►
From YouTube: 2020-12-21 Multi-Large Working Group
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).
C
B
Looks
nice
things
had
a
had
a
hit
cup
this
morning,
but
nothing
stopping
me
from
being
with
all
of
you.
A
We
appreciate
that
jerry,
it
looks
like
you're
battening
down
in
a
cold
weather
storm
or
something.
No,
it's
just
a
little.
D
No
actually
well,
it
is
cold,
but
my
heater
broke
so
they're
working
on
it
right
now
and
the
house
is
a
little
chilly
because
it
was
built
the
ones
ago,
and
so,
whatever
comes
into
the
house,
it
keeps
it
whether
it's
hot
or
cold,
so
anyway,
it'll
be
better.
Tomorrow,
all
right.
D
E
C
B
Sure,
thank
you
awesome
work.
This
is
a
question
for
future.
Do
we
know
what
types
of
installation
reference,
architectures
or
installation
levels
we're
gonna
support
from
get
it's
gonna,
be
starting
from
the
lowest
reference
architecture
to
2k
going
upwards?
What's
your
what's
your
view
on
that.
C
We
haven't
talked
about
starting
low
and
working
high
or
starting
high
and
working
low.
I
think
everything
would
be
supported,
but
I
don't
have
a
plan
right
now
of
how
that
would
be
rolled
out.
It
is
explicit
in
that,
mr
that
it's
not
for
production
use
at
this
point,
but
I
can
touch
back
base
when
people
come
back
from
vacations
and
figure
out
what
that
plan
would
be.
E
E
We
also
have
a
note
here
that
before
I
go
to
the
next
thing,
any
quick
questions
on
pages
and
state
nope-
I
mentioned
this
a
minute
ago,
so
I'm
going
to
just
glance
over
it.
But
the
next
item
in
the
operator
is
to
actually
fan
out
the
rest
of
the
services
and
do
that
in
a
rather
quick
fashion,
because
we'll
be
able
to
do
that
in
parallel.
E
A
D
Cool,
so
the
the
last
point
is
that
I'm
going
to
be
out
the
next
two
mondays.
I
steve-
and
I
briefly
talked
about
this
and
we
figure
next
week
is
going
to
be
pretty
low
attendance
anyway.
So
we're
thinking
about
canceling
that
one
and
then,
if
someone
can
run
the
meeting
on
january
4th,
then
we
can
make
it
happen,
even
though
I
expect
that
there
won't
be
a
whole
lot
of
updates
there
anyway.
So
any
thoughts
for
those
that
are
here.
D
Yeah
we
can
cancel
the
next
two
weeks.
Like
that's,
not
a
problem,
I
mean
because
on
the
I
won't
be
here
on
the
28th,
and
I
think
most
you
know
it's
like
this
year.
The
way
the
holidays
coincide
the
days
off.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
half
weeks
for,
if,
for
those
that
are
still
working
through
the
holidays,
but
definitely
for
those
of
us
that
are
out
nothing's
gonna
happen.
So
all
right,
I
don't
see
anybody
fighting
for
january.
Fourth,
so
I
will
cancel
both
both
meetings
and
then
will
reconvene.
D
I
guess
january
11th,
cool.
F
I'm
kind
of
expecting
you
to
ask
the
question
so
I'll.
Just
stop
writing
and
ask
my
question.
Yes:
are
we
still
aligned
with
what
this
working
group
is
supposed
to
be
achieving,
given
what
is
written
on
the
working
group
page
versus
what
is
being
done
right
now,
because
I'm
feeling
a
tiny
bit
lost
on
what
we
are
supposed
to
be
achieving
in
midterm?
Here.
B
F
D
So
I
think
on
the
main
objective,
which
was
the
cloud
native
goals,
we're
still
making
progress
on
those
and
then
based
on
the
discussion
last
week,
we'll
offer
assistance
to
gitlab
private
and
then
anything
else
is
not
a
part
of
this
working
group.
So
there
was
an
update
about
get
here
today,
but
what's
tanya
made,
but
you.
D
So
the
update
went
in
and
that's
fine,
but
I
we
did
set
some
boundaries
last
week,
which
actually
brings
me
to
a
quite
to
a
follow-up
question
is
get
that
private.
It's
not
public
right.
G
There's
a
it
has
an
epic
as
part
of
the
road
map,
but
as
far
as
like
a
a
like
a
a
service
announcement,
there
hasn't
there's
nothing
that
I'm
aware
of.
D
A
G
Sure
I
remember
right
the
the
conversation
that
came
up
last
week
and
everything
was
a
was
kind
of
around
you
know.
Is
it?
Is
it
the
primary
or
even
any
goal
of
this
group
to
be
kind
of
the
the
primary
delivery
mechanism,
for
you
know,
gitlab,
private
or
for
gitlab,
china
or
labview
or
or
any
other
site?
And
I
I
think
what
we
landed
on
in
kind
of
looking
back
at
the
at
the
page
and
the
you
know
the
order
of
deliverables
and
everything
here.
D
Right
right,
this
is
why
I
said
that
cloud
native
has
the
extra
criteria,
but
that
we
agreed
to
offer
assistance
to
get
lot
private,
so
we're
not
delivering
it,
but
it
will
likely
be
discussed
here
because
those
two
things
after
we
get
these
things
done,
then
those
two
things
will
align
and
that's.
Why
that's
why
I
wanted
to
be
specific,
so
you're
right,
the
the
gitlab
private
is
not
an
output
from
this
working
group,
but
there
is
an
expectation
that
we
we
are
involved
from
time
to
time,
at
least
in
an
assistant
capacity.
G
And
if
there
is
any,
I
think
jerry
you'll
probably
see
the
same
thing
but
maren.
If
there's
a
way,
you
think
that,
given
what
we
know
now
and
and
what
we've
gone
through
in
this
working
group
to
date,
if,
if
there's
something
that
we
should
change
around
the
charter
or
actually
criteria
and
everything,
then
then
we
you
know,
I
think
everyone.
I
would
imagine
everyone's
open
to
that
right.
Right,
jerry
yeah.
G
Executive
sponsor
wants
us
to
do
yeah,
at
least
at
least
discussing
it
and
making,
and
also
making
sure
that,
like
what
we,
what
we
originally
envisioned
still
makes
sense
so,
but,
but
I
do
think
that,
like
taking
on
the
kind
of
like
delivery
for
any
one
of
those
other
projects
like
gitlab
private,
we.
G
I
don't
think
that
that
you
know
that
doesn't
make
this
enough
of
kind
of
a
working
group.
Iteration.
Those
things
are,
are
a
whole
project
among
themselves.
What
we
should
which
we
should
be
focusing
on
here
are
the
things
that
that
help
enable
and
support
those
things
to
happen,
but
they
they
need
to
to
to
have
a
whole
project,
maybe
a
working
group
of
their
own
or
whatever,
and
it
could
be
that
we're
proliferating
a
lot
of
working
groups.
D
Awesome
well,
thank
you
very
much.
I
probably
won't
be
seeing
any
of
you
until
next
year,
so
have
a
great
holidays
and,
let's
all
wish
for
a
much
better
2021,
so
stay
safe.