►
From YouTube: CNB Core Team Sync - 30 Mar 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
B
C
A
B
A
B
A
A
Looks
like
we've
already
started
the
live
stream.
Let
me
see
just
a
bunch
of
old
faces,
outstanding
spec
prs.
B
B
Think
on
the
dockerfiles
one
we're
gonna
have
a
dedicated
meeting
looks
like
tomorrow
after
working
group,
so
I
think
we
can
probably
save
the
discussion
for
then,
when
we
have
stephen
on
the
terminology,
one
had
a
small
and
kind
of
getting
a
little
ahead
of
ourselves,
but
I
was
wondering
if,
given
that
the
life
cycle
is
sort
of
ready
and
implements
that
we
can
get
out
yeah
I
mean
we,
we
can
say
like
no
part
of
the
work
right.
A
A
A
I
think
any
one
of
those
other
than
meta
build
pack
is
probably
fine.
I
would
even
live
with
meta
build
pack,
but
it
makes
the
least
sense.
A
I
know
joe
had
some
thoughts
about
this.
He
wanted
to
call
it
like
an
app
build
pack.
I
wasn't
sure
if
that
totally
made
sense
to
me,
but
I
know
that
there's
opinions
floating
around,
at
least
on
the
names
of
the
different
types
of
build
packs,
the
other
one
that
I'd
like
to
get
into
is.
I
don't
think
this
draft
has
a
word
for
it,
but
the
other
thing
I
feel
like
we
really
need
a
word
for
in
practice
is
the
exact
d.
A
It's
like
the
wrong
part
of
speech.
Kind
of
it's
like
there's
no
noun
for
this
isn't
an
exact
d.
Executable,
that's
sort
of
you
know
redundant.
Is
that
what
the
exact
60's
just
the
name
of
the
directory
right?
This
is
exactly
binary
or
again,
we've
been
calling
them
launch
helpers.
I
think
that
might
be
a
more
semantically
useful
name.
A
Oops,
I
need
to
copy
that
I
wanted
to
repoint
this
well,
we
were
moving
it
to
09.
I
guess
we
needed
to
set
up
the
branch
for
r9,
though.
A
Okay,
well,
that's
outstanding
spec
prs.
Moving
on
to
our
next
item.
Spec
release
planning,
sorry,
I
shouldn't
have
stopped
sharing
so
aggressively
hold
on.
I
can
still
do
this
for
release
planning.
I
think
release
planning
is
now
looking
easy
with
those
things
moved
out
right.
We
have
a
completed
platform
and
a
completed
build
pack
spec.
So
we
are
okay
to
release
these
and
they're
already
implemented
in
the
live
cycle,
and
therefore
there's
no
blocker
here
is
that
right.
A
B
A
A
A
And
definitely
opened
talking
about
whether
we
want
the
review
of
the
whole
thing
to
be
a
final
step.
I
put
it
in
here
when
I
was
writing
this
process,
just
because
I
was
documenting
the
steps
that
I
took
to
cutter
release
before
going
on
sabbatical
and
not
the
steps
that
I
thought
were
the
ideal
ones,
but
just
the
literal
steps
that
I
usually
took.
C
B
D
I
think,
there's
two
questions
that
are
still
relatively
open
is
one
like:
what
is
the
acceptable
format
that
we
want
to
accept
the
images
to
be
defined
in
right?
That
is
sort
of
irrelevant
of
a
lot
of
the
other
conversations
relating
to
project
descriptor
and
then
two,
whether
or
not
these
belong
in
the
like
the
the
name
space
right.
C
D
Championing
and
basically
we
we
almost
went
like
a
full
circle
right
with,
with
this
whole
project.
Descriptor
thing
there
is
the
concept
of
a
preparer
that
is
is
underway,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
are
not
we're
not
defining
anything,
that's
being
required
for
platforms
to
do,
and
so,
therefore,
from
a
spec
perspective,
we're
not
actually
making
any
real
drastic
changes
right
now,.
D
I
I
could
probably
explain
it
better
or
I
should
be
able
to
explain
a
little
bit
better,
but
it
did
kind
of
go
everywhere
and
nowhere
at
the
same
time,.
A
D
D
A
But
it
seems
like
we're
back
to
what
we
were
doing
before
with
project
tama,
which
I
think
is
fine.
I'm
not
trying
to
argue
that
that's
wrong.
D
B
B
A
A
I
put
the
final
comment
period
label
on
five
days
ago,
so
I
guess
two
days
from
now.
We
can
merge
it.
So
that's
fine.
A
Allow
platforms
to
provide
run
image
s
bombs
in
implementation
sync
earlier
today,
natalie
was
making
a
plea
for
reviews
on
this.
I
think
we
also
acknowledged
the
need
to
corner
stephen
to
sort
of
hatch
out
some
of
these
details,
because
I
think
we
are
running
up
against
some.
A
B
A
A
A
We've
been
talking
about
doing
a
docker
file
meeting
tomorrow,
but
that
is
separate
from
the
organ
group
right,
that's
after
the
working
group
yep.
Okay.
What
do
folks
want
to
talk
about
at
the
working
group.
A
C
B
A
I
wouldn't
mind
getting
the
time
back,
but
I
want
to
speak
for
everybody.
D
D
I
mean,
if
there's
nothing
else,
I
would
maybe
propose
that
it'd
still
be
in
the
working
group
that
way
it's
recorded
and
anybody
that
actually
cares
to
review
how
the
conversation
went
already
has
an
avenue
to
do
so.