►
From YouTube: CNB Weekly Working Group
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
All
right,
please
sign
in
some
new
faces.
B
I
guess
we
can
jump
right
into
the
agenda.
Do
we
do
updates.
B
All
right
great
all
right,
so
then
we
can
jump
into
the
end
bars
RFC
me,
which
I
think
I.
Think
it's
not
here,
but
I
think
was
prompted
by
a
question
that
I
had
yesterday.
B
I'm
good
with
this
proposal,
I
recall
that
Emily
was
asking
if
there
was
a
way
that
we
could
sort
of
standardize
the
way
that
the
platform
directory
and
the
cnbn
directory
and
the
build
packs
and
directory
all
worked
with,
like
defaults
being
the
default,
and
there
was
a
question
about
the
ordering
I'm
not
trying
to
make
this
more
difficult,
so
I'm
totally
fine.
To
just
say
we
don't
have
to
do
this
now,
but
I
was
curious
about
what
Super
Future
right
like
what
was
it
about
that
idea
that
made
it
difficult
and
yeah?
B
D
Yeah
I
think
that
I
think
Emily's
questions
a
fair
question
all
right,
thanks
similar
to
the
cash
and
other
stuff
it
just.
We
are
doing
things
in
more
than
one
place.
I
think
Javier
asked
this
question
in
the
RFC
directly
to
some
degree
with
like
how
important
is
portability
in
the
image
and
that
we
can't
like
Leverage
the
same
directory
and
so
I.
D
Don't
know
if
there's
a
way
to
kind
of
do
it
with
how
we
have
kind
of
stood
up
some
of
the
other
stuff
before,
while
still
hitting
either
the
things
Sam
wants
out
of
poor
building
and
those
things
and
or
kind
of
changing
the
existing
structure,
inspect
kind
of
maybe
account
for
that
stuff.
E
E
B
I
could
be
like
I'm
a
little
fuzzy
in
my
understanding,
but
I
thought
that
the
platform
directory
is
implied
after
the
build
packs.
Modifications
right
and
the
default
behavior
is
override
right.
Is
that
correct.
B
E
I
personally
hear
you
pretty
clear:
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
right,
I,
don't
know
if
it's
spelled
out
anywhere.
I
haven't
seen
the
RFC
since
the
the
last
time
I
saw
it,
but
like
it
would
be
nice
to
sort
of
see
how
the
order
of
presidents
you
know
worked
along
with
the
different
I
guess
what
what
are
the
like?
Prefixes,
no
suffixes
right-
and
maybe
some
very
concrete
examples
on
that,
because
I
think
it
requires
a
little
bit
more
thinking
through,
at
least
for
me,.
A
B
Sam
did
give
some
examples,
but
they
don't
include
the
build
packs
part
so
like
that's,
why
I'm
still
a
little
fuzzy
but
I
can
leave
a
comment
on
the
RFC
just
asking
for
that
clarity.
B
It
kind
of
sounds
like
I'm
the
only
one
interested
in
this
topic,
but
I'm
happy
to
move
on.
If
there's
no
other.
F
F
Think
I
might
have
said
before
some
of
the
reasons
that
we
use
a
mechanism
like
this
is
because
we
want
to
set
some
environmental
variables,
like
the
PIP
registry
settings
and
the
npm
register
settings,
and-
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
to
set
them
in
one
place
and
have
them
apply
to,
in
some
cases
a
bunch
of
different
stacks
because
they're
all
just
pull
in
the
Builder,
config
and
yeah.
F
It
I
think
that's
where
it
came
out
of,
and
we
think
it
might
be
more
widely
used
useful
than
that.
It's
much
more
insight
into
somebody's
mind,
I'm
afraid
it's
not
something
that
I
can
provide.
B
A
B
We
don't
have
Emily
the
author
of
that
RFC
I,
recall,
Joe
I
think
he
thought
there
was
one
section
that
it
was
empty
and
it
would
be
nice
to
fill
it
in.
C
Yeah
I
think
the
implementation
section
is
empty.
We
were
talking
about
whether
it
actually
needed
to
be
filled
up
because
I
think
most
CRC
actually
talks
about
it.
But
Emily
said
she
wanted
to
look
at
I.
Think
the
process
of
actually
updating
the
instruction
dock.
That's
in
the
repo
I
mean
I
I
I'm,
ready
to
approve
it.
I
just
felt
like
I,
was
going
to
wait
and
see
what
happened
there.
C
If
we
decide,
we
don't
want
to
fill
that
out
at
this
point.
I'm
fine
I
think
it's
important
that
we
move
it
forward.
C
So
maybe
I
don't
know
if
Emily's
going
to
be
here
but
like
we
could
sort
of
time
box
it
and
say:
if
it's,
if
we
don't
get
to
it,
then
we
just
review
it,
as
is.
D
F
So
did
as
I
recall.
You
also
said
that
you
wanted
to
maybe
turn
this
into
a
slightly
working
section
of
the
meeting
that
might
Force
us
to
read
through
parts
of
it
is.
C
We
could
do
that.
I
was
gonna,
I
was
kind
of
saying
that
with
assuming
Emily
would
be
here,
but
yeah
I
was
gonna
say
we
could
actually
take
some.
You
know
15
minutes
here,
everybody
read
through
it
if
we
need
to
make
updates
and
make
updates-
and
we
kind
of
drive
it
through
in
this
meeting.
I
think
that's
the
last
agenda
item.
So
maybe
we
first
check.
If
anybody
has
anything
else
and
then
and
then
we
can
try
that.
C
F
Hey
Terence
I
see
what
you're
asking
there,
but
the
call
for
votes
still
say
that
this
overloads
should
be
something
that
happens
at
the
end
of
the
consensus
process.
D
Yeah
I
guess
I
was
confused
because
of
the
definitions
of
Steward
and
team
leads.
D
When
I
was
first
reading
definitions,
it
seems
like
if
the
steward
is
the
one
driving
the
RFC,
whether
it's
a
team
or
project
level,
they
should
probably
be
the
one
to
call
for
votes
and,
if,
like
on
a
project
level,
the
team
lead
in
the
steward
differ
in
that
case,
then
they
can
vote
differently
right
at
that
point,
and
that
seems
like
you
would
figure
out
very
quickly
whether
you're,
on
the
same
page
or
not,
and
the
case
of
a
project,
the
student
team
lead
is
the
same
person
right
so
I
hope
they
would
not
differ
on
their
opinion.
D
But
one
would
hope
you
would
make
those
decisions
at
the
same
time,
same
state
of
mind.
D
I
think
that
makes
sense
to
me
if
it
doesn't
make
sense.
Other
people,
that's
fine,
too,.
F
Yeah
I
mean
it
is
okay,
yeah,
so
corporate
says
that
when
a
orfc
is
deemed
ready
by
a
team
lead
that
team
lead
initiates
the
voting
process
with
a
call
for
votes.
At
this
point,
the
RC
is
closed
to
modification.
F
In
my
mind
of
the
steward,
isn't
the
team
lead?
It
is
the
case
that
the
stewards
does
have
to
Shepherd
the
team
leader
convince
them
that
that
this,
this
RFC
is
ready
for
for
votes,
and
then
the
team
leads
calls
for
the
vote
so
I'm
happy
with
that
being
phrased
either
way.
Frankly,
but.
F
D
Maybe
I
might
just
put
a
comment
on
RFC
asking
and
get
Emily
the
chairman
I
don't
know
if
other
people
have
thoughts
as
well.
F
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
I,
potentially
I
think
maybe
we
talked
about
Tim
leads
at
one
point
kind
of
doing
that,
but
I
guess
now
rereading
him.
It
to
my
mind
like
if,
if
the
steward's
doing
all
the
work
like
it
seems
like
they
should
also
be
the
ones
who
make
the
call
and
and
for
project
artifices.
That
is
basically
the
same
person
anyways
right
like
for
project
rfcs.
It's
like
the
steward
does
all
the
work
to
Shepherd
a
thing
through
and
then
they're
also
the
ones
who
make
the
call.
D
So
when
it
comes
down
to
project
RFC
or
team
rfcs
then
I
feel
like
it
then
separates
that
responsibility,
which
feels
a
little
weird
to
me.
But
you
know
I
mean
in
practice.
It
probably
doesn't
actually
make
that
much
of
a
difference
because
you
probably
have
to
convince
the
team
lead
anyways,
like
you're
saying
so.
D
G
Okay,
who
is
responsible
to
do
this,
then,
if
I
get
here,
okay,
my
PR
was
rejected.
Okay
I
know
that
I
need
to
do
some
stuff.
Okay,
who,
who
is
supposed
to
reopen
the
VR
me
the
author
or
I,
should
ask
the
store?
Hey?
Could
you
reopen
so
I?
Can't
you
know,
do
the
fixes
so
in
the
process,
so
it
was
not
clear.
It.
F
F
Because
that
would
then
just
stop
the
the
unlikely
but
scenario
where
there's
a
vexatious
author,
reopening
their
PR
after
the
team
lead,
closes
it
and
yeah
cool
thanks
Juan,
and
that
suggests
then,
if
we
've
got
terence's
suggestion.
If
we
got
one
suggestion,
then
for
everybody
else
seems
to
be
happy
with
things.
D
In
I
mean
I
have
more
comments.
Sorry
Aiden
in
the
voting
thing
Sam
made
some
comment
about.
Can
we
set
a
minimum
time
period
for
the
window
and
then
I
noticed?
He
then
marked
it
resolved
where
no
one,
where
no
minimum
time
window
was
set,
besides
kind
of
best
judgment,
to
prescribe
a
length
that,
in
good
faith,
ensures
honors
and
parties
get
a
chance
to
vote.
D
I.
Guess
those
two
kind
of
feel
that
odds
of
just
not
setting
minimum
time
window
and
just
saying
leave
it
up
kind
of
to
I?
Guess
the
person
who's
making
the
call
for
votes.
D
Yeah
I
guess
so
that
or
I
think
setting
a
minimum
or
Guidance
just
probably
makes
it
easier
on
the
person
who's,
making
the
call
for
votes
to
just
probably
default
to
it,
I'll
just
like
not
having
to
like
how
do
you
know
when,
because
you
can't
edit
the
RFC
right.
So
it's
just
it
kind
of
freezes
everything.
So
it's
like
what
is
what
is
a
reasonable
time
window
and
maybe
for
maybe
for
like
project
versus
Team
rfc's.
D
This
is
different
because
the
scope
scope
is
different
and
then
potentially
you're
like
working
with
those
people
day
in
day
out,
right,
like
if
you're
working
on
your
own
team.
Maybe
you
are
talking
about
that.
You've
been
talking
about
this
RFC,
like
every
kind
of
you
know,
teamsync
meeting,
and
so
there
is
already
a
ton
of
consumptions,
but
there
is
like
to
some
degree
like
if,
if
all
the
binding
votes
are
kind
of
done,
you
can
close
it
early
and
accept
it.
So
it
means
there
is
really
that
consensus
on
the
team.
D
Then.
Is
there
really
that
much
fear
for
having
and
then
window
I
don't
know.
B
I
added
a
suggestion:
I,
don't
know
how
we
feel
about
it.
I
I
think
it's
like
it's
good
to
just
have
it
be
guidance,
but
to
include
it
here
will
at
least
give
you
know
some
Direction.
F
C
Yeah
I
gave
it
my
approval.
I
have
a
couple
of
suggestions
outstanding,
so
if
anybody
else
wants
to
merge
those
go
for
it,
but
I'm
I'm
happy
as
is,
and
I
added
a
sentence
to
the
implementation
section
just
to
keep
it
covered,
and
we
can
add
more,
we
can
kind
of
fun
with
the
way
it
is.
F
Yeah
so
Joe's
out
of
the
sentence
after
the
orfc
has
been
accepted,
any
team
or
individual
might
begin
implementing
the
changes.
It
declines
I
think
that's
reasonable,
because
it
agrees
with
the
rest
of
the
documents.
So
I
will
accept
that
suggestion
unless
anybody
wants
to
shout
at
me.
A
D
Mean
that's
only
it's
only
if
you're
following
the
RFC
process
that
says
that
only
the
author
should
be
allowed
to
edit
it
which
has
not
been
accepted
yet
so
I.
F
Know
I
just
feel
about
them,
committing
things
to
other
people's
stuff,
but
all
the
other.
All
the
suggestions,
look
reasonable
to
me.
I
think,
naturally,
suggestion
deals
with
terence's
question
reasonably
and
bomb
city
is
adding
a
suggestion
about
the
who
can
reopen
things
and
yeah.
It
looks
like
we're
in
a
stage
that
we
we
have
more
than
rough
consensus
or
lazy
consensus
on
this
there's
a
lot
of
good
detail
here
and
if
Emily
then
accepts
all
these
changes,
I
suspect
we're
at
we're
an
end
game.
F
D
D
I
think
well,
I
think
the
more
reasonable
one
is
probably
like
the
steward
is
the
team
lead,
assuming
that
other
change
doesn't
come
through
right
in
a
project
level
one
and
maybe
people
are
out
on
vacation
or
whatever
right
like
not
intentionally
like
Stone
one
thing,
some
some
work
crisis
came
up.
You
know
like
yeah
I
feel
like
it's
given
the
state
of
I
think
maybe
Tom
and
diversity
right
now
and
things
like
it's
not
I,
think
unreasonable.
F
So,
do
you
want
to
say
that
at
least
the
steward
I
know
what
counts?
The
whole
point
of
the
lazy
consensus
is
to
allow
things
to
go
forward
right.
D
D
F
I
understand
what
you're
saying
I
accept
what
you're
saying
it.
It
does
sound
like
we're
putting
in
I'm
trying
to
think.
Is
there
a
straightforward
way
of
of
dealing
with
this
yeah?
So
what
happens?
If
there
is
quite
literally
just
an
invalid
vote,
because
no
one
has
voted
then
we
can.
We
can
we
just
say
something
like
we
repeat
the
call
for
votes
procedure.
D
A
F
Tastic
right
so,
given
that
we
still
have
what
seven
people
in
here,
he
definitely
understand
control
flow
diagrams,
and
if
statements
are
there
any
any
obvious
other
weird
and
wonderful
edge
cases
that
we
should
close
off
at
this
stage.
F
D
Don't
go
for
it,
I
guess,
Hower.
It
talks
about
a
little
bit
for
like
finding
stewards.
Is
there
like
a
regular
place?
This
happens.
D
Me
again
for
finding
Stewart
it
talks
about
like
who
can
kind
of
be
in
Steward
and
how
they
kind
of
belong
to
a
team
or
like
within
their
own
team
thing
is:
is
this
just
like?
D
I
may
have
missed
something,
but
it
doesn't
really
talk
about
like
how
you
actually
find
one
like
I.
Think
it
talks
about
like
kind
of
the
criteria
and
and
kind
of
where
they
go,
but
like
is
their
process
for
how
rfc's
get
assigned
to
a
steward?
Is
it
up
to
team
leads
to
kind
of
take
that
initiative
on
their
own?
D
E
E
So
I
guess
right
now:
it's
very
organic
I.
Don't
know
that
it's
working
is
there
an
alternative
that
you
could
see
turns.
D
I
mean
it
could
be
a
like.
Do
we
want
to
be
part
of
one
of
our
working
group
things
where
we
either
look
at
overseas
or
close
them
or
kind
of
see?
If
people
are
say,
is
it
up
to
kind
of
stewards
to
just
be
proactive
about
I
guess
for
project
level?
It's
like
up
to
team
leads,
probably
more
so
I.
Imagine
for
team
rfcs.
You
have
more
visibility
on
your
own
team.
D
One
would
hope
of
Team
rfc's
being
brought
up,
but
kind
of
that
we've
done
away
with
the
our
RC
review
process.
Right,
like
I,
think
there's
a
higher
chance
that
it
kind
of
just
puts
a
lot
more
onus,
I
think
on
potential
stewards
to
be
very
proactive
about
looking
at
them,
or
it's
very
easy
for
rfcs
I
guess
to
languish.
B
I
feel
like
we've,
already
sort
of
been
doing
something
like
this
informally
in
the
team.
Lead
sync
like
I
can
recall
that
the
last
few
weeks,
if
there
was
an
RFC
that
I
was
aware
of
that,
you
know.
I
didn't
like
an
example
being
the
additional
oci
artifacts
one
right
like
I,
had
taken
a
look
at
it,
but
it
wasn't
really.
My
wheelhouse,
however
I,
wanted
to
make
sure
other
people
knew
about
it.
B
D
Yeah
I
I,
that
makes
sense
to
me
I
just
didn't,
want
it
to
be
like
now
is
the
one
that
reads
the
rfcs
and
then
she
brought
it
to
the
team
lead
meeting
as
like
this
kind
of
you
know,
like
someone's
doing
this
thing
kind
of
thing
like.
G
A
B
D
Yep
that
sounds
good
to
me.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it
was
the
thing
we
were
proactively
doing
versus
or
I
would
prefer.
It
was
proactive
versus
organically,
like
someone
was
making
sure
it
was
happening,
and
then,
if
that
someone
went
on
vacation
or
you
know
whatever
it.
E
So
sorry,
Aiden
before
we
go
to
the
to
that
I
guess
the
one
thing
I
was
going
to
comment
is
I'm,
not
sure
that
I
want
to
be
very
specific
in
the
RFC
or
I.
Don't
think
it'd
be
ideal
to
be
very
specific
in
the
rfcs
to
the
process
of
how
a
steward
comes
to
be.
But
to
your
point
turns
I
think
we
do
have
to
be
clear
on
Whose
responsibility.
It
is
to
attribute
stewards
right.
Is
it
the
person
the
author
of
The
RFC?
E
Is
the
team
leads
or
whatever
right
so
I
think
the
solution
that
Natalie
brought
up
I
think
is
a
really
good
one,
so
that
would
be
to
team
lead
sync,
but
I
wouldn't
want
to.
You
know
scribe
that
into
the
RFC.
E
So
what
if
we
just
said
that
you
know
the
leadership,
I
I,
don't
know
if
we
use
that
term
already,
but
basically
leadership
is
the
one
that
sets
is
responsible
for
setting
a
steward
and
if
there's
no
Steward
available
at
that
time,
right
then
at
least
they're
responsible
for
sort
of
more
or
less
softly
rejecting
the
RFC
due
to
the
lack
of
bandwidth
but
I
think
we
have
to
give
the
author
sort
of
a
hey.
F
Cool,
so
the
the
the
choosing
assignment
or
I'm
sure
Aussie.
There
must
be
a
cooler
name
for
for
that.
You
know
you
come
for
a
constitutional
monarchy.
There's
got
to
be
a
much
investing
of
a
skewer
to
them.
F
Is
we
need
to
add
that
to
as
a
standing
item
to
our
meeting
Javier,
you
don't
see
the
needs
to
add
anything,
any
more
detail
into
the
RFC
about
investing
a
stewards?
Is
that
correct,
I.
E
The
only
you
know,
basically,
one
or
two
sentences
I
would
add
right
is
the
TOC
members
or
team
leads,
are
responsible
for
assigning
a
steward
or
notifying
to
the
author
that
no
assigning
can
be
made
at
this
time
for
whatever
the
reason
may
be,.
F
I
have
to
drop
her
afraid
for
the
Fantastic
reading.
Reason
that
we're
getting
a
new
team
member
and
I
have
to
go
and
see
them
all
right,
but
congratulations.
Thank
you
very
much.
It
sounds
like
we're
near
the
end
of
this
process,
probably
again,
but
you
know
if
it
sounds
like
we're,
definitely
getting
further
towards
the
end
here.
C
Yeah
well
helping
Emily
and
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out
what
to
do
with
Stephen's
vote,
but
yeah
thanks.
Everybody.