►
From YouTube: Kubernetes WG Naming Meeting 20200911
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
Let's
go
hi,
so
it's
november,
9th
2020
10
34
a.m
in
pacific
time,
and
this
is
the
november
9th
meeting
of
the
kubernetes
navy
working
group.
I
am
celeste
and
I
will
be
the
host
of
this
meeting.
Zach
will
be
the
note
taker
for
this
meeting,
with
the
caveat
that
he
has
to
accept
a
delivery
at
some
point
during
this
meeting.
So
when
he
steps
away,
it
would
be
very
helpful
if
somebody
could
take
notes
while
he
was
away
from
the
computer.
A
Your
other
leads
attendant
at
this
meeting
are
stephen
augustus
and
jace
cannot
join
us
today.
So
this
meeting
is
an
official
kubernetes
working
group
meeting
and
we
do
abide
by
the
code
of
conduct
in
this
meeting.
We
also
have
working
agreements
listed
at
the
top
of
our
agenda,
which
I
will
read
out
briefly
before
adding
an
item
to
the
agenda.
Please
initiate
discussion
on
the
mailing
list.
First,
please
focus
efforts
on
efforts
that
are
underway
and
concrete
proposals
that
have
allocated
staffing.
A
If
you
have
a
comment,
try
to
chat
first,
so
we
don't
get
bogged
down
in
circular
discussions
if
you're
talking
more
than
listening,
please
be
mindful
of
others
who
haven't
spoken
and,
finally,
it
isn't
necessarily
the
job
of
this
working
group
to
educate,
attendees
and
harmful
language,
systemic
racism,
including
the
value
of
diversity
or
other
foundational
kind
of
awareness
topics
in
this
area.
We
are
happy
to
help
out
if
you
send
us
a
message
on
the
slack
working
group,
but
that
isn't
the
purpose
of
this
meeting.
A
So,
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
status
updates
on
our
pr's
from
last
month
and
let
me
just
pull
up
the
links
to
those
quickly
and
add
them
to
the
dock,
but
effectively
we
had
three
pr's
open,
but
one
was
around
our
framework
and
processes
for
evaluating
harmful
language
that
is
now
merged
and,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
is
how
we
evaluate
things.
A
The
second
words
are
processes
on
what
happens
if
a
recommendation
goes
through.
So
what
does
the
actual
pipeline
look
like
that,
I
believe,
is
also
merged.
A
The
third
was
our
template
for
making
recommendations
that
is
also
merged.
A
I'm
so
sorry-
and
the
fourth
was
our
first
recommendation.
A
B
A
Okay,
so
the
fourth
is
our
first
recommendation
around
renaming
master
two
main
in
context
of
github
branches,
and
that
also,
I
believe,
is
merged.
So
let
me
grab
some
links
for.
C
The
mailing
list
stuff,
which
has
all
of
the
er
links
in
there.
A
C
So,
just
to
note
on
the
master,
to
main
that's
so
we
merged
the
framework.
We
immerse
the
language
evaluation
framework,
as
well
as
the
recommendation
template
and
the
workflow
right
from
taking
a
template
from
recommendation
to
like
merge
status,
but
we
did
not
do
anything
around
the
master
to
main
stuff
master
domain
is
on
hold
pending
github
things,
but
there
is
a
tracking
issue
for
it.
A
A
I'm
so
sorry.
The
third
item
is.
B
Sorry,
I
can't
think
about
it
and
also
process
it
through
my
hands
at
the
same
time,
so
the
template
for.
A
Okay
and
I
apologize
for
kind
of
going
a
little
quick
off
the
bat
here.
Are
we
good
to
move
on
okay,
so
I'm
gonna
throw
a
link
to.
A
Aaron
kirkenberger's
recommendation,
which
was
merged
by
me
yesterday
and
I
think,
there's
first
off.
I
think
we
can
walk
through
the
board
at
this
point
and
start
actually
assigning
items
from
the
backlog
to
get
actioned
on
from
this
correct.
A
Second,
off
as
we
assign
action
items,
this
brings
up
a
comment
that
joyce
had
in
one
of
the
pr's
that
merged
this
month.
That
was
very,
very
useful
that
I
think
we
ought
to
talk
about
so
for
warning.
We're
going
to
talk
about
that
later
in
this
meeting
stephen,
do
you
want
to
take
over
and
walk
through
the
board.
A
So
let
me
summarize
it
first
and
then
let's
maybe
decide
if
we
want
to
talk
about
it
now
or
later
so
joyce's
comment
effectively
asks
the
question:
who
is:
who
has
the
onus
of
figuring
out
the
downstream
effect
of
a
recommendation
change?
Where
does
that
fall
to
do
the
analysis
of
like
okay?
Well,
if
we
decide
to
change
master
to
control
plane
across
the
project,
who
is
responsible
for
figuring
out
what
the
phrase
across
the
project
means
is
that
on
us?
A
Is
that
on
the
person
making,
the
recommendation
is
that
on
the
working
group
naming
leads
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
it
somewhat
informs
a
walk
through
the
board,
but
I
think
we
can
do
the
walk
without
it.
C
A
C
All
right,
let
me
know
if
you
can't
see
my
screen
cool
awesome,
so
we
did
some
light
grooming
of
the
board
last
week
middle
of
last
week
just
to
try
to
grab
things
that
were
in
progress
or
had
been
completed.
I
think
the
first
thing
we
want
to
do
here
is
see
if
there's
anything
new
and
there's
not
and
see
if
there's
anything
that
was
closed,
that
wasn't
on
the
board
before
and
there
was
cool
awesome
so
really
quick
grab
these.
C
C
All
right
so
so
we've
got
a
few
things
that
are
a
kind
of
review
in
progress,
as
well
as
generally
in
progress
and
some
things
further
back
they're
during
the
backlog.
C
So
with
the
review
in
progress
stuff,
I
see
lupimir.
Are
you
still
on
the
call?
Yes,
hello?
Awesome?
Yes,
so
I
know
that
so
aaron's
recommendation
around
replacements
for
general
replacements
for
control
plane
was
merged.
As
of
last
week.
I
know
there
were
some
questions
around.
C
There
was
a
cap
that
was
formulated
for
cuba
adm
around
some
of
the
paint
replacements
and
that
has
been
moving
along.
I
know
there
are
some
pr's
in
flight.
Are
there
any
things
that
are
pressing
that
you
want
us
to
touch?
First,.
D
No,
I
by
the
city
is
that
the
adr
is
in
a
initial
form,
but
I
already
linked
the
cubanium
cap
to
the
adr.
Potentially,
you
can
iterate
on
the
area,
adr
itself,
I
just
basically
based
on
the
concern
that
justin
had
from
last
time
on
this
call.
He
wanted
some
sort
of
an
official
statement
about
the
rename
itself
so
by
linking
the
kept
to
the
adr.
We
now
have
that,
so
the
only
remaining
item
for
120
is
merging
the
the
single
cubed
and
pr.
I
think
it's
in
the
list
already
yeah,
okay,.
C
It's
one
of
these:
let's
try.
C
Okay,
perfect,
I
also
added
myself
as
a
reviewer,
but
don't
block
on
me
if
it's
ready
to
merge
before
that,
since
the
adr
is
already
in
okay,
cool
awesome,
anything
else
that
we
need
to
unblock
for
you.
D
C
This
is
a
test
change,
primarily
okay,
and
this
is
again
informed
by
the
control
plane
suggestion.
So
nothing
too
contentious
there
pretty
much
a
search
and
replace-
and
there
are
a
series
of
these.
C
Now
these
related
to
the
guest
book
will
take
a
little
bit
more
work.
I
spoke
with
paul
last
week
and
said
I
was
going
to
help
out
with
creating
the
staging
repositories
for
that,
so
I
just
need
to
get
back
to
that.
Hopefully,
by
end
of
tuesday
I
should
have
those
stood
up.
A
larger
question
around
the
staging
repository
is
is
for
who
needs
to
own
them,
because
there's
also
one
in
there's
also
a
pr
for
this
and
kubernetes
examples.
C
Touching
files
that
would
generate
would
generate
docker
images
or
container
images.
C
So,
right
now
it
looks
like
I
was
checking
out
the
ownership
for
this
repo
and
it's
currently
under
sig
apps,
but
in
general
there's
pretty
light
traffic
to
it.
So
I
want
to
determine
if
there
are
more
appropriate
owners
for
the
staging
stuff
moving
forward.
Maybe
it
can
be
a
shared
apps,
contributor
experience
so
on
and
so
forth
repository,
but
I'll
have
a
I'll
send
a
note
out
to
their
mailing
lists
to
get
a
better
pulse
on
that
any
questions
so
far.
A
C
They're
two
people
but
they're
not
again
it's
a
light
traffic
repo.
C
Okay.
This
is
another
pr
for
mostly
test
files
and
review
is
already
in
flight,
but
it
looks
like
this
needs
a
rebase,
so
the
bots
probably
already
said
that
yep
cool-
and
this
might
also
be
yet
another
test-
one
yep,
okay,
so
the
test
ones
should
be
fairly
straightforward,
since
they
don't
touch
any
apis.
A
Okay,
the
only
question
that
I
have
is:
can
we
take
a
look
through
the
review
and
progress
ones
and
ensure
that
we
are
not
the
hold
at
this
point,
because
I
think
most
of
these
have
do
not
merge
hold
on
them,
and
I'm
curious
as
to
what
the
origin
of
that
hold
is.
A
C
Okay,
so
this
is
yeah
requesting
a
guide
to
determine
how
to
consistently
rename
things
which
so
this
is
aaron's
hold.
Let
me
I
can
jump
back
into
that
with
him
later-
okay,
but
mostly
it's
based
on
the
the
80
yard
that
was
landed
for
for
him,
and
this
is
probably
the
same
comment.
C
A
This
one,
I
think,
is
going
to
need
more
reviews,
sorry
for
the
guest
book
tutorial,
because
I
think
they
replace
it
with
terms
that
we
are
not
in
agreeance
on.
So
I
think
that
neat
one
needs
more
attention,
but
we
can
do
that.
Asynchronously,
cool.
C
And
same
same
bit,
all
right
so
most
of
the
review
and
progress
either
need
aaron
to
move
forward
or
more
discussion
regarding
the
guestbook
stuff.
C
C
C
C
All
right,
I
think
I'm
gonna
go
no
assignee
at
this
point.
C
C
Okay,
let
me
hit
this
one.
C
C
Again,
chat
with
aaron,
it
looks
like
for
this
one.
He
is
kind
of
looking
like
the
project
manager
over
that
over
that
test
area,
but
I
just
want
to
verify
that
before
giving
him
another
thing.
A
C
C
C
A
Right
and
the
official
recommendation
is
also
with
me,
but
I
think
I'm
gonna
pop
open
the
project
board
and
add
myself
an
issue.
Okay,.
C
C
C
A
Yeah,
so
this
issue
is
an
interesting
one,
because
it
brings
up
a
wrinkle
in
this
process,
which
is
we
translate
our
documentation.
We
localize
it
rather,
and
we
have
fairly
little
insight
into
how
localizations
proceed
because
by
and
large
we
are
an
english-speaking
community
and
these
are
not
in
english.
So
the
question
that
this
issue
kind
of
raises
is:
how
do
we
inform
downstream
participants
of
changes
they
need
to
make
in
terms
of
language
and
why
we're
making
them?
A
I
think
half
of
this
comes
with
having
a
formal
recommendation
and
then
going
to
the
localization
groups
and
saying
this
is
a
recommendation
that
we've
made.
So
please
update
your
documentation
accordingly,
but
we
don't
have
a
ton
of
visibility
in
how
that's
getting
done
and
that's
kind
of
my
discussion
item
there.
B
Yeah,
that's
I
have
thoughts
and
opinions,
but
that's
maybe
a
better
sig
docs
meeting.
A
So
how
about
our
action
item
on
this
is
to
take
this
issue
to
sig
docs
tomorrow
cool.
Do
we.
A
I
mean
it'll
be
me
or
zach,
so
I
haven't
been
to
stick
docs
in
a
few
weeks,
so
I'll
take
it
all
right.
The
other
thing
to
mention,
though,
is
that
there
is
a
localization
sub
project
now
headed
up
by
brad
topple,
and
that
is
a
probably
I'm
trying
to
remember
when
that
meeting
is
that's
probably
the
appropriate
home
for
it,
but
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
raise
it
to
sig,
docs
and
slash.
A
I
think
we
need
to
raise
the
official
merging
of
this
recommendation
to
sigdocs
in
general,
so
either
way
I'll
be
taking
it
to
that
meeting.
C
C
E
A
I
think
this
is
probably
it
came
through
before
github
made
their
decision,
and
this
was
tim
being
infinitely
useful
and
coming
up
with
a
suitable
alternative.
A
A
This
might
be
another
thing
to
bring
to
sig
docs
as
to
whether
that
particular
group
is
ready
to
do
a
branch
rename.
C
B
I
do
I'm
chock
full
of
them,
but
I
don't
know
that
this
is
the
appropriate
venue
for
them.
Okay
agreed
a.
C
C
So
I
yeah
there's
also
a
mention
of
wanting
to
pick
a
different
name,
even
though
maine
is
the
suggestion,
so
I
I
would
say,
let's
get
some
data
from
tim.
Okay
before.
B
A
Okay,
how
about
assign
this
to
me-
and
I
will
bring
it
up
at
the
next
sig
docs
meeting
as
well
with
the
goal
of
getting
more
information
from
tim
as
to
why
he
is
recommending
not
maine
and
then,
depending
on
the
outcome
of
that,
it
may
be
something
that
we
bring
up
to
sig
art
architecture.
Does
that
sound
about
appropriate.
C
Okay,
yeah,
I
mean
this.
This
cross
cuts
a
few
places.
I
guess,
because
you
know
from
it's
the
github
management
thing,
which
is
which
is
sig
contributor
experience,
but
it's
also
docs,
but
it's
potentially
it's
it's
repo
specific.
So
I
wouldn't
necessarily
say
it's
architecture,
but
in
terms
of
get
branchy
things,
that's
cross-cutting
with
contributor
experience,
as
well
as
sig
testing.
C
A
I
think
I
see
the
light
or
like
the
the
reasoning
behind
tim's
suggestion.
I'm
just
sure
it's
I'm
not
sure
it's
the
right
suggestion.
So,
let's,
let's
get
a
little
bit
more
information
on
that
and
then
see
if
we
can
move
forward
yeah.
C
C
A
Yeah,
I'm
personally
more
concerned
about
queuing
up,
allow
list
denialists
and
those
related
changes,
though
I
think
this
person
is
bringing
up
a
very
valid
point
about
clarity.
F
F
Oh
sorry,
my
microphone
broke
and
it's
only
partially
back
to
working.
So
I
have
to
speak
loud.
I
wanted
to
look
at
the
my
sequel.
Stateful
set
documentation,
change
that
was
under
the
website
repo.
C
C
I
think
this
kind
of
dovetails
into
the
examples
bits
right.
Some
of
the
let's
see.
C
Yeah,
I
think
this
needs
to
be
an
extension
of
the
current
recommendation
that
was
merged
for
master
control
plane
what
we
had
chatted
about
last
week.
The
leads
at
least
was
that
there
should
be
some
additive
motion
to
the
master
control
plane
recommendation
one.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
it
falls
in
line
with
the
the
adr
actual
template
now
that
it
has
merged
and
then
two
there
should
be
context-based
alternatives
for
things
that
are
not
necessarily
a
master
to
control,
plane
or
instance,
or
some
such
right.
C
A
Yeah,
I
think
kind
of
our
next
step
is
figuring
out
how
we
feel
about
different
replacements
to
the
word
slaves.
So
I
think
that's
that's
a
mailing
list
discussion.
A
A
F
So
so
it's
not
it's
a
it's
a
primary
and
replicated
database.
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
this
brings
up
is:
we
may
have
to
have
some
alternatives.
F
You
know
you
can't
just
globally
change
every
master
into
control,
plane
or
else,
but
I,
if
I
would
be
willing
to
open
up
a
topic
on
the
mailing
list
on
this.
F
C
So
I
think
the
first
area
we
should
be
concerned
with
is
replacing
stuff
that
is
within
the
project
and
that
this
kind
of
lends
to
the
the
context-based
alternatives
thing
I
was
talking
about
right
so,
like
the
the
master
recommendation
is
not
complete
right,
there
are.
There
are
contexts
where
we
might
suggest
something
different
from
from
control
plane.
So
this
is
definitely
one
of
the
contexts
or
if
this
was
kubernetes
specific.
C
This
would
be
one
of
the
contexts
right,
because
this
is
my
sequel
one
do
we
know
if
their
recommendations
have
already
or
do
we
know
if
their
terms
have
already
changed?
Is
it
primary
in
replica
right
now
my
sequel
hasn't.
F
Been
as
clear,
but
a
mariah
db
is
using
replica
it.
It
may
be
worth
going
to
mariahdb
because
actually
there
are
some
commands
in
there.
What
is
it
start
start
slave
or
yeah
start
slave,
which
under
my
sequel
can't
be
changed,
but
under
mariah
db
could
be
start
replica,
so
they've
gone
to
replica.
I
I'm
I'm
not
sure
if
they
consistently
use
primary.
C
Yeah,
but
instead
of
doing
that,
like
do
you
want
to
take
that
as
an
action
christopher
making.
F
Also
yeah
I'll
check
on
there
on
their
documentation
and
see
if,
if
they
do
have
anything
else,
they
reference,
for
example,
if
they've
gone
through
a
naming
exercise
or
they
reference
another
database
naming
convention.
So
I'll
look
for
those.
C
Okay,
so
I
would
say
start
up
the
start
up.
The
mailing
list
topic
kind
of
hold
this
pr
for
a
bit.
We
want
to
determine
if
it
makes
sense
to
given.
This
is
a
task.
Exampley
type
situation
and
mariadb
and
mysql
kind
of
you
can
do
somewhat
one
for
one
replacement
if
it
makes
sense
to
suggest
maria
db
instead,
then
that's
something
that
you
can
kind
of
check
out
too.
F
C
Okay,
any
other
questions
on
the
board
before
I
stop
screen
sharing.
C
A
Dokie,
so
we're
into
open
discussion
time.
Thank
you
for
your
walking
through
the
board
by
the
way,
steven
and
I'm
just
gonna,
rearrange
the
agenda
slightly
because
I'd
like
priyanka
and
kartik
to
go
first,
if
that's
okay
with
them,
I
want
to
make
sure
we
get
to
both
of
those
points.
So
priyanka
hi.
E
Hello
there
thank
you
so
much
for
having
me
and
letting
me
go
now.
It
actually
works
out
really
beautifully.
E
So,
first
of
all,
just
wanted
to
say
I'm
so
impressed
being
here
today
and
seeing
all
the
work
y'all
are
doing.
I'm
gonna
tell
more
and
more
people
to
go
to
your
meeting
to
learn,
because
this
is,
I
think,
a
prototype.
This
is
exactly
how
people
should
work
on
things.
E
In
my
humble
opinion,
anywho,
my
ask
of
this
group
is
just
that
we
stephen
celeste
and
I
are
all
involved
in
the
inclusive
naming
initiative
that
builds
on
all
your
great
work
here
and
connects
it
to
what's
happening
in
the
rest
of
the
industry
with
other
friends
in
the
ecosystem,
like
red
hat
ibm
just
recently,
someone
from
intel
has
started
talking
to
us,
we're
talking
to
standards,
organizations
etc.
E
The
hope
there
is
to
really
kind
of
make
this
kind
of
work
happen
everywhere
and
bring
collaboration
amongst
different
projects,
different
for-profit
code
bases,
etc,
so
that
people
don't
make
totally
different
changes
and
the
focus
is
really
on
people
who
are
wanting
to
make
the
change
we're
not
in
the
market
of
trying
to.
E
E
Now
the
inclusive
naming
group
is
meeting
on
thursday
next
week
at
cubecon
for
an
open
community
meeting
just
to
bring
lots
of
people
in
and
hand
them
actual
documents
that
our
beloved
celeste
is
working
on,
and
so
my
request
is,
if
you
folks
could
join
in
and
come
by
share
your
expertise
and
maybe
you'll
hear
a
thing
or
two
from
others
would
be
really
great.
I
have
put
the
link
to
the
to
the
session
in
the
document
here.
E
A
It's
priyanka,
so
a
little
bit
of
background
for
you
guys
who
don't
know
priyanka
is
the
general
manager
at
the
cncf,
so
she
is
basically
responsible
for
doing
to
be
fair,
priyanka,
I'm
also
bad
at
introduction
so
and
join
the
class.
A
What
we're
doing
there
is
really
trying
to
bring
together
tech
as
a
whole
so
that
we
can
come
to
agreeance
on
how
we're
replacing
things
as
opposed
to
doing
it
project
by
project
by
project
and
company
by
company
by
company.
So
it's
a
slightly
different
focus
but
like
very
very
related
to
this,
but
if
you're
interested
drop
on
by
to
kubecon
firefox
come
and
help
okay,
cardiac
hi.
Thank
you
for
joining
again.
G
A
G
So
I
couldn't
be
able
to
join
the
previous
meetings,
because
I
was
like
a
little
occupied
with
work,
so
I
discussed
on
the
same
email
thread.
So
what
I'll
do
is
like,
as
you
suggested,
as
a
list
suggested
I'll,
create
an
isolated
threads
for
all
the
proposed
topics,
like
the
terminologies,
probably
one
to
two
weeks
with
the
breathing
time
of
that
and
then
so,
because
I
can
understand
like
that.
G
G
G
So
yeah
I'll
do
it
with
like
one
to
two
weeks
of
breathing
time
for
each
of
the
terminologies.
So
that's
my
update.
As
of
today,
cool.
A
To
give
a
bit
of
background
for
people
who
are
unfamiliar,
cardiac
dropped
a
very,
very
helpful
email
thread
in
the
mailing
list
quite
a
few
months
ago.
Now,
at
this
point,
which
was
too
helpful
in
some
ways,
because
he
suggested
too
many
things
and
we
could
not
parse
them
all
at
once.
A
So
the
suggestion
going
forward
both
for
cardic
and
for
anybody
else
who
is
looking
to
make
new
suggestions-
and
we
are
at
the
point
I
think,
where
we
can
start
accepting
new
backlogs
of
suggestions-
is
to
the
extent
possible,
try
and
isolate
one
change
per
email
thread,
because
then
we
can
come
to
discrete
decisions
and
we
can
move
forward
with
discrete
changes
as
opposed
to
having
to
decide
on
five
things
with
one
email
thread
which
just
didn't
work
out.
A
Cool,
thank
you
so
much
for
really
like
doing
all
sorts
of
little
things
that
have
been
super
helpful
by
the
way.
Kartik.
Your
presence
is
very
much
noted
and
appreciated,
so
I
suggested
this
last
meeting.
This
is
my
action
item,
which
is
perhaps
we
should
meet
twice
a
month.
A
The
last
meeting
the
people
at
the
last
meeting
seemed
to
think
that
this
was
a
good
idea.
I'm
concerned
that
once
a
month
is
kind
of
slowing
down
our
progress
and
our
momentum.
I
know
it
slows
down
my
momentum,
so
the
last
meeting
agreed
to
that-
and
so
the
question
I
have
for
follow-up
is
right.
A
Now
schedules
are
hard
right
now
we're
about
to
go
into
kubecon
next
week,
right
after
that,
we're
going
to
hit
u.s
thanksgiving
and
right
after
that,
we're
going
to
roll
into
the
holiday
season,
which
means
that
people's
availability
is
going
to
get
very,
very
patchy
in
the
next
six
weeks
or
so.
A
B
A
2021,
that's
kind
of
my
feeling
too,
like
it's
just
we're
cruising
in
we're
cruising
into
the
end
of
2020..
I
don't
think
it's
worth
it.
C
It's
over
and
and
for
anyone
who
is
also
working
on
the
kubernetes
release,
which
is
out
tentatively
december
8th.
You
know
I
have.
I
have
at
least
two
release
team
members
on
the
call
right
now.
So
that's
that's
something
else
to
consider
as
well
as
as
well
as
lumiere
who's
gonna
be
working
on
the
cube,
adm
bits
for
for
the
release,
so,
okay
yeah.
C
So
I
would
say
I
would
say
I'm
I'm
in
favor
of
of
doing
twice
a
month,
but
let's
re-raise
it
at
the
first
2021
meeting
and
reconfirm
with
folks
and
then
and
then
change
the
calendars
over.
A
Okay,
I'm
going
to
change
the
note
reminder.
A
A
A
Yeah,
okay:
I
will
bring
this
up
again
in
the
december
meeting
and
regardless
I
will
change
the
the
calendar
invite
probably
today
or
else
I
will
forget
to
do
it.
Okay,
so
looping
back
around
to
joyce's
comment,
which
is
the
next
agenda
item
of
who
has
the
onus
of
figuring
out
hi,
zach,
sorry,
yeah.
B
Hi,
I'm
jumping
in
here,
because
this
is
a
really
important
question
and
I
really
want
to
discuss
it,
and
I
also
think
it's
important
enough
that
it's
worth
postponing
to
like
the
main
agenda
in
our
next
meeting,
as
opposed
to
being
a
coda
at
the
end
of
this
one.
A
A
No,
I
think,
that's
totally
fair
and
I
also
don't
think
it's
flaming
high
priority
that
we
solve
it
this
week.
So
how
about
this
joyce
has
a
very
insightful
question
that
she
posted
as
a
github
comment
review.
A
And
I
effectively
when
doing
the
review
tabled
it
and
said
we
need
to
talk
about
this
with
the
group,
because
it
was
indeed
very
very
insightful
and
zach
is
saying
that
perhaps
the
best
strategy
and
here's.
A
What
I
actually
think
is
the
action
item
and
the
best
strategy
open
up
a
mail
list
thread
talk
about
it
for
a
month
and
then
we'll
talk
about
it
at
the
next
meeting,
and
I
can
take
that
as
an
item
unless
joyce
would
like
to
start
a
mailing
list
thread
with
your
question,
because
I
think
it's
super
great.
A
A
Which
kind
of
brings
us
to
our
final
agenda
item,
which
is
yeah
no
indent
there.
You
go
replacements
for
slaves,
so
we
kind
of
we
figured
out
the
master
half
of
it,
but
we
haven't
really
settled
or
gelled
on
what
we
would
like
to
replace
the
honestly
more
problematic
half
of
this
phrasing
slave.
A
First
off,
I
think
I
would
like
to
see
christopher's
recommendation
thread
based
on
maria
dibi.
A
I
mean
this
is
where
we
really
kind
of
get
into
the
wrestling
ring
with
it.
I
think,
because
at
this
point
and
in
comparison
to
blacklist
whitelist
and
allows
denylist,
where
there's
kind
of
there
was
a
very
clear
path
that
the
community
formed
consensus
on
the
community
has
definitely
not
formed
consensus
on
what
it
would
like
to
replace
master
slave
everybody's,
going
in
slightly
different
directions
on
this
one,
and
we
kind
of
need
to
make
a
stand
which
loops
back
around
to
questions
of
how
we
decide
consensus
amongst
ourselves.
B
No,
I'm
curious
whether
well
I'm
curious
specifically
curious
whether
microsoft
manual
of
style
has
recommended
a
replacement
or
whether
the
google
developer
style
guide
has
recommended
a
broad
replacement,
because
those
are
going
to
trend
as
industry
standards.
I
suspect.
F
I
I
do
know
that
they
have
a
couple
of
options.
I
mean
they
do
mention
primary
and
replica
and
then
primary
and
secondary
and
controller
and
worker,
which
would
be
a
different
context.
F
So
there
there
are
a
few
choices
out
there,
and
I
think
I
think
you
know
replica
kind
of
works
if
it
is
a
replica,
but
you
can
also
have
the
standby,
which
is
kind
of,
has
a
different
context.
So
there
may
be
a
few
terms
to
select
from,
depending
on
the
context,
so.
A
Okay
and
that's
kind
of
a
a
thought
that
we've
had
at
the
lf
naming
level
as
well
is
that
some
of
these
are
going
to
have
to
be
context
specific,
depending
on
the
industry
and
the
vertical
that
the
term
is
occurring
in.
A
F
A
A
I
think
zach
is
right
that
probably
taking
a
look
at
google
and
microsoft
first
is
a
good
idea.
Can
I
give
that
to
you
as
an
action
item
zack
to
take
a
look
start,
a
mailing
list
slide
based
on
what
you
find
and
how
you
feel
about
it.