►
From YouTube: GitOps Principles Committee - April 05, 2021
Description
Meeting notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hxifmCdOV5_FbKloDJRWZQHq0ge-trXJKF-BgV4wHVk/edit#heading=h.mgg85m8p2zrf
B
And
what
form
yeah?
Sometimes
people
do
I
I
certainly
have
in
fact
there
was
a
not
too
not
too
distant
past,
one
right
cornelia,
where
it
was
very
helpful
to
look
at
a
past
recording
yep,
not
so
much
that
he
said
she
said
or
so
or
what
they
said.
They
said
or
whatever,
but
more
like
you
know,
it's
just
good
to
it's
easy
to
get
have
miscommunications.
B
Yeah
exactly
in
fact,
there
was
an
issue
today
that
I
was
I
was
going
to
reply
to
before
this,
but
I'll
just
wait
until
afterwards,
where
someone
was
concerned
about
us
having
a
time
frame
for
the
for
the
principles
and
I'll
respond
there,
so
that
so
it's
not
just
about
a
specific
person,
it's
more
just
in
case.
Anyone
has
a
concern
like
that.
Maybe
I
should
just
address
this
real.
Well,
actually,
I'm
sorry,
I
will
put
my
note
on
the
agenda
and
we'll
just
go
according
to
agenda.
E
B
We
said
that
in
between
we're
going
to
lock
the
document,
so
that
they're,
you
know
it's
just
not
because
of
anything
nefarious
would
go
on,
but
just
so
that
everyone
would
have
a
chance
to
be
involved
in
these
sync
sessions.
I'm
gonna
unlock
it
now,
in
fact,
why
don't
I
go
ahead
and
share
my
screen
to
do
so?
That's
clear,
what's
happening.
B
B
Write
so
I'm
getting
a
moment
here,
I'm
not
sure
why
it's
giving
me
I'm
getting
a
403
forbidden
okay,
so
I
think
I
just
accidentally
unpublished
that
right
now
that
was
my
mistake.
Sorry,
I
haven't
really
bothered
with
that
too
much
before
okay
cool.
So
how
about
now?
Do
you
have
right
access
to
if
you're
signed
in
yeah,
okay,
great.
B
B
B
And
I
think
the
idea
is
that
we
will
no,
I
think
we
said
the
idea
here
is
that
we
will
reach
consensus.
We
are
not
trying
to
push
any
agenda,
no
one's
trying
to
push
an
agenda
on
anyone
else.
It's
the
goal
here
is
to
find
the
the
the
common
uncontroversial
components
of
these
principles
for
an
initial
pre-release.
B
Last
time
we
had
oops.
I
think
I'll,
just
stop
my
share
for
now,
unless
it's
helpful
to
anyone,
but
last
time
we
we
had.
The
discussion
was
very,
very
good,
but
at
a
certain
point,
in
order
to
keep
in
order
to
ensure
that
everyone
had
an
ability
to
speak,
we
started
using
raised
hands.
Does
anyone
have
a
preference
on
how
we
do
that
now.
B
F
B
B
B
Maybe
it
was
just
my
connection
or
something
okay,
cool
thanks
yeah.
So
what
I
remember
is
that
we
went
through
we
we
we
went
through
the
first
three
principles
and
have
general
consensus
about
them,
like
certainly
consensus
about
the
first
and
the
second
general
consensus
consensus
on
the
third,
with
the
exception,
with
the
one
open
question
of
whether
or
not
there
is
some
contention
about
the
word
continuous,
and
there
is
some
contention
about
the
word
immediately
within
the
text
below
so
the
principle
of
of
so.
B
If
someone
just
like
chime
in,
if
you
think
that
this
is
not
a
good
summary,
but
what
I
remember
is
that
there
were.
There
was
a
point
of
view
that
that
it's
important
that
simply
saying
the
principle
of
state
reconciliation
itself
did
not
properly
express
the
the
the
important
value
that
git
ops
brings
it.
For
instance,
ci
can
reconcile,
you
can
do
manual,
reconciliation,
etc.
B
So
there
are
some
different
points
of
view
about
that.
I
think
there
was
an
idea
that,
using
the
word,
continuous
and
or
perhaps
immediate
immediately
was
implied
a
specific
cadence
immediately.
Certain
certainly
does,
but
there
was.
There
was
a
question
as
to
whether
the
word
continuous
implied
that
there
would
be
a
specific
time
period
within
which
reconciliation
would
happen,
and
that
is
where
we
left
it.
There
were
different
points
of
view
on
that.
I
think.
G
Yeah,
so
I
think
the
the
contention
was
the
reckon,
the
the
term
reconciliation
and
loop
of
what
is
what
is
actually
happening
right.
The
the
idea
is
that
this
is
a
reconciliation
loop
that
happens
versus
a
event-driven
thing
right
and-
and
I
think
there
was
a
contention
with
with
loop,
because
we
were
still
discussing
the
idea
of
whether
it's
a
closed
loop
or
if
it's
an
open-ended
group
and
so
yeah.
G
H
H
I
feel
like
one
of
the
things
that
I
hear
a
lot
and
actually
maybe
the
biggest
stumbling
block
for
people
really
grocking
with
what
this
is
is
actually
the
continuous
nature
of
reconciliation,
convergence,
state
change,
whatever
verb
you
want
to
use
or
noun.
Rather,
I
think
continuous
is
really
important.
H
I
think
convergence
is
another
term
we
could
use,
but
then
you
have
to
bring
convergence
between
desired
and
actual
and
it
gets
a
little
more
clunky.
So
I
think
my
vote
is
is,
for
you
know
the
principle
of
continuous
state
reconciliation.
I
like
that
I
think
it's
elegant,
but
I
think
it
can
be
explained.
E
Am
I
muted?
No,
I'm
not
muted.
So
I
think
another
important
aspect
that
we
talked
about
last
time
was
the
difference,
so
we
talked
about
whether
continues
meant
immediate
or
not,
and
around
that
we
also
discussed,
and
actually
christian
brought
this
up-
that
there's
two
possible
causes
for
reconciliation.
E
E
So
I
I
think
I
do
agree
with
the
fact
that
there
might
be
nuances
in
how
reconciliation
is
dealt
with
depending
on
whether
it's
a
new
version
or
a
means
to
handle
drift,
that
it
should
be
continuous,
that
it
should
be
automated
programmatic,
programmatic,
programmatic.
But
I
think
immediate
is
where
there
is
more
concern.
E
B
Okay,
cool
and
I'm
thinking
thanks
leonard
and
then
oh,
I
forgot
one
other
thing
time
wise.
We
were
saying
before
that
we
might
want
to
put
like
a
just
a
basic
time
limit,
but
a
kind
time
limit
like
gentle
time.
Does
that
sound
good
to
everyone?
If
we
sort
of
say
a
two
minute
and
then
just
give
kind
of
a
heads
up
and
if
you
need
to
wrap
up.
F
Bruce
sure
one
thing
that
is,
we
can
the
continuous
and
state
and
loop
all
those
are
kind
of
have
fairly
complex
concepts
that
we're
bringing
into
a
very
quick
sentence.
I
think
we
could
just
get
away
with
simply
saying
the
principle
of
reconciliation
and
then
have
explicit
details
in
the
short
summary
of
what
that
concept
is.
I
think,
the
principle
of
reconciliation
kind
of
captures,
what
we're
trying
to
talk
about,
without
necessarily
going
into
a
lot
of
the
details
that
would
maybe
be
incorrect
or
slightly
misleading.
F
It
captures
the
essence
without
any
additional
stuff.
So
that's
number
one
and
number
two
is
yeah.
I
I
think,
there's
absolutely
a
point
of
saying
that
immediacy
is
is
not
possible
in
distributed
system.
I
mean
it's
not
possible
in
any
physical
system.
Essentially,
so
I
we
should,
but
it
sounds
like
there's
two
things.
F
So,
for
the
first
one
continuous
in
this
context
is
really
about
a
continuously
running
process
and
that
might
be
made
more
explicit
for
the
second
one
around
the
immediacy.
I
think
that's
that's
really
I.
I
would
remove
immediately
from
that
definition
altogether,
because
it
gives
the
wrong
idea
about
the
ought
and
is
of
systems
and
the
ought
and
what
the
system
ought
to
do,
which
is
immediate.
Reconciliation
is
not
possible
and
we
should
capture
that
reality
in
the
definition.
B
B
That's
a
good
question.
Maybe
just
raise
your
hand
and
take
notes
for
yourself
and
wait
until
your
turn,
because
if
that
makes
sense,
if
we
want
something
more
elaborate,
we
can
do
that.
But
I
feel
like
this
is
pretty
simple
and
it's
just
sorry
brace
is
done.
Okay,
all
right!
Let
me
know
if
you
want
to
do
something
different,
but
otherwise
I
I
believe
timothy
is
next
than
cornelia.
I
Thank
you
scott,
so
it
looks
like
it
sounded
like
the
last
three
gentlemen
that
spoke
before
me.
I
think
we're
all
saying
the
same
thing
and
I
actually
want
to
pile
it
in
just
to
say
that
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
Right,
continuous
implies
a
lot
of
things
and
actually
it's
a
very
good
word
for
a
principle,
because
you
never
know
what
people
will
actually
end
up
implementing
right
and
whether
you
want
to
do
it
through
some
kind
of
event
driven
or
some
kind
of
receive
reconciliation
loop.
I
That's
pretty
pretty
much
all
implementation,
details
right
and
probably
all
use
case
driven.
There
could
be
certain
times
that
some
drifts
are
okay,
because
your
software
is
expecting
to
do
something
on
its
own,
and
maybe
it
always
trying
to
do
something
on
its
own
right.
You
don't
have
to
correct
them,
but
there
are
certainly
cases
such
as
things
got
changed
manually
right,
a
hack
or
something
like
that,
and
you
do
definitely
want
the
system
to
correct
it.
I
D
D
But
if
we
get
rid
of
loop
and
and
we
leave
open
the
possibility
that
it's
only
done
by
events
and
that
there's
some
reconciliation,
the
continuous
part,
I
think,
is
important
to
recognize
that
we're
never
done,
and
so
I
argue
for
to
summarize
get
rid
of
immediately.
Get
rid
of
loop.
Keep
continuous.
H
A
I'm
also
happy
with
the
continuous
part,
and
I
think
that
keeping
in
the
same
kind
of
level
of
thought
with
the
other
principles,
we
should
really
think
what
is
important
for
us
to
keep
bit
ops
to
be
to
be
good.
Ups
like
what
are
we
willing
to
defend
and
everything
that
we're
not
willing
to
defend,
we
should
throw
away
so,
for
example,
we
talked
about
it,
but
it's
not
in
the
text.
Get
ups
means
that
it
doesn't
matter
what
caused
the
drift.
A
A
It
doesn't
matter
what
caused
the
drift
and
that's
also
a
fundamental
difference
to
ci
options.
Ci
ops,
only
the
change
in
the
source
code
triggers
a
reconciliation
and
the
reconciliation
is
always
one
way
in
githubs.
A
change
in
the
system
can
also
trigger
reconciliation.
This
is
a
fundamental
difference
to
ci
ops,
and
I
think
we
should
actually
put
that
into
this
third
principle
that,
regardless
of
what
caused
the
the
the
difference
or
what
initiated
the
difference
or
whatever
kind
of
the
result
is
always
the
same,
we
reconciliate.
B
F
So
I
think,
I
think,
we're
mostly
in
agreement
in
this
school,
but
mushi
was
the
person
who
actually
raised
a
lot
of
the
concerns
about
this
principle.
I
I
don't
really
want
so
I
I
I'd
want
to
make
sure
that
we
we
don't
just
have
reach
consensus,
because
the
dissenting
voice
is
missing.
So
I
I
think,
like
the
the
idea
of
of
close
and
open
loops
is,
is
relevant
and
I
think
github's
as
mushy
mentioned,
it
can
be
characterized
as
an
open
loop.
F
I'm
wondering
whether
and
and
we
were
in
disagreement
last
week
right
last
time-
we
talked,
but
I'm
wondering
whether
it's
worth
highlighting
that
and
highlighting
the
fact
that
most
of
the
people
here
have
a
consensus
and
that
the
dissenting
voice
isn't
here
that
that's
that's
all,
and
maybe
we
can
suggestion
we
can
move
to
concrete
proposal
about
the
changes
here
and
I've
already
removed
immediately.
Since
that
seems
to
be
a
universal
consensus
and
it
was
last
week
as
well.
B
B
B
Them
there
will
still
be
a
pull
request
from
this.
The
discussion
from
before
is
still
recorded
and-
and
we
can
still
have
that
open
forum
even
after
this.
So
I
really
appreciate
you
mentioning
that
brees,
but
I
just
want
to
be
clear
to
anyone
who
might
hear
this
and
starting
now
and
not
earlier
that
that
that
we
have
a
mechanism
built
in
to
ensure
that
no
one
gets
run
over.
H
I
wanted
to
make
an
observation.
I
yeah,
I
think,
we're
I
think
we're
arriving
somewhere,
which
is
which
is
good.
The
brought
up
drift,
which
I
think
is,
is
interesting
for
me.
I
I
was
thinking
the
other
day
about
how
we
we
might
want
to
consider
defining
what
drift
is.
This
reminds
me
of
quality
theory
where
everything's
a
regression,
including
building
a
new
successful.
H
You
know,
change
and
and
integrating
it
into
the
system,
still
a
regression,
because
it's
a
change
in
behavior.
I
think
I
think,
if
we
can
scope
drift
as
really
anything
the
reconciliation
part
becomes
continuous
sorry
continuous
becomes
mandatory.
It
becomes
a
mandatory
dis
descriptor
to
to
the
reconciliation.
H
B
Yeah
we
love
reaction,
emoji,
vocal
or
otherwise.
I
100
that
too.
Okay,
so
so
then
my
hands
next,
I'm
going
to
put
it
down,
while
I'm
speaking
for
a
second
just
time
myself,
and
hopefully
I
won't
need
that
much.
I
don't
disagree
with
any
of
that
see.
Do
you
see,
I
believe,
we're
still
sharing
brees's
screen?
B
We
in
the
last
meeting
decided,
as
we
were,
working
on
the
the
short
form
of
these
principles,
about
that
we
would
move
those
into
into
notes
below
it's
still
an
open
question
if
we
can
get
to
that
by
the
end
of
this
meeting,
that
would
be
cool,
but
it's
still
an
open
question
about
the
style
of
that,
whether
those
should
be
in
glossary
terms,
whether
they
should
be
front
loaded
in
a
paragraph
form
above
or
whether
they
should
be
inline
in
the
principles
themselves.
I
believe
so
far.
B
B
B
B
My
only
suggestion
right
now,
at
least
for
the
context
of
this
meeting
it
or
this
this
time-
is
that
I
want
to
suggest
that
we
keep
lang
that
we
keep
language.
We
don't
adopt
language
specifically
from
systems
theory
at
this
moment
in
the
short
form
of
the
principles
itself.
I
think
we
should
try
to
use
as
as
as
industry-wide
and
plain
language
as
we
can
in
the
short
form
or
terminology,
that's
very
important
to
to
get
ops
and
then
oops.
B
I'm
done
well
gentle
time
just
to
wrap
up,
and
then
I
would
like
to
move,
though,
because
I
thought
me
breese
and
other
people
thought
motion's
point
was
very
good
and
important
that
we
do
move
to
to
make
a
note
in
the
notes
section
to
to
go
into
that
a
bit
more
and
to
go
into
loop
to
go
into
open
and
closed
loops
in
the
notes.
Does
that
sound
like
some
well
anyway?
That
is
just
a
suggestion.
F
Yeah,
so
I
just
want
to
make
a
kind
of
a
concrete
proposal
right
we've
discussed
this.
I
think
there's
been
a
consensus
around
removing
immediately,
which
I
have
done
without
really
checking
in.
Should
we
for
the
sake
of
kind
of
trying
to
make
progress,
should
we
then
go
ahead
with,
I
think,
which
is
the
general
consensus
so
far,
which
is
the
principle
of
continuous
state
reconciliation?
F
B
F
F
I
mean
it's
highlighted
on
my
right.
Where
is
it
yeah
the
fact
that
this
can
be
the
state
drifting
from
desired
or
desired
state
changing
intentionally
the
second
proposal,
and
this
might
end
up
being
a
no?
I
suggest
we
move
that
back
into
the
principles
unless
we
have
a
dissenting
voice
about
that.
F
F
D
It
absolutely
needs
to
be
there
in
a
longer
explanation.
So
I
I
think,
that's
enough
said
and
I'd
love
to
hear
other
other
folks.
I,
like
the
short
form
being
kind
of
very
kind
of
mathematical,
says
we're
going
to
do
continuous
reconciliation,
full
stop
and
then
there's
all
sorts
of
ways
of
you
know
of
triggers.
F
D
D
B
E
So
a
lot
of
what
I
was
going
to
say
cornelia
said
so,
yes
to
what
cornelius
said
and
but
but
I
do
think
that
the
principle
should
I
really
like
the
idea
that
who
was
it
jesse
talked
about,
and
I
think
it's
at
a
principal
level
to
consider
drift
or
anything
for
that
matter.
That
is
cause
for
differences
in
state
to
be
dealt
with
identically.
E
Every
other
scenario,
like
every
specific
scenario
of
how
that
variance
and
state
could
occur,
is
is
beyond,
is
not
a
principle
is
a
detail,
so
it
kind
of
work
the
principles
at
a
principal
level,
so
any
any
any
difference
in
state
is
a
difference,
a
difference
in
state
period
yeah.
So
that's
kind
of
my
comment.
B
Okay,
okay,
great
and
sorry
jesse,
you
can
raise
your
hand
again.
I
accidentally
lowered
it
when
I
was
trying
to
lower
leonardo's
sorry
about
that,
okay,
okay!
So
then
my
quick
note
and
then
you
jesse,
is
how
do
you?
How
does
what
about
this
is
as
a
concrete
proposal
that
when
we
say
we
already
say
if
the
actual
desired
states
differ,
automated
actions
are
attempted
to
reconcile
them.
B
What,
if
we
say
something
a
little
stronger
like
or
something
a
little
bit
more
inclusive
there
or
at
least
to
understand
there,
may
be
a
bias
that
people
are
that
the
industry
may
already
be
assuming
that
they
they
change,
because
because
of
the
there
was
a
change
in
the
code.
Only
so
perhaps
we
could
say
something
like
if
the
actual
desire
states
differ
for
any
reason,
automated
actions,
you
know,
etc.
I'm
just
going
to
note
this
here,
but
I
wanted
to
say
it
out
loud
thanks:
okay,
jesse.
H
Yeah,
I
don't.
I
agree
with
everything
that's
been
said
in
the
last
couple
of
speakers,
and
I
don't
have
anything
specific
on
this,
so
I
will
happily
defer.
I
have
something
else
I
wanted
to
bring
up,
so
I
don't
know
if
we
can
just
hold
a
place
or,
if
we're
interested
in
something
else,
it's
related
to
principle.
Three.
It's
just
basically
wording.
G
B
I
would
say
this:
first
of
all,
I
want
to
retract
my
what
I
said
before,
because
I,
after
hearing
cornelia
cornelius
and
passion
speech,
I
am
not
that
we
have
to
agree
on
everything,
but
I
do
agree
on
that.
I
do
think
that
the
fact
that
we
say
continuous
and
that
we
say
the
desires
and
actual
states
differ.
B
That
should
be
enough.
My
suggestion,
for
any
reason,
is
really
just
a
you
know
a
it
is
not
for
me:
that's
not
a
hill
to
die
on.
That
is
just
an
additional
possible
small
augment
that
might
address
what
other
people
are
saying.
So
question
is
okay,
so
we've
got
a
thumbs
up.
We've
got
two
hands.
Okay,
let
me
call
the
hand
I've
got
three
thumbs
up.
Okay,
let
me
call
the
got
a
breeze,
jesse
cornelia
and
then
robert.
J
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
localize
the
fact
that
I
agree
and
I
think
that
the
reason
for
for
having
the
state
of
reconciliation,
reconciliation
shouldn't
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
in
the
text
of
the
principle
in
itself.
I
I
think
that
the
wording
that's
there
is
is
okay.
I
I
recognize
that
jessie's
gonna
say
something
about
the
wording
right
after
me,
but
but
in
itself
having
a
principle
that
says
that
we
are
trying
to
do
state
reconcil
reconciliation,
we
don't
need
full
in
every
single
reason
why
that
can
happen.
J
Just
simply
because,
like
previously
mentioned,
state
reconciliation
can
happen
from
many
things,
and
just
it
can
happen
once
and
that's
not
what
we're
trying
to
do
here.
We're
trying
to
get
a
system
running
that
that
controls
the
event
of
things
here,
so
we
kind
of
need
that
continuously
to
get
it
to
make
sense.
I
think.
B
B
Oh,
oh,
oh,
oh
god
I
got
it
okay,
then
jesse.
Okay,
great!
Then
it
sounds
like
we
are
good,
then,
okay,
so
so,
let's
yeah,
thank
you,
that's
perfect
and
then
should
we
keep
the
for
any
reason
in
quotes
or
do
do
we
like
that
or
do
we
feel
it's
unnecessary?
Is
there
a
gut
response
from
the
from
the
audience?
I
really
don't
care.
H
H
I
think
I
understand
where
that
comes
from,
but
the
you
know
the
first
two
principles
are
quite
they're
blanking
on
a
word:
they're
they're,
solid
right,
attempted
raises
kind
of
doubt,
and
I
don't
think
that
we
would
ever
implement
a
system
that
attempts
without
the
intent
to
take
action
right.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
know
if
that
got
discussed
before,
but
I
I
I
kind
of
I
think
I'm
I'm
proposing.
We
swap
that
about
or
maybe
taken.
B
E
E
That
will
be
an
attempt
that
that
will
not
be
guaranteed,
and
I
think
the
actions
that
could
be
taken
on
a
failed
attempt
are
not
necessarily
to
continue
trying
to
reconcile.
It
could
be
notifying
it
could
be
reverting.
There
could
be
any
number
of
actions
that
could
be
implemented
to
achieve
a
balanced
state.
Again,
I
I
don't.
H
I
I'm
a
chair
of
a
school
board,
so
I'm
used
to
robert's
rules
if
we
want
to
go
that
way,
so
yeah.
No,
I
very
briefly
in
support
of
of
what
leonardo
just
said.
I
I
think
it
depends
on
if
you
see
actions
as
multiple
and
n
actions
or
the
action
itself
may
fail,
and
then
you
take
another
action
so
something
to
think
about.
I
guess
yeah,
author.
J
J
There
might
be
other
actions
that
you
know
that
there's
a
system
set
up
to
to
to
try
to
reconcile
as
well
as
possible,
or
you
know,
pull
in
a
actual
human
being
to
do
things,
but
I
don't
think,
having
I
don't
know
the
word,
but
but
such
a
flimsy
meaning
to
wording
having
that
in
there
makes
doesn't
make
sense
to
me.
I
I
think
that
by
definition
the
principle
is
that
we're
trying
we're
we
are
doing
state
reconciliation.
J
B
Okay,
thanks
robert,
so
just
getting
the
list.
I
I
had
just
one
suggestion
or
one
suggestion
and
then
and
then
it
is
cornelia.
Did
you
lower
your
hand,
then
raise
it
again?
Okay,
that's
what
I
thought.
Okay!
So
then,
then
I
will
say
still
cornelia
because
it
was
raised
initially
and
then
sorry,
then,
oh,
not
bruce.
You
lowered
your
hand,
okay,
cornelia,
sorry,
then
slower
than
christian,
all
right,
okay,
so
my
my
suggestion
is
because
it
does
seem
like
there's
a
lot
of
good
points
that
we
move.
B
B
D
B
A
A
And
for
me
the
decision
is
the
important
part
that
the
system,
the
the
get
ops
auto
automatism,
has
to
decide.
Yes,
I
take
an
action.
That's
the
core
principle
here,
the
automated
decision
and
then
what
exactly
happens
if
it's
an
action
that
has
been
taken,
triggered,
attempted
or
whatever
is,
in
my
opinion,
really
secondary
and
much
more
on
the
implementation
level
and
the
the
automation
of
the
decision
taking
is
at
the
core
of
this
principle.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
I
also
want
to
make
sure
that
some
of
the
comments
in
the
chat
don't
get
lost.
I
just
wanna.
There
have
been
some
that
have
been
missed,
but
I
think
most
of
them
has
been
covered
have
been
covered.
If
I'm
missing
something,
that's
really
pressing,
please
someone
raise
your
hand
and
say
so,
but
I
wanted
to
mention
one
thing
that
carlos
said:
unless
you
want
to
say
this
out
loud
carlos.
Actually,
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
want
to
ask
you
to
say
it
out
loud.
B
I
step
back
because
we're
doing
hand
raised
things,
but
just
saying
that
you
had
a
suggestion
how
we
categorize
it.
This
is
not
part
of
this
discussion,
so
it's
just
categorizing
things
that
are
part
of
the
principle
or
things
that
are
that
help
define
the
principles
versus
not
part
of
it,
but
an
implementation
detail.
So
I
think
that's
good.
We
can
keep
that
in
mind.
I
hope
that
was
a
little
helpful
christian.
G
Yeah,
I
don't
think
I
think,
a
lot
of
what
everyone
said.
I
think
I'm
generally
agreeing
with
I
actually
do
like
initiated
more
than
any
other
word.
I
was
actually
going
to
suggest
maybe
rewording
the
order
of
the
sentence,
but
but
so
my
initial
thought
was
if
the
actual
and
desired
state
differ.
For
any
reason,
an
automated
reconciliation
is
initiated,
but
now
I
think
I'm
gonna.
I
only
said
it
out
loud.
So
that
way
I
can
just
hear
it
out
loud.
I
think
I
may
be
backing
away
from
that.
B
B
F
No,
no,
that's
all
right!
I
I
just
wanted
to.
I
think
we,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
comments
right
like
I
think
these
are.
While
we
can
keep
improving
this
and
polishing
and
polishing
it
and
polishing
it.
I
think
that's
not
necessary
for
a
v1
and
we
it
it
generally
captures
what
we
we
all
collectively
think
about
githubs.
F
B
Okay,
why
doesn't
everybody
take
a
moment
to
read
it
just
a
time
check,
we
have.
We
have
four
minutes
until
our
our
last
note.
So
we're
not
going
to
have
time
for
for
lengthy
discussion
around
this
one.
I
think
we
did
for
three.
That's
great.
Does
anyone
have
any
thoughts?
They
want
a
voice
and
if
so,
let's
raise
our
hands
and
let's
be
really
strict
on
time
or
maybe
actually
we
don't.
We
only
have
four
minutes
so
yeah
any
thoughts.
E
Yeah,
just
a
very
quick
comment:
the
mechanism
through
which
change
is
applied.
I
think
change
is
a
little
bit
ambiguous.
We
are
always
talking
about
state
and
configuration
and
I
think
we
should
stick
to
that
terminology.
The
mechanisms
through
which
configuration
or
through
which
state
is
applied
to
the
system,
something
that
is
consistent
with
the
wording
that
we've
used
in
every
other
principle.
B
Okay,
I'm
raising
my
hand
real,
quick,
because
no
one's
hands
were
raised.
I
definitely
feel
some
of
the
ambiguity
that
I'm
hearing
yeah
that
people
are
picking
up
on
different.
Some
of
these
words
have
multiple
meanings
right,
for
example,
change
sets
and
so
on.
We
in
the
last,
in
the
very
last
principle,
we
talked
about
reconciling
the
system.
B
Maybe
we
should
just
change
the
way.
It's
said:
we're
not
we're
not
really
talking
in
principle,
four
about
about
about
reconciliation
itself,
we're
only
we're
focusing
on
declaration
here.
So
maybe
we
say
the
only
mechanism
through
which
this
the
system
is
interacted
with
or
something
like
this.
You
know
what
I
mean
and
just
kind
of
avoid
that
word
altogether.
B
F
B
Thanks
breese,
before
passing
on
to
christian,
I
just
want
to
do
a
temperature
check
for
the
room,
because
it
is
one
or
it
is.
It
is
the
top
of
the
hour.
Now
we
could
have
a
little
bit
of
wiggle
room,
so
no
one's
just
like
cut
off
like
mid-sentence,
but
but
I
don't,
but
I
know
that
people
do
have
other
meetings
to
get
to.
My
question
is
christian.