►
From YouTube: Kubernetes SIG Contributor Experience 20190410
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
A
Okay,
could
people
please
add
their
names
to
the
agenda
doc
under
attendees,
if
possible?
I
just
want
to
remind
everybody
that
we
have
a
code
of
conduct,
so
please
be
excellent
to
each
other.
Could
I
get
a
volunteer
to
take
notes
this
morning?
A
A
A
A
B
No
we're
all
set
for
next
week,
so
I
think
I'll
bring
it
up
then,
but
I
am
doing
a
office
hours
for
sig
windows
on
Thursday
and
one
for
cluster
life-cycle
on
Friday.
Just
to
one
of
them
has
a
major
new
feature
now
that
they
wanted
to.
You
know,
interact
with
the
community,
so
we
set
that
up
and
cluster
life
cycles
going
to
be.
C
I'm,
sorry,
you
want
to
be
I'm.
Sorry,
yes,
so,
let's
see
meet
our
contributors
is
gonna,
be
an
awesome
month
in
April.
I
was
just
telling
them
that
we
have
a
I'm
gonna
write
this
down
too.
We
have
a
cube
control
code
based
or
in
one
of
the
hours,
and
then
we
also
are
gonna
have
a
bunch
of
other
tours
TVD
in
the
afternoon
as
well.
But
I
already
have
four
people
locked
in
for
each
session,
so
we're
pretty
good
I'm
super
pumped
about
that
one
that'll
be
like
our
pre
cube.
B
C
B
D
F
C
C
H
Yeah
trying
to
find
the
document
here
we
go
so
we're
working
on
the
outline
for
the
content.
You
know,
egg
win
and
Tim
will
bring
that
back
to
us
on
April
22nd
I
want
an
overview
for
input
and
help,
and
things
like
that,
making
sure
the
content
is
up
to
date
and
correct
and
things
like
that
for
the
workshops
dawn.
You
mentioned
that
the
cigs
are
full
now,
which
is
awesome.
So
we
have
12.
Six
I
was
correct
on
right.
D
D
H
We've
got
a
bunch
of
people
there,
which
is
really
awesome.
So
thank
you
so
much
Don
for
driving
that
we
will
be
sending
out
a
bunch
of
emails
for
the
for
the
contributor
workshop
attendees
for
all
the
volunteers,
they're
speaking,
volunteers,
who
are
helping
out
and
things
like
that.
We
are
also
finalizing
some
swag
tomorrow
with
Deb
and
George.
Oh,
that's,
gonna
be
really
really
fun.
E
I
E
C
I
know
you
bought
this
all
yeah
I,
don't
I
haven't
seen
one
of
the
updates
on
the
POS
okay.
You
know
right
now
we're
waiting
for
I.
Guess
it's
like
what
chairs
to
approve
the
fact
that
they're
a
family
that
they're
affiliated
with
the
working
group
right,
yeah,
okay,
that's
the
update
there
we're
good!
You
can
actually
move
that
out
of
blocked
and
into
in
progress
to
it
if
you'd
be
so
kind.
Okay,
awesome!
Thank
you.
Yeah.
E
G
It's
blocked,
yeah
I,
think
we
are
unblocked
and
now
that
you've
given
me
that
context
I
feel
like
we
attempted
to
talk
about
sub
projects
having
leads
or
chairs
or
something,
and
then
there
was
much
pontification
and
we
decided
if
a
sub-project
just
has
a
slack
channel
a
mailing
list
and
it's
they
can
have
their
own
meetings.
Then
we're
happy.
F
F
There's
a
good
amount
of
backing
around
the
idea.
Right
now
so
might
try
and
push
forward
with
that
idea
and
they
screaming
out
people
that
haven't
been
active
for
a
year
sooner
rather
than
later.
So
if
there's
our
PR
or
an
issue
is
an
issue,
it's
been
a
couple
issues
that
I've
been
like
one
intestine
from,
and
a
couple
in
community
and
I
think
just
trying
to
bring
everything
together.
I
feel.
C
F
B
F
War,
so
for
specifically
owner
spawns
that
are
all
over
the
place
and,
like
there's
I,
think
it's
450
owners
files
in
KK,
and
we
are
looking
for
again
like
some.
That
does
have
more
knowledge
in
the
specific
area
that
you
want
to
get
in
the
paint
on
yeah.
You
know
just
being
a
look
at
the
owners
file
and
see
like
hey.
This
person
was
previous.
It
approver
in
here
I'm
a
little
unsure,
let's
and
another
another
sorry,
another
additional
behavior
would
be
if
they're
an
emeritus
status.
F
G
K
Iii
I've
been
gone
for
a
while
I
have
I've
never
come
back,
so
I
would
like
to
for
us
to
figure
out
what
the
value
is
on
the
emeritus
status
like
what?
What
are
we
trying
to
convey
here,
because
there's
a
couple
different
things
we
could
possibly
be
today.
Conveying?
Who
is
an
expert
in
this
in
this
code?
Keeping
this
piece
of
code,
who
has
a
prove
right
for
this
piece
of
code
or
just
like
a
hat
tip
like
this
is
cool.
K
K
Who
does
have
more
recent
like
experience
with
that
piece
of
the
code,
because
we're
moving
so
fast,
so
don't
think
we
need
to
mess
around
with
the
plug-in
it
would
be
like.
Is
it
work?
Is
it
we're
just
pruning
the
owners
file?
So
it's
like
if
you're
inactive,
just
remove
you
from
the
owners
file.
The
owners
file
is
supposed
to
be
reviewer
an
approver
right
and
find
some
other
way
to
like
hat
tip,
to
people
that
you've
done
a
thing
or
like.
Is
it
just
friction
wise?
Is
it
easier
to
just
comment?
K
C
F
L
L
F
L
And
I
mean
the
other.
Nice
thing
is:
if
you're
not
worried
about
people
putting
up
a
fight,
then
you
can
even
automate
it
right
like
we
have
sufficient
automation,
we
can
say:
hey
anybody
who
meets
this
criteria
gets
automatically
moved
from
the
owners
to
the
emeritus
section
of
the
file
and
and
that
even
decreases
degrees,
the
amount
of
work
we
have
to
do
and
it
decreases
the
amount
of
arguing
with
people
who
have
to
do
but
physical,
say
well
again,
proud.
You
know
not
proud
of
the
other
thing.
G
G
When
you
start
talking
about
having
the
bot
automatically
do
things,
you
are
kicking
the
hornet's
nest
that
we
actually
need
to
document
our
policies
and
codify
them
very
concretely
and
specifically,
and
then
get
people
to
agree
on
that
and
I
feel
like
you're,
going
to
run
into
some
challenges
there.
When
people
talk
about
what
the
significance
of
being
a
reviewer
or
what
being
an
approver
is
and
the
whole
question
of
status
of
being
in
an
owner's
file
anyway.
G
So
my
only
ask
is
that
like,
if
you
look
to
move
people
from
one
section
to
another,
because
look
it's
obvious,
they
just
haven't
done
anything
in
a
while
I
agree
with
you,
but
it
would
be
really
helpful
if
you
set
things
up.
So
this
is
done
in
a
recurring
manner
or,
like
other
people,
can
very
quickly
see
the
dashboard
or
the
report.
If
it's
just
a
one
shot,
I,
don't
think
that's
super
productive.
F
K
K
Maybe
we
tie
these
two
processes
together,
like
if
you
go
inactive
from
the
org
and
you
get
pruned
out
from
the
org.
That's
the
thing
that
Keys
us
up
to
go
into
owners
files
and
go
okay,
we're
moving
you
to
American
status
and
all
those
owners
files.
You
still
get
the
hat
tip
of
being
in
the
owners
file,
but
your
actual
privileges
get
pruned
back
from
board
membership.
K
K
F
C
K
K
G
C
K
And
then,
if
we,
if
we
establish
a
policy
and
set
something
for
like
what
the
America
status
look
and
try
it
out
in
like
a
repo
on
an
owner's
file
and
like
scope
and
really
small,
then
we
can
expand
that
out
to
be
like
okay,
on
that
same
cadence,
we're
gonna,
go
and
pull
back
order.
Membership
if
you've
been
asked
inactive
for
a
year
across
the
org,
then
we're
gonna
pull
back
your
own,
your
board
membership
as
well
and
then
and
then
keep
going
from
there.
K
We
need
to
set
that
what
that
bar
is
for
activity,
so
ensuring
that
we
have
accurate
like
we
have
a
set
bar.
We
understand
what
activity
is
things
like
that
are
being
mentioned
in
chat,
like
does
commenting
on
an
issue?
Does
working
a
project
board
does
what
is
it
that
we're
qualifying
as
activity
and
then
ensuring
that
we're
getting
that
actor
data
from
our
source
in
this
case?
That's
that,
but
this
the
report
that
we're
pulling
ensures
that
we're
capturing
all
of
that
activity
into
our
inactivity
process.
L
Okay,
so
wait.
We
went
from
moving
people
to
emeritus
status,
whatever
that
means
in
owners
files
to
now
deleting
people's
organs,
which,
from
my
perspective,
is
a
very
different
thing.
So
I
don't
understand
the
rationale
of
why
we
want
to
remove
people's
or
memberships
Duty
inactivity.
I
thought
the
whole
purpose
of
the
organ
birch.
If
was
we
verified
that
somebody
is
a
real
person
and
not
a
bot
or
a
hacker,
and
that
doesn't
change
if
they
haven't
been
active.
K
So
ordered
membership.
So,
from
my
perspective,
number
one
I'm
I'm
saying
that
we
should
stage
this
act
like
step.
One
owners
files,
don't
do
the
org
membership,
don't
go
straight
for
the
Orca
membership
step,
one
go
for
the
owners
files
and
then
see
what
kind
of
like
wailing
and
nashing
we
get
from
that
and
then
be
able
to
move
and
incorporate
your
membership
into
it.
K
Word.
Membership
and
pulling
that
back
or
membership
is
a
privilege
right
like
it.
It
is
tied
back
to
actual
system
privileges,
so
number
one
just
getting
word
membership
allows
you
to
LG
TM
anything
in
the
fork.
It
allows
you
to
run
tests
just
like
100
of
our
CI
tests.
Not
because
of
your
test
will
auto
run.
It
gives
you
certain
privileges
to
be
an
org
member
and
then
on
top
of
that,
there's
also
like
group
memberships.
K
So
if
you're
in,
if
you
have
write
access
to
repos,
if
you
have
read
access
to
repos,
if
you
have
admin
access
to
repos,
those
are
things
that
would
get
pulled
back.
If
we
prune
your
membership,
if
you're
not
using,
if
you
have
rights
and
you're
not
using
them
for
a
year,
you
don't
need
the
right
and
like
if
somebody
leaves
and
comes
back
I'm
fine
with
them
coming
back.
But
if
you're
gone
for
a
year,
you
don't
need
your
rights
anymore,
if
you're
not
actually
using
the
bit
that
you
have
I.
G
Personally
feel,
like
that's
a
hill,
not
worth
dying
on
for
what
it's
worth,
I
hear
you,
but
I,
don't
see
a
ton
of
risk
that
outweighs
the
goodwill
and
benefit
we
get
by
continuing
to
keep
it
as
some
kind
of
status
thing.
Another
thing
I
want
to
throw
out
there
in
general,
but
at
this
point,
I
think
we're.
G
Maybe
blowing
scope
like
I
have
actually
want
to
live
in
a
world
where
the
owner's
files,
basically
just
call
out
to
github
teams
and
then
use
a
file
based
management
of
github
teams,
so
that
that
way,
I
feel
like
cigs
could
more
consistently
have
a
consistent
set
of
people
applied
all
across
the
org,
as
opposed
to
having
to
maintain
sundry
owner's
files
scattered
in
arbitrary
directory
trees
and
whatnot.
So
I
wouldn't
want
to
overthink
this
too
much
we
may
eventually,
like.
G
A
C
A
C
B
Originally
I
was
I
was
expecting
to
just
go
over
it
line
by
line
with
Christophe,
but
I
wasn't
because
I
was
expecting
y'all
to
be
all
I,
don't
know
cool
next
thing
or
whatever.
So
I
was
thinking
just
like
opening
the
text
editor
and
then
we
could
go
through
it.
I
hash
it
all
out,
because
the
diff
I'm
finding
kind
of
unreadable
right
now
and
I
really
want
to
make
sure
that
like
I,
don't
know,
we
take
the
time
to
like
have
a
thorough
discussion
and
do
all
that
stuff.
L
You
know
we
don't
want
to
have
just
a
checkbox
in
the
registration
form,
and
so
they
set
up
a
whole
separate
event
which
is
now
on
their
home
page
and
I'm,
like
that's,
gonna,
attract
a
a
lot
of
people
who
shouldn't
be
there,
so
we're
working
on
that
we're
gonna
work
on
that
with
the
CNC
F
and
that
sort
of
thing,
but
the
AI,
and
as
soon
as
we
can
get
that
up,
then
we're
also
going
to
be
looking
to
obviously
attract
some
people
for
a
current
contributor
content.
Although
something
much
smaller
than
Barcelona.
L
B
Yeah
and
like
I,
get
the
feeling
that
people
were
generally
nodding,
but
not,
but
for
specific
each
issues
I
think
we
need
to
go
down
and
like
figure
out
exactly
what's
in
scope
and
what
is
an
out
of
scope,
so
I
can
make
it
more
explicit.
So
the
reason
I
wanted
to
like
tighten
this
up
is
like
the
original
Charter
was
like
not
detailed
enough
in
each
of
the
specific
things,
and
then
we
end
up
doing
things
just
because
they
don't
have
a
home
anywhere
else.
C
But
okay
I
mean,
if
you
let's
talk
about
it,
then
yeah
I
mean
I
feel
like
we.
We
did
a
lot
of
this
out
of
scope.
The
only
thing
like
I
said
and
that
email
is
like
the
fact
that
we
staff
this
stuff
is
it's.
What
is
out
of
scope
and
like
what
is
user
facing
and
what
isn't
is
necessarily
not
drawn
out
on
there
either
yeah.
C
C
One
that's
talking
about
like
we
could
take
out
the
words
wherever
it
says:
staff,
either
staff
or
yeah
Oh,
dirt,
staffing
right.
There,
ownerships
staffing
moderation
of
kubernetes
communication
properties
like
this
one.
That
line
can
be
revised,
but
at
the
top
you're
like
trying
to
take
out
establishing
guidelines
and
stuff
like
that,
but
I
feel
like
we
should
still
establish
guidelines
and
SS.
B
C
K
B
I
K
K
M
So
I
would
say
in
I
would
love
to
see
a
future
where
this
users
sing
or
whatever
we're
gonna
call.
It
can
participate
equally
with
us
in
defining
those
policy
standards
procedures,
but
until
that
exists,
I,
don't
think
we
should
ahead
of
time
discharge
that
responsibility.
If
later
we
can
share
it,
that's
great,
but
it's
still
in
scope
for
us,
we
would
just
be
participating
in
the
creation
of
those
instead
of
being
the
only
group
defining
them.
M
K
K
B
One
of
them
I
think
that
you
glanced
on
in
the
mailing
list.
That's
easy
is,
since
we've
only
had
ever
had
two
comments
or
whatever
on
the
YouTube
channels,
then
we
can
just
turn
off
comments
and
leave
things,
as
is
because
we
bumped
up
the
amount
of
view
YouTube
moderators
up
a
bunch
like
when
we
did
the
proposal,
but
there's
like
really
no
need
people,
don't
really
use
our
YouTube
to
like
chat
and
comments
and
stuff.
B
K
C
D
C
We
say
that
we
don't
moderate
your
list,
so
we're
only
here
to
help
you
in
times
of
like
if
y'all
are
like
on
a
plane
and
there's
spam
and,
like
you
know,
there's
nobody
that
has
access
now
to
the
list
from
an
ownership
perspective
and
we
need
to
give
access
to
other
people.
So
I
mean
we're
just
kind
of
like
there
is
a
fail-safe
and
also
the
way
to
like
make
sure
that
everybody
collectively
is
doing
what
they're
supposed
to
be
doing
so.
I
B
Okay,
if
I
think
absolutely
Falls
in
our
in
our
thing,
because
that's
used
by
the
whole
project
or
whatever,
but
for
a
lot
of
these
things,
it's
like
well,
the
cigs
aren't
doing
these
things
so
contributor
experience
should
go
around
and
make
sure
that
their
mailing
lists,
their
zoom
and
stuff
are
set
up
right.
What
I
want
to
ask
and
get
the
conversations
going
is
if
a
person
is
a
sig
chair
and
has
certain
responsibilities
and
they
should
have
those
responsibilities.
B
It
shouldn't
be
on
us
to
like
babysit
for
tea,
because
it's
impossible,
like
we've,
been
trying
to
fix
the
zoom
moderation
things
for
like
over
six
months
and
this
whole
go
to
every
sing
and
make
sure
they
all
check.
Each
spots
doesn't
feel
scalable
to
me.
I
feel
like
there's
like
I'll.
Ask
that
we
can
say
you
know
being
a
sig
chair
is
important
and
there
are
duties
that
you
have
to
have,
and
you
have
to
do
your
due
diligence.
B
You
know
just
kind
of
banking
on
contributor
experience
to
be
there
to
do
all
your
stuff.
Now
we'll
be
happy
to
give
you
best
practices
documenting
the
process
of
all
the
stuff
that
you
need
to
do
to
get
your
lists
all
set
up,
you
know,
oh,
maybe
I
am
going
on
a
plane
and
I
need
someone
from
contributes
to
help
me
out
for
a
minute.
I
think!
That's
all
fine,
but
just
defaulting
to
you.
Oh
okay!
Well,
we'll
just
have
you
know,
put
all
the
SIG's
in
a
four
loop
and
have
George
check.
C
C
C
Mean
watch
why
I
feel
like
that's?
Why
we're
making
progress
and
towards
G
suite
and
trying
to
think
of
like
a
holistic
strategy
here
on
how
we're
going
to
combine
all
of
these
properties
and
create
an
experience,
that's
more
enriching
for
our
contributors
and
like
it.
The
way
to
do
this
is
to
like
figure
out
what's
wrong
with
it
and
we
have
and
like
again.
That's
why
we're
doing
the
G
sweet
stuff?
B
And
like
so
I
don't
disagree
with
any
of
those
things.
I
just
think
the
question
should
be
steering
/c
ncf.
What
would
it
take
to
staff
someone
doing
all
of
this
stuff,
which
is
important?
It
needs
to
get
done.
I,
don't
want
to
say
that
it's
not
important
but
like
we
have
major
programs,
I
think
that
we
could
be
really
spending
our
time
on
instead
of
I
mean.
C
B
G
We
will
get
the
CNC
F
to
hire
somebody
to
work,
full-time
and
sig
Docs,
because
it
is
well
known
what
sig
box
workload
is.
Do
we
could
we
hand
C
and
say
F
the
description
of
like
look?
We
need
this
from
you,
but
I'm,
not
necessarily
saying
that
requires
that
we
change
our
charter.
I
don't
have
it.
It
was
literally
I,
don't
have
any
of
the
contracts,
but
like.
K
Should
I
know
from
a
like
in
an
ideal
world
I
would
agree
with
you.
George
you
an
ideal
world.
I
would
absolutely
agree
that,
like
hey,
so
you're
a
cig
lead
here's
your
list
of
responsibilities,
here's
the
things
that
you
have
to
do
lot
number
one.
We
have
no,
and
we
have
no
enforcement
mechanism.
It's
not
like.
We
can
say:
hey
you're,
not
doing
your
responsibilities.
You're,
not
a
cig,
lead
anymore,
get
out
right.
K
We
can
we,
we
don't
have
an
enforcement
mechanism,
ultimately
making
sure
that
those
those
experiences
and
those
communication
channels
for
our
contributors
does
end
up
falling
to
us
so
and
we're
going
to
be
we're
going
to
ultimately
be
a
backstop,
no
matter
what
so
doing
whatever
we
can
do
to
make
our
lives
easier,
whether
that
central
management,
whether
that
is
some
other
plan
with
whatever
we
can
do
to
make
our
lives
easier,
absolutely
behind
I,
think
like
either
strategy,
I
think
it
is
valuable
to
say
like
hey
if
we
have,
if
we
have
a
volunteer
work
force
that
wants
to
go
and
moderate
mailing,
where,
if
we
have
a
volunteer
work
force
that
wants
to
go
and
like
maintain
our
zoom.
K
My
fig
I
want
to
be
making
sure
that
things
are
healthy
in
that
sig,
as
opposed
to
like
following
documentation.
For
you
know
the
latest
zoom
the
setting
that
I
need
to
change
that
isn't
what
I'm
interested
in
and
I
know.
That's
not
what,
if
I'm
in
that
position,
I'm
getting
paid
by
my
employer
to
contribute
code,
that's
not
the
thing
that
my
employer
is
going
to
be
having
like
how
long
did
you
spend
today
reading
up
on
the
new
Zune
guidelines
or
what
have
you
right,
yeah.
B
So
I
am
totally
fine
with
throwing
this
entire
PR
away.
If
you
all
feel
that
we
can
do
this
without
a
charter
modification,
that's
fine,
the
only
thing
I
want
to
do
is
ask
steering
to
ask
CN
CF.
Basically,
this
we
have
there's
a
bunch
of
stuff-
that's
important
its
user
facing,
but
it's
not
really
contributor
experience.
A
lot
of
is
like
grindy
stuff.
B
Do
we
need
more
Platinum's
like
do
I
need
to
ask
for
more
money
and
then,
as
that
person
sets
up
that
thing,
you
know
we
look
at
things
like,
say
slack,
there's
some
things
that
would
be
responsible
for
us
and
some
for
them
right,
and
then
we
would
just
move
that
in
place.
So
that's
kind
of
like
my
my
idea.
There.
K
So
I,
but
I
want
to
I
would
like
to
separate
the
two
different
things
that
we're
talking
about
here.
There
is
the
grindy
moderation,
II
type
work
for
things
like
mailing
lists
and
zoom
that
are
that
are
off
their
contributor
experience,
we're
not
going
to
get
away
from
them.
We
maybe
need
more
help,
but
we're
not
it's
not.
K
There's
not
a
new
sig,
that's
us
and
we
will
have
to
deal
with
that
one
way
or
another
and
separate
that
from
like
buying
different
sig,
that's
user
groupie
right
now,
literally,
the
only
thing
that
I've
heard
that
in
that
to
me
is
clear,
has
a
user
group
focus
is
slack
outside
of
that
and
please,
if
I'm
misunderstanding,
please
somebody
clarify,
but
that's
the
only
thing
that
I'm
hearing,
that
is
a
hundred
percent.
This
is
def.
K
B
K
Tim-Tim
Hawken
is
an
admin
on
your
s,
so
we
have
we.
If
we
wanted
to
take
over
the
reddit.
Officially,
we
could
like
from
a
we
being
the
project.
If
the
user
group
focus
wanted
to
take
over
the
reddit
and
have
it
be
like
an
official
forum
for
reading
stuff
under
user
group,
we
could,
but
we
have
yeah.
We
don't
have
that
right
now.
Discuss
I
agree
with
that,
like
discussed
for
as
much
as
we
wanted
to
push
it
to
be
like
contributor
focused
as
well.
K
B
B
G
B
G
B
M
Think
the
next
steps
are
still
figuring
out
how
to
define
I,
keep
calling
it
a
sig,
even
though
it
may
be
a
user
group
or
whatever,
but
some
way
to
get
a
formal
organization
that
is
in
charge
of
at
least
user
support,
get
that
group
in
place
once
that
group
is
in
place,
we
can
figure
out
its
charter,
and
so
then
that
will
I
think
inform
what
we
take
off
our
plate.
So
I
don't.
B
Understand
why
everybody
thinks
that's
in
scope
for
us,
because
it
explicitly
says
because
someone
call
me
out
on
it
and
I
looked
in
last
time
and
I
looked
into
in
steering's
charter
and
like
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
it's
our
role
to
like
have
to
find
a
home
for
this
stuff.
I'm,
not
saying
unplug
it
under
night,
but
I
agree.
Steering
help
is
kind.
M
Of
what
I
want
to
do,
I
you're,
not
wrong,
but
practically
speaking.
If
we
don't
do
it,
it
is
unlikely
to
happen,
and
if
that
means
that,
like
you
know,
some
of
us
have
to
do
something
outside
of
the
context
of
contributes.
I'm,
not
I,
don't
want
to
sign
anyone
up
for
work
because
I've
been
trying
to
do
this
and
haven't
succeeded
in
finding
the
time
but
like
practically
speaking,
I,
don't
think
steering
will
actually
make
this
happen.
K
We
need
to
at
least
scope
what
we're
handing
back.
So
if
it's
slack
and
we're
saying
like
this
half
of
slack
is
us,
this
half
of
slack
is
not
us
and
we
need
a
home
for
it.
We
had
the
baseline
need
to
do
something
like
that
and
define
like
where
that
line
is
between
the
two,
so
that
we
can
go
back
to
hearing
and
say
like
this
is
what
we're
handing
back
this
is.
This
really
is
out
of
scope
for
us,
and
this
needs
to
go
somewhere
else.
A
A
B
K
C
B
B
K
Now,
later
effectively
by
policy,
they
are,
they
are
in
practice
in
practice.
There
may
be
some
stuff
that
like-
and
we
should
identify
this
if
we
are
going
and
modifying
like
settings
on
the
mailing
list
that
we're
going
and
modifying
stuff,
if
we
should
probably
be
tracking
that
so
we
know
when
we're
going
in
what
we're
modifying
and
what
like.
C
C
Because
that
is
a
code
of
conduct
issue
about
the
safety
of
our
zoo
meetings,
and
if
you
like,
the
contributor
experience
should
care
about
the
safety
of
our
contributors
and
therefore
we
need
to
have
chairs
turn
on
so
many
settings
that,
unfortunately,
the
global
account
cannot
handle,
and
this
is
again
a
part
of
the
problem
with
decentralization
is
we
can't
turn
on
some
of
these
controls
at
a
global
level.
So
now
we
have
to
go
to
SIG's
and
tell
them
to
do
of
it
and
hassle
them
to
do
it
so
yeah.
C
K
B
K
M
Think
that's
a
fair
characterization
George,
like
I,
think
I
think
everyone
has
agreed
that
there
are
elements
of
slack
that
sure
we
shouldn't
own
anymore
that
week
that
happened
organically
and
accidentally.
Similarly,
discus
happened
organically,
but
that
those
should
be
owned
by
somebody
that
isn't
contributor
experience.
M
G
All
right,
I
just
want
to
be
clear
and
what?
What?
What
are
the
next
steps
for
me?
That's
it
George
I
feel
like
any
time
you
spend
in
numerating
work.
That
has
to
be
done,
but
maybe
you
do
not
personally
want
to
do.
That
is
still
valuable
effort,
because
it
helps
us
understand
what
is
the
work
that
is
currently
on
our
plate
and
by
numerating
the
work
we
can
maybe
find
other
people
to
do
that.
If
you
are
explicit
in
spelling
out
what
needs
to
be
done,
we
can
either
grow
contributors
into
doing
that.
C
All
right
what
I
mean
I
think
that
this
we
should
still
talk
to
steering
about
how
we
think
that
there
needs
to
be
another
group
formed
I,
mean
I,
think
that
conversation
to
definitely
be
had
because
it's
a
worthwhile
conversation
I
mean
the
problem
is
or
just
I
feel
like
they're
gonna
say
like
okay.
Well,
let's
get
someone
to
run
it
and
propose
it,
and
then
we
all
just
kind
of
look
at
each
other,
because
none
of
us
have
any
cycles.
Yeah.
B
B
Been
like
six
months
of
a
loop,
okay,
yeah!
That's
why
I
want
to
bring
it
to
staring.
That's
I,
don't
even
like!
If
you
all
want
me
to
throw
away
the
PR
I'm
totally.
Okay
with
that,
if
you
just
want
me
to
do
the
one
change
I
could
totally
do
that.
That's
fine
I
just
want
to
get
it
on
steering's
agenda
that
we
need
help.
We
need
help
to
figure
out
how
to
make
a
thing
to
put
stuff
under
right
now
the
and
we
agree
that
slack
is
a
thing.