►
From YouTube: GitOps Working Group Meeting 20210915
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Hey
hi,
everyone
welcome
to
github's
working
group
new
fortnightly
meeting
on
september
15th.
I
will
paste
in
the
link
to
the
to
the
meeting
and
agenda
notes.
A
A
few
folks
added
some
things,
maybe
just
take
a
moment
to
oh
thanks
for
it
a
few
folks
added
some
things,
maybe
just
take
a
moment
to
see
if
you
want
to,
if
you
have
any
agenda
items,
just
pop
them
in
there.
If
there's
anything
super
high
priority,
that's
not
on
this
list!
Let
us
know
we
can
bump
it
up
in
the
list,
but
otherwise
just
add
it
to
the
bottom.
A
Christian,
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
take
it
away.
Since
you
have
the
first
item.
C
That
mute
button
keeps
moving
yeah.
So
just
a
couple
things
I
have
so
first
item
is
get
ops.
Con
is
in
four
weeks
wow.
C
It's
it's
finally
happening
it's
finally
here
so
for
those
of
you
watching
and
thank
you,
for
you
know
the
cfp
submittal
thank
you
for
taking
a
part
of
the
second
ever
get
ups
con
and
the
first
in
person,
so
it'll
be
in
la
a
lot
of
us
will
be
there
and
if
you're
joining
virtually
you'll
still
see
us
there,
so
cncf
is
doing
a
good
job
of
running
a
hybrid
event.
So
so
it's
in
four
weeks.
C
I
guess
I
don't
think
we're
waiting
on
anything.
I
think
the
last
last
time
we
were
waiting
on
some
confirmations,
but
I
think
I
think
dan
has
pretty
much
squared
those
away
or
is
in
the
process
of
scoring
those
away.
So
I
guess
I'll
pause
there,
any
any
any
feedback,
any
questions
about
getupscon
in
general,
I'll
pause
here
for
questions
or
any
other
comments
about
that.
C
I
have
no
updates,
I
can
probably
I'll,
I
think
we
whatever
it
is.
We
can
probably
do
it
asynchronously.
I
don't
have
anything
pressing.
I
think.
C
And
then
I
know
we've
announced
this
before,
but
I
just
think
it's
to
re-announce
it.
The
getups.dev
opengetups.dev
is
now
live,
so
our
website's
not
live
and
I
actually
posted
a
blog
right.
C
So
I
was
I
had
the
honors
of
having
the
very
first
blog
just
talking
about
get
off's
con
right,
so
just
to
relate
once
from
the
others,
but
so
this
is
just
basically,
people
have
been
reaching
out
to
me
directly
talking
about
like
how
to
contribute
right,
like
hey,
like
I
wanna,
like
best
practices
or
blogs
or
whatever
it's
like
p,
and
I
always
say
you
know,
pr's
are
welcome
so
the
best
way.
I
guess
now
for
those
who
are
here
and
those
who
are
watching
to
to
contribute.
C
Is
you
basically
write
a
pr
to
the
blog
section
of
the
website,
repo?
So
pretty
easy?
It's
if
you
guys
know
hugo
and
gatsby
they're,
it's
pretty
pretty
straightforward,
so
it's
all
in
markdown,
so
we
should
all
pretty
feel
comfortable.
So
if
I
can
do
it,
anyone
can
do
it
sort
of
thing.
So
I
encourage
you
right.
If
you
have
ideas
or
anything
like
that,
prs
go
ahead.
Put
a
pr
in
and
we'll
start
the
review
process
and
that's
it
for
me.
A
Cool,
actually,
let's
save
the
next.
I'm
gonna
reorder
the
agenda
item
because
it
was
I'm
the
one
that
added
it.
So
I
feel
like
I
can
do
that
without
really.
A
One
second
here
I
do
that:
okay,
just
gonna,
add
the
the
principles
update
to
the
last,
because
that
can
sometimes
spiral,
but
we
won't
let
it,
but
just
in
case,
let's
just
to
help
with
focus.
So
speaking
of
good
ops
con.
A
I
just
wanted
to
ask
like
on
behalf
of
dan
and
me,
we
talked
about
you,
know,
opening
up
the
feedback
from
other
folks
in
the
adults
working
group
about
things
that
you
know
you
might
feel
are
super
important
to
note
in
the
the
beginning,
intro
that
dan
and
I
are
doing
for
the
state
of
we
didn't
end
up
having
we.
The
program
committee
didn't
end
up
deciding
to
put
a
panel
with
all
of
the
working
group
members.
A
Just
kind
of
like
chit
chat
about
about
things,
because
we
had
so
many
really
incredible
proposed
proposals
we
didn't
want
to.
It
was
hard
enough
to
to
like
stomach
not
having
them
all
in
there.
We
couldn't.
We
couldn't
do
that
so,
given
that
the
only
time
the
only
real
space
that
we
have
to
intro
things
about
the
working
group
and
the
open
galaxy
project
or
any
either
announcements
or
just
calls
to
action
or
whatever
you
think
should
be
added,
you
don't
necessarily
have
to
say
it
right
now.
A
A
I
mean
jokes:
if
you've
got
good
jokes,
that
won't
make
us
look
awful,
you
know,
let
us
know
okay
and
then.
A
A
Okay,
so
the
next
gen,
the
next
two
agenda
items
I
added
on
here,
but
again
you
know,
speak
up
if
you've
got
them.
What
is
that
about
the
the
pull
request?
The
crazy
pull
request?
It.
A
I,
like
it
okay,
yeah,
so
so,
there's
plans
sort
of
spread
throughout
a
few
different
issues
between
the
working
group,
repo
and
the
open
githubs
repos
to
to
move
files
from
the
github's
working
group,
github
repo
to
the
appropriate
ones,
to
the
open,
githubs
repo.
Some
of
that's
already
been
done.
Like
you
know,
the
maintainers
file
has
been
moved
over
other
other.
A
Things
have
been
moved
over
things
that
are
appropriate
to
the
project,
but
not
the
working
group,
and
you
know
the
working
group
still
guides
the
project,
but
but
anyway
we
just
need
to
resolve
some
of
that
stuff.
So,
for
example,
we've
got
some
other
files
that
we
haven't
not
everyone's
really
looked
at
for
a
while,
like
some
of
the
older
discussions,
which
I
think
we
can
leave,
you
know
there's
also
project
boards
which
still
have
items
that
are
in
play.
That
might
be
worth
those
might
be
worth
moving
over.
A
I
moved
over
a
couple
of
issues
that
were
no
longer
relevant
to
the
working
group
that
are
specifically
relevant
to
the
project
anyway
and
then
the
other
files
that
we
had
discussed,
at
least
in
the
chair
that
were
one
of
the
reported
shares
meetings,
was
that
doesn't
really
leave
a
whole
lot
of
extra
files
to
for
this
repo
itself.
Now
that
we
have
the
open,
git,
ops,
repo
to
to
work
in
and
the
project
is
actually
you
know,
it's
got
legs
and
we're.
Actually,
you
know
we're
actually
making
it
happen.
A
So
we
happen
to
have
a
directory
inside
of
the
apps
delivery
tag,
github
repo,
because
the
working
group
is
under
that
tag,
which
still
is
just
it's
just
got
one
file,
that's
super
out
of
date,
so
the
idea
was,
you
know,
making
a
pull
request
to
add
the
the
opengaps
maintainers
as
or
sorry
the
work,
maybe
the
working
group
chairs
or
whatever,
maybe
maybe
also
the
maintainers,
either
way
to
to
the
code
owners
file,
just
like
the
the
operator
working
group
has
already
in
that
tag,
so
that
we
can
then
move
relevant
files
to
that
and
then
archive
the
the
gaps
working
group
wreath
and
just
point
to
that
directory
inside
of
the
tag.
A
That
was
an
idea.
If
anyone
has
any
objections,
you
know
let
us
know,
but
it
it
sounded
pretty
standard
and
good.
D
For
that
one
yeah,
I
I'd
like
to
actually
spend
maybe
just
a
little
bit
more
time
on
it,
maybe
not
today,
because
we're
not
in
a
big
rush
with
it.
But
I've
just
been
thinking
about
the
value
of
a
working
group
from
a
clarity
standpoint
of
the
mission
and
if
we
have
to
move
it
all
over
or
if
it,
if
it's
a
symbiotic
relationship
or
something
so.
D
But
I
I
don't
know
that
I
want
to
spend
any
time
on
it
today
because
there's
other
stuff,
but
maybe
just
for
future
discussion.
We
can
bookmark
that
okay.
A
A
So
then
the
last
thing
is
the
last
thing
on
the
list.
So
far,
anyway,
is
the
update
on
the
principles,
and
this
can
be
relatively
short.
I
think
probably
the
easiest
way
is
for
me
to
share
my
screen.
A
A
If
we
go
to
the
open,
get-ups
documents.
A
Excuse
me
milestones
I'll,
be
quick
about
this.
I'm
just
fumbling
a
little.
A
Yeah
there
we
go
so
if
we
go
here,
we
we
have.
I
wonder
why
in
any
case,
sorry,
let
me
just
say
that
so
this
is
first,
I'm
not
sure
why
that
okay,
so
so
anyhow,
we
have.
We
have,
as
everyone
here
knows,
that
we've
moved
the
principles
committee
like
really
made
a
lot
of
progress
over
the
last
six
months
and
many
good
edits
were
suggested
in,
like
you
know,
a
a
non-full
release,
you
know
a
pre-release.
A
We
also
had
many
points
that
were
raised
that
were
never
really
able
to
be
folded
in
because
just
because
of
the
the
way,
the
way
that
the
I
guess,
the
principles
really
need
to
be
pretty
specific,
and
so
we
agreed
with
the
committee
or
we
all
agreed,
the
committee
all
agreed
to
move
from
a
weekly
principles
committee
meeting,
because
there
was
a
certain
diminishing
returns
over
over
the
course
of
that
time.
A
I
think
we
kind
of
covered
all
of
the
bases
that
were
really
important
or
that's
what
it
seems
to
everyone,
there's
still
room
to
adjust,
but
but
it
doesn't
justify
having
its
own
weekly
meetings.
That's
why
we've
also
folded
that
into
this
bi-weekly,
this
fortnite
meeting
and
in
any
case,
to
move
that
into
an
rc
feedback
process.
A
So,
okay,
without
talking
about
it
more
you've,
already
heard
this,
but
I'm
just
node,
I'm
just
pointing
out
this
milestone
for
the
first
rc1
are
the
first
release
candidate
of
the
documents
which
contain
the
principles
in
the
glossary.
A
We
had
some
some
goals
and
the
the
plan
and
here's
the
plan
that
it
would
be
drafted
by
the
chairs,
incorporating
all
the
discussion
and
feedback
so
far.
The
draft
will
then
be
reviewed
by
maintainers
before
tagging
rc1.
So
we've
we've
passed
the
rc1
to
the
principles.
Sorry,
we've
passed
the
rc1
to
maintainers
for
just
quick
feedback.
A
You
know
very
quick
feedback
in
case
there's
something
super
off
in
someone's
opinion,
but
but
ultimately
the
goal
now
is
to
make
the
next
step
is
to
make
a
pull
request,
and
I
think
we
even
have
that
listed
somewhere
yeah
to
present
basically
to
present
the
pull
request
as
as
an
rc1pr,
and
then
we
can
do.
We
can
call
the
vote
like
a
non
excuse
me
a
binding
and
a
non-binding
vote.
A
If
needed,
but
ultimately
we'll
just
follow
our
governance
process
for
trying
to
reach
consensus
so
anyway,
it
should
be
doing
all
of
these
things.
We
tried
to
simplify
the
titles.
The
other
goal
was
to
clarify
the
language
to
emphasize
the
main
point
of
each
incorporate.
All
the
community
feedback,
like
I
mentioned
that
at
least
has
brought
consensus
to
resolve
the
notes
and
the
glossary
items
which
we
can
do
in
the
pr.
A
We
already
have
another
open
vr
for
that
we
could.
We
can
put
them
together
if
need
be,
and
then
to
ensure
the
consistency
of
language
and
to
ensure
the
accessibility
of
language.
So
that's
those
are
those
last
several
are
ones
that
we
really
need
feedback
on,
because
you
know
none
of
us
single
single-handedly
can
ensure
accessibility.
A
We
need.
We
need
everyone's
support
for
that.
A
So
that
is
it
just
just
a
quick
note
on
the
milestone
is
that
the
date
that
we
have
set
for
the
milestone
is
this
friday?
That's
a
target
goal.
If
there's
some,
if
there's
something
that
blocks
us
from
doing
that
for
an
rc1,
we
can
certainly
push
that
forward.
But
that
is
our
target
right
now.
So
everyone
keep
your
ears
peeled
and
keep
your
eyes
open
on
slack
and
we'll
we'll
and,
of
course,
we'll
we'll
send
the
link
to
the
github
pr
once
that's
made.
A
A
D
D
Yes,
actually,
yes,
I
can.
I
actually
I
actually
didn't
get
the
email
you
didn't
talked
about
it.
So
I
was
like
oh.
A
Well,
I
think
this
is
fair
to
show,
because
there's
there's
nothing.
It
was
too
the
the
open
git
ops
maintainers,
but
but
I'm
the
one
that
sent
us.
So
I
think
there's
no
responses,
so
I'm
free
to
show
it.
In
fact,
I
I
think
the
only
reason
to
send
it
to
the
maintainers
yesterday
was
just
in
case.
There
was
any
quick
feedback
before
the
meeting,
but
as
it
turns
out,
there
was
only
a
few
pieces
of
feedback
over
slack,
so
yeah.
A
So
let
me
let
me
let
me
go
ahead
and
grab
that
real,
quick.
A
Okay,
so
there
is
one
piece
of
feedback
from
jesse
which
I
I,
since
it's
on
the
maintainers
list
I
won't
show.
So
let
me
just
link
directly
to
my
message.
Only
and
jesse
could
not
make
it
today
so
that
feedback
we
had
discussed
that
he
that
the
feedback
that
he
added
could
be.
It
wasn't
any
kind
of
a
show
stopper.
From
a
maintainer's
point
of
view,
it
was
just
something
that
could
be
discussed
in
the
pr
itself.
It
wouldn't
be
like
a
giant
directional
roadblock.
A
Narrative
of
what's
going
on
so
this
will
actually
be
added
to
the
pull
request
just
for
context
or
some
version
of
this,
and
let
you
know
unless
you
dan
or
someone
disagrees
with
this
and
thinks
that
I
wrote
it
down
incorrectly.
So
basically
we
need.
We
are
asking
the
co-chairs
for
help
and
well
and
as
that
milestone
said,
we'll
also
be
passing
to
the
to
the
to
the
members
of
the
principal
committee
for
feedback
and
everyone
in
the
working
group
for
feedback
and
again
it
is
an
open
working
group.
A
So
anyone
who
may
not
even
join
past
meetings
can
join
or
excuse
me,
you
can
feel
free
to
become
part
of
it
and
to
participate,
however,
will
be
will
be,
giving
priority
to
feedback
from
folks
who
have
been
who've
been
involved
in
these
discussions
over
the
past
six
months,
weekly,
so,
okay,
so
so
essentially
this
is
we.
We
have
a
hat.
We
have
a
md
doc
for
a
draft
of
the
principal's
rc
for
rc1
and
anyway,
we'll
have
that
pr
open.
A
You
know
we
reviewed
the
principles
overall
and
agreed
generally,
we
read
the
wording
format
of
each
principle
and
reached
basic
agreement,
which
we,
this
email
is
essentially
sharing
with
the
maintainers
for
the
first
quick
round
and
then
we'll
we'll
we'll
soon
now
present
as
an
rc1
vr
that
that
binding
and
onlining,
though,
if
we
need
to
go
there
and
just
as
a
reminder,
the
milestone
date
I
had
mentioned-
was
this
friday
for
this,
and
ideally
well
our
very
strong
hopeful
goal,
and
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
we
can't
reach
this
is
a
full
1.0.0
release
before
kubecon.
A
So
I
know
we
have
one
month,
but
we're
we're
fairly
we're
pretty
close
to
there.
So
hopefully
we
can
make
in
any
case.
Would
it
be
helpful
for
me
to
like?
A
A
My
fault,
because
that
or
that
initial
pr
where
it
was
worked
on
for
several
weeks,
was
authored
by
me
and
breese
initially,
and
everyone
seemed
to
agree.
That
seemed
like
a
good
directions,
but
I
you
know
I'm
partly
responsible
for
for
that
merging.
In
any
case,
it
made
sense
then,
but
as
we
began
to
update
them
from
there
with
more
precise
wording
as
a
group.
A
The
first
few
went
smoothly,
however,
because
each
principle
builds
upon
the
previous
ones
as
we
got
closer
to
the
end,
it
became
increasingly
complex
to
figure
out
which
pieces
of
which
ideas
should
be
in
each
principle,
not
quite
being
able
to
get
all
the
way
through
them
due
to
the
detailed
debates
each
week.
A
I
think
that's
fair
to
say
anyway
important
important
points
were
made
by
all.
However,
the
diminishing
returns
in
later
meetings
is
what
prompted
the
decision
to
accelerate
revising
the
principles
through
an
rc
feedback
process
where
each
rc
attempts
to
integrate
the
very
valuable
points
that
were
made
by
the
group
over
the
past
months
in
a
coherent
way.
In
retrospect.
A
Excuse
me,
in
retrospect,
my
hypothesis,
I
mean
there
could
be
different
ways
to
explain
this,
but
my
hypothesis
is
that
merging
several
of
the
initial
principles
early
on
exacerbated
the
increasing
complexity
in
us
trying
to
bring
that
precise
and
consistent
language
to
those
steps
to
all
the
later
steps.
You
know
that's
a
hypothesis.
A
There
could
be
other
reasons
you
know,
but
but
basically
the
rc1
draft
attempts
to
solve
this
by
rolling
back
to
the
initial
version
that
we
have
in
the
readme
and
trying
to
make
the
fewest
changes
necessary
to
reconcile
the
points
and
feedback
from
the
principles
committee
that
seemed
to
have
stood
the
test
of
time
over
those
weekly
meetings
over
the
past
six
months.
A
So
wildest
draft
is
very
similar
to
the
initial
proposals
and
it
looks
similar
if
you
look
at
it
you're
like
wait.
What
there
are
some
important
changes
that
try
to
reconcile
them
with
the
points
we
made
as
a.
A
Hope,
personally,
I
think
me,
like
all
the
chairs,
hope
that
you
can
see
this
in
the
draft
by
comparing
the
two
so
anyway,
that
is
it,
and
here
is
in
short,
here
is
here
they
are.
A
To
the
version
that's
been
in
the
readme
since
last
year,
excuse
me
here
we
go
they're
actually
quite
similar,
but
the
closed
loop
was
temporarily
dropped
because
we
couldn't
quite
it's
not
clear
how
to
it
wasn't
clear
to
us
anyway,
how
to
explain
this
necessity
for
give
ups.
It
does
seem
important,
but
is
it
a
requirement
and-
and
we
were
you
know-
we
really
wanted
to
ask
the
entire
group.
Why
was
this
principle
here
initially,
you
know
essentially
control
theory.
A
Language
is
very
valuable,
but
do
we
really
need
it
there?
So
there's
some
some
some
questions
that
we
had
about
about
that
and
then
the
proposed
the
proposed
just
revision
of
principle,
five
from
the
readme.
If,
if
there's
an
agreement
that
we
should
keep
it,
I
believe
justice.
So
we
may
not
need
it,
but.
D
We'll
see,
maybe
maybe
we
can
pause
there
and
just
get.
You
know
the
general
impression
from
the
group
on
like
this
process
if
you've
had
a
chance
to
look
at
these
principles
or
have
any
thoughts
about
it,.
A
To
in
the
chat
so
yeah
thanks.
A
Yeah
any
responses
just
to
the
I
know,
we've
all
discussed
this
process
in
the
past
meetings.
So
it's
not
a
big
surprise,
but
just
maybe
not
everyone
was
at
every
past
recent
past
meeting
and.
E
I
like
at
least
the
idea
of
it
and
just
getting
back
to
something
that's
easy
to
work
on,
rather
than
what's
there
right
now
and
and
the
process
that
we
have
been
going
through,
it's
been
kind
of
hard
so
getting
to
something,
that's
kind
of
a
little
bit
more,
not
say
minimalistic,
but
you
know
something
that
actually
is
means
the
same,
but
it's
a
little
bit
more
yeah
a
little
bit
shorter
and
a
little
bit
more
easy
to
build
upon.
E
That's,
I
think,
that's
a
good
idea
and,
and
we'll
probably
make
it
a
whole
lot
easier
to
to
go
forward
with,
rather
than
what's
there
now
and
how
that
works.
So
I
think
we
need
a
little
bit
of
a
reset
on
those
things
based
on
the
meetings
dive
in.
A
A
But
also
no
pressure
to
give
an
opinion.
I
know
this
has
come
up
before,
but
but
yeah
feel
free
to
either,
if
you
think
about
it
more
before
this
meeting
closes
or
if
you
want
to
give
feedback
in
all
the
communication
channels
that
are
listed
in
the
working
group,
give
me
you
know
slack
the
app
delivery
tag,
mailing
list
etc
through
github
discussions
or
whatever
feel.
Please.
A
Please
do,
because
all
of
your
thoughts
on
this
really
matter
that
you
know
the
the
goal
of
trying
to
do
a
reset
wasn't
to
try
to
steamroll
over
anyone
in
any
way.
This
has
been
very,
very,
very,
very
open
and
transparent
process.
The
goal
is
to
just
do
a
good
job
as
chairs
to
try
to
help
move
things
along
when
when
there
are
points
of
being
stuck.
D
Yeah
and-
and
I
think
that,
like
you
know
at
this
point
to
come
in
and
solicit
feedback
and
say
you
know,
we've
taken
all
the
feedback
from
all
the
different
meetings
you've
had
we've
had
tons
of
discussion,
we've
had
tons
of
notes,
you
know
hours
and
hours
of
discussion
input
from
so
many
people.
D
We've
taken
this
and
tried
to
to
bring
all
that
feedback
into
this
draft.
I
actually
am
quite
happy
with
it.
I
think
that
it's
simpler,
it's
straightforward,
no
worries
chris.
Thank
you.
The
last
two
items
that
we
were
requesting
feedback
on
is
where
I
think
we
had
maybe
just
a
little
confusion
and
understanding
like.
Are
these
points
strong
enough
to
name
on
their
own?
Is
it
okay,
just
leave
them
implied?
D
D
A
C
C
Yeah
because
if
I
think
I
think
if
like
this
is
like,
if
dan's
saying
like
you
know,
he's
pretty
happy
with
this,
might
as
well
just
put
the
a
work
in
progress
pr,
I
would
think,
and
then
people
can
then
comment
at
least
on
that,
because
then
you
know
we
want
git
as
a
source
of
truth
for
dan
talking
talking
about
making
jokes
right.
So
I
don't
mind
making
comment
here,
but
I
think
I'd
rather
do
it
and
get.
A
A
Well,
I
guess,
since
I'm,
if
there's
anyway,
if
there's
extra
time
in
the
meeting
that
we
get
back
I'll,
do
it
before
before
our
official
meeting
time
is
over
otherwise
I'll
do
it
directly
after
the
meeting
and
I'll
ping,
you
all
on
slack
to
let
you
know
in
the
I'll,
do
it
in
the
the
work
the
wg
get
ops
channel,
just
the
main
channel
and
I'll
also
forward
that
over
to
the
principal's
channel.
If
we
in
case
we
don't
feel
like,
we
need
to
keep
that
for
some
reason.
D
C
D
Well
then,
scott,
I
would
move
to
conclude
if
people
would
prefer
just
to
take
things
asynchronously
unless
there's
anything
else.
We
I
don't
see
anything
else
on
the
agenda.
Do
you
have
anything
else
you
want
to
discuss.
A
No,
except
just,
is
there
any
initial
feedback
on
on
like
how
how
the
meeting
cadence
is
is
looking
moving
forward,
like
is
everyone
still
happy
with
this,
with
this,
with
a
move
to
making
this
bi-weekly,
or
rather
fortnightly,
okay,
yeah,
and
also
please
check
out
the
that
meetings,
google,
doc,
christian
and
dan?
I
know
you
reviewed
that
pr
to
simplify
the
meetings,
markdown
file
and
ultimately
remove
that
and
put
a
simple
meetings
piece
of
information
in
the
readme,
which
is
great.
A
Chris
short,
if
you
can,
I
don't
know
if
you
are
still
here,
but
if,
if
so,
I
know,
you're
you've
been
helping
with
updating
the
uploading,
the
videos
to
youtube
from
from
from
zoom
cloud,
and
I
think
that
can
still
go
on
exactly
as
it
is,
and
we
can
just
you
know,
connect
about
how
or
if
those
need
to
be
linked
in
any
way
directly
meaning
by
meeting
or
if
it's
just
fine
to
point
to
the
playlist
in
general.
A
Let
people
find
it
on
their
own
because
they
are
they're
actually
listed
by
dave,
so
cool
thanks
chris
okay
got.
It
saw
your
sorry
comment
all
right.
No,
I
have
nothing
else,
maybe
we'll
give
another
second
for
anyone
else.
If
not.
A
All
right
great
also
thanks,
nicholas
for
joining,
I
I
did
get
your
comment
about
the
meeting
date
change
the
day
changing,
and
that
was
something
I
didn't
know
when
I
initially
mentioned
that.
So
thank
you
for
that.
B
A
Really
appreciate
that
okay,
good
yeah
cause
that
that
did
help
a
lot
okay.
Well
then,
it
sounds
like
we're.
Gonna
conclude,
thank
you
all
and
if
we
need
a
separate
meeting
for
the
events
committee
or
if
we
you
know
we
can,
we
can
do
that.
Let's
just
announce
that
to
the
mailing
list,
so
folks
can
have
the
opportunity
to
join
if
they
want.
Otherwise,
we'll
just
do
async
and
we'll
see
you
async
and
next
time.