►
From YouTube: Working Group: 2021-03-03
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
I
could
mention
that
techton,
the
two
tasks
on
the
pipeline
did
get
published
or
sorry
they
got.
We
got
the
prs
up,
but
we're
still
waiting
for
the
maintainers
to
approve
the
prs
and
merge
them
in,
but
that
should
be
happening
here
pretty
soon
for
pac.
We
don't
have
a
release
until
the
17th.
I
believe
so
not
not
a
lot
of
discussion.
There.
C
D
Yep
yeah,
I
think
a
patch
to
get
a
simulink
fix
and
ggcr
version
bump
upgrade
that
I
think
fixes
some
registry
interactions
and
then
yeah.
A
Nothing
for
distribution,
although
I
should
say
you
know,
distribution
has
the
github
actions
and
the
and
the
registry-
and
I
I
think,
on
purpose,
we're
not
going
to
have
any
kind
of
formal
release.
Cadence
for
those,
so
they'll
just
come
up
as
needed,
which
should
be
pretty
infrequent.
A
A
You
know
security
patches,
ui
improvements,
stuff
like
that,
but
yeah
I
believe
that's
been
rolled
out
yeah
I
tweeted
about
it,
so
it
better
be.
E
A
We've
been
able
to
pick
up
the
formal
version.
Yeah
we've
been
able
to
pick
up,
we
call
them.
Mentees
people
contribute
a
lot
of
people
contributing
from
around
the
the
ecosystem.
So
that's
that's.
Really.
Nice.
E
I
guess,
following
up
on
that,
we're
part
of
the
lifx
and
google
summer
of
code
through
the
cncf,
through
distribution.
A
Yep
anything
else
on
release
planning.
A
Cool
rfc
review.
E
A
A
Today,
you'll
take
was
that
emily
you're,
taking
that
one.
C
I
think
steven's
assigned
to
that
one.
I
think
the
next
three
are
all
closing
today,
because
I
think
we
added
them
all
at
the
same
time.
So.
E
A
A
And
then
application
mixes
drafts.
A
All
right
next
agenda
item
is
turn
thursday
working
group
into
office
hours.
D
Yeah,
I
think
we
added
it
from
last
thursday,
since
there
was
not
many
people
there,
we
talked
about
what
to
do
with
thursday
meetings
and
we
said
we
need
to
bring
it
up
with
the
bigger
group,
I
think,
is
what
stephen
said
and
if
everyone
agreed,
then
we
could
turn
thursday
into
a
different
type
of
meeting.
D
So
we'd
still
keep
the
time.
Slot
would
be
the
idea
and
not
not
risk
losing.
You
know
the
kind
of
hour
on
people's
calendars.
If
it's
a
good
hour
to
chat
and
but
attendance
can
be
more
optional,
longer
focus,
you
know
we
don't
do
the
kinds
of
reviews
and
other
things
in
the
meetings
there's
less
of
a
obligation
to
attend.
D
It
would
just
be
important
that
if
community
members
show
up
for
the
first
time
in
that
meeting,
we
somehow
communicate,
like
you
know,
probably
show
up
to
the
wednesday
one
if
nobody's
here
or
something
that
makes
sense.
Maybe
we
want
to.
We
might
want
people
to
take,
turns
or
something.
A
Yeah,
I
was
gonna
say
I
think
it
sounds
like
a
good
idea,
but
I
would
definitely
want
to
have
a
formal
like
someone
is
gonna,
be
there
and
we
do
a
rotation.
I
wouldn't
want
to
end
up
in
a
situation
where
someone
from
the
community
showed
up
for
office
hours
and
we
were
surprised
not
there.
So
that'd
be
my
only
stipulation.
B
D
B
D
And
there's
probably
nobody
there,
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know,
I
don't
have
strong
opinions
just
yeah.
We
need
a
document
like
the
professor
rule
or
something
right
like
if,
if
you
know
whoever
the
volunteer
is,
if
there's
only
one
of
us
around
and
we're
only
there
15
minutes
and
no
one
else
shows
up,
then
can
we
close
it
down
document
it
and
be
happy
with.
D
E
D
D
B
C
B
B
I
mean
with
that
ask
also
the
people
that
have
like
very
dense
calendars
should
probably
keep
that
hour
open
right
in
case
they
need
to
be
pulled.
E
E
Yeah,
I
think
the
only
other
somewhat
related
point
was
sam
came
to
the
group
last
week
because
it
was
an
hour
earlier
because
this
is
an
hour
later,
so
it's
very
late
for
him.
So
there's
also
not.
I
don't
think
we
do
a
good
job
of
servicing
other
time
zones
that
aren't.
I
guess
north
america
focused
the
kind
of
higher
bandwidth
discussions.
A
A
B
A
E
Yeah,
I
think
it's
probably
good
for
us
to
pioneer
or
javier
to
pioneer
a
thing,
and
then
we
can
extrapolate
something
for
the
european
zone
once
we
feel
more
confident
about
it.
We're
just
trying
to
do
both
at
the
same
time
and
then
maybe
work
with
like
sam
and
dfr,
who
are
actually
in
those
time
zones
to
find
time
slots
that
actually
work
for
both
of
them.
E
E
E
E
Can
we
solve
this
problem
using
reverse
domains
for
name
spacing,
so
it
doesn't
tackle
the
I
think
thing
that
emily
was
suggesting,
if
I
remember
around
potentially
having
multiple
files
that
was
kind
of
out
of
scope
for
now,
but
if
we
want
to
add
that
in
we
can,
but
the
idea
is
that
I
felt
like
project
is
pretty
generic
and
probably
doesn't
need
to
fit
into
things
that
would
belong
in
the
I
o
built
backspace.
E
So
I
kind
of
left
that
part
alone,
but
then
the
build
key
would
fall
under.
I
love
bill
packs
like
so,
and
then
we
could
schema.
We
could
have
seen
a
version
specific
to
like
this
particular
namespace,
which,
as
javier
pointed
out,
could
be
a
thing
that
is
optional
for
other
folks
who
are
outside
of
bill
pax
who
would
want
to
adopt
it.
So
this
is
an
example
of
taking
what
is
in
the
spec
today
for
extensions
and
then
converting
over
to
what
I
think.
E
That
would
look
like,
and
this
is
an
example
of
not
having
anything
from
the
middle
packs
project,
but
just
something
under
a
totally
different
domain
and
how
that
would
look
and
as
far
as
spec
changes
goes,
I
think
there
would
actually
be
a
change
to
the
current
practice
scripter.
But
then
we
probably
want
a
separate
schema
specific
to
the.
I
o
bill
packs
thing,
because
then
we
can
update
and
change
that,
independently
of
kind
of
the
project
descriptor
as
a
whole
and
yeah,
that's
kind
of
it
not
super
complicated.
D
E
Yeah,
I
don't
know
I
I
that
was
an
open
question
for
me
or
is
it
yeah?
Should
projects
stay
as
topical
like.
A
D
D
A
Key
wait:
wait
when
you
say
maybe
we're
talking
about
two
different
things.
When
I
say
tld,
I
just
mean
com
or
io
right,
that's
what
I
mean
too,
but
okay,
but
then
we
can't
like
if
it's
just
calm
like
we
can't.
No
one
can
control
that.
So
you
could
have
collisions
all
over
the
place.
So
we
shouldn't
allow
if.
D
D
A
A
B
A
I
still
think
we
just
don't
allow
like
it's
gotta
be
tld.something,
because,
even
even
if
we
support
like
whatever
project
as
a
tld
like
that,
still
suggests
that
you,
as
example,
can
start
filling
in,
can
start
putting
keys
under
com
for
com.example,
and
that's
just
not
the
case
like
there's.
No
there's
no
way
to
like
I
don't
know.
Well,
there
is
a
way
but
like
to
say
who
owns
it,
but.
E
Yeah
I
mean
one
of
the
questions
I
had
too
was
like
should.
Reverse
remains
be
quoted,
because
that
was
like
another
question.
I
think
steven
asked
as
a
potential
alternative.
D
I
would
kind
of
lean
against,
quoting
it
or
like
I
like
how
it
creates
a
hierarchy
of
of
you
know
for
a
company
or
if
you
own,
example.com,
everything
is
under
that
table
right
and
then
divided
into
your.
You
know,
business
units
or,
however,.
E
D
D
I
don't
think
it
matters.
I
don't
think
the
subdomains
have
to
exist
right.
They
just
represent
ownership
of
that
namespace
at
the
domain
level.
So
you
don't,
if
you
own,
example.com
and
want
to
claim
these
are
your
sub
domains
right?
Maybe
they're
not
registered.
Maybe
you
don't
have
a
name
server,
that's
responding,
anything
to
anything
there,
but
that
doesn't
matter
for
the
name
spacing
right.
D
A
About
yeah
and
any
collision
there
between
a
key
and
the
table
would
be
up
to
the
com.example
folks
right
like
to
manage
that,
like
don't
make
a
www
key
duh.
B
B
A
I
guess,
that's
something
somebody
could
advertise,
but
they
would
be
wrong,
but
the
the
sort
of
valid
thing
you're
talking
about
where
yeah
I
can
put
whatever
I
want
in
this
file,
we're
not
going
to
validate
it
or
you
know,
check
against
some
registry
or
whatever,
because
you're
just
you're,
just
a
consumer.
At
that
point,.
B
All
right,
so
what
about
like,
maybe
more
concrete
example
for
better
for
worse.
But
what?
If
I
was
a
buildback
author
right
and
all
of
a
sudden
I
was
like.
Oh,
I
could
just
start
putting
random
keys
in
here
right
and
name
space
it
to
the
project.
My
product.
A
Yeah
again,
I
feel
like
that's
outside,
of
the
loop
of
validation
right
like
what
like
what
you're
asking
about
is.
Does
our
tooling
do
any
kind
of
verification,
and
I
think
that's
like
outside
of
that
loop,
where
an
author
would
tell
a
user
to
do
a
thing
and
that's
why
I
feel
like
it's
fine
not
to
have
it.
B
A
Like
I
guess
what
would
you
expect
from
I
as
a
build
pack
user,
I
see
an
instruction
to
put
name
equals
under
com.example,
so
I
go
and
I
do
that
then
you
you
would
expect
I'm
at
what
would
you
expect
to
happen
when
you
deploy
that
project
tunnel
to
some
platform.
A
B
E
Yeah
I
mean
there's,
I
I
guess
the
validation
at
most.
I
think
we
would
validate
just
I
o
dot
bill
packs
in
the
project,
but
I
don't
think
there
is
that's
kind
of
up
to
us
implement
that
schema
or
what
we
want
to
do.
Kind
of
on
the
platform
side
right
like
in
pack.
A
Yeah,
I
think
it's
different
from
like
what
you're
thinking
about
with
like
sonotype
or
like
a
maven
central
type
repository
we're
actually
publishing
it
somewhere,
and
that's
not
what
I
guess.
What
I'm
trying
to
say
is:
that's
not
what
we're
doing
here
and
so,
when
you
create
a
project
tamil,
it's
for
you
and
you
alone
in
some
sense,
and
it
would
be
different
if
we
were
putting
this
into
like
build
tactile,
which
yeah,
though
that
would
be
just
very
different.
B
Yeah
yeah,
no,
I
I
definitely
agree
with
that
right
like,
and
I
guess
that
again
it
was
just
making
sure
that
we
have
the
acknowledgement
that
there's
no
verification
or
validation
happening
in
regards
to
ownership
of
those
specified
tables
or
keys.
A
Yeah
because
you're
not
publishing
it.
I
think
that
also
begs
the
question
of
if
this
should
align
with
namespaces
in
the
registry
which
occurred
to
me,
but
I
don't
think
it
should
actually
because
they're
different
animals
right
like
these,
like,
I
think,
if
we
actually
did
map
to
the
name
space
in
the
registry,
it
would
imply
something
that
isn't
true.
E
So
feedback
so
far
seems
to
be
a
clarification
on
validation,
stuff
that
javier
brought
up
and
then
sounds
like
the
two-level
domain
restriction.
D
D
Then
it
seems
like
a
reasonable
thing
to
do.
If
somebody
owns
dot
project
right
and
decides,
they
want
to
add
top
level
keys
at
the
beginning
of
their.
You
know,
at
the
top
level
of
their
domain,
we
are.
We
are
kind
of
squatting
on
their
name
space,
for
this
right.
We're
specifically
saying
that
whoever
owns
that
tld
doesn't
doesn't
get
a
say
in
there.
You
know
on
any
of
their
sub
domains.
A
I
think
the
two,
I
think
the
two
options
in
my
mind
here
and
I
don't
think
steven
likes
either
but
is
restrict
tld
tables
all
together
and
so
project
is
special
and
it's
not
a
tlg
or
we
have
a
block
listed
set
of
tlds,
which
I
I
think
makes
sense
like
no
one
should
be
allowed
to
use
com
or
io
like
those
are
just
those
are
special
in
the
same
way
that
project
is
special
and
whoever
owns
project
you
know
deal
with
it
like
you,
don't
get
to
use
this.
D
I
I
don't
see
how
the
second
solution
helps
exactly
right,
because
the
the
problem
is
that
we're
not
just
saying
you
can't
put
if
you
own
dot
project,
you
can't
put
keys
under
your
immediate
top
level
domain,
we're
saying
if
you
own
dot
project,
you
know
we're
stamping
on
your
name
space.
There
are
things
that
should
should
be
yours
to
claim
that
we're
not
letting
you
claim
it.
Doesn't
it.
A
No
you're
right,
you're
right,
yeah
yeah.
I
don't
know
sorry.
D
D
D
E
Is
there
do
you
have
a
better
alternative,
as
I'm
trying
to
think
of
I
mean
the
other
alternative?
Is
we
could
move
project
outside
of
it
and
put
it
in
io
bill
packs
right?
That
is
a
potential
another
suggestion
that
is
clean.
D
E
I
mean
that
was
my
thought
it
like
when
we
were
talking
about
it
in
the
sub
team
sync
today
I
was
like.
I
don't
think
we
actually
use
any
of
this
stuff
and
like
pack
right
so
should
it
be
yeah.
E
A
Know
in
some
ways
that
achieves
a
goal
of
advertising
that
we've
talked
about.
You
know
having
a
build
pack
file
kind
of
thing,
not
quite
as
flamboyantly
as
a
buildback
file
would
but,
like
you,
open
a
project
tunnel,
and
you
can
see
that
this
project
is
intended
to
work
with
buildbacks
or
be
built
by
buildpacks.
A
B
B
Works,
my
two
cents
is,
I
I
have
a
preference
for
the
simplicity
of
just
not
allowing
tlds
and
everything
be
second
level
or
higher
again.
D
D
B
B
Going
towards
joe's
idea
of
like
any
tld
being
too
much
power,
I
guess
com
net
and
so
on,
and
so
by
disallowing
top
levels.
Then
you
don't
have
to
worry
about
that
particular
problem.
A
D
I
don't
know
we
don't
have
to
all
right.
I
don't
want
to
turn
it
into
an
argument.
I
just
wanted
to
call
it
call
out
that
we
should
think
about
the
implications.
E
E
Sync
was
right
now
I
don't
have
like
an
api
or
kind
of
key
at
the
top
or
something
to
kind
of
denote
the
schema,
but
I
do
think
the
project
descriptor
schema
is
independent
of
the
I
o
bill
pax
one
of
like
those
versions,
so
I
would
want
to
change
like
the
current
project,
descriptor
spec,
to
talk
about
the
kind
of
reverse
domain
changes
and
moving
io
bill
packs
out
of
that
schema.
B
D
B
B
D
Bring
back
the
idea,
there
may
be
special
characters
that
you
can't
use
in
a
domain
they're
valid
unquoted
and
automal
key
right,
so
it
may
be
totally
fine
if
we're
willing
to
say
at
project
or
at
api
in
the
file
that
may
give
us
a
way
of
saying
project
tunnel.
Has
these
meta
definitions
that
are
used
widely
and
it's
one
character.
That's
common
feeling!
Sorry
do
you
think
tamal.
E
D
D
D
A
B
B
D
I
think
we
provided
lots
of
really
good
feedback
for
options
here.
Do
we
have
anything
else
in
the
agenda?
I
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
have
time.
D
E
B
I
do
like
the
the
python
like
jesse,
proposed.
A
I
think
that
would
actually
be
a
great
option
if
there
was
a
way
to
like.
Oh
so
you
want
to
use
project,
then
you
could
do
this
to
like
eject
you
know
and
then
like.
Oh,
if
project
is
used
for
something
else,
you
know
pack
would
would
recognize
underscore
underscore,
but
I
don't
actually
see
a
way
to
do
that.
You'd
have
to
actually
like
detect
the
shape
of
the
table
like
what
keys
were
in.