►
From YouTube: GitOps Principles Committee Weekly Meeting 20210512
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
You
said
yeah,
so
hey
everyone.
This
is
the
get
ups
working
group
principles.
Committee
may
5th
2021.
we're
just
starting
to
record,
even
though
we
had
just
begun
the
conversation
so
about
last
week
in
the
agenda
for
this
week,
moshe.
B
Yeah,
so
I
was
saying
that
last
week
we
kind
of
left
off,
as
is
a
little
consensus
on
and
in
fact,
active
disagreement
that
governance
by
get
should
be
a
principle,
and
perhaps
it
should
be
rather
a
best
practice
rather
than
a
principle,
and-
and-
and
I
don't
disagree
with
that-
so
I
definitely
think
it's
the
best
practice.
B
A
Okay,
great
yeah,
so
let's
hop
right
into
it,
then
and
just
add
agenda.
Please
add
agenda
items
to
the
bottom.
If
someone
does
have
to
leave
early,
just
at
least
for
my
part
feel
free
to
interrupt
me
and
just
let
me
know
and
I'll
just
sort
of
like
put
whatever
I'm
saying
on
pause
and
we
can
prioritize
something
else
to
to
match
someone's
schedule.
C
As
has
the
hack
md
with,
did
that
go
away.
A
It's
there,
and
here
is
the
here's-
the
update
this
poll,
I'll
post.
D
A
Okay,
cool
I'll
post
in
the
message.
Oh,
I
actually
should
link
that
hackmp
in
the
message
and
link
to
the
other.
Oh
sorry,
folks
and
link
to
the
other.
Let
me
just
update
this
description:
real
quick
to
link
to
the
other
pr
which
has
the
hackmd
information
in
it,
but
I'll
just
put
it
in
this
too
real
fast.
You
might
just
looking
through
this
pr
real
quick.
I
just
pushed.
A
Well,
actually,
this
is
probably
worth
saying.
I
just
pushed
these
changes
and
I'll
I'll
update
that
one
item
that
one.
A
A
A
All
right,
let
me
just
update
that
yeah
so
refresh
your
screens,
if
you
want-
and
I
oops
yeah
refresh
your
screens
now,
if
you
would
like-
and
you
can
see
the
status
in
the
steps-
it's
exactly
what
we
talked
about,
but
again
it's
a
pull
request.
So
if
I
misunderstood
something
or
or
whatever
you
know,
there's
still
a
chance
to
change
that.
But
I
think
this
is
what
we
talked
about
for
the
sake
of
folks.
A
Listening
to
the
video,
I
don't
know
if
I
want
to
read
this
entire
thing,
but
maybe
I'll
just
do
like
a
quick.
Just.
A
quick
summary
is
that
this
is
a
this.
Wasn't
this
pull
request
linked
in
the
open
dash,
get
ups
slash
documents?
Repo
is,
is
an
action
item
from
last
week.
It's
in
the
meeting
notes-
and
I
just
listed-
I
just
kind
of
copied
in
what
we
said
that
we
needed
in
the
action
item,
and
then
I
listed
some
steps
and
the
main
ones
are.
A
A
If
somebody
really
objects,
let
me
know,
I
think
most
people
don't
care,
and
then
I
I
replayed
the
commits
from
the
pr
that's
in
the
get
ops
working
group
repo
right
now
from
that
pr
branch
on
top
of
that
empty
commit,
and
then
I
just
made
one
more
commit
with
the
results
from
the
hackmdoc
minus
the
notes
that
we
said
we
were
not
intended
for
it
and
I
haven't
made
any
additional
changes
since
then
I
could
recommend
some
or
we
can
work
on
that
during
the
session
if
we
get
to
it,
but
that's
where
we
are.
A
Yeah,
I
have
a
list
of
co-authors,
I
don't
have
everyone's.
I
have
some
people's
emails,
but
I
don't
know
if
that's
your
get
email
and
if
you
want
that
to
be
public,
so
I
didn't
want
to
you
know:
ruin
anyone's
privacy
by
posting
those.
So
I
figure
you
know
we'll
just
ask
the
list,
I
guess
and
ask
on
slack:
if
people
will,
you
know,
give
their
emails.
I
can
also
just
do
a
little
sleuthing
and
just
look
at
each
person's.
A
You
know-
or
maybe
we
can
divvy
it
up
a
little
bit.
Maybe
we
can
we
can
we
can
each
sort
of
track
this
down
and-
and
you
know,
grab
some
just
go
to
each
person's
github
repo
and
see.
If
they
have.
You
know,
public
commits
with
a
sign
off.
Not
every
project
requires
sign
off.
A
That's
my
suggestion.
Anyway,
I
pushed
the
commit
with
this
kind
of
provisional
list
where
it
just
says,
email
in
brackets
that
you
know
ultimately
developer
certificate
of
origin
requires
an
email.
So
you
know
we
can
ask
each
person
to
if
they
want
anonymous,
github
email.
They
can
give
us
that.
A
A
E
I
think
maybe
we
should
get
back
to
the
fifth
principle.
I
don't
know
if
everyone
has
read
it
or
have
you
know
managed
to
get
an
opinion
about
it.
F
Where
is
that,
like?
I
went
through
the
discussions
and
and
the
hack
md,
but
I.
A
So
I
I
I'm
gonna
raise
my
hand,
real,
quick
and
since
no
one
else
has
yeah,
and
I
just
want
to
note
that
I
believe
moshe
is
correct
about
the
summary
from
from
the
discussion
from
last
week
about
principle.
Five,
I
don't
remember
anything
else.
Apart
from
that
there
is,
there
is
the
idea
that
this
can
remain
open
to
to
be
to
be
discussed
further.
A
For
example,
there
are,
there
is
a
possibility
that
we
could
add
things
to
best
practices
and
then,
or
you
know,
to
the
notes,
section
or
best
practices
or
whatever
and
then
through
discussion
gain
consensus
that
that
one
of
those
best
practices
should
in
fact
be
a
distinct
principle,
but
we
have,
but
that
has
not
been
the
consensus
so
far
and
I
think
moshe's
we
should
we
should
do
this.
I
added
in
the
I
guess,
moshe
what
I
my
question
would
would
be.
A
Would
you
like
to
change
the
note
that
I
made
so
far
because
I
just
tried
to
summarize
at
the
end
of
our
at
the
end
of
last
week's
discussion,
but
I
don't
think
I'm
really.
You
know
properly
wordsmithing
this.
A
We
can
we
can,
but
if
we,
if
we
don't
want
to
now,
we
don't
have
to.
If
we've
gotten
to
the
point
where
we
can
do
this
in
github,
that's
fine
with
me
too.
I
we
we
moved
to
heckmd,
because
a
few
people
were
complaining
that
there
were
too
many
messages
before
and
it
wasn't
a
good
way
to
collaborate
in
github.
But
if
we
want
to
do
real-time
collaboration,
we
could
do
hackmd.
What
do
you
think.
A
I
don't
have
a,
I
don't,
have
a
yeah
me
too,
why
don't
I?
Why
don't
I
go
ahead
and
open
tech
md
now
so
that
oops
sorry,
let
me
lower
my
hand,
why
don't
I
go
ahead
and
open
it
just
so
that
we
have
it
and
then
we'll
see?
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
spend
this
time
doing
it.
It
could
be
that
you
make
a
comment
and
a
code
suggestion
to
change
the
wording
on
the
pr.
A
C
Yeah,
so
I
I
spent
some
time,
oh
well,
so
I
read
the
the
conversation
that
moshe
had
have
posted
in
the
conversation
here
and
I
am
not
I'm
not
entirely
convinced
one
way
or
another.
So
that's
like
a
a
long
way
of
me
saying
is
that
I
don't
know
if
it
should,
but
I'm
not
convinced
that
it
shouldn't
be
either
it's.
It
is
a
is.
It
is
a
very
good
point.
I
could
make
an
argument
to
where
this
is
an
implementation
detail
versus
or
like
a
best
practice
versus
an
actual
principle.
C
If
I'm
taking
a
look
at
the
principles,
you
know
we
are
we
and-
and
we
we
think
about
adding
like
the
governance
through
git
right.
Maybe
that
should
be
changed.
Governance
through
scm
right.
Do
we
want
to
do?
We
want
to
say
the
only
way
of
doing
it
is
through
git
or
through
scm,
and
if
we
are
saying
through
sem
are
things
like
because
I
know
with
flux
you
can
apply
manifest
via
an
s3
bucket
right
is
so.
Are
we
ex?
C
Is
that
exclusive
of
something
like
like
people,
just
storing
things
in
s3,
which
can
be
versioned
but
is
it
is?
Is
there
you
know
because
the
the
idea
of
governance
through
git
is
I'm
I'm
I'm
imagining
like
an
scm
workflow
right
like
a
series
of
pr's,
a
series
of
you
know,
code
review,
a
series
of
you
know
blame
right
and
what
I
mean
blame
I
I
mean
like
through
via
the
you
know,
like
get
blame
right.
C
I
don't
actually
mean
blame
blame,
but
you
know
are:
are
we
I
guess
what
what
is
you
know
the
principle
of
number
five?
What
what
do
we
want
to
convey
at
that
point?
So
I'm
not
entirely
convinced
one
way
or
another
if
we
need
it
or
not,
or
if
we
can
just
incorporate
some
of
those
things
in
the
in
the
principles.
So
anyways,
that's
my
question
and
I
yield.
F
Cool
jesse,
I
agree
with
christian,
so
first
I
apologize,
I
didn't
know
we
were
calling
this
fifth
principle.
I
did
read
this
discussion.
I
looked
at
it.
I
am
also
not
convinced
that
it
needs
to
be
there,
so
I'm
inclined
for
it
not
to
be
there.
I
think
that,
typically,
when
we're
looking
at
iterating
toward
a
first
take
on
something,
it's
it's
better
to
really
important
to
call
things
like
this
out.
It's
really
important
to
discuss
them,
but
I
think
what
we
should
be
biasing
toward
are
things
that
we're
convinced
of.
F
I
do
agree
with
your
take
scott
in
your
comment.
We're
basically
we
have
you
know
three
previous
principles
and
then
our
fourth
principle
right
now
says
the
only
way
to
change
a
system
is
through
these
principles.
F
B
So
I
I
don't
think
we
need
to
consider
that,
like
my
my
my
real
principle
here
is
that
you,
you
need
a
gate
like
what,
where
that
gate
is
and
and
how
strict
or
non
strict
that
gate
is.
You
need
a
gate
somewhere.
B
You
can't
just
go
from
from
your
laptop
into
production,
with,
with
no
gate
like,
I
think,
that's
defeating
a
lot
of
the
the
objectives
and
and
perhaps
it's
an
automated
gate
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
or
it
can
be,
a
pull
request
with
an
auto
merge
on
on
lint
or
whatever
it
is.
But
I
think
you
need
a
gate
and-
and
I
do
think
we
should
make
that
explicit,
whether
it's
explicit
as
a
principle
or
a
best
practice
like,
I
think,
I'm
really
impartial
to
how
we
define
that.
F
Okay,
jesse.
I
think
that
I
agree
with
you
and
I
I
do
think
that
that
lean,
it
starts
leaning
toward
opinionated
guidance
of
kind
of
cultural
norms.
Almost
I
hate
to
say
that
devops
is
tech.
Right
devops
is
our
cultural
decision,
so
I
feel
like
we
would
all
agree
and
nod
violently
that
you
must
have
a
gate
potentially
more
than
one.
F
I
continue
to
be
not
convinced
that
we
need
to
include
it
in
a
set
of
foundational
principles
that
such
a
gate
should
exist.
I
was
actually
making
a
point
to
somebody
the
other
day
because
they
were
like
you
know.
I
don't
even
use
get
like
it
feels
exclusionary
or
whatever,
and
I
was
like.
No.
No,
it's
not
a
special
club.
Git
is
just
an
analog
for
source
control.
It
could
be
mercurial,
it
could
be
sccs.
F
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
yet
get
into
the
business
of
saying
that
a
more
complex
system
is
necessary
in
order
to
qualify
for
the
threshold,
because
I
think
we
want
to
be
inclusive,
mostly
to
say
more,
more
voices
in
the
mix,
I
think,
will
give
us
a
more
diverse
system
and
a
more
diverse
understanding
of
things.
A
Okay,
great
so
without,
unless
we
want
to
spend
more
time
on
this,
I
think
most
you've
already
recommended
I've
said
that
you,
you
believe
it's
it's
a
should
not
a
must,
so
I
think
we
should,
unless
someone
really
disagrees
with
that,
I
I'd
like
to
stick
to
that
and
and
get
on
to
anything
else,
that's
needed
for
for
our
0.1.0,
okay
cool.
A
I
have
a
question
about
this.
So
there's
this
pr,
oh
and
I'm
sorry,
I
actually
meant
to
delete
in
this
last
commit
I
meant
to
delete
the
the
other
files,
the
glossary
and
the
rationale
file.
A
Maybe
I'll
share
my
screen
and
I'll
link
it
too,
so
that
you
don't
have
to
just
try
to
read
it
from
my
screen
just
for
posterity
I'll
blow
up
the
excuse
me,
look
the
font
a
little
bit
all
right,
so
we're
here.
In
fact,
let
me
let
me
just
go
ahead
and
open
this
up.
Basically
like
these
are
the
edits
minus
the
notes
that
we
said
we
didn't
want
in
there
again
placeholder
emails
for
co-authorship,
so
so
this
removes
a
whole
lot
of
things.
A
A
whole
lot
of
stuff
that
I
don't
know
is
all
non-con
is
all
controversial.
We
re
mainly
focused
on
the
excuse
me
the
principles
themselves
and
if
you
look
the
principles,
the
changes
that
we
made
were
not
significant.
They
were,
we
did
make
some
changes,
but
they
weren't
it
wasn't
devastating
changes.
This
is
good.
A
We
have
a
process
for
for
moving
ahead
and
we
have
a
process
for
making
sure
that
any
all
legitimate
all
opinions
or
legitimate
opinions,
or
at
least
those
that
don't
break
the
code
of
conduct,
are,
are
there
and
there's
a
form
for
it,
and
it
can
be
public
what
we,
what
we
didn't
bring
in
and
what
we
didn't
really
get
into
yet
was
other
pieces
of
this,
for
example,
what
we
might
want
it's
been
discussed
like
weeks
like
over
a
month
ago,
but
we
didn't
really
work
on
it,
which
was
do
we
want
an
introduction
beyond
the
initial
summary?
A
Do
we
want
to
address
the
scope?
All
of
these
things
came
from
somewhere
by
the
way
they
weren't
just
like
out
of
greece
in
my
head.
It
was
from.
A
Let
me
just
open
this
up
the
initial
charter
document,
which
there's
a
pr
to
update
the
charter
now,
but
it's
here
and
the
charter
document
I
just
wanted
to.
Let
people
know
where
it
was
from
the
charter
document
was:
was
the
was
the
initial
document
that
everyone
that
I'm
aware
of
should
have
known
about
this
or
knew
about
this
when
they
decided
to
either
when
they
were
part
of
bootstrapping?
This
group
or
joined
the
group
thinking
hey?
A
This
is
the
group
for
me,
and
so
this
has
just
want
to
let
you
know
it's
got
goals,
non-goals
work,
products
etc,
and
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
that
that's
where
this
is
from
so
some
of
the
other
descriptors
excuse
me,
I'm
sorry,
some
of
the
other
descriptors
in
this
pull
request
are
from
excuse
me
that
were
stripped
from
this
pull
request
were,
I
would
say,
points
that
were
brought
up
earlier
that
were
then
fleshed
out
by
briefs
and
myself,
and
I
think
it
some
of
it
was
drawn
from
his
initial
breeze's
initial
presentation
on
get
ups
years
ago,
but
others
were
added
later.
A
C
Yeah,
so
I
do
think
I'm
more
that
my
comments
can
be
more
nitpicky
than
anything.
I
do
think
the
information
is
valuable
and
useful,
I'm
more
about
like
the
order
right.
C
So
I
think
the
principles
should
come
first,
first
and
foremost
right,
it
should
be
like
at
the
very
top
like
this
is
these
are
the
principles,
and
you
know
it's
kind
of
like
almost
like
a
ten
commandment
sort
of
thing
right
like
this
right
and
then
we
go
on
to
like
explain
like
then
we
go
into
the
introduction
and
you
know
into
all
these
other
things.
So
I
again
my
my
comments
more
nitpicky
right,
I,
but
you
know
in
you
know
at
the
at
the
core.
C
A
A
Got
it
and
I
just
sorry
yeah.
A
I
yield
my
time
just
to
let
you
know
it's
on
screen,
as
I'm
just
opening
up
what
that
branch
looks
like
in
that
file.
Jesse.
F
Yeah,
I
I
once
again
agree
with
christian.
I
was
thinking
similarly,
I
I
think
for
a
first
commit
first
instantiation.
It
makes
sense
to
land
the
principles.
First,
I
like
a
lot
of
that
narrative
that
came
from
other
sources
and
was
massaged
by
priests
and
by
you,
and
I
wouldn't
mind
seeing
sort
of
a
supporting
document
in
the
repo.
With
that
narrative,
I
like
the
idea
of
the
principal
standing
on
their
own,
and
you
know,
possibly
even
with
without
the
notes
over
time.
F
I
think
the
notes
play
a
functional
role
right
now
that
I
think,
ideally
with
this
committee,
we
we
would
integrate
or
move
them
into
narrative,
so
yeah,
I
I
agree,
and
I
like
where
this
is
right.
Now,
I'm
inclined
to
say
we
you
know
we
land
this
and
and
for
posterity's
sake.
You
can
use
my
email,
okay,
it's
the
yeah,
the
amazon,
one
or
gmail,
doesn't
matter
so
yeah.
I
I
think
this
is
great.
F
A
B
So
I
actually
think
we
should
fold
the
notes
into
the
principles
or
remove
them
like
as
a
yeah,
so
like
as
a
sub
paragraph
into
the
principle
or
remove
them.
If
they
don't
really
need
to
be
there
and
then
perhaps
also
just
fresh
up
the
glossary.
A
little
bit.
B
So,
like,
like
notes,
notes
for
me,
are
this
incomplete
state?
F
F
I
don't
necessarily
mind
them
being
there
right
now.
As
this
you
know
we're
at
a
zero
dot
posture
and
sort
of
working
through
this,
but
I'm
also
not
opposed
to
working
that
as
part
of
this
pr.
I
just
I
guess,
I'm
I'm
not
necessarily
pushed
either
way
as
long
as
I
think.
As
long
as
we
have
the
understanding
that
the
notes
aren't
meant
to
be
permanent.
A
A
I
thought
so
yeah,
just
apparently
not
oh
well,
I'll
I'll
have
my
virtual
hand
raised
after
christian.
C
Yeah,
so
my
only
comment
is:
are
we
talking
about
removing
the
notes
currently
or
are.
C
Are
we
talking
about
yeah?
So
I
I
guess
I'm
unclear,
so
I'm
a
fan
of
again.
I
think
I'm
agreeing
with
with
mo
with
everyone
here
right.
Everyone,
I
think,
can
agree
that
we
should
fold
that
into
you
know
into
either
the
the
principles
or,
like
you
know,
the
rest
of
the
document,
but
as
a
if
it's
a
working
document,
I
don't
I
don't
see
why
we
shouldn't
have
it
there.
Unless,
like
we,
we
could.
C
B
D
B
It
just
it
just
feels
like
unfinished
work,
that's
being
released,
and
it's
not
that
we're
we're
very
there's,
not
a
lot
of
contention
really
on
on
these
items.
I
think
it's
just
a
matter
of
weight.
Smoking
field.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
take
my
virtual
hand
now.
I
disagree
completely
the
last
several
meetings
that
we've
had
especially
the
last
meeting.
I
mean
I
don't
necessarily
disagree
with
you
in
spirit,
but
I
do
disagree
in
the
this
is
not
what
we
all
agreed
to
when
there
are
many
more
people
on
the
call
and
and
and
we've
had
several
rounds
of
this
we.
A
Finally
now
I
personally
would
be
strict
strictly
strongly
opposed
to
opening
up
diving
back
into
re-editing
the
principles,
the
principal
sentences
and
the
sh
and
the
one
paragraph
description
below
each,
because
we
got
to
that
place
where
we
had
broad
consensus
and
we
were
ready
to
move
forward.
I
wouldn't
be
opposed
to
working
toward
potentially
folding
those
in,
but
not
on
today's
call
and
not
before
we
release
the
1.0.
That's
not
what
we
agreed
to.
B
C
Yeah
yeah
and
also
I
forgot
to
lower
my
hand.
Sorry
from
the
last
time
sorry.
A
Oh
okay
got
it
jesse.
F
Yeah,
I
I
I'm
not
I'm
not
inclined
to
want
to
fold
these
in
at
all.
So
I
think
the
idea
of
just
folding
them
in
right
now
is
is
not
a
great
idea
for
me
specifically,
because
there
we
only
have
like
five
people
and
we've
we've
had.
I
mean
this.
These
we
gotta
remember
that
these
are
the
result
of
multiple
iterations
of
wordsmithing
to
get
them
to
where
they
are
so.
F
But
that
said
they
they
are
valid
observations
I
mean,
I
think,
if
they're
going
to
fold
in
anywhere,
they
would
go
into
narrative.
I
think
you
know
in
my
mind's
eye
we're
going
to
have
a
website
we're
going
to
come
into
this,
that
this
is
the
github
repo.
This
is
the
open
source
version
of
the
principles,
the
the
the
repo
version
rather
markdown,
and
I
think
you
know,
as
christian
had
said,
we
want
these
the
principles
front
and
center.
There's
there's
got
to
be
something
around
them
right.
We
have
to
have
some
wording.
F
I
don't
think
that
we
want
to
move
forward
with.
You
know
four
principles,
some
working
draft
notes
and
a
glossary.
That's
just
like
that's
not
what
we're
gonna
do
so
I
do
wanna.
I
do
wanna
make
the
observation
that
it
is.
You
know,
point
zero
dot,
one.
You
know
it's.
This
is
very
pre-ga
this.
It's,
I
think
it's
okay
for
it
to
be
both
incomplete
and
a
draft.
F
I
think
we
just
want
to
land
something
and
then
iterate.
So
the
thing,
no
just
when
I
say
like
the
thing
that
we
want
to
make
sure
we're
not
thrashing
on
is
the
content
of
the
principles
themselves.
F
B
So
from
from
my
understanding
when
we,
when
we
built
consensus
around
three,
that
was
with
the
agreement
that
there
would
be
a
note
about
the
explicit
nature
of
continuous.
If
we
are
not
adding
that
explicit
nature
continuous
into
the
actual
principle,
then
I
I
don't
think
we
have
consensus
on
three.
A
A
A
A
They
should
be
clear
and
presented
in
context
with
these.
Not
we
didn't
say
that
they
have
to
be
woven
inside
of
them
or
anything
like
that,
and
I
again
I
don't
want
to
get
into
some
sort
of
argumentative
role.
I'm
just
letting
I'm
just
my
impression
anyway,
and
I
think
I
would
urge
anyone
to
go
back
and
listen.
A
Okay,
let
me
just
be
clear:
are
you
saying
that
you
believed
that,
from
our
agreement
from
the
last
meeting
that
there
was
an
agreement
to
stick
the
notes
that
are
prominently
here,
I
don't
know
how
it
can
be.
B
A
You
agree:
okay,
well,
I
will
say
my
piece
and
then
I
will
step
back,
but
I
think
that
I
don't
want
to
spend
our
entire
meeting
right
now,
rewinding
our
last
meeting,
but
I
think
if
you
would
like,
I
really
kind
of
don't
want
to
do
the
legwork
for
this,
but
I'll
go
back
and
sniff
out
the
the
part
of
our
meeting
where
you
explicitly
and
besides
we
don't.
Actually.
It
is
true
that
we
do
not
need
unanimity,
but
we
did
agree
as
a
group.
D
A
Believe
to
have
this
note
that
you
thought
was
important
inside
of
to
move
it
from
there
specifically
from
there
into
a
note
below
into
a
note,
and
we
did
that
all
together.
So
I'm
just
I'm
going
to
leave
it
at
that
and
say
that
if,
if
you
would
like
to
talk
more
about
it,
that's
fine,
but
I
would.
I
would
really
like
to
make
sure
that
we
we
do
try
to.
B
It's
a
perhaps
I'm
just
remembering
I'll
I'll
go
and
review
the
video
yeah,
and
perhaps
perhaps
I'm
misremembering
but
yeah
so
I'll
go
and
review
the
video
and
we
can
go
and
table
it
for
now.
A
So,
anyway,
sorry
back
and
forth,
I
don't
want
it
to
be
too
heated.
I
just
want
to
be
really
clear
in
what
I
what
I
believe
I'm
trying
to
do
is
moderating,
but
if,
if
I'm
wrong
about
something,
I
will
acknowledge
my
incorrectness.
Thank
you.
Okay,
jesse.
F
Yeah
I'd
like
to
propose
that
we
we
sort
of
accept
this
structure.
I
I
I
do
like
working
notes,
but
I
think
notes
are
fine.
You
know,
I
think,
as
I
said
before,
I
feel
like
we're
just
sort
of
maybe
repeating
now
I
like
how
this
is
set
up
now.
F
As
long
as
the
team
is
sort
of
okay,
with
this
being
iterative,
and
this
being
a
you
know,
a
first
pass:
that's
going
to
evolve,
I
think
the
tar
you
know,
the
targeted
persistence
really
needs
to
be
in
the
principles
themselves,
and
I
think
we've
already
covered
that,
like,
as
you
said,
we've
already
gone
through
that
the
notes
that
are
there
are
important
to
note.
I
think
that
they
should
probably
fold
into
narrative.
I
think
a
lot
of
the
diffs
that
are
being
removed
here.
F
F
F
A
Notes
I
I
do
agree
that
we
did.
We
did
agree
to
make
that
explicit
in
the
in
the
notes,
specifically.
B
E
As
far
as
I
can
tell
we're
not
talking
about
doing
that
now,
we're
talking
about
that
might
be
a
later
stage
as
soon
as
we
got
this
done
as
when
we
start
iterate
on
what
we
have
right
now,
we
will
try
to
do
that
and
that's
when
we
start
talking
about
if
the
the
the
distinguishment
between
continuous
and
and
instantaneously,
it
needs
to
be
in
the
principle
or
not
or
whatever
it
needs
to
be.
C
Yeah
so
just
kind
of
echoing
I
was
going
to
do
emoji,
ops,
but
just
kind
of
echoing
kind
of
what
what
jesse
was
was
saying
is
that
I
think
we're
working
towards
an
mvp
for
now,
not
not
not
a
not
a
ga
release
which
then
I
I
now
then
kind
of
almost
changed.
My
opinion
about
the
notes.
C
I
think
we
should
just
keep
it
as
it
was
before
we
started
tampering
with
it,
because
that
was
the
that
was
the
one
we
came
to
consensus
with,
and
we
should
just
release
that
and
then
we
can
then
go
back
and
then
iterate
on
it
and
keep
the
discussion
going.
So
I
think
now
we're
just
unless
I'm
wrong
we're
we're
talking
about
you
know
is
this:
you
know
what
we're
looking
for.
It
looks
good
to
me
right
sort
of
slash
looks
good
to
me
right.
I
think
right
now.
C
I
think
that's
what
we're
looking
for-
and
I
think
you
know,
I
think
what
we
had
you
know
when
we
first
started
this
call.
I
think
we
should
just
go
with
that
and
then
iterate
on
that.
F
E
E
B
H
B
F
A
Yeah
thanks
thanks
jesse.
Yes,
I
I
agree
hand
raising
is
a
little
annoying,
especially
if
you
have
only
five
people,
but
it
is
true
that
there
were
three
times
where
we
in
this
meet
this
same
meeting
where,
where
we
talk
to
over
one
another,
so
maybe
it's
good,
I'm
not
going
to
personally
believe
that
I'm
100
correct
about
everything
and
get
into
a
yes.
It
is
no,
it
isn't.
Yes,
it
is
no!
It
isn't.
A
That's
not
going
to
be
effective
from
my
point
of
view,
so
I
think
I
already
make
throughout
my
point
not
point
of
view,
but
just
my
my
my
fallible
human
memory,
ops,
recollection
of
our
agreement,
was
moshe
already
agreed
to
to
review
that
that
video
to
see,
if
maybe
you
know
in
a
you
know
kind
of
I
don't
know
if
there's
some
some
some
some
difference
of
opinion
there
about
the
actual
agreements
that
we
made
like
in
our
meeting
and
that's
great.
A
So
I'm
I
am
personally,
I
feel
a
little
uncomfortable
that
it
seems
like
there
seems
to
be
kind
of
a
ganging
up
on,
but
that's
not
actually,
I
don't
believe
that's
what's
going
on.
I
don't
have
any
kind
of
alliance
with
anyone
and
certainly
not
against
you
moshe.
I
just
I
just
do
not
believe
in
any
way
that
that's
that
there's
anything
inc
distinctly
incorrect
in
this
pull
request
about
what
we
agreed
on.
I
literally
cut
and
pasted
it
from
our
document,
and
we
left
it
in
the
document
from
my
understanding.
A
The
way
that
it
was
with
the
understanding
that
you
would
probably
want
to
change
the
wording,
and
that
is
what
I
asked
about.
I
would
like
it
if
you
could
change
the
wording
and
I
would
like
it
if
you
do
review
that
and
come
to
a
different
opinion
if
you
could
update
us,
but
I
don't
I
don't
besides,
that,
I'm
not
sure
we
can
get
into
anything
that
more
than
just
a
yes.
It
is
no!
It
isn't.
In
this
conversation
before
I
yield
functionally
speaking,
I
just
wrote
this
down.
A
I
don't
need
to
be
an
author
on
this.
I
just
simply
wrote
down
what
I
heard
you
all
saying,
or
what
I
heard
several
of
you
suggesting
is
that
we
change
the
notes
to
working
notes.
If
that
is
valuable,
that
doesn't
mean
that
it
has
to
be
that
way.
We
could
give
our
different
opinions,
but
someone
said
that
I
wrote
it
down.
If
we
don't
have
consensus
on
it,
I
can
remove
it.
A
I
added
a
note
saying
these
working
notes
are
intended
to
be
temporary
and
eventually
fold
into
either
the
principles
or
a
separate
best
practices
document.
If
we
don't
have
consensus
on
that,
I
can
also
remove
it.
Everything
else
is
from
what
we
had
consensus
on.
My
only
other
question
was:
are
there
other
things
that
were
removed
here,
that
we
didn't
even
get
to
from
the
initial
commit
that,
in
this
last,
commit
got,
got
removed
that
we
that
we
that
we
want
to
keep
in
the
ver
in
the
version
0.1.0?
A
I'm
not
feeling
very
confident
about
that.
Given
the
progress
of
this
meeting,
but
I'm
I
was
just
asking
and
that's
it.
The
only
other
thing
I
wanted
to
be
clear
on
is:
I
think
I'm
almost
at
two
minutes
here.
Is
that
and
then
I'll
and
then
it's
motion
next
and
then
jesse
is
that
I
forgot
in
my
last
commit
to
to
delete
these
two
files
because
they
were
not
part
of
excuse
me
they're,
not
part
of
our
files,
the
glossary
and
the
rationale.
A
B
F
Yeah
I
so
I
just
want
to
return
to
a
statement
I
made.
Maybe
like
a
few
minutes
back
to
just
say
I
think
it's
a
christian's
take
two.
It's
just
lgtm.
I
don't
necessarily
think
we
even
need
to
change
the
notes
section
like
I
think
christian
said
that
as
well.
We
can
just
stay
and
I
do
I
want
to
sort
of
I'm
not
sure
if
in
the
video
the
chat
shows
up.
I
I
don't
remember,
because
I
watched
it
on
my
phone
so.
F
Okay,
good,
so
people
will
see
this
conversation,
as
I
think
I
just
will
call
out
that
yes
is,
if
we
think
of
this,
like
software
versioning
right,
we
don't,
you
know,
we
don't
want
to
break
interfaces,
but
we
might
it's
it's
pre-ga.
It's
we're
not
in
a
major
release.
Yet
though,
ideally
we
don't
thrash
right.
So
I
think
I
think
if
we
just
keep
that
in
mind,
I
think
everybody
sort
of
nods
to
that
so
yeah,
I'm
very
comfortable,
just
moving
forward
with
this
right
now.
I
definitely
want
to
get.
F
I
want
to
get
a
lot
of
that
context
and
that
longer
form
narrative
in
into
the
repo.
So
I
just
that's
something
I
don't
want
to
lose
sight
of,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
good
stuff
is
in
there
but
yeah.
That's
that's
what
I'm
thinking.
A
Okay,
thanks
jesse,
I'm
next,
it's
3
53,
so
I'll
cut.
I
think
maybe
we
should
cut
our
responses
down
to
a
minute
now
just
to
be.
If
that
sounds
okay
to
you
all,
and
then
we
can
go
in
order
if
we
want
to
keep
going
just
because
we
only
have
seven
left
and
I'm
like
almost
halfway
through
my
minutes.
So
okay,
so
you
know
when
I
was
asking
about
the
glossary.
A
If
we
want
to
you
know,
release
this
initially
with
the
with
the
with
the
extracted
pieces
that
we
discussed
and
agreed
to
in
the
glossary
so
far,
and
we
can
always
go
back
and
revisit
prior
to
this
commit
that
removes.
That
removes
a
lot
of
that.
A
And
when
I
say
always,
I
mean
we
could
iteratively
do
that.
Here
is
my
question
and
I
I
I'm
singling
you
out
again
not
purposefully,
but
just
to
just
to
just
to
understand
if
this
would
fit
your
bill,
I'm
perfectly
happy
by
the
way,
to
keep
exactly
what
we
said.
But
would
you
would
you
see?
B
A
That
makes
perfect
sense
to
me.
I
just
wanted
to
see.
I
don't
you
know
we
talked
about
it
enough,
but
the
last
thing
I
want
to
do
is
go
back
on
what
we
just
said.
So
if
you
feel
comfortable
with
that
and
just
to
be
crisply
clear,
it
would
essentially
be
this
formatted
just
like
this
in
the
glossary.
I
guess
we
should
put
these
in
alphabetical
order,
or
I
don't
know,
but
anyway,
in
this
glossary
section
with
these
several
notes
that
sounds
okay,
yeah,
okay,
I'll
make
a
commit
to
that.
A
A
A
A
Okay,
great
is
sorry,
no
one
else
has
their
hand,
wow
github's,
taking
a
moment
here.
Okay,
no
one
else
has
their
hand
raised
right
now.
Oh.
B
You're
not
sharing
your
screen,
but
I'm
so
sorry
so
in
in
my
opinion,
if
we,
if
we
move
the
the
buyer
continuously
mean
to
the
glossary,
then
I
think
that
entire
principle
three
note
can
be
removed
because
the
those
those
additional
the
first
two
items
already
in
the
principle.
A
B
But
but
I'm
not
like
yeah
mean
partial
on
that,
like
whether
we
keep
those
they
will
not
doesn't
really
matter
to
you.
A
Yeah,
okay,
then,
in
that
case,
does
anyone
object
to
the
idea
of
moving
all
the
rest
of
the
notes
into
a
separate
best
practices
document?
So
I
think
that's
what
we
had
all
discussed
before
and
no
one
else
seemed
to
object.
I
just
want
to
know
if
that's
if
that
would
be
good
for
the
v1
0.1.0.
E
I
think
all
the
notes
are
best
practices.
They
might
be
different.
You
know
at
different
contexts
and
things
like
that,
so
I
I
would
rather,
we
kept
notes
as
much
as
possible,
but
obviously,
if
the
two
first
notes
on
principle-
3
are
already
mentioned
in
the
principle
itself
and
the
last
one
is
moved
to
glossary,
then
we
can
just
remove
the
entire
principle
3
notes
by
that.
A
Okay,
so
motion
I'm
going
to
resolve
this
conversation
then
oh,
never
mind,
I'm
not
going
to
resolve
it
because
you're
suggesting
that
we
remove
them
all
together.
Okay,
I'll
just
leave
it
okay!
Well,
if
you
all
would
I
know
we
have
two
minutes
left.
Let's
see,
jesse
has
his
hand
raised.
F
Okay
jesse
question,
because
I
no
I
do.
I
always
just
dropped
it
now.
So
I
I
wasn't
here
last
meeting
I
kind
of
was
very
busy
at
work.
I'm
sorry
number
four
I
just
realized
has
can
be
intentionally
in
it
did.
F
Did
you
all
work
through
that
and
wordsmith
it
to
be
that
way
intentionally
or
can
that
be
is
because
it
it
doesn't
match
the
voice
of
the
other
ones,
and
I
think
it
throws
doubt
in
there,
but
I
don't
want
to
reopen
this
can
of
worms
so
and
I'll
yield
my
time
back
just
so,
you
can
answer
like
I'm
fine
either
way.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it
wasn't
like
that
we
slipped
somewhere.
A
That's
interesting
that
did
not
it's.
It
is.
A
E
C
Yeah,
I
guess
so
yeah
cause
because
in
german
it's
the
same,
I
guess
the
germanic
language,
it's
the
same
thing
like
it.
It
means
is
but
yeah.
No.
I
the
only
way
you.
E
C
D
C
Then
that
the
only
way
does
that.
C
E
Then,
if
that's,
if
that's
the
case,
then
you
know
we
could
just
change
that
to
could
I
guess
the
only
mechanism
through
which
I
think
it.
E
F
A
What
I
was
going
to
ask
jesse
is:
would
you
mind
noting
that
in
the
pr
because
there
was
one
I
actually
thought
about
it,
but
then
just
kind
of
dismissed
it
for
the
moment,
because
it
seems
to
be
less
of
a
you
know,
a
universal
law
than
than
just
saying:
hey,
listen!
If
you're
doing
get
ups,
you
got
to
use
these
principles
right.
I
mean
it's
pretty
much
almost
like
a
almost
like
a
colloquialism,
but
I
would
but,
but
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
about
how
it
should
be.
A
E
I
think
everyone
agreed
to
principle
four
as
a
a
very
intentional
statement
on
how
you
do
this.
So
if
wording
is,
is
fixed
to
mean
that
more
specifically,
that
this
is
the
only
way
it
is,
it
can
be
or
yeah.
Well
there
you
go,
you
know
if
this,
if
you,
if
the
wording
is
changed
to
something
that
actually
is
specifically.
This
is
the
only
way
to
do
this.
Then.
I
think
everyone
agrees
with
that.
A
Yeah
yeah
and
I
would
encourage
everyone
to
read
them
one
through
four,
as
per
as
as
as
as
progressive
as
we
said
before,
since
they
are
numbered
and
that
the
very
first
one
says
the
system
managed
by
get
ops
must
blah
blah
blah
and
not,
and
every
single
one
of
those,
I
believe,
implies
that
same
beginning.
So
as
long
as
we
make
sure
that
that
all
matches
up
with
the
others
we're
probably
good
but
yeah,
if
you
don't
mind
jesse
making
a
note,
then
we
can
just
do
it
asynchronously
at
that
point,.
A
And
I
know
we're
at
402,
so
so
I
think
the
I
just
want
to
recap.
The
plan
is
that
I'm
going
to
in
this
I'm
going
to
re
or
amend
that
commit
and
remove
the
old
glossary
and
remove
the
old
rationale,
not
that
we
don't
want
to
revisit
that
or
have
them
in
there,
but,
but
that
we
have
not
reached
consensus
on
that
yet,
and
we
and
the
nice
thing
about
the
version
controls.
A
We
can
look
back
at
at
that
content
and
those
past
commits
before
this
last
commit
that
brings
in
everything
from
our
from
our
from
these
sync
sessions,
and
then
we
can
then
piece
by
piece
decide
what
we
want
to
add
back
in
what
kind
of
context
and
what
documents
I'm
just
recapping.
What
I
think
I
heard
does
that
sound
like
what
everyone
feels.
A
Okay,
great,
you
all
are
amazing.
I
love
you
guys.
Are
you
people?
You
know,
I
love
you
yeah
yeah,
I'm
really
looking
forward
to
when
we
can
all
meet
in
person.
I
was
just
thinking
that.
A
All
right,
everyone
well
we're
four
minutes
over,
but
it
seemed
like
that
was
worth
it,
because
now
we
can
get
the
the
pre-release
out
I'll
address
the
comments
before
we
we
we
merge
it
I'll
look
for
a
thumbs
up.
I
just
want
you
to
know
that
we
don't
have
there's
still
some
bootstrapping
to
do
in
this
in
this
github
org,
the
maintainers
still
have
to
be
brought
over
from
the
get
ops
working
group
and
so
on.