►
From YouTube: GitOps Principles Committee Weekly Meeting 20210728
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
A
A
It
may
not
continue
to
be
weekly
depending
on
how
how
far
along
we
move-
and
it
looks
pretty
good-
I'm
gonna
paste
in
the
link
to
the
direct
link
to
our
to
this
week's
meeting
in
the
in
the
meeting
stock,
and
if
anyone
wants
to
add
agenda
items,
I
put
two
on
there,
because
those
were
things
we
said
we
were
going
to
talk
about,
but
also,
if
anything's
more
pressing,
we
can.
We
can
bump
those
up
in
the
agenda.
A
B
That
was
just
about
why
you
named
this
break
glass.
C
B
C
Break
glass
comes
from
like
a
fire
alarm,
so
in
a
lot
of
old
buildings,
I
used
to
have
a
key
that
was
behind
glass
and
it
says,
in
case
of
emergency,
break
the
glass
to
get
the
exit,
the
key
for
the
exit
door.
D
Okay,
thank
you
for
accessibility
state.
It
might
be
worth
pointing
out
that
english
idioms
are
fun,
but
not
necessarily
the
most
accessible.
C
E
A
Okay,
cool.
I
put
that
on
the
agenda,
so
we
already
started
discussing
it.
But
but
that's
that's
thanks.
Thanks
mush.
A
Okay,
christian,
you
have
your.
F
Yeah
yeah,
because
well
I
want
actually
what,
in
in
the
in
the
same
vein
of
breaking
glass
right.
We
should
we
should.
I
wonder
if
we
should
talk
about
avoiding
terms
like
that,
even
if
it's
mostly
generic
right
like
it's,
it's
like
a
motion,
you,
whatever
I
mean
you
know,
if
you're,
if
you
speak
english,
you
know
what
that
means.
Robert
even
said
like
in
norwegian.
That
makes
sense,
but
should
we
like
start
now?
This
may
be
a
topic
for
another
time
or
maybe
like
a
thing
to
do.
F
We
should
maybe
start
trimming
some
of
those
things
if
we,
if
we
decide
to
right
like
trimming
some
of
those
phrases,
I
don't
think
we
have
a
lot
of
those
phrases.
I
think
we
purposely
avoided
using
some
of
the
phrases
scott
I
know
offline.
We
talked
about
like
I
try
to
avoid
using
the
word
via
right
via
via
just
for
that
reason
right
like
because
you
know
it
makes
sense
to
a
lot
of
people,
but
maybe
not
everyone.
A
A
A
Flesh
out
specifics,
you
know
we
just
probably
need
a
to-do
list.
Maybe
I'll
say,
ask
someone
to
help
review
from
this
point
of
view.
D
I
do
think
there's
kind
of
a
neat
irony
in
saying
ensure
documents.
Language
is
inaccessible
and
start
out
with
flesh
out.
D
Exactly
it's
accessibility
is
hard.
A
A
Whatever
there
we
go,
okay,
so
cool.
This
is
great.
Thank
you.
That's
awesome.
This
will
be
an
enhancement
or
actually
it's
not
enhancement.
This
is
just
a
task.
A
It's
not
an
enhancement;
this
is
an
actual
task.
That
needs
to
be
done,
and
I
I
I
think
like
unless
anyone
disagrees,
I
think
that
that's
an
important
important
note
for
the
for
the
v1
milestone:
okay
cool
well.
That
was
good
thanks.
Florian.
A
H
A
A
A
An
issue
in
right
here
in
in
the
open,
open,
github.
A
Documents,
repo
and
and
I'll
just
link
it
right.
There.
A
Cool
I'll
stop
sharing
my
screen
now,
if
I
can.
A
Okay,
anything
else
that,
or
does
anyone
object
to
moving
discussion
about
that
and
any
items
that
folks
think
we
should
add
to
that
issue.
A
Cool
that
is
great,
okay,
next
item:
how
do
how
do
these
two
agenda
items
sound
talking
about
the
the
the
group
iteration
and
simplifying
the
principal
wording,
which
I
think
sounds
like
we're
pretty
much
there?
We
just
wanted
to
kind
of
confirm
that
on
this
call
that
and
the
the
the
the
next
version
and
then
wanted
to
look
at
the
milestone
for
for
v
1.0.
A
We
just
added
one
more
item
to
that
milestone,
but
I
would
like
to
propose
that
we
set
a
date
for
that.
So
those
are
my
two
items
ready
to
talk
about
the
first
one.
A
This
is
the
issue
that
every
single
person
on
this
call
has
has
contributed
to.
I
think
I
can
check
this
box
that
say
get
more
reviews
from
the
principal's
committee
principles
committee
and
try
and
work
asynchronously
we've.
It's
no
longer
that
part
is
no
longer
in
progress.
We've
done
that.
A
Yes,
excuse
me
so
where
we're
at
with
it
right
now
is,
do
do
do
do
do
scrolling
all
the
way
down
to
the
bottom.
Real
fast
we've
got
a
number
of
different
a
number
of
approvals
of
getting
this
out
for
another.
You
know
pre-release
version,
there's
one
question
that
I
had
mosh
for
you.
You
said
your
your
plus
one
for
merging
and
iterating,
but
not
100
sure,
yet
about
tagging
it
until
we're
at
minimum
solve
consistency
and
grammatical
issues.
A
We
add
a
minimum
consistency
and
grammar
issues.
Is
that
something
that
you
feel
is
a
blocker
for
the
v
two
point
or
sorry,
v,
0.2.0
pre-release.
C
Well,
yes,
so
I
think
we're,
I
don't
think,
there's
we've
made
progress,
but
we
haven't
ticked
off
the
actual
principles,
those
four
items.
So
I'm
not
saying
we
need
to
solve
the
entire
document
and
tackle
all
of
the
notes
before
we
do
a
next
tag.
What
I'm
saying
is
that
this
principle
section
it
needs
to
be
done
and
dusted
and
and
either
everybody
agrees
or
there's
consensus
to
not
degree
that
that
those
four
things
are
done
and
dusted.
A
That
sounds
right.
That
sounds
right
to
me.
Sorry,
let
me
open
the
participants
tab
to
make
sure
I
can
see
any
hands.
Okay,
cool.
That
sounds
that
sounds
right
to
me.
Are
you
saying
that
you
feel
like
there
is
a
consistency
and
grammar
issue
with
these
four
headers
and
if
so,
what?
What
is
it?
Because
I
hadn't
heard
that
before.
C
Well,
intentional
changes
only
through
versioning
to
me
that
should
be
is
only
through
version
or
intentional
change.
We
we've
changed.
The
tone
we
go
is
is
is,
and
now
it's
changes
like
it
should
be.
Intentional
change
is
only
through
versioning,
that's
more
consistent
declaration
and
and
then
again
declarations
of
so
that
this
word
declaration
bugs
me.
It
really
bugs
me
because
it's
not
something
we've
defined
anywhere
else,
we're
assuming
when
we
say
desired
system
status.
C
Deteriorative,
we're
saying
that
is
now
constitutes
a
declaration,
but
while
we're
doing
it
just
say,
desired,
state
is
versioned
and
immutable,
and,
and
then
again
with
with
system
state
desired
system
state
is
declarative.
We
we're
using
in
some
places
desired
state
in
some
places
desired
system
state.
We
must
pick
one
or
the
other
and
use
it
consistently.
C
A
A
A
Not
the
title
under
understood,
understood,
I
was
sorry
I
wasn't
quite
finished
with.
That
is
what
I
what
I
meant,
that
was
kind
of
a
setup,
I'm
somebody
who
takes
three
paragraphs
to
set
up
for
like
a
one
sentence,
so
forgive
my
rhetorical
style
there,
but,
but
basically,
my
understanding
of
why
we
went
back
to
these
to
is
is
because
these
headers
for
each
of
these
just
seemed.
I
mean
to
not
very
memorable,
not
very
snappy
and
kind
of
repetitive,
unnecessarily
repetitive.
A
So
what
we?
What
I
I
think
we
tried
to
do
was
ensure
that
one
built
on
the
other,
so
we
didn't
have
to
repeat
the
same
words
over
and
over
and
over
again,
because
otherwise
we
could
say
desired
state
in
every
single
one
of
these
we
could
say
you
know
versioned
and
immutable
in
every
single
one
of
these,
but
I
think,
since
they
are
numbered
and
progressive,
the
idea
was
that
they
would
build
one
to
the
next.
That
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
I'm
saying
this
is
exactly
perfect.
So
far.
A
This
is
so
far
through
talking
with
all
of
you,
and
this
seemed
to
be
the
closest
that
we've
gotten
so
far.
A
I
know
that
there
christian
and
I
had
kind
of
like
a
like
a
like
a
one-hour
spitballing
of
how
we
could
change
the
wording
for
number
four
but
decided
to
leave
that
until
until
for
for
for
the
next
call,
because
we
didn't
want
to
hold
up
this
pr
and
just
like
debate
it
infinitely
that
it
seemed
more
important
to
get
something
out
there,
where
people
feel
that
they
can
actually
remember
these
and
understand
what
they
mean,
the
the
spirit
of
what
they
mean.
A
That's
spelled
out
in
detail
in
this
in
the
in
the
in
the
principle
itself,
but
that's
all
I
I
wanted
to
say
about
the.
Why
and
I
just
want
to
kind
of
leave.
You
motion
the
rest
of
you
with
that
thought.
While
we,
while
we
look
over
this
and
think
about
how
we
feel
about
what
they
say
and
what
it
means,
I
think.
G
Yeah
I
was
just
going
to
agree
with
moshe.
I
think
I
I
won't
speak
for
him.
I
bet
I
know
why
his
hands
up.
I
don't
I
don't
think
the
question
is
why
we
need
the
the
shorter
headers
it's
just
that
they
are
not
consistent,
which
I
agree
with,
and
I
think
even
like
you
know,
christian
and
a
couple
of
other
people.
We
we've
been
talking
about
four
and
four
feels
clunky
and
weird.
I
had
the
thing
about
versioning
as
a
verb.
I
know
I
was
voted
down.
G
It's
okay,
not
a
hill,
I'm
gonna
die
on,
but
I
do
agree
having
a
little
bit
more.
Consistency
in
those
is
really
important
because
we
do
want
them
to
pop
and
we
don't
want
sort
of
cognitive
dissonance
to
to
fight
against
that.
So
I
I
would
be.
G
C
Yeah,
so
it's
got
100.
I
agree
with
you
that
we
need
to
make
these
things
pop,
but
I
think
that
that's
it's
premature
to
to
do
that
now.
I
think
now
we
need
to
distill
it
down
to
its
correct
form,
into
the
correct
and
consistent
form
and
then
once
once
that's
distilled
down
into
a
clean
format.
C
But
I
think
we
we
should
make
it
consistent
and
clean
before
then
yeah.
Just
my
concerns.
A
Okay
and
before
going
to
florian
real
fast,
just
a
point
of
clarification
on
what
you
said
are
you
then
saying
you
don't
think
we
should
have
additional
pre-releases
before
1.0.
C
No,
no,
I
I
am,
but
I'm
saying
that
each
pre-release
needs
to
finish
something
so
prerelease
the
next
one
should
finish
principles.
The
next
one
should
finish
notes
the
next
one
should
handle
accessibility.
The
next
one
can
handle
marketing
like
you,
don't
release
something
in
an
incomplete
state.
We
don't
have
to
make
sure
everything
is
there,
but
whatever
we
do,
we
must
complete
it
before
we
go
move
on
and
and
say.
This
item
is
now
closed
until
we
want
to
do
a
a
patch
on
that,
because
there's
something
fundamentally
buggy
about
it.
A
B
Yeah,
I'm
not
in
the
complete
discussion
till
now,
but
I
like
the
idea
of
these
principles
built
on
top
of
each
other,
so
not
being
this
for
mantras,
but
the
two
referring
to
the
one
and
then
so
on
so
a
desired
system
state
is
declarative
and
then
declarations
are
version.
So
that
is
a
kind
of
a
story
behind
so
they
are
related
to
each
other.
They
can't
so
the
four
can't
be
if
one
two
three
aren't
fulfilled.
Something
like
that.
B
A
Okay,
thanks
florian,
I
see
some
jesse's
thumbs
up
and
christian
is
next.
F
Yeah
so
yeah
so
jesse,
exactly
like
four
is
four
is
really
hard.
I
actually
liked
it
to
where,
because
of
what
florian
said
that
we
originally
had
like
kind
of
a
yes,
we
really
mean
it
because
then
it
reference
like
you
know
one
two
and
three:
it's
like
the
only
way
to
operate
a
system
is
to
do
one
two
and
three
right,
so
it
it
brings
that
back
to
the
loop.
That
was
my
my
first
point.
I
think
again,
four
is
hard,
but
are
we?
F
F
I
think
I'm
in
agreement
with
that.
If
that's,
if
that's
what's
being
proposed
or
like
what
what
I
guess
my
question
now
is
out
and
then
I'll
yield.
My
time
is
what
is
the?
What
are
we
arguing
here
about
like
and
when
I
mean
arguing
like
disgusting
right
like
what
are
what's?
What's?
What's
the
point
of
contention,
I
guess.
A
A
This
one
does
not
do
that
that
that
could
be
fixed,
that
that
contention
could
be
fixed
in
one
of
several
ways:
the
most
easy
one
just
throwing
the
word
is
in
there
or
are
in
there
whatever
intentional
change
is
or
changes
are
right
that
that's
one
contention
second
and
motion
I'll,
let
you
go
if
you
have,
if
you
want
to
clarify
this,
but
I'd
rather
not
kick
off
another
another
discussion
topic
until
after
florian
has
his
turn
and
and
then
the
second
thing
I
heard
was
that
moshe
had
an
issue
with
potentially
an
issue
with
number
two
in
the
word
declarations
in
that
do
we
want
to
repeat
the
fact
that
it's
desired
state
rather
than
declarations
again,
I
I
had
said
my
point
of
view.
A
Was
that
the
the
number
one
kind
of
clarifies
that
number
two
builds
upon
that,
and
I
think
that
was
florian's
point,
but
those
were
that
was
what
had
been
brought
up.
The
second
was
or
sorry.
The
third
was
that
what
was
it
system
state?
There
was
a
concern
that
maybe
we
shouldn't
say,
system
state.
We
should
just
say
disaster.
Oh.
A
Right
something
something
like
that
right.
That
was
the
other.
That
was
the
third
contention
and
I
think
the
fourth
contention
was
just
that.
No
one's
extraordinarily
happy
with
the
wording
of
number
four
it's
fairly
accurate,
but
is
it
catchy
we
don't
really
know
there
are
other
opinions
thrown
out,
but
I
think
those
are
the
contentions
is
there?
Did
I
miss
any
mosh
or
anyone
else
on
the
call.
C
C
A
Okay,
I
can
say
for
one
since
I'm
the
one
that
put
the
agenda
item
on
saying,
like
I'd
like
to
get
this
merged.
The
reason
that
I
did
that
and
let's
just
address
the
last
first
right,
real
fast,
because
I
see
florian
put
his
hand
down.
So
I
don't.
A
Okay,
okay,
fair
enough,
the
fact
that
we
have,
let's
see
in
terms
of
actually
iterating,
you
know
one
two,
three
four
five
looks
good,
and
this
was
I'm
counting
myself
on
this
one,
because
this
was
not
my
pr
per
se,
I'm
just
the
one
that
opened
it
this.
This
actually
came
out
of
our
meeting.
I
did
not
add
my
own
spin
on
it
or
anything
like
that
right,
so
it
just
means.
A
I
can't
do
an
official
approval
because
github
doesn't
let
you
right
so
so
so
I
just
made
that
as
a
comment.
But
apart
from
that,
we
have
people,
saying
hey,
let's
roll
with
this
and
and
and
improve
and
iterate,
and
improve,
because
it's
a
vast
improvement
to
what
we
have.
What
I'm
hearing
now
is.
A
Is
that
that
most
europe
for
merging
and
iterating,
but
not
sure
about
tagging,
and
I
think
that's
calling
into
question
other
people
thinking
well
do
I
do
I
do
I
approve
of
this
right?
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
one
thing
that
we
are
following:
we've
decided
that
we're
following
simber
as
a
a
versioning
specification.
A
We
are
in
pre-release
right
now,
we're
not.
We
have
not
released
a
version,
that's
a
full
version.
Yet
the
the
goal
of
the
goal
of
doing
this.
From
my
point
of
view
of
tagging,
it
would
be
so
that
we
can
reference
it
elsewhere.
Right
now,
we're
referencing
the
older
version
that
repeats
all
of
those
things,
so
the
website
is
is
pointing
to
the
0.1.0
of
this,
and
that's
where
we're
at
so.
A
If
we
want
to,
if
we
want
to
iterate
further,
my
vote
would
be
to
let's
just
keep
doing
it
on
this
pr,
there's
no
real
value
in
merging
and
then
going
ahead.
If
we
don't
want
to
tag
it
and
here's
the
other
reason,
because
when
we
do
this,
we're
actually
similar
to
the
simverse
spec
itself,
we're
actually
putting
the
version
number
in
the
header
of
the
document,
and
I
don't
think
we
should
merge
this
in
that
case.
A
That
also
begs
the
question:
what
should
we
do
in
between
releases
when
we
merge
there?
Perhaps
just
remove
the
version
or
say
you
know
kind
of
floating
or
something
like
that?
A
A
Basically,
I
just
want
to
give
my
opinion
is
that
I
think
number
two
builds
on
number
one
and
I
think
that's
great,
I
think
desired
system
state
is
great
for
us
because
we're
not
trying
to
use.
I
mean
these.
These
terms.
Are
we
don't
want
to
pretend
that
these
terms
are?
There
are
terminologies
that
we
came
up
with
these
are
inside
of
if
you
look
in
the
kubernetes
controller,
runtime
documentation
for
core
kubernetes
components
and
and
and
for
kubernetes
architecture.
A
I
know
this
isn't
all
about
kubernetes,
but
we're
borrowing,
some
from
some
of
that
language,
desired
state,
actual
state
and
observed
state.
These
are
terms
that
are
being
that
are
used
and
they
have
specific
meanings.
We
are
using
those
meanings,
so
I
think
the
reason
that
we
put
system
in
there
was
to
be
clear
that,
because
we're
talking
about
get
ups,
we
are
talking
not
just
about
one
kubernetes
api
object,
we're
talking
about
a
system
or
a
subsystem
or
some
portion
of
a
system.
A
That's
managed
through
this
to
get
ups
process,
whether
it's
in
kubernetes
or
not.
So
I
just
wanted
to
address
my
point
of
view
about
that,
and
also
I
also
I
do
think
that,
as
you
read
these,
you
want
to
think
about
them
from
a
colloquial
point
of
view,
at
least
the
headers,
and
that
they
should
build
upon
each
other
and
make
it
very
clear
what
the
hell
we're
talking
about
for,
in
quote,
unquote,
layman's
terms.
But
that's
that's
my
point
of
view.
I
will
skip
or
pass
on
to
the
next
person.
B
Okay,
two
things:
first,
what
will
happen
with
these
pre-release
versions?
So
is
it
important
to
to
have
multiple
iterations
and
the
second
one?
I
thought
to
the
fourth
principle:
aren't
all
changes
intentional.
B
A
The
principle
of
operations
through
declaration
to
intentional
changes
only
through
versioning
and
that
came
out
of
some
heated
discussion,
but
then
so
did
the
rest
of
these
that
are
now
being
questioned
again.
So
there
is
no
absolute
final
decision
about
this.
There's
only
iterative
decisions
based
on
meetings
and
and
pull
requests.
A
I
heard
from
the
last
from
from
from
many
people
on
the
last
several
calls
that
thought.
Perhaps
we
shouldn't
continue
a
weekly
cadence
to
this
meeting
and
that
we
could
perhaps
work
asynchronously
instead
and
I
guess
that's
a
separate
conversation,
but
we've
tried
to
do
that
here
it.
I
just
wanted
to
note
that.
A
A
A
This
is
the
only
place,
I
know
that's
really
using
it.
The
website
itself
specifies
the
version
of
the
principles
that
it's
that's
that
it's
pointing
to
so
we're
still
pointing
to
these
old
ones
that
we
want
to
change.
B
A
D
So
mine's
more
of
a
question
I
I
guess
the
question
is
the
intent
to
have
these
so
that
they
are
able
to
stand
alone.
I
understand
that
we're
trying
to
have
them
build
on
each
other,
but
is
there
any
desire
to
have
them
essentially
be
self-contained,
so
the
good
thing
about
the
print,
the
ones
that
are
start
with
the
principle
of,
is
that
you
can
more
or
less
say
them
out
of
order
and
they're
intelligible.
A
Yeah
it
looks
like
it's
you
I
mean
unless
someone
wants
to
quick
respond
to
that.
I
yeah.
F
I
I
think
so
my
opinion
is
that
all
four
of
the
principles
equals
get
ups
right,
so
the
danger
of
them
standing
alone
is
that
people,
some
people
might
say.
Well,
I'm
doing
number
two.
So
therefore,
I'm
doing
get
ups
and
it's
like.
Actually
it's
the
it's
a
it's
all
of
them
together
makes
get
ups,
and
I-
and
I
hope,
that's
like
what
we're
driving
at
so
I
think
that's
why
they
sort
of
build
on
each
other.
F
A
C
Yeah
so
in
terms
of
the
the
version
number
and
the
website,
so
I
think
we
need
to
kind
of
establish
like
what
is
a
1.0
mean
and
what
does
0.2
mean,
and
I
think
if
we
simplify
it
and
say
we
have
something
that
we
are
prepared
to
publicize.
That's
a
1.0
and
everything
before
that
is
a
draft
and
it's
a
pre-release.
C
And
then
you
can
just
link
your
the
website
to
master
and
say
on
the
website.
This
is
a
pre-release
and
it's
still
a
work
in
progress.
Please
join
the
committee
to
to
help
and
finalize
these
things,
because
I
I
think
this
distinction
of
pre-release
is
problematic
because
we
have
things
that
clearly
are
better
but
clearly
are
not
done
and-
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
explicit
about
when,
when
what
what
it
actually
means,
what
does
a
0.2
mean
if
we
just
rename
it
to
pre-release
or
draft?
C
It
makes
it
more
explicit,
and
then
we
don't
need
to
worry
about
this
so
that
that's
the
one
element
just
in
terms
of
the
word
intentional.
I
think
we
do
need
to
add
a
glossary
for
it,
but
foreign
just
to
to
kind
of
iterate
the
intentional
change
being
different
to
change
or
natural
change.
So
the
the
example
we
use
is
of
an
auto
scaling
set.
C
You
have
an
intentional
change
to
change
the
auto
scanning
set
parameters
and
there's
an
actual
change
that
occurs
to
to
set
the
number
of
replicas.
We
don't
want
that
number
of
replicas
to
be
versioned
and
controlled.
We
want
the
intention,
the
intention
behind
it
and
the
intentional
behavior
to
be
under
under
that
scope.
C
A
principle
should
stand
alone
and
they
they're
together.
They
they
form
like.
If
you
look
at
the
agile
manifesto,
you
have
principles
that
say
these
are
our
four
principles
or
these
are
our
ten
principles,
and
this
is
the
manifesto
each
one
of
those
items
stands
alone
together.
They
make
up
something
more,
but
but
each
one
of
those
items
still
stands
alone
and
and
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
infirm
meeting.
So
I
should
be
able
to
read
this
without
reading
the
descriptions.
C
We
agree
that
the
descriptions
build
upon
the
title,
but
I
don't
think
having
a
title
built
upon
another
title
is
the
place
for
all
principles,
because
then
it's
not
a
principle,
it's
it's
a
it's
a
paragraph
and
then
we
should
probably
make
it
read
like
a
paragraph
but
yeah
yeah.
My
sense.
G
Hey
it
looks
like
my
camera's
still
not
working
so
you'll
just
have
to
deal
with
my
silky
smooth
voice,
so
I'm
gonna
say
a
couple
things
quick
one.
I
just
sort
of
off
the
cuff
from
what
you
just
said
most
I
I
don't
actually
agree.
I
think
we
put
intentional
in
there
this
this
does
keep
coming
up.
So
I
think
we
need
to
add
something
to
glossary.
G
I
totally
agree,
I
think
intentional
is
meant
to
differentiate
from
from
from
operations
on
the
system
that
are
done,
imperatively,
you
know,
jumping
into
a
cluster
and
using
cube
cuddle
versus
making
changes
in
declaration
and
versioning
it.
I
think
it's
meant
to
to
differentiate
there.
Not
so
much
in
your
configuration
says
replica
set
8,
but
at
this
moment
in
time,
there's
only
two
pods
right,
that's
not
it,
but
I'm
just
gonna
throw
that
out
there.
I
think
we
should
discuss
it
more.
G
The
real
thrust
away,
I
raised
my
hand
and
stayed
12
minutes
after
because
I
actually
am
skipping
a
work
meeting
right
now
to
do.
That
is
to
say
that
I
think
one
of
the
hang-ups
here
is
not
in
us
all
agreeing
that
we
should
iterate
just
just
merge
this
pr
and
iterate,
like
I
think
we
all
agreed
on
that.
So
scott.
G
I
heard
a
little
touch
of
frustration,
which
I
do
not
blame
you
for,
because
you've
you've
kind
of
pulled
all
the
threads
together
and
you
brought
it
and
we
all
said
yeah,
let's
merge
it
now,
we're
saying
actually
we're
not
sure
I
don't
think
anybody's,
not
sure.
I
think
what
we're
not
sure
of
is
on
the
tagging,
and
I
believe
that
we're
not
sure
of
that,
because
we
don't
have
milestones
listed
out
anywhere.
That
say
what
0203040r,
which
most
just
pointed
out
too.
G
G
So
if
we
need,
we
need
minor
versions
in
between
right.
So
miner,
where,
where
are
you
going?
I'm
really
just
opening
up
the
simverse
spec
while
okay?
Well,
that's
fine,
too!
Maybe
we
should
look
at
that,
but
I
I
mean
I
I
think
I
would
assume
all
of
us
are
at
least
passingly
familiar
with
the
high
order
bit
on
december
yep
and
we're
all
cool
with
having
pre-release
bits.
I
think
the
problem
is.
Is
we
don't
know
what
040
is?
So
how
will
we
know
when
we
get
there?
G
It
could
be
literally.
I
do
not
want
to
go
and
have
three
meetings
on
what
these
things
are.
I
feel
like
in
20
minutes.
We
should
be
able
to
bang
out
what's
missing,
let's
put
milestones
on
them
and
then
we
can
go
forward.
So
I
I
just
like
would
would
like
to
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
the
next
meeting
and
then
maybe
we
can
just
sort
of
punt
on
the
tagging.
A
For
now,
personally,
I
agree
with
that,
but
just
a
point
of
order.
We
still
have
15
minutes
in
this
meeting.
We're
not
we're
this
didn't
end
at
3
30.
It
ends
at
four,
no.
A
G
Yeah
yeah,
I
was
just
saying
how
important
it
was
for
me
to
stick
around,
but
thank
you
no,
but
now
I
kind
of
have
to
go.
Thank
you
all
right.
Thank
you.
So
if
you
want
me
to
just
put
that
in
the
dock
I
can
or
if
you
want
to
because
you're
either
way,
but
I
think
we
should
talk
about
that.
A
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
actually
struggling
a
little
bit
to
find
the
tab.
I
was
on
where
I
was
taking
some
notes.
Oh
here
we
go
yeah
yeah.
If
you
want
to
add
notes
to
the
doc,
that's
fine
I'll,
actually
throw
it
in
the
dock.
What
what
I
have
right
now
in
the
dock
and
see
if
this
sounds
correct
to
you,
I
think
we
have
we've
mentioned
several
issues.
A
And
by
the
way,
thanks
for
noting
that
I
do
not
feel
frustrated
at
anyone
at
all
on
this
call.
G
A
Yeah,
just
in
case
I
didn't
you
meant
that,
but
just
in
case
you
haven't
just
to
just
to
be
clear.
I
I
I
am.
I
am
eager
to
to
do
what
you're
saying
where
I
think
we
can
bust
some
things
out.
Yeah.
A
And
hopefully
I
know
that
you
have
to
get
rolling,
but
I
would
love
to.
I
would
love
to
to
address
these
issues.
C
G
Think,
and
just
just
to
be
clear
like
I,
I
think
it's
also
you
know
we
do
we
iterate
and
reiterate.
I
don't
know,
is
that
a
word
like
we
like.
There
is
a
point
of
like
oh,
my
god,
let's
just
merge
something,
so
I
think
we
can
all
have
that
frustration
or
that
eagerness
without
it
being
personal.
I
think
we're
all
doing
a
great
job,
but
I
think
it
will
help
to
to
lay
out
some
basic
dot
milestones
on
the
road
to
1-0.
G
And
that
way
you
know
we'll
just
know,
and
I
think
most
you,
you
kind
of
frame
that
well
like
it
could
be.
Like
you
know,
two
two
is
the
two:
is
the
catchy
snappier
versions
and
three
is
glossary
and
four
is
more
accessible
language
and
we
just
lay
them
out
it
doesn't
have
to.
We
don't
have
to
be
super
pedantic
about
it,
but
I
think
it
wild.
G
Yeah
right
now
I
have
to
split.
Thank
you
all
so
much
bye,
jesse
I'll
catch
you
next
time,
all
right!
Catch
ya,
bye,.
B
Yeah
I
would
like
to
follow
up
on.
I
think
it
was
daniel
and
mosh
regarding
whether
the
principal
should
be
able
to
stay
alone
or
not
daniel
explained
that
all
the
four
make
giggle
get
ups,
a
single
one
is
yeah
cool
stuff,
but
not
very
useful.
I'm
thinking
about
the
reactive
manifesto
as
much
mentioned,
the
agile
one.
A
H
A
I
have
a
quick
question
christian
since
we've
gone
over
this
now.
Do
we
wanna
do
we
want
to
summarize
what
we
had
discussed
for
for
item
four.
F
Yeah
I
mean
I
might
as
well
since
we're
here
right,
yeah,
meaning
here
as
in
like
this.
Is
you
know
what
what
we're
we're
discussing
yeah,
let's
see
if
I
can
find
that
thread.
A
I
I
I
have
it
it's
in
our
dm
in
slack
and
cncf
other,
oh,
but
also
while
we
are
here,
we
can
actually
address
one
of
these
things
right
now.
I
think
I
don't
want
this
list
to
seem
so
overwhelming,
like
oh,
it's
insurmountable,
no
grammar
is
a
very
easy
one.
A
That's
not
that's
not
a
hard
one.
If,
if
the
goal
of
that
is
just
to
make
sure
that
we
say
you
know.
A
Something
is
or
are
something
else:
fine,
that's
fairly,
that's
fairly
easy
to
do
right
now,
for
example,
oh
come
on.
Please
help
me
get
back
to
this,
I'm
dying
here.
Let
me
just
close
some
of
these
things.
A
Okay,
there
we
go,
we
can
just
simply
say
intentional
changes
are
only
through
versioning
right.
It
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
we
want
that
to
say
it
exactly
like
that,
and
I
think
that's
where
the
question
about
the
conversation
with
christian
comes
in,
but.
A
This
is
just
simply
to
address
grammar,
but
okay
go
ahead.
Christian.
F
Yeah-
and
I
think
it
may
be-
has
to
do
with
like
the
glossary
right
like
if
we
ever
get
like.
I
I
mentioned
that
I
wasn't
a
big
fan
of
through
versioning
in
terms
of
the
the
principle
right,
and
I
think
that
that
was
what
we
discussed
right.
Scott
yeah.
A
F
F
Yeah,
since
the
body
update-
and
I
think
originally
like
even
before
then
we
have-
the
system
is
done
by
updating
the
desired
state.
Yeah.
F
F
Changing
the
version
of
something
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it's
applied
right,
and
I
think
that
that
was
my
my
contention
on
it
right.
So
I
you
know,
I
think
we
all
agree
that
the
operations
through
you
know
the
whole
thing
that
we
we
say
right
is
operations
through
pull
requests.
F
You
know
you,
you
mutate
the
the
declaration
and
that's
how
you
operate
a
system
at
you
know
what
I
think
we
were
all
agree
with
agreement
with
that
in
I
was
just
having
trouble
finding
a
proper
way
of
saying
that
and-
and
I
don't
know
versioning
is
like
or
through
versioning.
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
a
good
way
of
saying
I
mutated
something
and
I'm
applying
it.
F
So
I
think
that
that
was
like
my
my
big
thing.
I
don't
I
don't
know
again
just
I
guess,
like
everyone
else,
I'm
not
happy
with
how
number
four
is
turning
out.
H
F
H
A
William
is
next.
I
Is
adding
to
what
christian
is
expressing
there
yeah
the
true
versioning?
For
me,
I
need
to
state
that
that's
how
it's
happened.
Okay,
so
that
that's,
I
added
there
like
eight
minutes
ago,
like
actualization,
to
declarations
our
version
trying
to
map
that
to
back
to
to
number
two
where
we
are
saying
like
declarations,
even
when
we
don't
have
a
definition
of
declaration
but
trying
to
and
trying
to
put
a
verb
on
it.
I
E
I
I'm
sorry
say
that
again
changes
or
actualizations
or
updates.
Sorry,
we
have
been
using
those
words
and
do
we
want
them
to
be
interchangeable
or
not
just
an
open
question.
Yeah.
F
That's
a
good
question.
Yeah,
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
we
do
or
don't
that's
why
I've
always
I
always
use
mutating
just
because
yeah
just
because
I
have
the
same
trouble
as
you
do
william.
I
don't
know
if
I
want
to
use
these
words
interchangeably
right,
like
update
change,
maybe
we're
getting
too
technical
with
it.
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
define
what
a
change
is,
because
that
just
I
don't
know
that
sounds
like
we're
getting
like
two
we're
like
picking
too
many
nits.
F
I
do
want
to
think
about
it,
but
I
don't
know
what
we
may
be
taking
too
many
minutes.
That's
why
I've
always
used
the
word
mutating
right.
Like
you
mutate,
the
decoration
anytime.
I
speak
with
someone
I
I
say
you
mutate
the
declaration
because
that's
open-ended
enough
to
where
at
least
they'll
ask
questions
and
then
you
can.
You
know
answer
around
it.
I
just
realized
that
florian's
at
the
jedi
temple-
sorry
so
yeah.
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
it's
it.
F
I
think
it's
worth
discussing,
but
I
don't
know
I
have
trouble
with
it
as
well.
So
I
don't
have
a
good
answer.
A
Okay,
because
we're
counting
down,
let's
try
to
keep
these
to
one
minute
responses.
Now
we
only
have
three
and
a
half
minutes
left.
We
have
three
minutes
left
mosh,
then
florian.
C
I
I
know
I'm
poking
the
barrier,
but
why
don't
we
just
remove
four
and
and
really
just
say
the
and
follow
from
the
agile
manifesto
that
says
all
this
value
on
the
things
on
the
left.
Do
we
value
the
things
on
the
right
more
or
in
reverse
and
say
the
only
way
in
which
you,
which
you
practice
get
ups,
is
by
the
application
of
all
of
these
principles
and
not
in
isolation,
and
we
we
actually
say
what
we
mean
and
then
we
take
this
fourth
contentious
principle
out
yeah.
A
Okay,
florian.
B
Yeah,
it
fits
perfectly.
I
just
thought
about
not
talking
about
changing
or
rotating
or
adjusting
or
whatever
the
what
is
adjusted
so
through
versioning,
yes,
but
we
would
try
or
we
would
like
to
adjust
the
desired
state.
B
So
when
applying
one
two
one
and
two,
then
you
have
to
make
the
changes
to
the
desired
state
and
this
is
through
versioning
and
then
I'm
fully
with
mosh.
A
Got
it
yeah,
I
agree
it
is.
A
It
is
a
good
topic
for
next
time.
I
agree
with
christian
that
I
also
do
not
hate
it.
We've
said
over
and
over
that
we
saw
0.4
as
more
of
a
punctuation
than
than
than
than
adding
something
new.
The
the
only
thing
that
I
think
we
in
this
in
this
version
that
we're
recommending
adding
new
is,
is
that
we're
making
it
clear
that
this
is
not
just
one
of
many
concepts
that
you
can
mix
together
and
be
doing
get
ups.
A
It
should
be
the
only
way
that
a
system
is
is
interacted
with
intentionally
so
whether
we
say
it
exactly
like
that
or
something
else
or
whether
we
don't
say
that
at
all,
but
we
just
give
that
as
an
introduction.
We
did.
We
discussed
that
from
the
very
beginning.
So,
interestingly,
I
just
want
to
note
that,
when
dan
reached
out
to
brian
grant
for
feedback
that
was
one
of
his
pieces
of
feedback
is
that
do
away
with
number
four.
A
So
yeah
he's
a
pretty
smart
guy
as
well,
so
I
wouldn't,
I
don't
think.
A
That,
but
I
think
a
number
of
people
on
in
this
group
really
liked
the
the
emphasis,
the
emphasis
right.
So
it
is
a
good
question:
do
we
really
need
it.
A
Maybe
we
should
just
really
think
about
this
now
I'll
make
a
poll
or
make
it
actually
I'll
move
this,
as
we
had
before
mate
move
this
to
a
discussion
item
right
and
we
can.
We
can
note
that
moshe's
concerns
what
other
people
on
this
call
have
said.
A
I'll
save
the
chat.
What
brian
had
said
and
and
do
that
piece
asynchronously.
So
I
agree
with
you.
I
don't
think
this
is
ready
to
merge
just
yet
and
but
I
think,
we've
gotten
closer
to
something.
A
Thank
you
all
can
we
can
we
try
to?
Can
we
try
to
be
a
little?
Maybe
if
we
can,
if
we,
if
you
don't
want
to
meet
every
week
at
some
point,
perhaps
we
can.
We
can
slack,
attack
it
and
be
and
continue
the
the
the
involvement
on
discussion
and
the
github
prs
like
we
have
it's
been
pretty.
It's
been
a
lot
better.
A
Yeah,
william,
I
I
would
love
to
set
up
a
a.
In
fact.
I
think
I
would
yeah.
I
would
love
to.
I
think,
william,
your
your
underscore
of
moshe
had
said
initially
that
and
which
I
think
jesse
said
before
he
left
that
it
would
be
nice
to
create
a
milestone,
and
if
our
milestone
for
v
0.2.0
is
to
resolve
the
headers
for
each
of
the
principles,
then
how
about
we
make
the
milestone
now,
we'll
do
it
and
we'll
set
a
target
date?
A
A
I
see
a
thumbs
up
for
mosh
and
I
love
that
too.
Okay,
one
more
burning,
okay,
I
see
more
thumbs
up
great
cool,
all
right,
all
right
so
that'll
be.
My
action
item
is
I'll,
make
the
the
milestone
and
I'll
put
it
in
slack
and
then
please,
let
me
know
if
I've
done
it
in
a
way
that
you
any
of
you
don't
like,
and
I
think
daniel
it
looks
like
you-
have
a
burning.
F
Yes,
yes,
okay,
I
think
I
think
the
discussions
is
is
is
good
because
I
don't
think
any
everyone
is
on
slack.
I
think
that
has
a
broader,
so
it
depends
how
broad
you
want
the
discussion
to
be.
A
Yeah,
in
short,
the
rule
of
thumb
is
discussions
are
great
for
discussions,
but
you
we
can
also
discuss
on
pull
requests.
We
can
discuss
in
issues,
but
discussions
are
good
because
we
they
give
the
advantage
of
being
able
to
mark
something
as
an
answer
at
some
point.
So
when
other
community
members
come
in,
they
can
do
it.
We
can
start
with
issues.
We
can
transfer,
create
issues
from
discussions
and
we
can
now
create
issues
out
of
discussions.
So
I
think
that's
a
really
good
place
to
start
either
an
issue
or
discussion.
A
The
nice
thing
about
that
is,
it
gets
you
around
feeling
like
you've
wasted
your
time
in
a
pull
request.
You
know
I
mean,
like
people
sometimes
feel
burned
out
when
they
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
a
pull
request,
but
then
get
discussion
get
get
feedback
from
people
saying.
Oh
you
know.
I
just
don't
think
that's
a
good
idea
at
all,
and
so
they're
recommended
to
do
this,
use
discussions
for
those
kinds
of
things
just
so
that
they
save
their
own.
Like
spirit,
you
know,
so
that
they
keep
feeling
good.
A
But
besides
that,
it
doesn't
really
matter,
and
then
slack
is
just
for
real
time
when
we
can,
but
also
we're
trying
to
keep
in
mind
that
we're
trying
to
be
globally
inclusive,
and
so
not
all
people
are
on
at
all
times.
So
that's
why
we
try
to
make
sure
that
if
there
is
anything
in
slack
whatever
it
is,
that's
meaningful.
If
we
want
it
to
persist,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that's
put
somewhere
that
can
really
be
asynchronous
because
slack
will
get
the
race
at
some
point.
A
Okay,
we're
three
minutes
over:
that's
not
too
bad,
given
where
we
came
to
so
you
know
this
was
actually
really
productive.
I
think-
and
it's
really
nice
talking
with
you
all,
I'm
gonna,
do
my
action
item
and
I'll
see
you
on
slacking
in
github.