►
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
It
to
actually
do
something
about
it,
but
I'll
just
mention
a
couple
days
ago.
Maybe
a
week
ago,
I
saw
something
in
the
sig
release
channel
where
Jorge
was
like
hey,
be
careful
with
the
github
teams
that
you
ping,
some
of
them
may
not
paying
the
people
you
expect,
and
then
he
pointed
to
the
sig
scalability
teams
which
don't
have
so
like.
You
know,
sig
scalability,
test
failures,
six
scalability
a
peer
review;
they
don't
have
any
of
the
chairs
of
sig
scalability
on
them.
In
fact,
many
of
them
are
just
me.
C
B
E
A
A
Basically,
sig
sig
leads
sig,
the
army
is,
and
then
it
kind
of
has
just
gone
stale
and
like
it
did
also
have
to
do
with,
like
you
know,
the
kind
of
intersecting
discussion
a
couple
of
times
that
we've
had
as
far
as
like
owners,
a
Leo's
and
files.
Yes,
I
think
this
is
a
case
where,
like
the
teams,
as
they
are,
are
so
ineffective,
that's
kind
of
just
holding
us
back
swapping
out
teeth
like
owners.
A
Think
at
this
point
we
should
just
move
ahead
with
this
and
like
say
that
you
know
I'm
not
I'm
open
to
suggestions
as
far
as
like
the
proposal,
as
you
know,
which
team,
which
other
teams
that
we
should
maybe
keep
and
that
kind
of
stuff.
But
just
otherwise
like
that's
a
cop
and
you
know,
calm
it
out
to
the
community
in
roll
this
out.
A
Because
then
there
aren't,
like
you,
know,
test
failures,
teams
that
are
just
stale
and
not
used
and
not
updated
by
the
sake,
because
at
least
in
this
case
we
could
say,
like
you
know,
we,
you
know,
combine
whoever's
in
the
existing
lists
up
into
the
cig,
foo
and
then
sig
leads.
We
can
definitely
uptake
because
we
have
a
source
of
truth
and
then
PR
reviews.
A
C
A
At
least
from
our
perspective,
you
know:
here's
here's,
maybe
a
slightly
slightly
different
approach,
would
be
so
we
do
this,
but
we
do
it
like
we
just
turned
through
and
do
it
like
one
PR
per
cig.
So,
instead
of
like
trying
to
get
community
wide
consensus
on
that,
we
just
do
it
and
assign
it
to
review
of
the
leaves,
and
it's
like.
Okay,
you
want
to
update
it
to
herself
to
make
a
difference.
A
D
C
C
A
A
With
it,
at
least,
if
we,
the
idea
is
like
if
we
as
a
sub-project
make
a
decision,
even
if
it's
not
an
urgent
priority
for
us
to
dry,
it's
like
there
and
the
decision
is
made
that
like
this
is.
This
is
like
at
least
what
the
plan
is
and
then,
as
far
as
like
cutting
the
PR
things
we
cut
if
we
cut
them
as
individual
one,
but
then,
like
really.
A
Need
to
do
is
LG
TMS
to
get
it
in,
but
then
it
makes
it's
one
of
those
things.
It's
like
the
other
things
that
trigger
experience
does
like
hey
sigelei.
Can
you
go
and
update
your
zoom
settings
for
this,
and
then
they
just
never,
they
just
never
do,
and
then
we
can't
get
conformance
if
we
make
it
like
super
super
easy
for
for
the
chairs
these
things
to
go
like
okay,
here's
the
administrivia
thing.
A
A
A
A
The
same
chairs
to
just
ldcm
of
the
are
or
like
they
suggest
some
brief
changes,
but
if
you
want
like
major
changes,
let's
get
this
in
first
and
then
you
can
figure
out.
You
know
auditing
your
list
from
there.
Please
please,
take
this
on
and
go
out
of
your
list
from
there.
But
then
we
shrink
down
to
my
bus,
seven
or
whatever
team,
but
in
per
sig
into
three
and
they're
manageable
and
lighting
here
is
where
you
go
to
actually
do
them.
A
A
A
B
This
is
what
one
of
the
things
like
I
wanted
to
talk
about
with
the
board
as
I'm
trying
to
get
an
idea
of
what
all
the
sub
projects
and
everything
has
been
been
working
on.
It
created
milestones,
and,
ideally,
if
people
like
either
put
what
they're
playing
to
be
work
on
in,
you
know,
I
think
for
this
one
is
sorted
backlog
or
in
progress.
B
B
D
B
Can
share
a
link
to
a
sheet
that
I
made
and
actually
I,
think
I,
don't
know
if
I
did
already
I'm
sure
did
a
couple.
People
individually
of
it
took
the
entire
like
I
dumped
the
github
audit
log
of
when
they
joined
and
compared
it
to
our
current
work
member
list,
and
we
have
like
330
people
that
have
not
done
anything
in
a
year
and
a
half
or
and
I
think
close
to
the
most
of
them.
Also
haven't
done
anything
since,
like
the
1.10
release
is.
B
E
A
E
B
A
B
A
If
somebody's
been
inactive
for
two
years
and
doesn't
have
a
dead
bat
thing
which,
like
I,
you
know
this
isn't
perfect,
it
doesn't
track
like
tre
reviews
and
that
kind
of
stuff
in
the
way
that
we
expect.
But
it
does
track
like
you
know,
emoji
reactions
or
any
comment
on
anything
yeah.
So
using
it
as
a
source
for
an
activity.
I
think
is
fair
and
if
you
haven't
had
any
activities,
then
you
don't
necessarily
need
some
permissions.
A
B
E
A
Other
which
I,
which
I
also
think
affair
like
I,
you
know
you
know
even
I-
could
be
convinced
of
the
argument.
If
you
haven't
been
around
in
12
months,
but
you
know
eight-eight
a
teens
news
there
I
don't
know,
then
is
anybody
have
any
thoughts
on
the
actual
benchmark?
Strong
a
lot
was
strong
feelings,
one
way
or
another
I.
B
B
A
Yeah
I'd
be
okay
with
that,
like
something,
like
my
mind,
goes
like.
On
the
one
hand,
people
have
the
bar
for
membership
really
low
to
begin
with
and
like.
If
you
are
genuinely
going
to
be
active,
finding
two
people
from
Peters
and
something
to
sponsor
you
should
be
really
really
easy
and
not
being
an
order
doesn't
mean
you
can't
contribute
like
you
can
still
open
PRS
and
that
kind
of
stuff
like
if
it's
oh
I,
need
to
open
a
single
PR
or
something
like
that.
Nothing,
stopping
you
from
doing
that.
A
D
B
F
F
B
B
C
A
A
B
B
A
We,
if
we
remove
them
from
the
org
for
inactivity-
and
we
have
this
guideline-
that
you're
getting
removed
from
the
org
for
an
activity,
then
I
think
it
should
be
uncontroversial
to
just
do.
Okay,
one
PR,
we
were
removing
all
of
the
owners
and
moving
them
to
emeritus
will
get
their
approvers.
They
get
moved
to
America
that
the
reviewers
they
just
get
stripped
out
of
the
file.
That's.
B
A
C
C
A
Well,
beyond
the
only
thing
is,
if
we
get
down
to
like
18
months,
like
I,
think
the
first
time
we
did
this,
we
did
like
the
people,
who
were
extremely
extremely
extremely
fail.
If
we
get
down
to
something
like
eighteen
months,
and
we
set
that
as
a
guideline,
it's
also
possible
for
us
to
just
automate
us,
like
hey,
like
dead
fat
dump
out
a
report
of
people
who
haven't
been
active
in
18
months,
and
then
it
just
gets
like
run
through
a
script
and
everybody's
stripped
out
of
K
org.
D
A
A
There's
two
ways
that
I've
heard
people
look
at
kubernetes
order.
Membership
number
one!
They
look
at
it
as
a
commission
set
you're
in
the
org,
which
means,
as
the
bot
trusts
you
for
PRS
and
you're,
able
to
do
certain
privilege
bought
commands
that
we
don't
let
the
general
public
have
access
to
we're.
Now
at
a
point
where
we
can
assign
anyone
as
long
like
anyone
can
self
assign
themselves
as
long
as
they
comment
on
the
issue.
A
A
B
A
B
Was
one
idea
I
think
George
brought
up
and
I
was
talking
to
him
about
this
before?
Oh,
this
could
also
cause
other
problems,
but
be
just
set
up
essentially
like
an
emeritus
org
that
people
are
just
moved
to
automatically,
but
that
then
you
know
they
get
the
join
request
or
whatever
and
as
we've
seen
a
lot
of
people
don't
actually
accept
the
join
request
that
be
the
way
to
still
get
them
a
little
badge
that
still
is
associated
with
the
kubernetes
org.
A
A
So
you
know
the
the
current
structure
of
things.
We
are
the
github
administration
sub
project.
Basically,
this
is
the
discussion
forum
and
business-y.
Also,
this
forum
is
open
and
I,
like
I,
talked
about
into
that
meeting
yesterday
that
this
is
an
open,
there's,
an
open
forum.
People
can
join
and
and
talk
about
things.
A
A
If
we
have
like
a
proposal,
we
probably
shouldn't
just
asked
on
it
from
a
philosophical
standpoint
right
if
we're,
if
we're
defining
what
does
cooperate
before
membership
meeting
I
agree
that
that's
probably
a
bit
of
a
bigger
discussion
but
I
think
we're
finding
we're
having
a
first
crack
of
the
discussion.
Okay,.
C
A
Specifically
I'll
put
the
questionnaire
there.
Does
anybody
have
thoughts
and
feelings
about
non-technical
contributions
like
contributions
that
are
not
on
github
I
should
say
well
because
there's
plenty
of
github
contributions,
but
for
non-technical
as
well,
but
like
off
github
contributions,
contributing
to
kubernetes
board
members,
or
do
we
consider
those
are
those
are
those
something
or
like?
A
F
B
A
I'd
agree
that
there
should
be
human
review
of
this.
No
matter
what
like
I
want.
You
I,
don't
think
it
should
be
like
a
hundred
percent.
Automated
process
like
I,
should
be
relieved
some
human
backstop
in
there
to,
like
you
know,
even
if
it's
an
automated
process
to
open
up
the
PR,
there's
still
a
human.
That
means
like
LGG
I'm,
going
to
prove
us
to
get
it
actually
in
the
in
the
KO
repo
and
then
parable
is
running
on
it.
A
So
so
I'm
just
noticing
so
we're
we're
over
time
for
today,
as
far
as
takeaways
from
this,
the
github
team
structure,
that's
something
that
we
can
definitely
move
forward
both
and
we,
but
we've
agreed
on
the
kubernetes
org
activity
like
audit
and
removing
folks
I
think
doing.
Another
round
of
us
is
something
that
we're
all
agreed
to
like
in
principle
that
we
like.
We
take
that
and
we
move
forward
with,
like
a
team
of
time
horizon.
A
And
we
bring
that
divide
up
to
contrabass.
Both
of
both
of
these
will
need,
like
consequence,
because
that's
what
circuit
or
control
box
so,
but
those
that
those
at
least
word
we're
gonna
move
forward
with
I,
don't
think
we're.
Yet
at
a
point
where
we're
gonna
say
like
yes,
let's
routinely
automate
the
18-month
removal
yet
but
I
think
after
this
round,
I
think
that's
probably
like
the
next
logical
step
that
we
start
talking
about
is
like
how
do
we?
How
do
we
automate
an
18-month
removal
and
then
have
some
sort
of
like
human?
A
D
A
Maybe
you
wouldn't
even
automation
from
the
point
of
light
odd
script.
We
run
that.
Does
that
yeah?
We
don't
necessarily
need
the
joined
like
going
to
the
audit
logs
and
stuff,
but
going
like
hey.
We
were
almost
there
actually
at
one
point
right:
ass,
Lucas,
hey!
Can
you
dump
like
a
visual
report
from
from
death
box
and
be
like
any
any
people
in
this
word?
Membership
list
who
are
not
active,
like
you,
don't
have
a
registered
event
for
18
months,
like
I.
A
C
Okay,
I
had
one
last
thing:
I
wanted
to
just
sink
on
while
we're
all
here
which
was
moving
things
out
of
kubernetes
incubator.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I've
got
current
state
right.
The
two
autoscaler
repos
Sugano
scaling
believes
they
do
not
own.
That's
right
and
I.
Think
like
you
have
chased
down
the
maybe
sig
networking
was
going
to
talk
about
this
Bob.
Yes,.