►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync: 2021-11-17
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
Okay,
how
do
we
you
can
see
the
the
thing?
Okay,
so
do
we
usually
like
just
go
from
the
bottom,
anything
to
say
on
the
distribution
spec,
it's
like.
B
B
Yeah,
I
could
paint
him
outside
of
this
meeting
and
hopefully
get
him
to
charge
it
as
he
approves
it.
I
think
he's
the
only
one
pending
is
that
right.
D
C
Yeah,
I
do
want
to
mention
that
one.
So
that's
a
draft
like
definitely
probably
not
ready
to
merge,
as
is,
but
I
want
some
early
feedback
on
the
direction
I'm
happy
to
do
all
the
rewriting
and
stuff
as
necessary,
but
yeah.
I
don't
feel
comfortable
doing
it
in
a
vacuum.
So.
A
Yeah,
I
did
want
to
mention,
because
we
had
sort
of
talked
about
having
the
proof
of
concept
sort
of
evolve
alongside
the
spec
changes.
There
has
been
some
conversation
with
charles
about
that.
I.
A
I'm
trying
so
stay
tuned,
but
I
guess
that
shouldn't
block
review
of
this
draft
right.
A
I
think
that
is
awaiting
it's
undergone
some
changes,
but
so
I
re-requested
it
I'm
sorry
just
because
it
evolved
quite
a
bit
just
regards
to
the
namings
of
things.
So
if
everyone
could
please
take
a
look.
B
Sorry
wrong
wrong
window.
I
believe
the
updates
have
been
made,
so
I
have
to
review
it
myself,
but
getting
more
eyes
on
it.
I
would
be
greatly
appreciated
here
as
well.
B
So,
in
general,
what
we're
doing
is
we're
reverse
engineering,
essentially
the
builder
spec,
into
distrib
distributable
components
right,
and
so,
when
we
talk
about
distributing,
build
packs,
distributing
the
life
cycle,
the
build
image
and
the
run
image,
we
want
to
spec
those
out
independently
and
then
be
able
to
say
okay.
So
if
you
talk
about
all
these
independent
things,
then
this
is
what
a
builder
is.
It's
the
composition
of
all
these
other
pieces.
B
The
run
image
is
obviously
kind
of
the
exception
to
that,
but
it
is
something
that
we're
specking
out
as
part
of
us.
This
effort
to
consider
this
what's
called
distribution,
v3
right,
distribution,
spec
b3,
did
that
give
you
enough
at
the
knee
or.
A
I
wanted
to
bring
up
the
buildpak
07
and
platform
08
milestones,
which
I
think
are
currently
containing
a
bunch
of
stuff
that
we
don't
actually
want
to
ship
in
buildpak
07.
So
I
guess
just
as
a
quick
recap.
A
We
did
ship
a
life
cycle
release
candidate
last
week
that
had
support
for
the
s-bomb
track
of
work,
and
I'm
asking
that
we
we
remove
things
that
don't
pertain
to
s-bomb
from
build
plaque,
o7
and
platform
o8,
so
that
we
can
ship
those
apis
and
cut
a
real
life
cycle
to
enable
people
to
use
this
feature.
D
Practically
you
do,
I
wouldn't
I
wouldn't
exert
that
power
without
more
of
a
quorum
of
the
core
team.
To
do
it,
though,
I
think
joe
and
I
are
okay,
but
maybe
just
something
async
in
the
leadership
channel,
to
make
sure
that
at
least
somebody
else
says
yes,.
C
A
All
right
so
I'll
I'll
I'll
I'll
do
that
I'll
reach
out
in
the
channel,
and
I
guess
if
we
have
alignment
on
that,
we
now
have
a
shiny,
documented
release
process
that
I
can
try
to
drive
forward
for
those
two.
A
So
I
guess
I
kind
of
jumped
ahead
and
brought
up
build
taco
7
platform
08,
but
are
there
other
apis?
We
should
be
discussing
what
are
the
milestones.
B
Does
the
s
bomb,
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
I'll
throw
it
on
here.
Does
the
s
bomb
in
a
city
with
the
run
time
base
image?
B
E
I
can
speak
to
that.
That
was
certainly
my
intention
when
I
brought
it
up
a
couple
weeks
ago,
but
it's
looking
just
from
working
group
discussion
that
there's
a
little
bit
more
to
hash
out.
I
don't
think
I
don't
want
to
hold
the
next.
A
E
E
B
Okay,
cool
I'll-
I
might
talk
to
you
asynchronously
about
some
of
the
timeline
for
that,
because
I
know
I've
mentioned
it
in
the
past,
but
the
individual
working
on
this
he's
a
mentee-
and
I
think
his
time
is
kind
of
you
know-
is
capped
at
some
point.
So
we
might
just
want
to
try
to
figure
out
the
logistics
there.
A
Can
go
through
them
one
by
one
from
the
bottom,
so
that's
not
the
stuff
away.
A
Okay,
I
want
to
say
this
is
still
blocked.
Nothing
changed
from
last
week.
This
is
still
blocked
on
the
spike
anything
for
support,
docker
files.
D
C
Yeah
it
does
technically.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
trying
to
think
yeah
he's
going
to
be
out
through
thanksgiving.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
he
does
have
a
chance
to
chime
in
on
it
in
the
next
in
the
fcp
period
if
he
needs
to,
but.
D
A
And
that's
a
sign
is
that
so
terrance
is
the
and
you
you'll
do
it
in
this
thing,.
C
Oh
yeah
I'll
put
this
on
the
schedule
for
tomorrow,
because
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
get
this
through,
so
that
we
can
do
the
and
now
that
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
this.
Do
the
removal
of
shell
logic
from
implementation
from
life
cycle.
At
the
same
time
as
introducing
the
same
behaviors
and
in
a
system
built
back.
A
Let's,
let's
just
add
that,
as
a
note
now.
A
Talk
about
okay
and
now
additional
exportable
layers.
What's
this
kindness
on
that.
A
B
A
Okay,
is
there
anyone
I
can
so,
let's.
A
All
right,
maybe
it's
just
since
this-
is
this
the
first
one
that
we
said
just
needs
both.
Maybe
we
could
just
advertise
it
to
terence
and
stephen
on
vacation
tomorrow,
so
that
doesn't
make
sense.
Okay,
all
right
anthony!
This
is
yours.
E
Yeah,
we're
still
in
progress
still
hashing
out
some
things
still
getting
through
impasses.
I
did
want
to
coax
a
little
bit
of
sympathy
for
this
one.
Just
you
know
this,
isn't
really
this
isn't
just
an
anthony
thing.
I
can
tell
you
that
the
kettle
folks
are
eagerly
awaiting
the
fallout
of
this
rc.
So
looking
forward
to
discussing
some
more.
B
C
Yeah
these
these
folks
aren't
going
to
be
able
to
make
the
the
working
group
or
sync
meetings.
So
they
ask
you
this
async,
but
I
think
I
think
we
have
some
comments
on
there.
So
I
don't
know
if
they
responded,
but
just
we
should
remind
ourselves
to
engage
because
it's
not
going
to
come
up
in
working
group.
A
C
Yeah
I'd
like
to
start
some
discussion
on
this
one.
This
is
essentially
a
straw
man.
I
wanted
to
put
something
out
there,
so
people
could
rip
it
to
shreds
and
we'd
end
up
with
something
better
or
all
agree
on
it
or
whatever
so,
but
I
think
we
just
need
to
start
somewhere,
because
we
were
talking
we're
going
in
circles
talking
about
it
made
something
concrete.
E
When
were
we
talking
about
this,
what
what
is
it.
C
E
Sure,
I'm
you
know
I'll
bring
this
up
here,
just
because
I
don't
think
it's
worth
working
group
time.
I
did
make
a
pr
to
the
rfc's
repo
for
basically
finishing
up
the
ad
status
labels
story
right,
the
the
the
the
task
to
actually
add
status
labels
to
the
rfcs.
E
You
know,
if
you
have
some
time,
I
was
just
thinking,
it'd
be
nice
if
someone
could
peruse
them
and
make
sure
like
appropriate
statuses
they're
there,
you
know,
I
know
some
things
might
be
on
hold,
but
I
don't
necessarily
have
the
context
to
like
be
sure
about
the
status
of
a
particular
rfc.
So
that's
just
that's
just
about
it.
Just
you
know
make
sure
some
statuses
make
sense
and
I'll
do
it
too,
but
if
someone
else
could
do
it
faster
than
me
just
want
some
eyes
on.
That's
all.