed.
Was
there
anything
else
we
needed.
B
C
E
Yeah,
I
think,
to
summarize
what
I
hope
we
are
aligned
on
is
that
I
made
the
the
stance
that
I
was
talking
about
was
that
the
hiding
build
packs
is
a
may,
so,
like
a
platform,
may
choose
to
hide
system,
build
packs,
but
it's
not
like
a
required
thing.
The
build
packs
are
run
just
like
any
other.
The
build
packs
that
are
system
buildbacks
are
run
just
like
any
other
build
pack.
E
These
build
plan,
they're
part
of
the
order
really
what's
being
changed
here
is
like
an
interface
thing
and
how
builder
owners
can
insert
into
the
order
and
the
actual
execution
part
of
it
should
remain
largely
the
same.
C
E
No,
that's
definitely
not
a
part
of
this.
You
can
disable
there.
I
think
there's
a
couple
flags
in
there
about
disabling
system
build
packs
which
a
platform
may
or
may
not
expose,
but
no
that
was
never
the
intent
either
for
service
owners
to
like
customize
system
build
bags.
It's
really
about
platform
owners
and
builder
owners.
B
G
E
I
don't
think
that
would
prevent
them
from
doing
that,
but
in
any
case
I'm
gonna.
Let
you
and
emily
fight
that
out.
E
I
mean,
but
I'm
not
saying
hide
them,
I'm
saying
a
platform
may
hide
them
if
they
like
choose
to,
but
that
it's
not
like
a
required
thing.
So
they
will
just
appear
in
your
list
of
detected,
build
packs
and
then
the
build
output,
just
like
anything
else.
B
The
thing
we
agreed
on
was
the
lifecycle
wasn't
going
to
do
anything
to
hide
these
buildbacks,
so
being
air
detect
output,
the
build
pack
itself
might
print
like
this
is
the
name
of
me
the
build
pack
right,
because
one
of
the
things
I
was
worried
about
is
once
if
these
are
utility
build
packs,
they're
being
used
in
this
way
like?
Are
we
gonna
get
into
fights
about
the
logs
where
they
have
to
pretend
to
not
be
build
packs?
B
C
Can
can
we
have
sam
and
you
have
the
I
guess
the
bill
plan
discussion
offline,
so
we
can
move
on
to
other
rfcs.
A
D
Or
I
was
going
to
propose
or
add
this
to
work,
no
working
group.
G
A
B
Okay
project
tomlin
converter,.
G
C
Yeah,
I
believe
you
mark
this
is
blocked
on
javier's
grand
design,
okay,.
B
B
Your
admin
powers
change,
whatever
makes
that
term
add,
run
images
bomb.
G
C
Oh
you're
asking
me
something:
I
think
we
had
some
dis
course
and
are
we
still
waiting
for
the
last
I
checked.
I
thought
we
were
waiting
for
the
original
author
and
then
having.
I
think
I
wrote
a
comment
about
basically
deciding
on
what
how
we
want
to
deal
with
the
schema
for
the
uris
or
the
image
uri
stuff
right.
Does
that
sound
right
javier.
C
B
Moving
on
support
for
pact
tom
was
blocked,
replace
positional
args
t
build
packs
executables
with
nvars,
so
you
put
it
on
the
working
group
to
have
a
conversation
about
duplication
versus
changing
the
apis.
I
think
that's
the
conversation
we're
having
right.
A
B
B
Yeah
yeah:
I
want
to
rally
the
troops
around
the
idea
that
we
need
to
get
rid
of
the
demon,
so
you
know
rather
than
later,
even
though
it's
going
to
be
a
pain
and
it
doesn't
give
anyone
the
new
feature
they
want,
because
once
we
do
it,
everything
else
will
be
easier
and
less
annoying
and
we'll
be
able
to
do
things
like
delete
image
util.
Instead
of
adding
a
bunch
of
special
cases
to
it.
That
kind
of
stuff.
D
It
is,
I
guess,
what
I'm
not
a
fan
of
is
blocking
stuff
on
on
that,
but
we
could
kind
of
talk
about
it
in
the
working
group.
B
B
But
we
can
talk
about
that
during
working
group
same
with
the
annotations,
which
I
think
is
very
straightforward
in
its
own
way,
unless
you
realize
that
you
can't
write
manifest
for
demon
images
and
then
cncf
select,
is
this
happening
we're
moving?
What's.
G
It's
mostly
sorted
terence
trade
and
export
out,
so
what
we
are
planning
to
do
is
until
we
have
the
pro
trial,
we
can
export
all
of
history
out
and
then
once
our
profile
ends,
we
can
like
give
people
enough
notice,
give
them
clear
expectations
on
how
the
migration
will
happen.
What
would
be
the
downtime?
G
C
G
C
Okay,
probably
the
other
thing
that
has
to
be
decided,
maybe
not
necessarily
in
that
rfc,
but
would
just
be
timing.
I
think,
as
a
group
we'll
have
to
come
to
the
consensus
on
what
we
want
that
to
be
the
cern,
is
the
last
stop
merging
I'll
have
to
do
so.
C
I
would
prefer
us
to
pick
some
date,
maybe
in
the
near
near
future,
and
not
like
at
the
end
of
the
year
or
something.
B
C
Okay
for
time
time
to
I
didn't
put
times
in
there
for
how
long?
How
long
do
you
think
we
need
for
people
to
have
notice
and
not
like
wake
up
the
next
day.
D
F
Everybody's
signed
into
announcements
automatically,
I
believe,
there's
a
way
you
can
boot
like
admins,
can
boot
everybody
out
of
all
the
other
channels.
Once
the
migration
has
happened,
we
can
boot
everybody
out
of
every
channel,
lock
them
out
effectively
and
then
the
last
thing
an
announcement
is
go
to
this
other
place.
C
C
C
Cv
meetings,
but
some
some
some
time
that
week
we
can.