►
From YouTube: 2022-06-14 Maintainership 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
A
B
B
Our
kid
just
came
home
from
his
first
day
of
daycare.
So
oh
nick's,
here
all
right
should
we
get
started.
I
don't
know
who
else
is
joining
welcome
to
the
tuesday
june
14th
maintainership
working
group
meeting
we're
going
to
cover
changes
since
last
time,
steve
you
want
to
go
ahead.
A
Sure
so
I
proposed
some
labels
that
will
help
us
to
facilitate
and
organize
communication
of
these
changes
that
we're
all
working
on
I'll
ping,
the
working
group
stock
channel
when
they're
all
merged
and
like
finalized,
but
for
all
the
dris,
if
you
haven't
looked
at
them.
A
Yet,
if
you
could
take
a
look
at
the
proposal
and
then
I
also
noted
or
well
I'm
curious
if
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
a
checklist
or
list
of
questions
and
sort
of
like
reminders
for
things
like
posting,
an
update
or
creating
a
survey
to
ensure
that
it
reaches
as
many
people
as
possible
and
that
there's
no
valuable
information
missing.
I
kind
of
threw
together
an
initial
draft,
mr
for
for
some
of
those
ideas,
but
wanted
to
gauge.
If,
if
that
kind
of
idea
would
be
helpful
for
people.
B
A
That
sounds
good,
like
yeah,
that's
kind
of
what
I,
what
I'm
thinking
and
it's
it's
more
of
a
like.
You
know
how
detailed
and
how
thorough
does
it
really
want
to
be
because
we
don't
want
to
you
know,
create
too
much
process
around.
You
know
things,
but
we
can
certainly
put
something
together
and
then
use
it
as
we
see
fit.
B
Yeah,
I
guess
I
was
just
thinking
like
announce
in
affected
slack
channels
or,
like
here's,
a
list
of
some
slack
channels
you
may
want
to
think
of,
and
maybe
like
put
a
note
in
and
we
can
review
or
something
I
don't
know
we
that's
something
that
we
can
we
can
work
through
did.
Is
that
already
part
of
your
process
change
thing?
No.
A
A
But
yeah,
that's
it
for
me
for
the
most
part.
So
if
there's
nothing
else
on
those
topics,
you
can
move
on
to
yourself.
B
Thank
you.
We've
gotten
some
feedback
on
this
issue,
which
has
been
super
great
and
I
haven't
been
able
to
incorporate
all
of
it
yet,
but
I'm
gonna
start.
I
also
started
a
questionnaire
around
training,
maintainership
and
I've
been
thinking
that
once
that's
had
some
responses,
we'll
I'm
gonna
kind
of
take
all
of
that
stuff
together
and
make
some
proposals
based
on
kind
of
all
of
this.
So
I
think
we're
getting
some
good
information.
B
B
There
is
admittedly,
some
overlap
between
my
questionnaire
and
the
one
robert
made
so
sorry
to
everybody
who
feels
like
they
have
to
answer
questions
twice,
but
hopefully
it's
not
that
bad
and
I
don't
know.
C
I
think
the
only
thing
I
would
yeah
say
to
that
is
like
if
we
think
that
we
may
have
other
questions
like
but
yeah.
If
do
we
think
we'll?
We
might
may
have
the
need
for
other
questionnaires
for
these
issues,
because
we
think
we
do
then
maybe
we
want
to
try
combining
combining
some
of
those
just
so
that
people
aren't
getting
tons
of
questionnaires.
But
I
think
if
the
group
feels
like
all
right
this,
this
might
be
the
only
other
questionnaire.
Then
yeah,
I
think
that's
fine,
but
yeah.
I
would
yeah.
B
I
expect
I
will
want
to
send
a
follow-up
questionnaire,
and
my
thought
about
this
was
that
I
would
use
it
to
gauge
acceptability
of
some
proposals
and
basically
send
people
a
questionnaire
that,
like
has
them
rate
some
ideas
as
a
follow-up,
but
it
would
have
to
be
a
follow-up
thing.
B
Maybe
that's
a
terrible
idea.
I
don't
know
I'm
just
worried
that
if
we
send
out
issues
again
like
I
think,
issues
get
traction
from
people
who
feel
strongly
and
I
kind
of
want
to
hear
from
people
who
don't
necessarily
feel
strongly
too,
because
I
it
may
be
that,
like
one
person
super
hates
this
some
idea,
but
everybody
else
is
like
yeah,
that's
fine,
so
they
don't
feel
strongly
enough
to
say.
Yeah.
That's
fine
but
like
somebody
is
like
morally
opposed.
C
Yeah,
no,
I
agree
yeah.
I
think
the
questionnaire
is
a
good
format
and
I
mean
it
was
yeah
and
robert's
had
really
great
responses,
and
I'm
assuming
that,
since
people
are
so
passionate
about
this
topic,
they'll
like
they're,
not
going
to
view
it
as
a
chore
to
like
answer
more,
I
just
wonder
if
yeah,
maybe
we
want
to
be
like
before
you
send
yours
out
like
do
you
think,
maybe
to
just
put
a
call
in
the
challenge
and
say:
hey:
does
anyone
else
have
questions
they
want
to?
C
They
want
to
add
as
part
of
their
issue
or
something
and
then
yeah.
If
we
need
to
send
follow-ups
to
like
con
to
get
suggestions
on
things
that
come
back
from
that
one,
I
think
that
totally
makes
sense.
B
Yeah,
I
think,
having
robert
and
I
collaborate
if
he
wants
to
do
a
follow-up
survey
like
having
us
collaborate
on
a
single
survey
for
follow-up
probably
makes
sense
anyway.
So
there's
a
lot
of
overlap
there
cool,
so
any
other
thoughts
or
questions
on
this
all
right,
robert,
isn't
on
the
call,
but
there
are
82
responses
to
that
survey
so
far.
B
He
wants
to
know
if
we
need
more
or
if
we
should
shut
it
off
from
new
responses
and
start
consolidating
the
data
nick.
You
also
have
a
thing
on
here:
do
you
want
to
verbalize
yeah.
C
Yeah,
I
just
added
an
issue
to
that
exit
criteria
to
gather
feedback
on
approval
settings
changes.
So
I
I
think
I'll
broadcast
a
little
more
widely
this
week
and
I
also
talked
to
kai
about
it
a
little
bit
and
we
agreed
to
gather
some
data
on
suggestions
usage
in
the
gitlab
project
and
thanks
alex
for
walking
me
through
how
to
use
teleport
for.
C
Access
so
I'll
probably
try
that
out
and
see
what
what
kind
of
data
we
can
gather.
B
C
Yes,
yeah
so
sent
a
message
to
ems
for
feedback
about
the
projects
that
we
were
proposing
to
focus
on,
and
I
didn't
see
any
objections.
So
I
think
we'll
just
go
ahead
and
focus
on
those
five
projects
that
we
mentioned,
which
are
get
lab,
workhorse
shell
version
and
customers
dot
and
I
think
within
get
lab.
It's
sort
of
like
three
projects,
because
we'll
we'll
want
to
probably
do
some
different
things
for
back
end
front,
end
and
database
and
so
yeah.
C
My
proposed
next
steps
and
definitely
welcoming
feedback
on
on
this
idea,
but
just
to
try
to
find
representatives
from
each
of
those
projects
or
maintainer
types
in
the
for
the
case
of
get
lab
and
just
get
some
qualitative
and
any
quantitative
feedback.
We
can
get
about
what
the
perceived
coverage
gaps
are,
what
the
targets
are
and
any
ideas.
C
These
representatives
have
to
to
remedy
the
situation,
and
I
was
just
thinking
we
can
use
the
model
that
alex
used
for
database
maintainer
analysis
as
an
example
of
some
ways
to
look
at
this
quantitatively
and
and
to
just
think
about
how
how
we
might
want
to
how
we
might
want
to
set
goals
for
reviewers
or
maintainers
and
yeah.
My
question
is
just:
do
we
want
to
focus
on
maintainer
coverage,
or
do
we
also
want
to
include
reviewers,
because
I
can
see
I
can
see
it.
I
can
see
including
review.
C
I
can
see
people
saying
well,
we
if
we
had
more
reviewers,
maybe
maintainers
would
have
less
of
a
burden,
and
so
I
I
could
see
for
some
of
these
that
focusing
on
like
including
increasing
reviewers,
in
whatever
plans
we
come
up
with,
would
be
important,
so
just
want
to
get
some
thoughts.
There.
A
Yeah
I
thought
that
was
a
good
question.
This
is
something
I
recently
noticed.
I
posted
in
the
working
group
there's
a
new
dashboard
for
looking
at
community
contribution,
mrs
and
one
of
the
teams
that
was
overloaded,
I
might
be
wrong,
but
I
believe
it
was
runner.
It
has,
like
you,
know,
30
or
40,
mrs
community
members
kind
of
waiting
for
review,
and
I
I
looked
and
there's
only
I
want
to
say
nine
or
ten
combined
reviewers
and
maintainers.
B
I
was
going
to
say
I
I
also
do
have
some
examples
for
single
maintainer
projects,
projects
that
have
just
one
type
of
maintainer
as
opposed
to
the
rails
project,
which
has
like
a
bajillion
so
like
omnibus
right
so
they're.
They
need
to
be
handled
slightly
differently
too,
because
mrs
in
those
so
like
for
mrs
in
omnibus,
a
lot
of
them
get
labeled
as
distribution.
Even
if
they're
coming
from
other
teams,
they
also
get
labeled
as
distribution
if
they're
coming
from
the
sre
group,
so
it's
you
they
they
have
to
work.
B
They
end
up
having
to
work
a
little
differently.
Then
we
have
them
work
for
database
projects
because
the
database
project
we
just
look
at
the
labels
and
most
of
like
or
back
end
or
front
end
right.
We
could
just
look
at
the
labels.
C
B
May
also
want
to
consider
doing
that
just
for
the
other
types
too,
because
it
turns
out
like
you
can
get
like
that.
If
it's
a
community
contribution,
it
gets
counted
in
differently
right.
It
gets
counted
towards
your
broad,
mr,
as
opposed
to
narrow.
Mr,
I
don't
know
what
the
like
not
narrow
mr
rate
right
so
like
they
get.
They
end
up
getting
labeled
for
the
groups
that
they're
affecting
rather
than
the
like,
whereas
the
community
contributor
isn't
a
member
of
that
group.
So
it's
not
like
that
group
is
contributing
that
code.
C
Yeah
yeah
yeah
that's
an
interesting
case
and
I
I
think
to
e
yeah
your
point:
steve
yeah.
Maybe
we
just
want
to.
C
But
just
what
are,
what
are
your
projects
needs
overall
and
and
see
what
people
say.
A
C
Yeah
yeah,
because
do
we
have
an
issue
or
because
I
know
we
have
an
issue
or
one
of
the
extra
criterias
around
metrics,
but
is
that
more
for
the
actual
trainee
process
or
or
is
there
a
more
general.
C
C
Yeah,
so
it
looks
like
maybe
maybe
there's
some
overlap
here
with
that
extra
criterion,
just
trying
to
make
sure
that,
as
we're
developing
this
plan
we're
getting
the
right
yeah
we're
making
sure
that
we
also
address
this
exit
criteria
too.
B
I
got
nothing:
are
there
any
discussion,
questions
or
help
people
need
that
we
want
to
add
in
now.
B
I'll
take
the
silence
as
a
no
yeah
steve.
If
you
want
to
take
that
follow-up
for
the
communications
playbook
that
would
be
awesome
is
any
other
business
all
right.
I
think
we're
done
then
good
to
see
everybody
and
have
a
really
good
day.