►
From YouTube: GitOps Principles Committee Weekly Meeting 20210623
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
Okay,
well
thanks
everybody
that
joined
and
thanks
for
everybody,
that's
watching
this
in
the
future.
This
is
the
get
ups
principles
working
group
meeting
on
june
23rd,
scott
just
shared
the
meeting
notes
on
chat
and
I'm
actually
gonna
share
my
screen
so
that
we
can
all
see
them
and
go
over
the
agenda.
A
Yes,
okay,
fantastic
all
right,
so
our
agenda
for
today,
like
anybody
and
everybody,
please
do
go
into
the
notes
and
do
add
anything
to
the
agenda
that
you
want
to
cover.
A
We
had
some
action
items
from
last
week
that
I
would
like
to
really
quickly
go
over
last
week
there
was
a
conversation
around
kind
of
evangelizing
the
principles
of
get
ups.
I
don't
know,
I
think
the
christian
you
were
going
to
call
robert.
You
were
also
on
the
call
william.
I
think
it
was
pretty
much
the
same
crowd.
A
B
I
think
we
can't
really
mark
it
as
complete,
or
at
least
not
in
my
in
my
case
this
this
week
went
really
fast,
so
I
haven't
been
able
to
send
out
stuff
but
yeah.
I
think
the
general
idea
is
just.
We
should
just
bring
this
forward
into
a
couple
of
minutes.
I
guess
and
continue
to
try
to
to
to
get
suggestions
and
and
feedback
in
general.
A
Is
there
anything
oh
cool,
we
got
hand
raising?
I
I
didn't
pay
attention
to
who
raised
it.
First.
Was
it
used
caught
nope
yeah?
Well,
maybe.
C
Okay,
okay.
Well,
in
that
case,
I
was
just
gonna,
give
an
update
for
myself
that
I
fell
down
on
the
job
this
week
for
my
homework.
I
did
not
send
the
principles
to
other
people.
C
I
think
I
felt
the
week
went
by
really
fast
for
me
too,
and
I
just
didn't
do
it,
so
I
think
others
may
or
may
not
have,
but
I
certainly
did
not,
and
I
want
to
now.
C
C
D
A
Okay,
I
guess
the
question
for
from,
like
the
us
chairs
of
the
working
group:
is
there
anything
that
we
can
provide
you
all
that
will
help
this
easier,
namely
links
some
like
anything
that
we
could
produce
during
this
call
or
afterwards
that
would
make
like
just
a
copy
paste,
email
sort
of
easy
to
get
this
done.
B
B
Yeah,
we
probably
could,
but
at
the
same
time
it's
like
yeah,
I'm
going
to
be
sending
to
a
lot
of
norwegian
people
to
you
know,
try
to
get
that
crowd,
crowd's
opinion
and
that's
just
simple,
because
they
aren't
really
that
active
in
in
these
kind
of
working
groups
and
these
kind
of
things.
So
you
know
not
paying
attention
that
much,
but
but
having
like
the
general
gist
of
things
and
then
and
something
I
can
work
off
would
be
cool.
A
Okay,
so
I
just
added
the
produce
copy,
copy-pastable
kind
of
paragraph
or
pitch
that
can
be
shared
via
email
and
slack
with
others.
Anybody
wants
to
kind
of
get
this
assigned
and
have
a
go
at
it.
A
I
can
just
otherwise
assign
it
to
myself
if
nobody
wants,
if
nobody
wants
to
like
give
it
a
first
first
stab
going
once
twice
all
right:
it's
mine,
okay,
all
right,
so
this
I'm
gonna
have
available
for
next
week,
so
that
or
actually
no
actually
probably
can
share
it
beforehand
on
the
slack
channel,
so
that
we
have
kind
of
like
this
standard
artifact
that
we
can
just
copy
paste
and
send
over
to
people
on
email
and
to
share
it
around
cool.
Any
other
thoughts
around
this
action
item.
Scott
go
ahead.
C
C
A
Okay,
fantastic
all
right,
awesome
and
again
it's
not
just
to
leave
anybody
out.
That's
just
it's
easier
to
have
stuff
assigned
to
get
stuff
done
so
we'll.
Actually.
Actually
we
probably
want
to
put
this
in
the
discussion
real,
quick
just
for
global
visibility,
iterate
on
it
allow
people
to
kind
of.
I
mean
it's
like
a
small
thing.
It's
not
like.
We've
got
a
complicated
yeah.
C
A
A
A
Yes,
was
to
review
this
pr
okay,
so
there
is
an
open
pr
in
the
principles
in
the
documents:
repo,
okay,
pr
number,
nine
that
was
initially
proposed
by
dan
garfield
and
the
whole
concept
is:
how
can
we
make
the
four
principles
that
we've
already
defined
shorter,
more
memorable
without
impacting
the
concept
being
communicated
all
right?
So
there
is
an
open
pr.
Scott
was
very
efficient
and
he
summarized
the
calling
I
think,
three
three
different
alternatives
as
to
how
they
could
be
rewarded.
A
C
I
I
only
wanted
to
couch
a
caveat
with
this
that
just
letting
folks
know
that
that
this
summary
was.
I
just
tried
to
summarize
what
we
we
all
discussed
last
week,
so
just
to
just
for
anybody.
Listen
to
this
recording
or
anyone
in
the
call
that
might
not
have
remembered
that
or
been
here
yeah.
These
didn't
really
come
from
me,
but
I
did.
I
did
try
to
slap
together.
C
Some
of
the
examples
in
in
that
so
take
that
with
a
grain
of
salt,
that
the
way
that
I
worded
them
may
not
be
exact,
except
for
the
first
one,
which
is
literally
just
removing
that
that
part
of
the
sentence,
so
if
we
want
to,
I
think
I
think
there
was
another
comment
down
below
leonardo
from
let's
see,
yeah
jesse
had
a
suggestion
and
then
william
had
a
suggestion,
yeah
and
that
is
kind
of
like
a
different.
C
It's
a
different
option.
So
if
we
were
going
to
do
like
a
lazy
consensus,
however,
you
know
we
probably
want
to
add
that
to
the
mix
too,
because
he
kind
of
had
a
suggestion
of
combining
those
two
things.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
scott
I'd
love
to
hear
what
everybody
else
thinks
about
these
condensed
versions,
whether
they'll
have
any
one
that
particularly
rings
as
most
effective
and
accurate
and,
in
general
opinion.
So
the
floor
is
open
for
feedback.
A
A
Right
so
the
hope
again
just
to
make
sure
that
everybody's
on
the
same
page,
the
whole
idea
is:
how
can
we
kind
of
dance
concern?
Was
the
this
principles
are
as
written?
They
are
to
some
degree
redundant
in
wording.
A
They
are
too
long
to
be
easily
remembered
and
there's
opportunity
for
us
to
kind
of
reduce
the
verbosity
of
them
without
the
degrading
the
concept
that
they're
trying
to
communicate
right,
they
could
be
just
written
up
in
one
sentence
and
still
communicate
the
ideal.
The
principle
that
we're
trying
to
communicate-
and
these
are
the
different
versions-
go
ahead.
Scott.
C
Yeah
one
thing
I
didn't
even
cover
in
this
was
the
possibility
was
what
you
actually
just
mentioned
was
one
of
the
things
dan
suggested,
and
I
just
left
that
out
all
together,
because
I
was
trying
to
avoid
basically
just
like
exploding
the
trust
of
the
group
since
we,
since
I
think
we
haven't,
he
did
at
one
point
mention
like.
Oh
perhaps
this
could
all
just
be
combined,
but
I
think
so
far
no
one
else
has
said.
Oh
yeah.
C
That
sounds
like
a
great
idea
to
to
reword
the
actual
paragraph
that
we
all
painstakingly
kind
of
went
through.
It's
really
only
the
first
line
that
was
there's
a
bit
of
redundancy
there
and
it's
just.
How
do
we
deal
with
that
redundancy
was.
I
believe
what
this
scope
of
this
issue
is,
even
though
I
know
he
he
had
mentioned
that
I
just
want
to
say
I
don't
think
that's
part
of
the
scope
of
this
issue
now,
unless
someone
yeah.
A
Okay,
so
let
me
kind
of
rephrase
what
I
heard
just
to
make
sure
that
I'm
getting
it
right.
The
whole
idea
is:
maybe
we
don't
need
the
principle
of
the
principle
of
rather
just
state
the
principal
period
and
therefore
reduce
the
volume
by
quote:
quote:
half
because
there
is
a
high
level
of
redundancy
in
kind
of
just
the
title
to
the
explanation
is
that
an
accurate
interpretation.
C
C
My
strong
suggestion
would
be
to
to
stay
as
faithful
to
what
we
all
agreed
to
as
possible
and
whatever
wording
changes
would
need
to
be
made.
It's
more
just.
It's
mostly
a
stylistic
change
at
that
point,
but
there
are
several
ways
we
could
address
that.
So
that's
that's
all
I
wanted
to
say:
I'm
I'm
not
leading
that
it's
just.
A
A
Fair
statement,
I
I'm
not
quite
sure
whether
jess
you're
a
christian
where
first
so
do
you
know
christian
was
okay
christian,
go
ahead.
D
So
yeah,
so
I'm
just
saying
basically
kind
of
what
scott
was
saying.
My
understanding
is
we're
just
doing
the
the
title
right.
I
think
we're
leaving
the
paragraph
alone
essentially
and
just
kind
of
trimming
the
fat
on
the
title
of
so
that
way,
it's
not
as
redundant,
so
that
that
was
my
understanding
that
all
this
this
this
pr
should
be
doing
at
least
okay.
A
A
E
Hey
so
yeah
I
I
kind
of
want
to
float
that
I
I
don't
necessarily
mind
the
repetitiveness
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
I
don't
want
to
sidetrack
us,
but
I
just
feel
like
like
just
coming
back
to
like.
Are
we
asking
the
right
question?
E
You
know
if
we,
if
we
perceive
these
things
to
eventually
be
like
links
to
more
full-blown
docs
or
there's
paragraphs
below,
there's,
there's
more
narrative
to
fill
this
stuff
in
the
idea
of
like
the
principle
of
this,
the
principle
of
this
the
principle
of
this
it
kind
of
doesn't
bother
me,
but
if
we
decide
that
it
does
as
a
group,
I
think
my
vote
would
be
on
the
sort
of
axiomatic
approach
that
scott
floated.
E
The
only
reason
I
gave
us
sort
of
a
b.1
or
an
alternate
take
is
just
because
it's
there's
a
lot
of
musts
in
there
and
I
think
we
had
discussed
before,
maybe
not
sounding
so
much
specky
or
guidancy,
I'm
inventing
words
so
yeah.
I
think
I
I
like
sort
of
the
softer
approach,
but
but
the
intent
of
like
saying
these
are
axiomatic.
I
think
I
I'm
I'm
down
with
that,
so
that
I
think
that's
got
my
vote
be
in
some
form.
A
I
do
think,
however,
that
we
don't
really
have
consensus
in
that
eliminating
the
title
or
condensing.
The
title
is
the
way
to
go,
and
I
I
think,
jesse
kind
of
raises
a
very
valid
concern
that,
albeit
the
principles
are
currently
written
as
a
single
sentence
or
a
single
paragraph.
That
doesn't
mean
that
there
is
not
an
opportunity
for
further
unelaboration
right.
So.
A
C
C
Oh
okay,
so
so
yes,
I
believe
that
a
the
scope
of
this
pr
should
is
what
we
discussed
the
just
that
first
sentence,
even
though,
of
course
it
could
be
expanded.
I
would
not
be
in
favor
of
doing
that
in
this
pr.
I
would
only
be
interested
in
continuing
the
discussion
personally
and
I
would
actually
be
strong
personally
strongly
opposed
to
to
to
expanding
the
scope
of
this,
to
change
the
wording
of
the
rest
of
the
principles
and
even
change
the
the
first
line
dramatically
but
reformatting
it.
C
C
This
is
not
something
that
we
have
a
group
wide
agenda
to
do,
but
several
people
have
mentioned
it
and
I
will
say
at
least
my
two
senses
that
as
I've
been
describing
it
to
other
people,
I've
actually
gotten
feedback
a
little
bit
that
that
sounds
a
little
repetitive
just
because
the
the
initial
get
ups
principles
when
they
were
described
way
back
in
the
day,
didn't
have
that
line,
and
so,
if
our
goal
was
to
make
a
one-sentence
version,
that's
memorable
with
like
a
paragraph
that
gives
some
more
meat
on
the
bone
there,
so
that
people
can
actually
memorize
these
things,
not
the
whole,
not
like
not
like
memorizing
the
declare
or
not
like
memorizing
the
gettysburg
address,
but
just
being
able
to
sort
of
spit
out
the
five
things
without
really
thinking
too
hard
about
it.
C
B
B
I
I
was
just
thinking
that
itube
talked
about
his
last
principle
meeting
because
I
held
a
presentation
on
the
principles
and
it
was
kind
of
rough
going
through
them
and
and
repeating
everything
and
it
sounds
very
or
you
know,
yeah,
and
if
we
had
something
like,
for
instance,
what
william
proposed,
which
is
kind
of
like
the
the
the
the
one
two
punch.
So
you
have
like
the
the
the
the
the
principle
in
the
essence
and
then
a
little
bit.
You
know
a
little
bit
on
this
side
there.
B
You
could
use
that
in
in
infographics.
You
can
use
that
in
the
document
and
everything
like
that.
But
if
you
needed
to
expand
and
have
let's
say
a
big
document
like
jesse-
talked
about,
for
instance,
you
could
attach
on
top
you
know
the
principal
off
and
then
declaration.
B
If
that
makes
sense,
we
could
shorten
it
for
most
cases
and
if
we
had
a
reason
to
we
could
attach
on
the
principle
of
in
front
if
that's
needed,
but
just
having
like
that
that
you
know,
if
even
in
presentation
having
those
four
boxes
saying
these
things,
you
know
would
make
sense
in
a
shorter
version.
A
Thank
you,
robert
was
somebody
going
to
say
something:
oh
no,
that
was
robert
okay.
I
I'm
kind
of
what
comes
to
mind
is
I
think
we
we
should
turn
this
problem
into
smaller
decisions
right.
I
think
one
decision
is.
Do
we
have
to
use
the
principle
or
not
in
every
title
right
and
that
already
kind
of
like
get
moves?
A
I
mean
just
thinking
out
loud
that
moves
us
in
the
direction
that
we're
heading
without
modifying
content
and
just
eliminating
redundancy
right,
because
if
I'm
gonna
explain
to
somebody
all
right,
there's
four
principles
of
get
ups,
the
principle,
the
principle.
If
you
know
I
knew
we
have
to
repeat
that,
maybe
that
doesn't
serve
any
value
right
where
I,
whereas
I
can
say,
there's
four
principles
of
git,
ops,
the
declarative
state,
immutable
versions,
etc.
Right
that
makes
it
easier.
C
D
It's
a
it's
a
hill
I'll
get
maimed
on,
but
yeah
I
mean,
like,
like
scott,
said,
I'm
not
willing
to
die
on
that
hill,
but
I
do
think
I
mean
we're
just
we're
essentially
we're
discussing
discussing
it
in
a
roundabout
way.
Now
we
might
as
well
just
have
an
official
discussion
about
it
like
like
what
what
you
propose
leo
by
the
way.
Sorry,
but
what
you
propose
if
we
need
the
word,
the
principle
or
the
phrase,
the
principle
of
I
think
that's
what
it's
discussing.
A
A
I'm
going
to
all
right:
no,
I
think
it's
a
valid
hill.
You
know
what
I'm
saying,
because
you
know
I
I
think
that
was
mostly
for
the
joke.
If
I
look
at
there's
other
so
maybe
we
can
kind
of
think
about
what
other
samples
of
this
type
of
like
approach,
like,
I
think
about
the
12
factors
I
think
about
the
python
zen
right.
A
I
I
think
about
these
different,
similar
kind
of
mantras,
right
that
you
want
to
be
able
to
easily
repeat
and
whatnot
and
like
if
I
look
at
the
python,
send
it's
just
one
short
sentence
that
communicates
a
clear
fact.
Then
you
can
memorize
them
right.
You
can.
So
I
think,
there's
value
in
that.
I
think,
there's
kind
of
the
underlying
objective
of
of
the
hill
is
is
is
valuable
right.
C
Yes,
so
so
I
just,
I
think
I
I
want
to
just
just
given
up
just
since
we're
talking
out
loud,
and
I
can
do
this
in
the
github
issue
or
pr2,
but
william.
I
just
wanted
to
relate
to
what
or
just
connect
to
what
you
said.
There's
something
about
this
in
the
context
that
it's
presented
in
that
looks
really
nice
to
me.
C
You
know
like
with
a
single
word
that
kind
of
stands
in,
but
but
in
the
context
of
the
whole
principles,
where
we've
got
a
one
sentence
and
then
a
one
paragraph,
I
don't
like
adding
an
additional
word,
because
I'm
kind
of
I
think,
like
the
sentence,
should
be
the
shortest
memorable
thing
possible
that
that
conveys
the
not
enough
context.
So
it
can't
be
taken
out
of
context,
and
I
feel,
like
the
one
word
thing,
just
kind
of
adds,
an
additional
layer
on
that,
like
maybe
in
slides.
C
C
A
It
seems
there's
consensus
in
the
fact
that
there
is
value
to
providing
a
condensed
more
punctual
way
to
communicate
the
concept
it
seems
there
is
consensus
and
that
currently
we
have
some
level
of
redundancy
and
that
the
fact
that
we
are
stating
the
principle
is
the
most
evident
current
redundancy
that
we
have
so
that's
gonna,
be
like
atomic
change
number
one
open
up
for
discussion,
whether
we
can
remove
that
evident
redundancy
as
an
initial
step
towards
more
degrees
of
compression
or
more
like
better
compression
going
forward.
Does
that
make
sense.
C
All
right
cool
well,
in
any
case,
yeah.
The
the
only
thing
I
want
to
be
clear
about
is:
we
may
not
be
able
to
do
it
in
successing
in
a
series
of
pr's,
because
just
the
removal
of
the
words
without
that's
that
the
removal
of
those
repeating
words
and
keeping
the
rest
of
the
sentences,
as
is
those
that
is
only
one
of
the
options
for
reformatting
it,
and
it
may
not
give
the
best
possible
message
out
of
the
other
options.
C
That's
the
only
thing
I
wanted
to
say
that
it
is
a
change
and
it's
it
may
not
be
a
change
that
can
be
rolled
back
independently
without
thought.
You
know
what
I
mean
so
like
the
decision
I
agree
with
you
like
it
can
be
a
smaller
decision,
but
I
feel
like
the
change
itself.
A
Let
me
kind
of
repeat
what
I
heard
just
to
make
sure
that
that
I
understand
what
you're
saying
is
that
the
a
discussion
constrained
to
the
removal
of
were
the
words.
The
principle
of
alone
cannot
be
necessarily
applied
individually
because
it
might
result
in
a
modification
that
in
and
of
itself
would
void
other
alternatives
as
defined
is,
is
that
kind
of?
Like
I
mean
it,
was
a
valid
interpretation.
C
B
C
C
It
still
has
to
go
through
a
process
and
it's
you
know
in
the
end,
it's
you
know,
but
but
I
think
it's
nice
to
do
what
you
suggested
to
break
down
those
decisions
to
say:
can
we
or
should
we
and
what
I
heard
so
far,
is
I
don't
hear
any
real
contention
saying
we
can't
you
know
and
that
a
lot
of
people
would
like
to
you
know
so,
that's
kind
of
like
with
that
decision
and
not
decision
but
with.
If
that
becomes
true
for
the
other
people
not
on
this
call.
C
C
B
C
C
And
I
feel
like
everybody
would
probably
default
to
that,
because
we
already
put
a
lot
of
work
into
it,
but
and
I
feel
like
jesse-
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
you,
but
I
think
at
least
when
I
was
relating
to
what
you
said.
That's
where
I
was
kind
of
standing
to.
So
if
one
of
the
suggestions
for
how
to
stylistically
change
it
does
that
without
diverging
too
much
from
what
we
agreed
on
and
it
sounds
awesome
and
it's
like
more
catchy
and
memorable
and
we're
all
like
yeah.
That
sounds
great.
C
Then
let's
do
it
that
way.
I
don't
know
if
what
I'm
saying
makes
sense
to
your
question,
but
that's
that's
how
I
was
relating
to
what
you
said.
Okay,
thank
you.
Scott.
E
Yeah,
I
agree.
I
think
that
that's
right,
I
think,
ultimately
like
we
should
break
this
down
into
pieces.
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
but
whatever
we,
when
we
take
action
on,
should
result
in
something
that's
still
useful
great.
I
think
that's
really
the
kind
of
thrust
of
it
so
yeah
I'm
done
with
like
breaking
this
up,
but
then,
when
it
comes
time
to
modify
what
we
have,
let's
try
and
do
do
it
in
one:
go.
A
A
E
C
There
are
some
proposals
for
how
to
do
this
without
altering
sorry,
without
altering
the
the
substance
of
each
of
the
one-line
summaries.
How
should
we
do
it
if
we're
going
to.
A
C
And
I
I
would
even
say
the
first
question
would
be:
is
there
value
in
changing
it
because
I
think,
like
kind
of
like
what
jesse
was
saying
initially
like
it,
doesn't
actually
have
to
change?
And
if
you
know
it,
it
is
good
as
it
is
but
but
could
it
be?
Could
it
be
better,
and
so
I
think
like
we
can't
really
do
anything
actionable
on
the
first
one.
We
can't
say
it
must
change
without
knowing
that
there's
something
better.
You
know
to
change
it
to
or
to
to
to
change
it
too.
C
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
this
is
a
primarily
a
stylistic
question
and
not
a
a
substance,
changing
question
or,
like
a
dramatic
substance,
changing
question.
The
reason
I
mentioned.
That
is
because
I
did
note
one
thing
in
what
you
said:
jesse
that
I
don't
think
we
said
out
loud
yet
is
that
there
was
in
some
of
the
ways
that
I
had
re
restylistically,
arranged
options
b
and
c.
C
Some
of
the
wording
changed
a
little
bit
because
when
you
change
the
the
the
sentence
structure,
it
it
changed
a
little
bit
but
there's.
But
then
I
had
noticed
that
and
when
you
mutated
it,
you
added
the
word
mutation
and
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
consciously
because
the
other
question
is
you
know
during
the
sh,
should
we
maybe
adjust
that
wording
a
little
bit
like
that
during
this
change,
or
should
that
be
a
follow-up?
You
know
what
I
mean
like.
Is
this
an
opportunity
to
say
hey?
C
E
E
What
we're
talking
about
is
the
alternative
of
of
actually
summarizing
their
intent.
So
we
need
things
like
verbs,
yeah
yeah.
I
think
that's
a
that's
a
good
call
out,
so
I
think
once
we've
decided
what
the
value
is.
If,
if
you
know,
if
there
is
value
in
this
change
at
all,
which
sounds
like,
we
all
think
there
is
then
maybe
the
second
question
is:
how
do
we
change?
What's
there
yeah
like
before
we
before
we
get
to
like
this?
Is
a
proposal
like
how
do
we
change
it?
E
C
And
so,
and
so
far,
by
the
way,
just
like
a
straw
poll
and
just
from
comments
and
and
everything
else,
it's
it's
that,
like
pretty
much
the
the
the
current
leaning
seems
to
be
for
axioms.
They
sound.
It
sounds
just
kind
of
nice
and
you
can
they
roll
off
the
tongue
and
we're
basically
saying
what
we
think
should
be
done
as
part
of
this
way
of
doing
things.
A
I'm
going
to
add
a
comment
here.
I
think
the
other
question
that
we
have
to
ask
is:
we've
defined
the
principles
there
might
not
be
as
nuclear
error
as
condensed
as
they
could
be,
but
after
all,
we've
dedicated
the
whole
principles,
meaning
to
the
deciding
how
we
modify
what
we
just
did,
whereas
there
is
a
whole
bunch
of
other
things
that
need
to
be
produced
and
additional
content
and
clarifications
and
glossary
and
all
sorts
of
other
content
documents
that
we
would
be
producing
that
might
eventually
even
nudge
the
principles
into
some
direction
right.
A
So
the
question
is:
do
we
even
want
to
focus
on
changing
something
we
just
finished
now
or
do
we
want
to
make
progress
with
new
material,
with
new
ideas
and
new
content,
progress
and
and
kind
of
like
that,
might
even
solve
the
problem
for
us
as
we
go
forward
right
christian?
You,
you
raised
your
hand.
D
Yeah,
thank
you,
so
I
think
leo.
Actually,
as
as
you
were
saying
it,
I
kind
of
changed
my
opinion
as,
as
you
were
saying
it
right
now,
what
I
was
gonna
say
so
I
do
think
so,
and
you
know
it's
kind
of
it's
almost
also
agreeing
with
scott
is
that
there
might
be
more
pressing
things
to
to
to
spend
time
on.
I
agree
with
that.
I
think
my
only
thing
is
that
it
should
be,
it
should
be
like
we
should
reach
a
consensus
of,
should
we
should.
D
We
have
a
conversation
about
simplifying
the
principles
like
the
titles
right.
I
think
I
think
it's
a
perfect
way
of
putting
it.
You
know,
I
think
I
think
we
need
to
you
know
I
guess
come
to
a
consensus
on
that
and
but
in
priority-wise
I
do
think
that
there's
other
things
like
like
the
glossary
and
the
the
best
practices
and,
like
you
know,
creating
on
rfcs
things
like
that.
D
So
I
I
think
that's
a
separate
thing
right,
so
I
think
talking
about
rejiggering,
I
guess
for
lack
of
a
better
term
the
the
titles
of
the
principles
right.
The
principles
is
something's
worthy,
but
I
don't
think
it's.
You
know
then
priority.
That's
like
another
thing
right
like
where
do
we
put
that
in
the
priority
of
of
doing
things,
so
I
do
think
there's
other
pressing
things.
C
A
C
So
I
was
just
going
to
say
an
action
item
out
of
this
could
be.
It
seems
so
far
that
no
one
has
added
anything
to
the
suggestion
that
jesse
made.
That
was
like
an
augmented
suggestion
right.
So
maybe
an
action
item
jesse,
if
you
want
is
you
could
make
github
suggest
github
suggestions.
You
know
what
I
mean
on
the
pr
for
each
of
those
lines,
and
you
know
dan
could
merge
them
in
if
he
wants
to
it's
his
pr
if
he
doesn't
want
to,
he
doesn't
have
to.
C
Basically,
action
item
is
we
can
we
probably
don't
need
to
dedicate
more
time
to
meeting
about
this,
since
we're
not
really
adding
more
to
the
com,
to
the
concepts
we're
just
kind
of
like
talking
about
what
we
should
do
now
in
terms
of
process?
So
I
was
just
saying:
action
item
could
be
like
the
last
thing
that
sounded
pretty
good
to
most
folks.
So
far,
it's
you
know
we're
not
agreeing
on
this.
This
is
a
pull
request
at
this
point
we
don't
have
to.
C
We
don't
have
to
like
have
some
kind
of
consensus
in
this
meeting.
Necessarily
we
can
do
so
through
the
normal
pull
request
process
and
just
go
we'll
just
make
sure
to
be
very
respectful
of
that
during
the
merging
of
those
those
pull
requests.
C
I
was
just
saying:
an
action
item
could
be
jesse
could
take
that
last
version
that
we
were
all
talking
about
and
and
make
those
into
github
suggestions
that
that
dan
could
merge
in
or
into
his
pull
request
branch,
and
then
we
could
just
kind
of
let
that
take
its
own
priority
and
move
on
to
other
things.
In
the
meeting.
A
Okay,
I
do
think
I
do
agree.
We
should
kind
of
talk
about
more
things
that
are
also
pressing.
I
don't
necessarily
agree.
We
want
to
create
like
issues
or
suggestions
or
pr's
with
changed
content
when
we
don't
have
agreement,
that's
that
this
is
a
priority
for
the
principles
committee
right,
because
I
think,
after
all,
that's
going
to
produce
whether
we
want
it
or
not,
influence
to
sidetrack
right.
After
all,
there's
going
to
be
pr's
we're
going
to
that's
going
to
have
to
be
reviewed
and
they're
going
to
have
to
be
discussed
in
this
cause.
So.
B
C
Thing
I
I
actually
didn't
even
think
to
do
during
this
meeting,
but
I'm
glad
you
noted
it,
you
know,
and
we
could
like
we've
done
before
you
know.
If
something
feels
like
it's
taking
up
too
much
of
our
too
much
of
the
pie
of
our
time.
We
can
say
all
right:
we
can
dedicate
a
certain
amount
of
time
to
this.
We've
got
other
priorities,
so
we're
not
going
to
go
over
more
than
five
minutes
chat
for
this
for
the
meeting.
If
we
need
it
or
something
like
that,
yeah
cool,
so.
A
I
added
an
action
item.
I
added
two
action
items.
One
is
to
open
a
discussion
to
the
finder
condensing
the
principle
should
be
priority
in
the
first
place
and
the
other
is
create.
Is
it
issues?
Well,
I
just
put
issues
you
can
change
that
jesse,
as
you
see,
if
it
create
issues
with
versions
of
principles
in
their
reduced
form,
so
that
they
can
just
follow
kind
of
the
the
the
pr
life
cycle
of
their
own
is
that
is
that
a
good
way
to
phrase
it.
C
C
But
or
whatever
you
know,
because
it
already
is.
A
That's
it
cool
all
right,
so
I
think
that's,
that's
that
we
got
15
minutes
left
in
regards
to
pull
request.
Number
nine.
A
The
next
item
in
the
agenda,
which
kind
of
goes
along
the
lines
of
what
we've
been
discussing
as
to
what
other
documentation
we
have
to
produce
and
what
else
is
out
there
that
we
have
to
integrate
into
this
new
documentary.
But
for
for
those
that
are
not
familiar,
we
now
have
an
open
githubs
organization
in
github,
but
there
was
a
previous
pull
request
in
the
getups
working
group
organization
and
github's
working
group
repo,
which
was
the
pull
request.
A
That's
the
reason
that
we
got
our
principles
committee
that
we
actually
created
a
document
where
the
principles
now
live,
but
that
does
not
mean
that
there
isn't
a
lot
of
valuable
exchange
that
had
already
occurred
on
this
other
repo.
Doesn't
this
other
pr,
so
scott
recommended
that
we
actually
need
to
go
through
this
and
identify
what
here
must
be
integrated
into
the
principles?
A
What
here
must
be
integrated
into
the
glossary
and
what
other
documents
should
be
produced
and
what
is
valid
from
this
exchange
that
is
kind
of
like
the
gist
of
it
but
scott
you,
you
might
want
to
go
ahead
and
provide
a
clear
first
person
perspective
as
to
what
what's
your
approach.
C
Sure
I'll
be
I'll
be
short
and
just
kind
of
read
it
out.
My
goal
is
to
see
if
you
all
like
it
as
a
way
moving
forward.
C
So
basically,
what
leonardo
was
just
saying
what
leo
was
just
saying
reviewing
the
additional
content
from
the
previous
content
draft
as
a
team
is,
is
probably
what
we
can
do
for
the
next
meeting,
and
if
we
have
additional
agenda
items,
maybe
maybe
we
could
just.
C
I
didn't
suggest
doing
that
for
this.
I
didn't
even
think
about
it,
but
you
know
leo,
I'm
glad
you
called
it.
We
should
probably
time
box
them.
You
know
so
that
we
have
like
all
right
we're
going
to
dedicate
a
chunk
of
time
to
doing
this
because
it
takes
some
focus,
so
the
process
would
be
I'm
just
suggesting
like
what
our
goal
is
is
to
collectively
parse,
which
portions
of
that
pr
are
definitely
potentially
or
definitely
useful,
potentially
useful
or
likely
not
useful
for
the
current
direction
that
we
want
to
go
in.
C
Not
that
we're,
like
necessarily
like,
hitting
the
gavel
and
saying
that's
it
forever,
but
just
simply
we're
just
kind
of
going
through
and
trying
to
like
really
parse
things
into
the
right
categories
of
work
to
do,
and
it
can
always
change
okay,
so
I
got
a
thumbs
up
there.
So
so
and
then,
basically
of
the
definitely
or
potentially
useful
ones,
I
was
thinking
we
could
then
shuffle
those
and
and
just
basically
propose
which
document
sections
they'd
be
most
beneficial
in.
C
Just
saying
this
could
be
that
we're
going
to
put
that
in
that
bucket
to
soar
later,
okay,
and
then
are
those
things
that
we
should
add
as
temporary
notes
on
the
principles
again,
we're
not
going
to
discuss
it.
We
have
those
already
we're
just
going
to
throw
it
in
that
bucket
and
say
in
order
to
go
through
this
stuff,
we
need
to
kind
of
like
sort
it
first.
C
You
know
think
of
this
as
an
algorithm
and
then
like,
or
should
he
go
in
the
glossary,
like
I
think,
as
we're
going
through
this,
some
things
will
be
obvious
for
us.
We
can
be
like
cool
that
goes
in
the
glossary
box,
and
we
can
do
this
by
just
like
leaving
little
comments
on
them
or
we
can
literally
throw
them
into
a
google
doc
for
whatever
we
want
to
do
temporarily.
You
know
and
or
whether
it
goes
in
the
use
cases
doc
that
we
discuss
that
we
want
or
some
other
supporting
document.
C
A
C
Real
quick,
we
could
like
say
all
right:
we
got
nine
minutes.
We
could
do
that
now.
You
know
or
11
minutes,
rather
I'm
willing
to
do
parts
of
that.
I
just
don't
want
to
exhaust
anyone
by,
like
you
know
like
trying
to
shove
too
much
in
one
and
and
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
one
where
I
was
just
thinking
we
could
make
whatever
meeting
it's
going
to
be
like
just
like
a
really
like
all
right,
we're
doing
this
yeah
go.
E
Yeah
this
is
a
this
is
a
good
plan.
I
like
it,
the
oh
and
I
would
not
mind,
jumping
in
for
10
minutes
and
then
picking
it
up
next
meeting.
This
might
be
something
that
people
want
to
plan
for
participating
in,
so
I
would
just
say,
like
I
think
we
should
sort
of
make
it
real
clear
that
we
want
to
do
this
next
meeting
kind
of
shout
it
out.
On
slack.
E
I
know
I've
lately
been
having
a
really
hard
time
getting
these
meetings,
I'm
just
really
busy
at
the
at
the
paying
part
of
the
job,
but
I'm
trying
to
prioritize.
So
I
think
this
is
a
good
thing
for
us
to
socialize
and
be
like
we're
doing
this.
If
there's
like
four
people
that
really
want
to
do
this
and
can't
make
it
next
week,
we
can
talk
about
maybe
moving,
because
I
think
this
is
a
pretty
critical
one.
Your
approach
sounds
perfect.
E
A
Thank
you,
jesse.
Anybody
else
want
to
add
any
comments.
A
C
I
just
I
actually
had
all
that
written
in
in
just
like
one
sentence
in
in
the
topic
from
last
last
week,.
C
C
Better,
that's
fine
with
me.
Whatever
works.
C
C
I'm
just
to
be
clear:
I'm
trying
to
be
pragmatic,
but
I
can
be.
I
can
be
a
little
flamboyant.
I
guess
you
could
say
in
my
rhetorical
style,
so.
C
A
D
Yeah,
I
sorry
to
jump
in,
but
I
yeah
I
I
liked
the
hackmandy
thing
I
know.
Maybe
some
people
did
some
people
didn't,
but
I
absolutely
loved
the
the
hackmd,
as
I
gave
like
a
working
kind
of
scratch
paper
and
then
eventually
move
that
over
to
like
a
pr.
So
I
I
vote
yes
for
that.
I
I
like
that
approach.
That
will
be
the
last
time.
A
A
A
C
I
guess
just
the
assignments
you
know.
A
Okay,
so
from
starting.
A
Okay,
so
starting
a
hacking
document,
I
I
can,
I
can
do
that
or
you
can
do
that
scout.
Whoever
I'll
I'll
just
add
me
to
it.
A
The
other
assignment
that
we
have
is
the
okay,
the
paragraph
for
for
like
sharing
with
others.
What
other
action
items
do
we
have
to
assign?
So
there's
oh
open
the
discussion
to
define
whether
consider
whether
condensing
the
principle
should
be
priority.
Who
wants
to
start
that
discussion.
C
I
guess
I
just
want
to
say
that
we
sort
of
have
that
discussion
already
in
the
in
the
pr.
Maybe
it
just
needs
to
be.
Maybe
it
just
needs
to
be
said.
Like
you
just
said
it,
you
know,
like
you've
done
some
work
and
you've
done
some
work
in
making
these
notes.
We,
I
think
we
could
probably
just
use
this
pr
as
the
discussion
point,
because
unfortunately,
or
fortunately,
github
doesn't
really
have
a
way
to
convert
a
pull
request
to
a
discussion.
E
This
all
used
to
be
just
done
in
code
comments.
You
know
no
yeah.
I
think
that's
a
great
idea
just
to
jump
on
that
pr
and
just
kind
of
co-opt
it
and
be
like
hey.
So
we
were
talking
about
whether
or
not
we
even
need
to
make
this
change.
Can
we
start
with
just
getting
consensus
on
that
and
just
get
some
upvotes
right
in
place?
I
think
that'll.
A
A
C
I
mean
it
might
just
be
worth
saying:
like:
does
anyone
have
a
strong
objection
to
even
doing
this
at
all,
but
I
would
hope
that
they
would
do
that
on
a
pr.
If
there's
a
pr
to
change
it,
you
know
anyway,
yeah.
That's
the
best
way
to
communicate,
there's
a
billion
ways
to
do
it.
I'm
sorry,
I'm
accidentally
bike
shedding
just
now.
A
It's
good,
okay,
all
right,
I
think
that's
as
far
as
assignments
and
action
items,
we've
got
three
minutes
left,
so
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
anything
to
cover
or
we
can
wrap
it
up
with
a
couple
minutes.
Go
ahead.
Scott.
C
A
A
I
can
moderate
next
bro.
If,
if
you
all
agree,
I
I
met
the
bar
set
by
scott.
I
I
would
volunteer
to
moderate
next
week
as
well.
I
don't
or
was
it
or
was
it
that
dan
had
already
said
that
he
would
moderate
next
week.
Oh.
C
E
Yeah,
it's
almost
july
for
you
moderators,
do
you
prefer
taking
notes
as
you
moderate,
or
do
we
actually
want
a
moderator
and
a
separate
note
taker.
E
C
A
Okay,
cool
all
right,
that's
that,
then
we
got
two
minutes
for
calling
anything
that
we
got
to
get
done
before
our
next
meeting.
So
let's
do
that
thanks,
everybody
for
joining
and
we'll
catch
you
all
next
week,
I'm
going
to
stop
recording
now.