►
From YouTube: CNF WG Meeting 2021-04-05
Description
CNF WG Meeting 2021-04-05
A
B
Now
some
pretty
big
news,
it
looks
like
google
won
over
oracle
in
supreme
court
over
the
android
api
and
java
api
issues.
B
E
A
A
A
A
If
you
have
an
agenda
item,
please
add
it
to
the
meeting
notes
with
your
name
and
that,
please
add
your
name
as
well
to
the
attendees
list.
A
A
A
A
Okay,
let's
get
started
so,
let's
see
we
had
at
least
one
pr
just
point
out
that
got
merged
during
the
week
since
the
last
weekend.
A
The
last
hey
taylor,
yes,.
D
Your
stuff's
not
working
like
I
don't
see
anything
I'll,
just
share
for
you
and
scroll
around
for
you.
Oh
you
don't
see
the
screen
at
all
no
and
I'm
realizing
in
the
last
call
that
your
screen
was
pretty
much
frozen
like
on
one
frame
for
like
the
entirety
of
the
call
so
I'll
share
for
you,
and
you
can
kind
of
just
tell
me
where
you
want
to
go
thanks
for
letting
me.
A
A
All
right
so,
starting
with
the
this,
I
was
just
listing
some
of
the
pr's
that
I
got
closed
so
that
we
can
everyone's
aware
this
one
is
around
governance,
so
good
to
point
out.
H
Yeah
I
mean
I,
I
think
I
would
hope
we
never
actually
actually
never
have
to
use
this
section,
but
the
point
is
that
its
presence
should
basically
keep
the
whole
thing
under
control.
That
said,
what
this
does
right
now.
H
Is
it
talks
about
how
to
determine
whether
people
are
potentially
you
know
over
representing
their
company,
but
then
we've
got
to
deal
with
some
other
elements
of
the
charter
which
haven't
been
covered
in
here,
because
at
the
moment
we
seem
to
think
that
representation
representation
is
per
company
rather
than
per
person,
and
I
think
that's
probably
not
where
we
want
to
be
in
the
long
run
and
we're
about
to
do
a
tech
lead
election
and
the
tech
lead.
H
Election
is
also
a
bit
confused
in
as
much
as
it
would
be
effectively
a
majority
vote
per
tech.
Lead
gets
you
in
which
means
that
if
there
is
a
cabal,
a
group
over
you
know
representing
people
with
anything
close
to
a
majority,
then
they
can
pretty
much
push
all
the
you
know,
as
many
tech
leads
as
they
care
to
name
into
into
the
system
quite
easily.
H
A
A
Equally
split
as
we're
moving
forward
talking
about
things,
we
can
decide
what
we
want
and
how
this
works
out.
We
have
jeffrey
salins
from
charter
communications,
as
the
service
provider
co-chair
ian
wells
from
cisco.
As
the
cnf
developer,
co-chair
myself
for
the
cloud
native
and
kubernetes.
A
There's
another
I
think,
comment
about,
maybe
moving
some
of
this
out
of
the
charter
into
a
stand-alone
document
for
the
items
that
may
be
updated
more
often
than
the
maybe
our
base
charter,
things
that
we
don't
expect
to
update,
maybe
for
years
to
come
versus
things
like
this,
which
will
at
least
be
recurring
and
there's
others,
but
we'll
tackle
that
in
a
another
pr.
I
think
that
was
one
of
your
suggestions
and
that
we
make
those
updates,
and
I
I
believe
that
you
were
okay
with
tackling
it
in
another
one
yeah.
A
Can
you
guys?
That's
fine?
Okay,
great,
so
I
think
this
one
is
just
a
notice,
and
so
let's
go
ahead
and
merge
this
one
jeffrey
and
go
back
to
conversation.
A
D
B
D
A
So
this
one
is
one
lucina
put
in
and
you're
on
the
call
if
you'd
like
to
speak,
but
the
quick
overview
is
it's
adding
templates
to
make
things
easier
for
folks,
creating
a
pr
for
different
items
and
we
can
add
multiple
templates
in
the
sub
directory
lucina.
You
got
anything
to
add
to
that.
G
A
F
Sounds
good!
Well,
probably
the
only
the
only
thing
that
I
am
seeing
is
just
regarding
the
headers.
Well,
because
probably
the
internet
is
going
to
complain
about
using
not
the
proper
headers
but
yeah.
It's
something
that
we
I
can
fix
later
once
that
the
super
limiter
is
merged.
F
No
well,
the
only
thing
that
I
was
saying
is
like,
for
example,
description
and
all
the
other
schedules
which
are
in
the
the
document
you
just
you
can
go
back
to
the
document
yeah
it's
using
a
different
header
instead
of
starting
from
the
first
one.
A
G
D
Also
lucy-
and
I
won't
step
on
you
anymore
I'll,
let
you
do
the
note
taking
so
I'm
not
writing
over
your
stuff.
G
G
D
D
F
Oh
well,
and
not
basically,
this
keep
good
action
from
my
understanding
is
just
checking
them
installing
for
pull
requests
so
for
now
it's
not
taking
any
effect,
but
for
new
ones.
It's
going
to
check
everything,
so
I
don't
know
if
we
decide
to
have
it
or
not
a
good
idea,
or
what
do
you
think
about
it?
H
H
F
A
Everybody:
okay
with
that,
does
this
unlike
complying
or
will
it
try
to
autofix.
A
A
In
the
in
the
the
flow.
F
H
I
don't
think
I
mean
and
again
that's
another
reason
why
I
say
just
commit
it
and
let's
see
if
it
causes
difficulties,
but
I
don't
think
any
of
the
any
of
the
checks
are
actually
blocking.
A
H
Yeah
and
if
I
turn
out
to
be
wrong,
then
it's
you
know
20
minutes
to
fix
the
whole
thing,
so
I
wouldn't
I
wouldn't
get
too
wrapped
up
with
that.
F
G
H
F
Yeah
well,
this
is
a
little
more
controversial
because
it
touches
a
lot
of
files.
Probably
the
most
controversial
thing
is
like
the
the
line
length
which
is
set
to
80.,
so
we
can
remove
that
if
we
decide
like
it's,
not
something
we
want
to
keep.
I
mean
the
only
technical
reason
that
I
have
seen
is
regarding
historical.
F
Way
to
do
it,
but
besides
that,
I
think
this
intern
is
checking
markdowns
in
taxes.
Other
things
from
other
files.
I
mean
it's
not
just
considering
markdown
files
also
consider
like
chamo
or
shell
scripts
or
anything
any
document
is
checking
the
proper
syntaxes
and
I
think
it's
useful,
but
we
have
to
configure
the
way
that
we
want
it.
So
probably
the
only
thing
that
we
have
to
discuss
here
is
like
if
we
want
to
use
it
and
if
we
want
to
use
with
this
configuration.
H
I
actually
do
like
the
line
length
limit,
but
it
does
seem
to
be
causing
a
great
deal
of
mess
in
the
way
it's
breaking
links
up.
So
I
wonder
whether
we
can
commit
this
without
the
line
length
limit
to
begin
with,
and
then
see
how,
if
we
can
get
a
slightly
more
tailored
solution
to
that
part
of
the
problem
later.
F
Yep
yeah,
the
only
thing
that
I
have
seen
is
in
some
cases
when
I'm
doing
reviews
on
on
github.
I
have
noticed
that
the
parser
is
not
it's
not
detecting
the
differences
or
the
suggestions
so,
but
maybe
is,
is
another.
It's
not.
The
line.
Length
is
another
reason.
H
But
on
the
other
hand,
the
number
of
changes
you'd
have
to
put
in
there
breaking
links
across
multiple
lines
and
this
sort
of
thing
and
if
we
ever
have
a
particularly
long
url,
I
don't
know
what
will
happen
so
it
feels
like
if
we
skip
that
for
now
and
run
a
few
experiments
to
see
exactly
how
it's
treating
things,
then
that
would
be
better
and
then
at
least
we
get
the
rest
of
the
benefits,
because
I
think
the
header
corrections
that
it
was
doing
where
it
picked
up
on
the
fact
that
we
can't
nest
headers
properly
by
by
eye,
and
that
was
quite
handy
to
know
actually.
F
And
another
thing:
maybe
we
can
start
doing
like
suggestions
like
for
future
prs.
We
can
encourage
to
reduce
the
number
of
outlines.
I
mean
not
not
reducing
the
paragraphs,
but
I
mean
at
least
reducing
the
formatting
that
way,
maybe
in
the
future,
if
we
decide
to
use
it,
it's
not
going
to
be
painful
at
like
this.
G
D
D
This
one's
pretty
pretty
boring
anything
to
say,
taylor,
ian.
H
Just
run,
oh,
I
see
it's
just
a
character.
Okay,
yeah
forget
that
yeah.
No,
I
still
think.
Well,
I
think
it's
weird
on
one
count
that
this
is
the
second
use
of
use.
The
story
when
it
was
the
use
case
when
it
was
the
first
one
committed,
but
I
still
not
entirely
convinced
on
numbers,
but
for
as
long
as
we're
living
with
them,
then
there's
nothing
wrong
with
this.
D
Maybe
ian
do
you
want
to
so
merge
this,
but
do
you
want
to
open
up
an
issue
to
talk
about,
like
what
medications
are
going
to
apply?
I
would
include
something
around
also
mapping.
I
think
we
talked
about
this
last
week:
mapping
use
cases
to
best
practices,
etc.
H
A
A
So
this
is
related
to
representation
and
community
interact
who's
involved
in
the
communities,
contributing
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
this
was
tying
into
in
various
conversations
and
the
most
recent
thing
where
this
is
applied
was
tied
in
with
elections
and
there's
a
lot
of
feedback
as
we're
already
in
the
election.
A
That
b
seems
an
interest
to
move
towards
individuals
and
voices
versus
the
organizations,
and
so
the
idea
here
is
to
switch
the
whole
interested
parties
list
to
show
individuals,
while
also
showing
who
they're
affiliated
with
so
when
we
have
whatever
company
it
is.
If
you
work
for
google
or
jeff,
I
guess
jeffrey,
you
maybe
could
be
a
good
one.
So
charter
communications.
A
I
think,
if
I
didn't
put
a
link
to
our
chart
or
the
interest
parties
document,
but
where
it
says,
if
you
can
open
that
up
the
in
the
code
base
and
then
the
interested
parties
markdown
so
where
it
says
charter
communications,
it
could
now
say
you're
there
on
the
top
five,
we
would
say
jeffrey
salem's,
comma
charter
communications
or
something
like
that,
and
if
there's
more
people,
that's
fine
at
charter.
That's
great!
A
A
A
So
this
is
a
github
discussion
and
if,
if
there's,
if
I
guess
we're
trying
to
get
some
feedback
and
if
folks
agree,
then
we
can
create
a
pr
we'll
need
to
add
the
names
for
the
people
which
I
have
some
of
the
contacts
bill.
When
he's
back
has
probably
the
the
rest
of
the
list.
We
could
just
add
the
people
that
put
on
their
names
on
there.
But
if
you
already
know,
then
we
could
do
that.
But
the
pr
chain
would
change
that.
That
document
to
have
individual.
A
H
A
Ian
you're
you're
cutting
out
for
me.
I
got
like
one
in
five
words,
I
don't
know
if
that's.
D
Yeah
I
can
hear
ian
fine,
I
mean
personally
ian
I'm
fine
with
it.
I
mean
if
we
end
up
having
weird
hostile
takeovers
later
we
can
address
that,
but
long
and
short
is
if
you
can
represent
yourself
and
we're
going
to
like
try
to
like
block
people's
votes,
which
I
don't
think
is
going
to
solve
a
whole
lot.
Then
they'll
just
list
themselves
as
individual
representation,
anyways
right.
H
Yeah,
it
was
more
that
as
things
stand,
then,
if
a
company
is
an
interested
party,
then
the
company
gets
one
vote.
If
we
flip
it
to
a
individual
being
an
interested
party
with
company
representation,
then
the
stuff
we've
just
committed
make
sure
that
their
company
is
not
overrepresented,
that's
dealt
with,
but
the
the
bylaws
specifically
say
one
company
one
vote.
I'm
wondering
whether
we
take
that
out
at
this
point
as
well.
A
Yeah,
like
I
said
I
I
mean
this-
is
not
changing
anything
about
how
we
use
the
list.
We
could
stay
the
same
where
we
have
one
vote
per
org
and
one
vote
for
an
unaffiliated,
and
we
still
have
the
thing
where
if
two
people
are
from
a
company,
you
can't
say
I'm
unaffiliated
if
you're,
if
you're,
actually
there
as
soon
as
one
other
person
from
the
work,
so
this
has
no
change
on
how
we
use
it.
A
The
main
focus
here
is
to
allow
us
to
communicate
a
larger
number
of
individuals
that
are
showing
interest
which,
if
you
look
at
most
of
the
other
projects
out
there,
that's
that's
the
point
like
what
is
our
community.
So
if
we
have
20
orgs
that
there's
actually
only
one
person
per
org,
then
it's
not
really
showing
how?
H
Let
me
go
and
read
what
the
charter
actually
says,
because
I
can't
remember,
but
I
thought
it
was
basically,
a
interested
party
company
gets
one
vote
effectively,
which
wouldn't
be
what
we
would
have
in
our
interested
party
list
if
we
change
to
do
what
you're
talking
about,
and
that
is
not
in
any
way
shape
or
form
of
criticism
of
what
you're
suggesting.
I
think
it's
the
right
thing
to
do,
I'm
just
trying
to
work
out
whether
it's
got
to
knock
on
effect.
We
have
to
deal
with.
A
All
right:
well,
this
is
a
discussion,
so
hop
on
the
up
on
the
github
discussion
and
you
can
write
stuff
into
this.
A
A
D
D
So
we
had
the
add
values
to
the
charter
taylor.
You
kind
of
had
like
a
succinct
list
bill
has
these
kind
of
like
paragraph
style,
little
narratives
there's
been
some
discussion.
D
I
don't
know
what
happened,
but
all
my
comments
got
put
in
the
wrong
place
together,
but
I
don't
know
if
people
when
I
dive
into
this
this
kind
of
a
broad
topic
of
kind
of
the
heart
and
spirit
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here.
H
I
suspect,
if
we
went
into
this
in
the
meeting,
we
would
be
about
an
hour
over
the
top
of
the
end
of
the
meeting.
I
think
it's
just
one
of
those
things
where
go
luck
make
your
comment.
Someone
needs
to
basically
go
and
start
folding
and
closing
some
of
those
comments
off,
but
it's
probably
better
done
in
the
in
the
pull
request.
D
H
I
prefer
the
narratives,
if
I'm
being
honest,
but
you
know
that's
my
own
opinion,
that
isn't
to
say
that
there
are
other
opinions
out.
H
D
All
right
well
I'll
move
on.
I
I
agree
with
the
end,
there's
already
a
lot
of
discussion
here
to
like
look
into
you
know,
please
check
out
the
pr
weigh-in.
If
you
have
a
third
way
of
stating
values,
then
please
chime
in.
D
D
I
don't
know
this,
one
is
one
I
think
we
need
probably
more
discussion
on
like
says,
tech
leads
will
do
mergers,
but
we
haven't
really
fully
established
what
a
tech
lead
does
taylor
and,
if
I
remember
correctly,
there's
no
limit
on
tech
leads
right.
So
what
the
ratio
of
like
individuals
versus
tech
leads
like
at
that
point.
Do
we
just
leave
it
as
individuals
and
as
long
as
we
get
a
quorum,
we
go
or
how?
I
don't
know
what
people's
thoughts
are
on
this
one.
This
one
seems
a
little
bit
underdeveloped.
H
I
might
argue
that
perhaps
our
concept
of
tech
leads
is
a
bit
underdeveloped,
there's
somewhere
between
core
developers.
You
would
see
in
openstack
where
you
know
you
would
never
train
it
was
done
by
I,
but
the
number
of
core
developers
was
constrained.
You
didn't
increase
it
too
big,
because
you
needed
someone.
You
trusted
to
review
poll
requests
specifically,
but
that
doesn't
mean
to
say
they
couldn't
do
you
know
they
couldn't
you
couldn't
go
off
and
do
something
adventurous?
H
It
just
means
that
you
didn't
need
to
be
a
core
developer
to
do
that.
So
if
we
could
figure
out
what
we
actually
want,
our
tech
needs
to
be.
Are
they
the
part
of
the
approval
process?
Is
that
their
primary
job
or
are
they
just?
You
know
people
we've
nominated
to
investigate
a
specific
thing
which
you
know
doesn't
necessarily
involve
election
or
anything
else?
How
do
we
want
to
think
about
them?.
B
Jumped
but
yeah
I
lost,
I
lost
the
the
line.
I
wait
until
this
is.
B
B
Yeah,
so
it's
if
you
look
at
line
180
as
well,
it
says
the
co-chair
vote
can
be
replaced
by
the
approval
of
two
tech
leads,
and
that
also
seems
quite
like
quite
a
low
bar
like
I
could
pair
up
with
another
tech,
lead
and
say:
hey.
Let's
go
start
replacing
people.
A
Another
maybe
another
way
to
look
at
this,
is
we
don't
have
the
representation?
A
That's
well
established
the
pr
and
the
process
for
electing
and
the
pro
and
the
powers.
So
we
need
to
handle
all
that
before
we
put
stuff
in
yes
for
what
you're
saying
frederick,
and
I
think
that
it's
tied
in
with
the
the
other
as
well
like
what?
What
are?
What
are
they?
A
D
A
Yeah,
that
would
be
part
of
it.
So
if
I
I
think
we
shouldn't
even
call
it
tech
lates
it's
more
like
a
and
we
can
wait,
but
it's
we
need
some
type
of
team
leads
would
be
equivalent
if
you
thought,
like
a
project
or
something
but
team
leader
leads
working
group
leads,
so
you
have
the
chairs,
and
then
you
have.
What
are
these
leads
they're
going
to
take
on
different
things.
A
You
know
technical,
and
what
does
that
mean,
of
course,
that
can
be
broken
down
into
different
things
and
then
the
community
side
that
may
be
people
from
other
groups
or
wanting
that
are
involved
with
us
and
may
be
involved
with
several
security
groups
or
a
whole
chaos
community.
There's
multiple
litmus
chaos,
two
different
cncf
projects,
there's
other
ones
in
there
in
many
different
areas.
So
we
may
have
someone
in
there.
A
That's
wanting
to
ensure
that
information
from
those
groups
comes
over
and
then
feedback
from
us
is
flowing
in
so
tying
into
that
there's
the
whole
engagement,
you
could
say
marketing
to
get
people
involved
so
anything
around.
This
says
what
are
efforts
that
we
have
and
then
people
doing
different
types
of
facilitation.
So
these
are
contributions.
So
is
what
type
of
contributions
can
happen
so
then
leads
could
be
focused
in
any
different
area
or
multiple
areas,
of
course.
A
D
Yeah,
I
personally
think
we
kind
of
need
to
look
at
this
at
large
too,
like
if
you're
gonna
lead
documentation
improvements.
Do
you
really
need
to
get
voted
in,
for
that
or
I
mean
typically,
we
have
self-motivated
people
that
just
kind
of
step
up
when
we
have
the
five-second
awkward
pregnant
pause
on
the
call,
and
they
say
fine
I'll
do
it.
You
know
technical
and
community
leads
probably
seem
a
little
bit
more
official.
In
my
mind
I
don't
know.
D
H
Let's
talk
about
what
we
need
versus
what
we
could
have.
What
we
need
right
now,
it
seems
is,
is
people
who
can
or
a
process
for
deciding
when
a
pull
request
is
ready
and
goes
in,
which
again
is
more
like
a
core
developer
side
of
things
than
it
is
anything
else.
It's
not
leading
projects.
It's
not
leading
initiatives.
It's
literally
taking
an
active
role
in
making
sure
that
by
saying
yes
on
a
pull
request,
they're
not
going
to
cause
any
one
great
distress,
that's
the
thing
that
will
get
us
moving
the
rest
of
it.
H
I
think
we
could.
Basically,
you
know,
take
longer
to
consider
calling
something
a
community
lead
or
a
project
lead
or
whatever
we
may
want
them.
There
may
be
a
reason
for
making
the
official
that,
I
think,
is
a
lot
less
well
established
right
now.
B
A
A
The
reason
why
this
is
in
here
is
primarily
around
what
we
have
the
wording
around,
like
the
the
governance
side,
that
last
one
that
we
looked
at
for
the
pr
approvals
and
stuff
like
that,
so
having
some
wording
that
communicates
what
how
people
can
get
involved
and
then,
if,
if
there
is
any
official
areas
that
are
helpful
for
us,
then
those
are
documented
and
then
how
they
relate
to
governance
and
stuff
is
the
main
thing
and
agree
on.
A
Let's
take
more
time
to
discuss
these
this
item
and
the
related
stuff,
like
the
pr
approval,
I
think
one
thing
that
someone
mentioned
earlier
and
it
actually
came
up
on
the
tug
is
purpose.
So
what
is
what
is
our
purpose
in
any
of
these
and
at
the
highest
level
on
the
cnf
working
group,
we're
trying
to
find
and
and
promote
adoption
of
best
practices
for
networking
applications
that
are
going
to
help
the
end
users,
service
providers
and
integrators
and
everyone
else?
A
A
D
Curious
everybody's,
very
quiet
like
what
do
people
think
on
the
idea
of
additional
leads?
Do
we
have
any
initial
thoughts
on
like
what
the
bar
is
set?
I
do
think
that
whether
we
call
them
a
tech
lead
or
something
else
that
people
who
approve
pull
requests
should
be
voted
on,
because
my
assumption
would
be
that
people
would
want.
You
know,
basically
a
vote
of
confidence
that
you
know
the
documentation
here
is
going
to
be
maintained
and
it'll
be
people
who
are
willing
to
take
the
time
to
read
through
stuff.
I'm.
D
You
know
if
you're
someone
who's
super
super
busy
and
looks
pull
requests
once
a
month
and
only
like
a
few
at
a
time,
do
you
volunteer
or
do
you
instead
try
to
go
for
a
community
lead
and
try
to
help
lead
projects
and
then
dive
into
prs
and
weigh
in
on
when
they're
specific
to
something
you're
interested.
E
In
this
all
seems
a
little
bit
complex
to
me,
I
feel,
like
we've
been
spending
months
on
building
the
bureaucracy
for
this
work
group,
if,
if,
if
our
esteemed
co-chairs
think
that
this
is
the
best
way
to
move
forward,
honestly,
I'm
like
whatever,
whatever
works
best
for
the
co-chairs
in
terms
of
management,
if,
if
co-chairs
feel
that
they
need
this
very
specific
assignment
of
roles
and
responsibilities
in
the
end,
the
work
group
will
work
when
people
step
up
to
do
the
work.
E
You
know
we
we
can
make
this
official,
I'm
I'm
in
favor
of
making
this
a
little
bit
looser.
I
think
we
we
just
have-
I
don't
know
too
many
roles
and
then
too
much
too
much
specificity,
but
if
this
works
for
you
guys,
I'm
fine
with
it.
A
So
tell
part
of
the
point
with
this
is
it's
not
to
say,
let's
actually
specify
30
different
types
of
leads,
and
you
need
to
tell
us
which
one
it's
actually
to
make
it
more
general
and
say
we
need.
We
may
need
leads.
Actually
we
can
decide.
You
know
if
we're
going
to
move
forward
at
all
on
that,
but
it
should
not
be
specific
to
tech
leads.
A
That's
really
it
so
if,
if,
if
we
need
other
leadership
besides
co-chairs,
let's
make
it
general
and
if
someone
wants
to
say
yeah,
I
want
to
be
a
lead
for
this
and
that's
what
we
want
to
document.
That's
fine!
If
you're
just
saying
I
want
to
lead
okay,
whatever
that
means,
but
making
it
more
broad
and
allowing
it
to
be
more
flexible
is
the
point.
E
I
I
think
to
me
the
issue:
is
I'm
fine
with
you
know,
trying
to
understand
what
the
group
is
doing.
I
think
this
is
good.
I
guess
what
we're
really
trying
to
divide
here
is
between
active
members
who
participate
and
members
who
don't
participate,
calling
it
a
lead.
Well,
we
can
call
it
lead
if
you
prefer,
but
in
the
end
we're
talking
about
people
who
are
we're,
making
we're
more
formalizing.
The
idea
of
when
people
step
up
to
actually
contribute
things
to
the
group
to
the
work
group.
E
E
D
D
So
I
mean,
if
we're
just
saying
then
that
the
baseline
bar
is
six
community
votes,
then
get
six
people
to
review
your
stuff
and
then
it's
merge
ready.
Then
we
should
just
call
that
out
I
mean
I
don't
have
strong
opinions.
Sometimes
people
like
to
have
you
know
these
things
like
they
can
tell
their
boss
that
oh
I'm
doing
x,
y
and
z
and
the
cncf,
and
it
helps
them
out.
D
So
I'm
fine
with
putting
this
in
place
if,
if
we
want
it,
but
at
the
same
time
too,
I'm
kind
of
like
as
long
as
we
decide
on
something
I'd
like
to
start
spending.
These
calls
going
over
like
the
use
cases
and
arguing
about
layer,
3,
networking
and
kate's
versus
some
of
these
more
procedural
ones
as
soon
as
possible.
E
I'll
add
another
point:
you
know
if
this
is
about
people
stepping
up
to
to
take
a
more
active
role.
I
I
don't
see
why
we
need
to
vote
on
anything
anybody
who
wants
to
be
this
kind
of
active
member.
It
could
be
just
an
open
list,
add
yourself,
and
that
means
you
have
some
responsibilities.
B
We
also
have
a
fantastic
set
of
of
co-chairs
and
we
can
rely
on
them
and
their
judgment
to
so.
If
someone's
acting
in
bad
faith
or
is
damaging
the
repository,
then
we
we
have
some
level
of
control
where
we
can
remove
people.
B
E
Well,
my
point
is:
do
you
guys
really
think
that
any
of
the
people
who
stepped
up
to
be
tech
leads
or
whatever
we're
calling
it
are
not
going
to
receive
enough
votes?
I
mean
we're
happy
for
any
warm
body.
Anybody
in
this
group
who
wants
to
be
more
active,
I
mean
we'll
we'll
celebrate
that,
like.
I
wonder
if
you
know
with
this
more
expansive
definition
of
what
it
is,
do
we
really
need
to
be
voted
in
I
mean
any.
This
is
a
volunteer
position,
so
anybody
who's
volunteering
to
do
more
work.
A
I
agree
with
you
on
all
of
the
volunteer
and
anyone
stepping
up
absolutely.
We
want
to
get
people
that
contribute
in
order
to
celebrate
that,
so
that
the
main
issue
here
is
if
and
if
we
can
split
it
as
about
acknowledging
who
is
there
to
help
so
that
other
people
can
come
in
and
find
them
so
if
you're
working
on
something
talon,
other
people
like
I'm
interested
in
that
I
want
to
help
or
whoever
it
is,
then
that
helps
new
contributors.
A
When
we
go,
here's
a
set
that
we
as
a
group,
if
we
separate
those
things
and
which
will
probably
mean
an
update
to
the
charter
and
so
have
a
separation
of
that,
then
it's
a
lot
easier
to
do
what
you're
suggesting
tal,
just
let
people
say
without
voting,
I'm
working
on
this
if
and
I'd
like
to
help.
Okay.
Great
just
add
yourself
to
the
doc
and
there's
no
voting.
A
A
So
maybe
we
can
go
back
on
that
pr
we
don't
have
to
now,
but
the
pr
process.
Maybe
we
want
to
rethink
and
have
it
what
I
think
someone
else
suggested
a
few
minutes
ago.
Maybe
we
have
the
pr
processes,
only
individuals,
community
individuals,
and
if
we
need
to
add
something
about
org
representation,
fine,
but
the
prs
and
then
deal
with
stuff
like
adoption
of
best
practices
that
are
promoted
also
separately.
E
I
I'm
in
favor
of
that
you
know,
as
frederick
said,
our
co-chairs
are
making
sure
that
this
repository
is
okay,
so
they'll
look
at
prs.
If
we
really
have
some
rogue
members
somewhere
accepting
pr's
willy
nilly
the
group
will
be
self-correcting.
Our
repository
is
not
a
code
base
right,
there's
nothing.
If
a
pr
comes
in
it's
not
going
to
break
everything,
I
kind
of
feel
like
we'll
be
fine,
less
the
less
bureaucracy,
the
better
I'm
in
favor
of
just
having
a
list.
People
can
add
themselves
to
the
list.
We
don't.
C
Exactly
yeah,
when
we
say
pr,
another
thing
is:
what
are
we
saying
pr
approval
power
to
change
the
charter
to
add
a
best
practice?
All
of
it
change.
C
Yeah,
so
we
have
that
problem
of
what
the
power
is
of
a
you
know
pr
kind
of
slipping
in
this
technical
power,
and
it's
actually,
this
broad
actual
power
that
goes
behind
it
that
I
think
hasn't
been
described.
So
I
think
that's
why
people
are
reluctant
or
concerned.
C
The
other
thing
that
was
brought
up
is:
oh
we're,
taking
a
long
time
to
accept
these
prs.
Is
that
that's
because
we
don't
agree,
that's
what
I
would
submit,
because
we
don't
agree
on
what
the
things
that
we're
talking
about
should
be
in
the
charter
or
whatever.
It's
not.
I
don't
think
that
it
is
because
we
don't
have
enough
people
assigned
to
it
or
that
it's
a
you
know
that
no
one's
responsible
for
it
to
press
the
button.
So
those
are
my
things
that.
E
Yeah
and
nothing
is
set
in
stone,
you
know
a
pr
gets
accepted
and
let's
say
somebody
looks
at
it
and
says:
well
I
actually
disagree
with
this.
So
other
people,
you
know
we
can
revisit
a
pr
that
has
already
been
accepted
and
do
another
pr
that
fixes
it
a
repository.
I
think
we
all
understand
it
as
a
living
document,
a
living
set
of
documents
that
will
evolve
and
change
and
maybe
move
back
yeah.
As
I
said,
I
think
we're
overthinking.
This.
D
I've
got
to
drive,
I
just
got
it
because
I
have
to
drop,
but
I
want
to
point
one
other
thing
out
and
kind
of
like
to
tell's
point
is
when
we
go
to
like
the
next
cube
con
or
something
like
that,
and
we
try
to
sell
this.
We
don't
want
people
to
think
that
the
barrier
of
entry
is
like
you
know:
here's
4,
000,
weird
things
and
this
place
has
run
like
you
know
some
form,
or
you
know
crazy
country
that
like
has
like
50
layers
of
bureaucrats
standing
in
your
way
like.
D
H
The
only
thing
I
mean
the
the
thing
to
me
that
this
could
do
for
us,
which
would
make
us
better
than
we
are
before
it
actually
plays
back
to
tell's
point
that
we
keep
discussing
bureaucracy,
because
all
our
pull
requests
are
on
the
bureaucracy,
because
all
our
pull
requests
get
discussed
in
the
meetings,
because
no
one's
really
sure
when
the
right
moment
is
to
push
the
button
and
say,
let's
commit
it
and
that's
why.
I
think
that
actually
spreading
that
responsibility
around
and
actually
officially
assigning
it
would
really
serve
as
some
good.
A
All
right,
I
think
this
reiterates
what
started
with
this.
We
need
to
rethink,
but
from
the
p,
the
pr
approval
process
and
team
leads.
We
need
to
rethink
how
to
make
it
easier
to
enter,
and
we
also
want
to
make
sure
that
things
are
are.
Are
we
protecting
anything
that
we
need
so
maybe
re-evaluation
of
it
and
say?
Is
there
anything
that
we
need
to
have
bureaucracy
around
and
then
add
it
there
right
now,
it's
spread
all
over.
A
A
A
These
are
discussion
items
as
well,
so
please,
at
least
from
the
standpoint
of
what
ian
europe
is
saying:
there
is
discussions
and
feedback
which
would
help
make
these
calls
faster.
If
you
go
in
and
add
information,
and
especially
references
if
you
have
thoughts
on
something
and
can
give
links
and
references,
then
that'll
help
so
that
when
we
get
in
these
calls,
they
can
move
forward
faster
and
potentially
get
completed
online
before
the
call's.
Even
here.