►
From YouTube: GitOps Principles Committee Weekly Meeting 20210616
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
Hey
everyone:
it
welcome
to
the
june
16th
get
ups
working
group
principles
committee,
I'm
scott,
I'm
moderating
this
today
and
we
have
a
lovely
cast
of
characters
with
us
today,
I'll
post,
the
link
to
the
discussion
in
the
zoom
chat
and
and
yeah.
B
With
the
the
chat
recording,
you
can
always
find
that
in
the
meetings
dot
md
file
in
the
get
out
working
group
github
repo.
B
So
I
propose
one
agenda
item,
there's
other
slots
yeah
for
agenda
items,
but
I
might
as
well
go
ahead
and
say
it
if
no
one
else
has
an
announcement
or
something
they
want
to
say.
First.
B
Okay,
so
you
know
I-
I
had
also
discussed
this
with
dan
already
and
leonardo,
so
it's
not
a
brand
new
idea,
but
I'm
I
said
I
would
propose
it
in
the
meeting.
So
the
basic
idea
is,
you
know,
in
order
to
continue
the
momentum
of
what
of
what
we
have
for
the
people
who
are
interested
enough
to
show
up
to
these
and
continue
working
on
the
principles
and
content
generally
that
either
spawned
from
or
related
to
the
work
that
went
into
our
initial
drive
for
the
principles.
B
I'm
thinking
that
to
hold
everyone's
attention,
including
my
own,
I
want
to
get
back
to
some
sort
of
productive
process.
I
think
it
was
good
what
we've
done.
We
we
reached
our
goal.
We
we
reached
our
initial
goal.
Anyway,
we
created
a
pre-release
of
the
principles.
You
know,
there's,
certainly
some
refinement
that
can
be
done.
For
example,
I
think
dan
proposed
at
one
point
that
we
just
simplify
the
the
one
line
for
each
of
them.
B
Instead
of
saying
the
principle
of
we
just
have
the
principles
and
then
just
say
what
they
are.
I
think
that's
a
good
idea.
Things
like
that.
So
there's
lots
of
room
for
refinement,
even
if
we
stick
with
the
exact
like
really
exactly
the
wording
that
we
have
now.
It's
really
just
stylistic
refinement
at
this
point,
however,
there's
other
things
that
were
in
that
pull
request
that
we
decided
hey,
we're
just
going
to
focus
only
on
the
baseline
of
the
principles
first
and
then
move
from
there.
B
You
know
in
principle
fashion
right,
so
we've
done
that,
and
my
suggestion
is
this:
how
do
you
all
feel
about
going
through
the
content
that
we
already
had
in
draft
form
and
just
just
looking
at
it
together
as
a
group
and
parsing
two
things,
I'm
thinking
one?
Is
it
useful
like?
Is
it
definitely
not
useful
anymore
if
or
at
least
for
now?
If
not,
we
can
just
kind
of
like
strike
it
out
for
the
moment
and
just
be
like
okay
cool
next.
Is
it
possibly
useful?
B
You
know
if
so
we
can
just
kind
of
put
it
in
a
possibly
useful
category.
For
for
for
going
back
over
later
in
more
detail
is
definitely
useful.
You
know-
and
I
was
just
thinking
that
could
be
helpful
in
helping
us
prioritize
and
secondly,
where
would
it
be
useful?
Do
we
know
you
know
like?
Would
it
be
good
as
a
glossary
item?
B
C
I
think
that
makes
sense
and
there's
there's
been
several
things
that
we've
discussed
throughout
these
meetings,
like
you
know,
getting
certain
things
down
like
processes,
and
everything
like
that
that
we
probably
you
know,
should
create
a
list
or-
or
you
know,
put
on
the
agenda,
as
I
said
last
time
and
and
that
can
come
from
if
we
in
you
know,
take
on
smaller
parts
of
the
the
principles
and
kind
of
look
at
and
look
at
what
we've
written
in
the
the
markdown
iqmd
and
see
and
just
create.
C
You
know
a
a
list
of
action
items
to-do
lists
what
we
can
do
throughout
this
meeting.
So
we
can,
you
know,
populate
the
meetings
ahead
with
stuff.
A
Chris,
so
much
easier,
so
I'm
wondering
about
the
going
forward
with
this
this
principles
committee,
because
you
know
we
have
the
pr
approved.
We
have
the
first
draft
of
the
principles
out.
There
seemed
like
the
next
major
practical
step
was
to
obey.
You
know
based
on
those
principles,
we're
going
to
need
to
get
into
the
open,
open,
githubs
we're
going
to
need
best
practices,
we're
going
to
need
reference
architectures.
A
So
then
I'm
starting
to
wonder
what
is
the?
What
is
the
purpose
of
the
principles
committee
then?
Are
we
gonna
now
that
the
draft
is
out?
Are
we
gonna,
take
feedback
from
the
over
overall
group
and
make
adjustments,
and
so
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
our?
What
our
goals
are
at
this
point,
as
a
principles
committee.
D
Yeah
what
we,
what
we
had
talked
about
scott
leonardo-
and
I
was
now
these
principles
are
here
so
far
we
haven't
had
a
huge
reaction
from
the
community.
People
have
been
like.
A
D
But
I
think
we'd
love
to
see
a
little
bit
more
passion
one
way
or
the
other,
and
so
one
thing
that
we
were
thinking
is:
if
everybody
could
take
a
couple
of
the
people,
they
trust
and
send
this
to
them
and
say
like
hey.
Can
you
give
me
your
feedback
on
this?
Do
you
think
this
is
compelling?
D
Do
you
think
it's
right?
Do
you
think
we're
missing
anything?
Does
it
does
it?
You
know?
Does
it
just
ask
all
of
these
questions
and
then
bring
back
the
feedback
we
get
from
people
and
and
think
about
ways
that
we
can
improve
it
and
make
it
stronger?
I
think
that's
kind
of
a
big
next
step
that
needs
to
happen
for
the
reference
architectures.
I
think
you're
dead
on
and
that's
gonna
have
to
be
a
larger
effort.
The
website
should
be
ready.
D
I
think
next
week
is
the
plan
and
their
right
now
is
just
a
stubbed
off
section
for
use
cases
or
patterns.
That's
basically
reference
architectures.
The
idea
is
that
we
need
to
come
up
with
a
format
that
people
can
submit.
So
if
someone
wanted
to
take
on
like
hey
here's,
how
we
want
to
accept
those
we
want
to
have
you
need
to
have
a
diagram.
You
need
to
have
some
text.
D
I
think,
ideally,
we
would
have
a
whole
library
of
these
and
every
company
that
claims
to
do
git,
ops
would
submit
theirs
and
say:
hey
here's,
how
we're
doing
get
offs.
Here's
how
to
do
our,
like.
I
want
code
fresh
to
put
in
and
say,
hey
here's
how
to
do
code,
fresh
plus,
aws,
plus
kubernetes,
plus
whatever,
and
here's
how
to
do
code
fresh
plus
server
list
and
here's
how
to
do.
You
know
all
of
these
different
things
so
that
people
can
just
search
for
a
reference
architecture
for
the
ingredients
they
want.
D
We
can
show
them,
hey
here's
how
we
do
it,
so
we
didn't
come
with
the
format
for
that,
but
I
think
first
getting
getting
the
principles.
Matured
is
key
so
seeking
people
to
kind
of
put
together
like
some
reports
and
commentary,
and
even
if
it's
just
hey,
I'm
gonna
open
an
issue.
D
Please
go
comment
on
it
or
if
it's
soliciting
it
personally
and
then
coming
back
and
reporting
it,
but
I
think
we
should
collect
a
bunch
of
those
because
right
now,
even
though
it's
been
done
with
the
community
and
quite
a
few
people
have
contributed
to
it,
I
still
feel
like
it's
small.
I
still
feel
like
it's
not
not
wide
enough
yet
so
I
would
say:
yeah
feedback
is
the
next
big
step.
B
Yeah,
I
know
william
has
his
hand
raised.
Chris
did
you
did
that
cover?
I
know
he
was.
Damn
was
responding
to
what
you
were
saying.
Did
that
kind
of.
A
B
Well,
I
just
I
think
what
dan
was
saying
is
that
the
website's
going
to
come,
the
first
version
of
it
will
be
should
be
next
week.
B
B
A
B
I'll
then
copy
paste,
you
know,
okay
or
whatever.
Okay,
sorry,
that
was
just
my
quick
response
to
what
you
were
saying.
I
didn't
want
to
stop.
No.
B
Cool
okay,
william.
E
E
B
You
know,
for
example,
the
proposal
to
to
go
through
the
material
that
was
originally
written
in
and
around
the
principles
not
originally
written,
but
it
was
drafted
earlier,
had
a
lot
of
comments
on,
but
just
we
moved
to,
we
moved
to
syncing
sessions
in
person
syncing
sessions
to
help
just
resolve
the
foundational
principles
initially
so
that
it
was
actually
agreed
upon
by
the
group,
and
I
might
believe
the
intention
was
to
continue
to
go
back
to
those
other
to
the
other
material
and
add
more
material
too,
for
example,
but
just
including
the
use
cases
you're
talking
about.
B
Documents
we
can
do
that
and
evangelize
this
at
the
same
time,
maybe
not
every
in
the
same
second,
you
know,
but
I
I'm
definitely
gonna,
do
what
dan
suggested
and
try
to
pick
some
people
to
get
feedback
from
who
aren't
already
part
of
this
working
group.
C
There
are
a
lot
of
people
like
in
the
in
the
norwegian
in
the
text,
fair
that
do
things
that
are
get
ups
and
and
do
work
on
these
things,
but
they
aren't
very
active
in
cncf,
for
instance,
and
don't
know
that
things
are
happening,
so
I
I'm
just
gonna
send
out
to
a
lot
of
people
that
I
know
of
to
get
some
feedback
there
and
we'll
see
what
happens.
B
There's
one
other
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
that
it
was
mentioned
in
past
meetings.
I
think
the
last
one
and
I
kind
of
regretted
mentioning
it,
because
we
just
had
a
debate
circle
a
little
bit
and
then
I
was
like
hey
forget
it
for
now,
but
I
would
you
know
we
had
recently
renamed
the
the
get
ops
con
committee
to
the
events
committee,
because
it
would
it
it.
B
It
was
clear
that
it
needed
to
be
a
bit
broader
than
just
that
one
event
and
to
cover
other
events
related
to
get
ops,
some
that
we
some
that
the
events
committee
organized
and
others
they
did
not.
You
know
in
that
case
it
was
the
get
ups
working
group,
evangelizing
curating,
even
other
relevant
events
that
that
follow
get
ups
principles
that
really
get
up
straight.
So
in
this
case,
what
I
had
mentioned
last
week
was
well
in
the
spirit
of
that,
once
the
principles
are
initially
drafted.
B
Should
we
should
we
change
the
name
of
the
script
to
something
like
you
know?
I
think
I
think
I
said
like
the
documents
team.
Just
because
that's
what
we
decided
to
name
our
repo,
but
you
know,
I
think
you
know
I
think
dan
suggested
or
the
content
team
or
something
like
this
right
documents.
Team
didn't
sound,
very
sexy,
but.
B
Of
whatever
it
is,
that
was
a
suggestion,
and
I'm
mentioning
it
now
not
to
propose
that
again
now,
but
just
to
say
that
you
know
we
can
certainly
do
that
whenever
it's
necessary,
like
these
committees
are
just
you
form
them,
you
unform
them
as
needed.
The
only
reason
we
even
call
them
committees
is
just
to
give
ourselves
a
little
structure
within
the
group.
B
So
that
is
my
point.
What
action
knowledge
should
come
from
that?
Probably
nothing
unless
someone
has
a
strong
opinion
about
it.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
agree
that
there's
still
work
to
be
done
on
evangelizing
these
principles,
but
also
you
know
that
other
content
is
important
and
relate
deeply
related,
so
I'm
ready
personally
once
we
all
feel
that
we
want
to
dive
into
that.
I'm
ready
to
do
that
either
sometime
on
this
meeting
or
or
the
or
the
next
meeting.
B
F
Sorry
there
we
go,
I
lowered
my
hand,
but
then
forgot
to
unmute
as
far
as
the
renaming
re-architecting,
I
don't
know
what
what
what
what
we
want
to
call
it,
but
I
think
that
does
I
think
that
would
depend
on.
F
I
forget
who
said
it.
I
think
it
was.
I
forgot
who
said
it.
Sorry,
I'm
I'm
on
my
mobile.
It
would
depend
what
our
end
goals
like.
What's
what's
our
actually
like
goal
right
in
terms
of
this,
in
terms
of
this
right
like
what
who
we
are,
you
know
what
what,
where
our
goals
are,
trying
to
do
right?
F
Maybe
it's
just
like.
Maybe
we
should
just
like
reading
like
evangelism
right,
like
the
evangelism
or
or
something
like
that,
but
it
would
depend
on.
Like
you
know,
the
the
renaming
or
restructure
would
depend
on
what
the
goals
is.
It's
all,
I'm
not
against
it
or
for
it
or
anything
like
that.
I
was
just
like
we
need
to.
F
I
think
eventually,
maybe
that
this
is
the
next
meeting
thing
is
define
you
know
what
our
or
what
our,
what
our
you
know,
principles
as
a
committee
or
as
a
group
is
going
to
be
like
what
our,
what
our
end
goals
are
and
then
use
that
to
dictate
how
we
structure
it.
So
that's
all.
D
D
I
I
actually
was
working
on
this
for
a
blog
post,
and
so
I,
when
I
was
I
wanted
to,
I
wanted
to
cite
the
principles
and
I
just
found
it
awkward
to
continually
state
the
principle
of
the
principle
of
it,
and
so
instead
I
changed
it
to
an
imperative
use,
use,
declarative
infrastructure
for
instead
of
the
principle
of
declarative,
desired
state
infrastructure.
Doesn't
infrastructure
is
not
completely
synonymous
with
desired
state
but
having
it
as
an
imperative
feels
like
a
commandment
from
on
high.
D
I
don't
know
it
feels
feels
like
something
you
can
cite
like
if
you
s,
if,
if,
if,
if
I'm
repeating
something,
it
felt
easier,
these
these
this
phrasing
felt
easier
and
they're
all
a
little
bit
shorter
for
the
most
part,
so
yeah
interested
to
have
commentary
on
the
pr
or
see
if
you
feel
like
this
is
a
worthwhile
effort
or
if
it
opens
up
too
many
old
wounds.
At
this
point.
C
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
to
make
it
easier.
I
I
I
you
know
I
I
did
an
internal
thing
on
get
ops
at
crayon
and
I
felt
it
was
kind
of
hard
to
summarize
what.
C
Yeah
I
was
just
kind
of
like
okay
at
first,
I
said
it
and
then
like
all
right.
Well
that
actually
means
yes
and
then
have
to
kind
of
go
over
it
again
and
yeah,
and
we
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
this.
So
you
know
it's
kind
of
hard
to
just
say
all
right.
Let's
just
change
it
now,
but
I
I
think
it
does
make
sense.
I
just
want
people
to
be
able
to
you
know
to
see
the
change
and
comment
on
it.
I
think
that's.
B
Sorry,
christian.
F
Yeah
so
in
principle,
so
a
part
of
the
pun.
I
like
it
right.
I
actually
do
think
we
should
make
it.
I
guess,
trim
it
down
right,
make
it
concise.
I
I
do
find
it.
I
actually
did
also
did
a
presentation
internally
about
the
principles
and
I
did
find
it.
It
was
kind
of
weird
it
was,
I
wouldn't
say
laborious,
but
it
was
just.
F
It
was
just
awkward
to
say
the
principle
of
the
principle
upwards
and
like
define
it
like
eight
different
ways,
instead
of
just
being
concise,
so
I
I
do
agree.
We
need
to
be
concise
as
far
as
the
pr
concern-
oh
I
don't
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
you
know
maybe
trim
it
down
even
more
like
do.
We
need
to
use
use,
maybe
that's
like
just
like
a
like
use.
Use
use.
I
don't
know
if
that.
F
Well,
I
guess
it's
less
awkward,
so
I
don't
know
I'll
I'll
have
to
chew
on
that
on
the
pr
itself,
but
I
do
agree,
though
definitely
it
is
awkward
just
to
kind
of
keep
saying
you
know
the
principle
of
principle
of
principle
of
so
yeah,
so
in
anyways
that
I
think
I
think
that's
my
half
half
half
attempt
or
many
many
words
attempt
of
just
basically
saying
yeah.
I
agree,
I
don't
think
it
loses
as
long
as
we
don't
lose
anything
by
trimming
it
down.
A
Let
me
take
my
hand
down
lower
hand,
okay,
so
yeah.
I
agree
with
that
last
comment.
I
I
use
is
okay,
but
I
I
agree
that
it
jars
me
a
little
bit
and
just
having
straight
out,
you
know
declarative
immutable,
continuous
as
sort
of
the
head
header,
I
think,
is
just
fine
and
then
the
sentence
below
actually
has
the
complete
noun
verb
structure
works.
For
me,
the
first
one
use
declarative
infrastructure.
I
think
that
we'll
run
into
problems
about
definition
of
infrastructure
to
different
people.
A
What
they
have
in
their
minds
to
me
desired
state
is
covers
it
all.
That's
why
I
I
like
that.
You
know
those
words
in
there
because
to
some
people,
infra
is
more
of
the
hardware
stack
and
the
base
the
base
stack
of
of
systems,
and
then
the
apps
and
config
on
top
doesn't
really
necessarily
fall
into
that.
But
so
it
all
depends
on
who's.
A
A
D
D
Each
principle,
an
alternative,
could
be
to
state
them
as
adjectives
so
at
the
top,
it
would
say
principle
like
principles
of
of
how
you
should
operate
the
the
get
ops
principles
of
how
you
should
operate.
Your
software,
your
your
software,
should
be
operated,
colon
and
then
declaratively
immutably
reconciled
continuously.
Something
like
that.
That's
kind
of
interesting.
D
Then
then
they
all
become.
They
all
have
an
ly
at
the
end.
So
I
don't
know
whether
we're
gonna
do
it
again.
B
Yeah
and
another
fun
alternative
could
be.
I
I'm
actually
just
about
to
make
a
review
on
the
comment,
but
another
found
alternative
could
be
something
like.
B
Instead
of
use,
declarative
infrastructure
or
the
principle
of
declarative
desired
state,
it
could
just
be
declare
desired
state.
You
know,
store
declarations
as
immutable
versions
continually
reconcile
you
know,
etc.
D
C
At
least,
that
kind
of
you
know
solves
the
issue
of
having
that
repeatable
thing,
but
you
know
at
the
same
time
I
I
am
a
nerd,
so
the
more
technical
it
sounds,
the
cooler
I
guess.
So,
that's
probably
why
I
keep
on.
I
want
to
keep
it
but
yeah.
It
is
awkward
to
talk
about
at
least.
B
Cool-
let's
see
so
chris,
then
christian,
then
dan
yeah.
A
I'm
just
going
to
say
that
I
think
the
principles
are
nouns
not
adjectives
and
that
each
noun
is
basically
the
header
for
each
section.
So
you
know
to
me
the
principle
of
declarative,
desired
state
or
declarative
infrastructure
and
then
immutable
version,
storage
and
continuous
state
reconciliation.
Those
are
nouns
basically
as
a
whole
that
are
each
principle
and
then
the
descriptor
below
that
the
sentence
or
two
actually
can
provide
more
details
of
of
what
it
is.
But
to
me,
that's
a
principle
to
me
as
a
noun.
B
Cool
yeah,
I
guess
I
was
verifying
it
my
little
suggestion,
but
I'm
I'm
not
attached
to
that
in
any
way,
then
christian
then
william
did
I
miss
you
raising
your
hand
earlier,
okay,
christian,
then
william.
F
I
actually
wouldn't
be
exploring
it
like
dan
said.
As
a
as
an
adjective
that's
an
interesting,
it's
an
interesting
way
of
looking
at
it.
I
would
I'm
gonna
have
to
chew
on
it
a
little
bit,
because
I
again,
I
don't
think
I
feel
strongly
one
way
or
another,
but
I
it
does
make
it
interesting,
at
least
for
me
to
think
about
it.
As
an
adjective,
although
I,
although
I
do,
I
do
think
I
guess
I'm
undecided
now,
but
I
think
that's
that's
an
interesting
way
of
looking
at
it.
E
Yes,
I
don't
know
how
much
after
listening
this,
but
the
my
proposal
was
about.
If,
if
something
needs
to
be
that
we
can
follow,
for
example,
the
there's
an
rfc
that
explains
how
to
use
the
words
must
shoot
based
on
how
imperative
or
not
a
particular
description,
or
I
mean
specification,
is
and
it's
our
principle,
so
we
could
include
that
at
the
beginning,
like
should
xyz
should,
but
again,
if
it's
like
it's
known,
it
might
not
be
applicable.
D
Yeah
check
this
out.
I
I
just
took
this
one.
Oh
sorry
and
raised
my
hand
all
right,
yeah,
no
one
else
had
their
hands
raised.
I
took
what
you
were
saying,
william
and
modified
it.
So
it's
define
state,
declaratively,
use,
immortal,
immutable
version,
storage,
reconcile
state
continuously
and
then
use
declare
declaration
is
a
sole
way
of
operating
a
system.
This
is
the
only
one
that
I
feel
like
is
still
kind
of
awkward,
but
these
other
ones
feel
we
we've
broken
up
the
use
over
and
over
again,
but
that's
still
in
an
imperative.
D
C
I
don't
think
the
need
to
be
shorter,
just
to
be
shorter.
I
I
think
that
if
we
have
the
short
principles
at
the
you
know
the
start,
and
then
we
kind
of
I
thinking
when
talking
about
it,
how
I
would
use
the
fourth
one
then
to
say
like-
and
this
is
where
we
kind
of
put
it
all
together
and
you
know
so
I
don't
think
the
the
last
principle
looks
too
long
or
too
wordy
it.
You
know
that
kind
of
depends
on
the
context
and
everything
like
that.
C
C
But,
but
I
I
would
be,
I
would
be
a
little
cautious
about
just
you
know,
throwing
this
out
there.
C
After
all
the
meetings
that
we
had
going
over
this
over
and
over
again,
I
I
I
think
we
need
to
get
the
word
out
there
and
get
feedback
before
just
you
know
saying
that
this
is
cool,
so
if,
if
no
one
else
is
paying
attention
at
the
moment
to
the
to
the
repository,
they
might
miss
that
this
is
happening
and
then
come
back
later
and
see
that
we
kind
of
just
changed
everything
you
know
or
sex,
which
doesn't
make
sense
in
this
case,.
B
Cool,
what's
next.
A
One
just
one
comment
about
scott
about
the
renaming.
I
wonder
if
we
just
want
to
keep
the
keep
this
committee,
it's
usefulness
will
drop
off,
but
there
may
be
changes
to
principles
down
the
road
but
then
forming
other
committees,
because
you're
going
to
want
committees
for
people
who
are
going
to
sort
of
maintain
the
the
you
know,
the
reviews
of
the
use
cases
and
and
all
that
stuff
and
there
might
be
a
different
group
of
people
who
are
going
to
sign
up
for
that.
A
B
Do
we
want
to
make
before
moving
on
from
this?
Do
you
want
to
add
an
action
item
for
how
to
follow
up
like,
for
example,.
B
Oh,
let's
see
we
have
one
action
item
which
is
great
thanks
chris
and
now
maybe
solicit
feedback
or,
like
just
ask
request
feedback
on
this
pr.
C
Yeah,
I
think
we
need
to
get
it
get
the
word
out
about
that
pr,
just
to
make
sure
we
don't
you
know,
do
anything
basically.
B
F
Yeah
so
my
his
comment,
I
guess
this
question,
I
think
is,
I
think,
maybe
not
doesn't
apply
specifically
to
this
group,
but
it
does.
There
is
a
so
how
moving
forward,
I
think
on.
F
I
think,
I'm
asking
in
terms
of
the
governance
right
like
how
do
we
so
like
with
dan's
pr
like
what
what
what
is
the
process
of
like
it
getting
approved
so
like
right
now,
I
guess
we're
small
enough
to
where,
like
we
can
like
ping,
the
individual
people
that
that
took
a
part
of
all
this
and
you
know,
but
I
think,
looking
to
the
future
in
terms
of
governance
and
and
how
like
dude,
is
there
going
to
be
like
a
review
committee?
F
Is
there
going
to
be
like
you
know,
people
whose
job
is
it
to
you
know
it's
basically
like
be
the
the
final
word
sort
of
thing,
or
are
we
basically
just
gonna
get
solicit
votes
to
like
yeah?
This
is
good
and
then,
if
you
didn't
vote
by
a
certain
time,
it's
like
lazy
consensus.
So
I
guess
my
my
like
I'm
just
looking
into
the
future
in
terms
of
like
governance,
I
don't
know
if
that's
been
hashed
out.
I
know
you
guys
been
working
on
that
for
a
while.
B
Quick
quick
answer
is,
we
do
have
this
outlined
it's,
it
doesn't
go
into
the
level
of
detail
of
exactly
how
specific
decisions
within
each
committee
is
made,
but
it
does
also
list
the
committees,
and
currently
the
purview
of
the
principal
committee
is
responsible
for
drafting
the
revised,
get
outs,
principles
and
the.
B
In
terms
of
decision
making,
there's
a
section
on
decision
making
just
the
very
first
one
was
that
you
know
the
working
group
believes
that
the
best
decisions
are
reached
through
consensus
and
there
are
some
links
to
you
know
how
that's
defined,
so
it's
not
defined
as
unanimity,
it's
defined
as
relatively
broad
consensus,
but
it's
it's
a
fairly
informal
definition
at
this
moment,
because
this
is
not
something
on
which
there's
a
dis.
B
You
don't
start
by
voting,
you
know,
and
so
it
says
we'll
just
kind
of
read
through
these
steps.
So
basically
it's
like
you
know
you
seek
lazy
consensus,
ultimately
through
most
decisions
but
yeah.
If
there's
something
that
feels
really
that
it
should
be
relevant
to
other
specific
people,
you
don't
want
to
just
abuse
that
and
try
to
slide
something
under
the
wire.
Like
you
said,
you
know
so
that
someone
might
not
notice.
I
think,
like
robert
said,
and
I
think
we
all
agree
with.
B
So
that's
not
the
goal
of
lazy
consensus,
lazy
consistency
is
just
to
help
with
you
know,
like
decisions
that
aren't
super
vital
to
be
able
to
keep
happening.
B
B
If
we
want
to
you
know,
especially
in
the
early
evangelism
action
item
too
so
and
then
you
know
like
we
can,
even
when
we
solicit
feedback
from
the
principles,
we
could
even
mention
this
pr
in
the
same
breath
and
say
you
know,
there's
some
feedback
already,
that
there
may
be
a
bit
of
a
redundant
feeling
and
saying
the
principle
of
four
times
you
know
and
anyway
then
they're
just
the
list.
I
don't
need
to
read
it
all
out,
because
I
I
I
linked
to
it.
B
Here's
a
direct
link
to
the
decision-making
section
and
justin.
It
basically
just
outlines
the
process
of
when
a
vote
should
be
called
and
what
what
needs
to
happen.
If
there
isn't
an
agreement.
B
It
was
actually
through
some
of
the
earlier
principles
committee
meetings
that
that
that
made
us
decide
to
to
prioritize
returning
a
little
bit
more
of
the
structure
that
we
initially
had
as
a
draft
for
the
governance,
instead
of
just
being
so
informal
about
it,
so
that
we
didn't
just
implode
through
all
of
the
cacophony
of
opinions.
B
B
So
that
was
came
out
of
the
action
items
question
I
think
that
got
answered
how
about
who
who
feels
like
requesting
feedback
from
folks?
In
slack,
I
certainly
don't
mind
doing
it.
I
also
think
that
it
would
be
nice
if
someone
besides
dan
did
it
since
dan
made
the
pr,
so
it
doesn't
just
feel
like
a
unilateral
interest.
B
C
C
Also,
we
probably
should
have
just
just
put
it
in
as
an
action
item
to
try
to
to
to
get
some
feedback
on
the
principles
themselves,
possibly
outside
the
circle
of
of
you
know
the
github's
working
group.
That's.
C
B
Absolutely
how
about
this
then
I'll?
Just
because
I'm
moderating
I'll
go
ahead
and
I'll
copy
the
template
for
next
week
into
this.
You
know
into
the
list
I'll
put
next
week's
date
on
it
and.
F
No,
like
I
can
help
do
the
do
the
notes.
I
can
do
the
notes
so
that
way
it
looks
like
you're
doing
dual
today.
So
I'll
I'll
do
the
notes
next
time.
B
Cool
okay,
cool.
Thank
you
also,
I'm
asking
not
because
I'm
trying
to
bow
out
of
this
stuff,
I
just
you
know,
I'm
just
trying
to
you
know,
like
I
said,
spread
the
lipstick.
Okay,
so
notes.
B
So
I
guess
in
the
absence
of
another
volunteer,
for
that
I'll,
do
it
for
for
now
I'll,
go
and
just
say
scott.
Unless
someone
else
decides
to
volunteer
before.
B
Well,
it's
good!
Absolutely
thanks!
Thanks
for
clarifying
yeah,
I
may
not
be
saying
it
the
best
way,
but,
let's
just
say
I
get
sick.
You
know
like
it's
good
to
just
kind
of
rotate
a
little
bit
so
at
least
so
that
you
know
some
people
do
things
more
often
than
others
different
things
within
the
grip
and
that's
the
way
groups
work
it's
cool
but
like
it
would
be
nice
just
to
make
sure
that
they're.
You
know
that
it
doesn't
feel
like
almost
like,
abrupt
like.
Oh
my
god.
B
What
are
we
gonna
do,
and
I
think
that
already
happened
before
and
I
believe
dan
took
over
that
one
for
at
least
one
of
the
committees
so.
C
F
B
Don't
believe
it
I
don't
believe
it,
but
I
think
you
do
an
amazing
job,
but
but
yeah
I
do
like
doing
this
kind
of
stuff,
so
I'm
happy
to
fill
in
anytime.
So
anytime
I
can
so
okay,
cool
and
also
robert.
We
definitely
I
I'm
sure
I
speak
for
other
people,
but
like
really
appreciate
you
joining
these
meetings
in
your
evening
hours,
that's
fantastic
yeah,
I
mean
obviously
yeah.
So
many
people
in
this
group
just
do
really
vital
important
stuff.
B
So
I
just
wanted
to
give
other
people
a
chance
to
do
this
one
if
they
wanted
to
whenever
they
want
to
so.
Okay
great,
I
copied
this
in.
So
if
someone
wants
to,
I
guess
I'll,
just
put
this
as
a
well.
My
brain
is
not
really
working
right
now
so
does
someone
else
want
to
put
at
least
the
topic
for
circling
back
to
check
in
on
the
progress
of
soliciting
feedback?
D
Yeah,
I
I
probably
won't
be
able
to
join
next
week,
but
in
like
two
weeks,
I'm
happy
too.
Okay
cool.
That
sounds
great.
B
Oh
and
my
google
calendar
froze
what
is
the
date
for
next.
B
Yeah,
the
23rd,
the
23rd
right,
okay,
great,
I
will
add
that,
and
we
have
our
agenda
for
the
23rd.
Do
we
have
any
other
topics
that
we
want
to
cover?
I
know
I
propose
to
going
over
content,
but
I
think
at
this
point
we
don't
really
have
enough
time
to
dive
into
the
content.
B
At
least
I
don't
feel
like
it
would
be
super
productive
if
you
all
do,
that
would
be
cool,
but
I'm
just
I'd
almost
like
to
be
like
all
right.
Let's,
it's
really
focused
for
a
period
of
time.
B
Think
I
mean
yeah
exactly
well
in
the
spirit
of
that,
maybe
I'm
voting
for
like
just
ending
a
little
bit
early
and
returning
some
time
to
us.
So
we
can
just
like
feel
like
what
we're
doing
when
we're
doing
it
is
worth
our
time
coming
so
yeah.
D
A
B
You
all
are
awesome,
so
we
have
no
more
topics
and
I
will
see
you
next
time.