►
From YouTube: Core Team Sync: 2021-09-22
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
It's
all
right
how
about
yourself
thanks
for
the
spec
vr.
B
Yeah
trying
to
be
better
at
that
so
get
that
merged
and
to
make
it
out
into
platform
o7.
B
What
are
you
working
on
at
vmware
you're
on
the
bill
pack
scene.
A
Yeah
I
just
started
on
our
cloud:
natal
packs
contributors
team
last
week,
still
kind
of
finding
my
way,
ramping
up
and
and
all
that
I
may
end
up
the
the
one
piece.
That's
kind
of
standing
out
to
me
right
now
is
the
bill
pack.
Authors
toolkit
come
from.
You
know
if
you
squint
a
little.
My
background
looks
like
that
a
lot
so
yeah
that
might
be
a
place
where
I
I
kind
of
look
to
contribute
starting
up
awesome.
B
Cool
got
bands
even
like
that's
quorum
for
core
right
at
this
point,
emily's.
A
Coming
here,
both
in
the
vmware's
game.
B
Oh
yeah
forgot
about
that
switch
over
yeah.
I
just
updated
all
my
invites
after
sam
sent
out
the
thing
and
then
reminded
me
during
the
platforms
of
keemsync.
I
was
like
oh
yeah.
I
should
do
this
for
all
my
meetings
or
I'm
going
to
fail
one
one
time
randomly.
B
Yeah,
you
get
that,
like
nice,
like
three
to
four
minutes
of
silence
at
the
beginning
of
every
youtube
video.
Now
it's
great.
A
With
whatever
our
sync
to
youtube
is,
we
can
also
run
it
through
some
gk
eml
stuff
to
find
out
when
the
content
actually
starts
and
trim
it
at
that
point.
Right,
yep
I'll
leave
that
to
sam
and
javier
to
work
that
out.
B
Awesome
cool,
I
guess
we
need
to
copy
some
jenna
stuff
over
right
now.
A
B
Haven't
signed
in
in
the
doc,
I
feel
like
this
is
like
steven's
obligatory
statement
about
police
signings
for
the
doc
in
the
chat.
B
B
Cool
all
right,
so
is
specular.
First
thing
up.
Is
that
true
new
faces?
I
don't
think
we
have
any
new
faces
outstanding
pets
backyards.
B
I
think
the
only
one
we
have
is
the
one
that
we're
just
talking
about
that
mikey
put
in
for
just
some
typo
fixes.
You
said
you
want
to
move
this
to
main
emily
and
then
we're
gonna
backport
it
to
platform.
0.7.
Is
that
right?
C
I
feel
like
we
should
just
delete
the
branch,
because
I
have
pre-tagged
things
to
be
honest,
but
but
yes,
I
can
backport
it
to
the
branch
we
wanted
to
keep
the
branches.
Someone
wants
to
argue
that
that
is
worthwhile.
B
Well,
I'm
I'm
happy
either
way
if
we
delete
the
branches
and
we
have
the
tags,
we
just
have
a
lot
of
the
branches
already
yeah.
C
C
C
A
A
A
B
Thanks
again,
looking
forward
to
many
more
cool,
so
next
I
think
that's
the
only
outstanding
one
and
then
I
think
emily
was
kind
of
rolling
into
the
state
of
release,
planning
and
platform
07.
C
A
C
B
C
We
talked
about
this
last
week.
There
aren't,
but
I've
agreed
that
before
I
turn
into
a
pumpkin,
I
will
pr
in
a
release
md
to
the
spec
repo.
B
Cool
sounds
good.
If
you
want,
I
can
click
the
button
and
do
the
things
that
you
tell
me
to,
or
you
can
have
the
thing
and
then
I
will
follow
it
and
then
do
it.
B
B
Yeah,
maybe
all
of
them
yeah
gotta,
start
somewhere.
So
you
said
we
should
add
this
to
the
milestone.
B
I
guess
the
record,
I
also
don't
want
to
take
over
everything.
You
did
cool.
B
Anymore,
cool
spec
release
planning
anything
else.
There
yeah
so
I'll.
Just
sync
up
with
you
after
the
meeting
between
whenever
to
get
that
out,
awesome
outstanding
rfcs.
We
do
this
in
18
minutes.
I
think
we
can.
B
A
B
A
So
I'll
look
for
another
round
of
yeah.
I
guess
specifically
emily.
If
you've
got
questions
around
the
latest
thing,
that
would
be
great.
Otherwise,
your
thumbs
up
would
be
good
and
I'll
address
natalie's
stuff
as
well.
B
A
That's
a
good
point:
yeah.
There
are
suggestions
for
these,
like
I
think
I
put
them
here
originally
to
make
migration
easier,
just
the
tldr
and
why
it's
where
it
is
is
because
it
makes
it
makes
the
configuration
maybe
slightly
easier
when
you're
switching
from
one
to
the
other.
If
you
need
the
old
behavior
but
yeah,
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
on
either
the
things
natalie
pointed
out.
Okay,.
B
B
B
A
B
A
To
the
side-by-side
presentation,
plus
gallery
mode
that
lets
you
have
all
the
people
on
the
side.
I
don't
think
that's
true
for
the
person
sharing.
All
they
get
is.
B
B
B
Such
a
waste
of
pristine,
real
estate,
structured
buff
format,
sam.
A
B
Yeah
I
I
hadn't,
I
had
one
more
question
just
talking
with
folks
on
our
side
from
kind
of
the
product
perspective,
as
we've
been
looking
into
this
and
just
they're
asking
like
about
different
s-bomb
formats,
and
I
don't
know
if
we
will
necessarily
support
them.
But
I
was
just
curious
if
we
want
to
address
like
the
process
in
here,
but
I'm
happy
to
move
this
fcp
and
we
can
iterate
on
that.
B
Four
remove
stacks
and
mixins.
There
was
a
note
from
last
week
about
stephen
resolving
questions
and
I
went
to
look
through
this
today
and
I
didn't
re-watch
the
recording,
but
I
was
wondering
what
those
questions
were.
A
B
A
No,
actually,
that's
the
other
one
yeah.
I
think
everything's
been
addressed
for
this
one.
I
think
it's
the
other
one
that
I
haven't
updated
feedback.
I
think
this
one
is
but
yeah.
It
just
needs
to
note
that,
as
an
actual
question,
yeah.
B
B
Excited
to
see
that
go
through
not
excited
to
deal
with
it
on
the
other
end,
but
support
docker
files.
A
There's
naming
there's
some
questions
about
the
how
mix-ins
get
provided
if
they're
specified
on
that
not
make
sense,
but
build
plan
entries
get
provided
if
they're
specified
on
the
base.
Image
is
unresolvable.
So
a
couple
of
updates.
I
need
to
make
there.
A
B
Don't
think,
did
you
want
to
talk
about
it?
Some
more
tomorrow.
B
Okay,
officially
supported
utility
bill
packs.
Did
you
and
joe
pow
wow
emily.
C
We
did,
I
think
we
just
was
going
to
update
this
character
agreement.
Where
does
not
need
to
be
in
the
spec.
We
were
going
to
try
to
capture
in
requirements.
Sort
of
I
think
we
both
agree
that
the
reason
he
wanted
in
the
spec
was
not
because
it
needed
to
be
in
the
spec,
but
because
it
was
a
proxy
for
other
things
like
the
set
of
people
that
need
to
vote
to
pull
new
things
in
and
the
level
of
documentation.
B
Okay,
so
you're
saying
joe
joe's
updating
us
tyson.
C
It's
removing
the
spec
restriction,
but
clearly
calling
out
that
every
new
build
pack
we
add
here
is
going
to
require
like
an
rfc
and
not
just
a
bad
team.
Rfc
like
a
project
rfc,
because
it
seems
like
one
of
the
one
of
the
reasons
for
wanting
it
to
be
in
the
spec
is
so
that
we
sort
of
have
a
very
high
bar
before
we
add
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
these.
A
A
Hey
think
at
this
point
like
it's
just
on
us
to
decide
whether
we
want
to
go
down
this
path
or
not
before
I
address
any
more
comments.
B
A
Sure
I
think
we
wanted
to.
I
don't
know
if
you
wanted
to
schedule
a
separate
one
or
if
you
just
wanted
to
talk
more
in
the
working
group
itself,.
B
I
guess
workinger
suggestion
he
had
right,
but
your
proposal
is
still
different
from
that.
Is
that
correct.
A
B
Do
you
need
help
scheduling
that
stephen?
Do
you
want
me
to
take
points.
A
This
is
to
talk
about
multiple
app
directories:
yeah
the
mobile
app
directory.
Yes,
can
we
do
that
next
week?
Is
that.
A
It
just
a
little
tight
this
week,
yeah.
B
No,
no
worries
now
cool
all
right
so,
but
you
did
want
to
talk
about
this
proposal
tomorrow.
Yes,
sam.
A
I
can't
talk
about
it
if
there
are
like,
I,
I
think
the
concerns
that
were
raised
in
the
last
working
group
meeting
would
still
be
applicable.
So
if
that's
a
hard
block,
then
we
probably
need
to
find
an
alternative
solution.
A
If
we
are
amenable
to
changing
some
of
those
restrictions-
and
we
can
talk
about
it-
maybe
talking
about
the
app
directory
proposal
first
and
comparing
the
two
kind
of
give
us
more
to
you
know
where
we
talk
about
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
coupling
it
to
different.
You
know,
entities
that
specify
the
locations.
B
Yeah,
okay!
So
do
we
want
to
hold
off
then
until
we
need
to
talk
about
the
app
after
stuff.
B
Cool
the
last
one
is
the
product
descriptor
converter,.
B
I
don't
think
there's
been
any
updates,
but
I
think
folks
need
to
review
if
you
haven't.
A
B
C
B
B
Sounds
good,
I
feel,
like
steven,
also
had
strong
feelings
on
this
suggestion.
If
I
recall
as
well
right.
C
B
Cool,
I
think,
that's
all
the
rfcs.
A
B
Under
the
clock,
even
now,
there
was
I
feel
like
emily,
or
someone
said
something
in
one
of
these
rc's
about
wanting
more
pack
or
platform
stuff.
Was
that
the
remove
stacks
one.
C
Yeah,
I
think
that
ties
into
the
comment
that
we
were
discussing
putting
in
unresolved
questions.
It's
like
once
we
remove
stacks
and
make
sense.
I
think
we've
agreed
on
the
format
of
bill,
peck,
tommel
and
the
intention
of
it.
But
what
does
pac
build
pack
package
do?
How
does
it
interact
with
this
new
format?
I
think
it's
an
important
question:
are
we
going
to
try
to
make
these
multi-arch
images
make
them
only
in
the
published
case
for
that's
viable
and
people?
You
know
specify
exactly
which
target
they're
building.
I
think
there's
next
questions
there.
B
Okay,
so
is
the
action
here
then,
when
this
gets
merged
we
open
rfc
for
that.
B
Okay,
so
what's
the
suggestion.
A
I
think
you
could
add
mention
the
the
sub
team
maintain.
B
B
Cool
sounds
good
anything
else
in
the
last
minute.
I
think
we
have
to
set
the
agenda
right,
so
I
think
the
two
rfcs
we
talked
about
were
structured
bomb
and
docker
files.
Is
that
right.