►
From YouTube: 2020-12-14 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).
A
B
C
Thanks
so
just
wanted
to
follow
up
on
our
discussion
last
week,
so
I've
created
an
epic
for
gitlab
private,
and
the
goal
here
is
to
capture
problem
validation
as
well
as
opportunity
size
for
this,
offering,
as
well
as
laying
out
the
product
definition.
C
A
A
Okay,
yeah,
hey
andrew
thanks
for
using
gitlab,
and
I
think
this
is
great
that
you
made
an
issue.
A
C
Yeah
I
get,
I
can
add,
a
link
to
the
doc.
I
think
the
doc
was
more
sort
of
at
a
high
level
around
our
sort
of
expectations
from
the
infrastructure
side.
The
the
point
of
the
epic
and
the
issues
was
to
get
into
more
of
the
details
there,
but
I'm
happy
to
cross-link
the
two.
A
A
Maybe
oh
there's
no
shadows
this
week,
I'll
I'll
post
that
in
the
ceo
channel
see
someone
takes
me
up
thanks.
B
So
I
just
had
a
follow-up
question:
we've
we've
never
specifically
said
that,
and
I
know
gitlab
private
has
been
widely
discussed
in
this
working
group,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it
isn't.
A
B
In
general,
I
mean,
I
know
you
brought
it
up,
but
my
impression
when
you
first
brought
it
up
was
hey.
This
is
happening
and
I
got
a
couple
of
questions
whether
this
was
the
the
right
working
group,
I'm
fine,
making
the
update
to
the
exit
criteria,
if
you
think
so,.
A
D
Is
this
is
this,
so
I
wonder
I
mean
is
the
the
purpose
in
my
mind,
the
purpose
of
this
working
group
was
to
basically
enable
these
other
projects
that
are
going
on
get
lab.
Private
is
one
of
them.
Our
ability
to
have
you
know,
get
lab
sites
in
in
other
geos.
D
You
know
down
the
road,
as
we
maybe
would
have
you
know
one
in
europe
or
you
know,
wherever
it
is,
doesn't
matter
where
and
then
and
then
also
enabling
things
like
the
technology.
You
know
the
underlying
technology
for
things
like
fedramp
or
whatever
versus
having
any
one
of
those
be
specific
exit
criteria.
D
B
The
outcome
of
the
working
group
is
essentially
cloud
native,
but
gitlab
private.
It's
a
slightly
different
thing,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
dilute
the
former
and
I'm
fine
either
way.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
tracking
the
right
things
and
we're
not.
E
D
Yeah,
I
guess
just
looking
at
what
the
scope
is
right
right
now.
I
think
what
we
had
started
out
with
is
is
something
a
little
bit
more
general,
but
in
this
way
like
enabling
not
only
get
lab
private,
but
these
other
things,
and
so
I
think
the
the
preference
would
be
that
we
would.
We
would
stick
with
enabling
these
types
of
things
rather
than
having
gitlab
private,
be
the
specific
pixel
criteria.
D
That
means
you
said:
do
you
feel
strongly
about
changing
the
answer
criteria,
or
is
it
just
was
just.
D
Yeah
I
mean,
I
totally
think
it's
it's
related
and
then
like
the
the
updates
in
here,
so
that
we're
keeping
these
various
projects
in
mind
absolutely
makes
sense.
But
I
think
the
the
idea
was
that
we
would
focus
on
the
underlying
problems
we
needed
to
solve
the
challenges
that
we
needed
to
go
through
in
order
to
support
all
of
these
different
efforts.
B
F
Oh,
I
said
a
real,
quick
one,
just
civic
trying
to
conclusion
on
the
tooling
and
the
provider.
I
think
we've
discussed
this
a
couple
times
here.
I
think
there's
an
issue
in
the
epic
there,
but
we're
good
to
just
confirm
one
of
the
other.
You
know
aws
or
gcp,
and
then
also
whether
you
want
to
have
in
the
context
of
private
would
be
prospect,
one
on
an
omnibus
or
charts
given
their
timelines,
and
then
we
can
figure
out.
You
know.
F
F
Is
some
items
yeah,
so
I
I
think
we
can
hopefully
just
start
to
ping
folks
and
have
a
final
confirmation
of
where
we
want
to
go
there.
That
would
be
good.
I
think
the
broader
question
really
is
sounds
like
we
probably
don't
want
to
have
the
details
of
gitlab
private
here.
Is
that
the
conclusion
from
the
previous
conversation.
D
Yeah,
I
think
the
the
idea
is
that
good
lab
private
I
mean
there's
a
there's
a.
I
mean
just
a
huge
set
of
items
that
that
is
it's
its
own
project
and
part
of
that
is,
is
being
enabled
by
this
multi-large
working
group,
but
but
there's
so
many
things
with
the
lab
private.
But
I
mean
it
is
its
own
project
and,
and
the
same
thing
would
go
for
for
fedramp
for
another
geo
that
we
do
not
that
we're
doing
that
right
now.
D
But
but
the
idea
here
is
to
is
to
do
those
underlying
things
that
enable
all
of
those
projects
to
happen.
F
Okay,
so
let's
figure
out
taking
tip
by
taking
async.
F
E
Well,
let
me
know
that
when
it
comes
to
get
lab
pages,
we
will
have
the
documentation
for
running
that
external
to
kubernetes.
Very
soon,
it's
being
reviewed
right
now
and
milo
also
implemented
a
dedicated
role
in
the
omnibus
so
that
it's
actually
much
easier
to
perform.
This
behavior
I'll
pick
up
the
issue
for
that
minute.
E
E
If
there's
nothing
else,
then
we'll
go
on
to
what's
happening
next,
with
further
discussion
as
raised
this
morning,
distribution
is
looking
to
implement
a
extended
set
of
generic
labels.
That
can
be
done
to
add
these
labels
to
all
the
objects
produced
as
a
part
of
our
chart
and
to
further
assist
with
logging
and
metrics
and
tracking
of
the
actual
deployments.
E
E
E
E
G
Yeah
so
more,
like
foi,
we're
actually
very
close
to
merge
the
migration
code
for
the
pages
it
took
slightly
longer
because
it's
something
that
we
are
concerned.
We
were
concerned
with
the
security
aspect
of
that,
but
it's
coming
along,
but
I
recall
a
guarding
sentence
from
one
of
the
recent
meetings
that
we're
gonna
have
the
production
lockdown
on
the
weekend
exchanges.
So
I
don't
anticipate
us
executing
this
migration
code
this
year
on
in
january,
so
it
will
be
merged,
but
it
will
be
waiting
till
the
january
to
be
executed.
B
Yeah
this
state,
I
would
prefer,
if
we
don't
start
anything
until
january
as
we're
heading
into
the
the
holidays,
so
we're
not
in
a
hurry
for,
for
you
know
this
amount
of
time,
so
I
would
vote
to
star
in
down.
B
Army
all
right,
I
just
had
a
question
about
the
specific
epics
or
issues
tracking
the
migration
on
gitlab.com.
So
thank
you,
christopher
and
camille.
For
for
the
information
and
then
sit
you
have
a
bunch
of
items.
A
B
I
think
it's
probably
better,
given
that
we've
expanded
the
scope
of
this
working
group
already.
So
unless
it's
something
that
the
folks
in
this
meeting
need
to
provide,
I
would
probably
move
it
to
that
other
meeting.