►
From YouTube: Kubernetes Contributor Experience SIG 20180815
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
All
right,
hi,
everybody
welcome
to
kubernetes
contributor
experience
today
is
August
15th
Wow
time
flies
thanks
for
joining
us
first
things.
First,
I
just
want
to
welcome
everybody.
It
looks
like
from
our
attendee
list
here
that
most
folks
are
familiar
with.
There
are
some
names
on
here
that
I,
don't
would
anyone
that's
new
to
this
call
like
to
give
a
brief
introduction
about
themselves
and
don't
feel
pressured
if
not.
A
A
Okay,
that's
a
thumbs-up
George!
Do
you
want
to
add
anything
for
community
meeting
stuff
host
looking
for
hosts,
possibly
plus
one
all
good
awesome
office
hours
and
meet
our
contributors.
I
think
are
all
good
as
well.
Just
a
quick
announcement
about
meet
our
contributors
next
month
is
going
to
be
super
spicy.
A
The
first
Wednesday
of
September
I
think
that's
the
fifth
that
will
be
a
seven
person
steering
committee
panel
at
1
p.m.
Pacific,
so
that
should
be
super
fun
and
I'm
sure
we're
going
to
talk
about
things
like
the
upcoming
election
and
Aaron
and
several
other
steering
committee
members
have
signed
up
for
that.
So
if
anybody
has
questions
for
them,
we
do
compile
those
and
you
need
our
contributor
slack
channel,
but
there
will
be
a
lot
of
marketing
materials
going
out
about
that
as
well.
So
if
you
could
just
retweet
that
would
be
awesome,
I
know.
A
George
also
has
a
another
office
hours
session
this
afternoon.
So
if
anybody
listening
is
ever
interested
in
that
he's
always
looking
for
volunteers,
that's
a
really
awesome
show
that
they
do
and
Bob
and
Jeff
on
the
line
also
help
out
with
that
all
right
and
does
anybody
else
have
any
agenda
items
that
they
wanted
to
add
to
the
list
today
feel
free
to
add
them
to
the
zoom
chat?
If
you
can't
access
the
dock,
if
not
we're
gonna
go
right
into
Aarons,
because
I
see
that
crystal
on
the
line.
A
C
D
D
Aaron
has
put
out
a
PR
for
label,
think
that
is
definitely
one
of
the
easiest
lowest
hanging
fruit
that
we
have
like
consistent
labels
among
all
the
repos,
at
least
the
ones
that
we
already
know
and
already
define
what
it
doesn't
do
is
like
it
will
impact
their
experience
like
if
they
have
extra
labels
that
they
are
using
for
some
other
reason
in
the
repo.
It
won't
affect
them
at
this
time.
D
After
that,
been
things
like
branch
protection
and
making
sure
that
the
bot
is
doing
the
merges
getting
approval
bot
getting
the
the
lifecycle,
the
stale
closer,
like
all
of
these
different
things,
will
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
all
those
different
pieces
and
when
is
the
right
time
to
introduce
them
Oh
even
outside
of
just
the
co
grazer.
Most
of
them
are
on
for
every
repo
in
the
coup,
Brandis
org
itself,
but
it's
all
the
other
things.
D
So
it's
like
this
gray,
SIG's
or
client
CSI
I'm,
ensuring
that
that
wherever
your
repo
lives,
whichever
or
gate
lives
in
you're.
Getting
that
consistent
experience,
so
I
think
that
is
a
very
positive
thing,
at
least
from
my
outlook,
but
it
will
probably
take
some
time
to
work
through,
in
particular,
the
biggest
one
that
I
see
impacting
contributor.
Workflow
is
for
the
repos,
where
there
is
a
human
currently
clicking
the
merge
button,
transitioning
them
over
that
you,
don't
you
don't
want
to
do
that,
but
that's
not
a
good
idea.
D
A
D
Think
different
pieces
will
take
different
things
like
the
label.
Sync
thing:
I'm:
fine
with
doing
that
like
the
minimum
72
and
pushing
it
out
the
when
we
start
tackling
things
like
hey,
we're
going
to
take
over
your
repo
and
make
a
bot
do
the
merging
instead
of
the
humans.
That
will
probably
need
larger
time
boxes
and
more
opportunity
for
people
to
have
questions
and
have
them
answered
and
their
concerns
addressed.
D
The
the
other
thing
that
I'd
ask
like
everybody
here.
Who's
kind
of
in
this
contributor
experience
fold
is
keep
your
ear
to
the
ground
and
listen
for
feedback
that
maybe
somebody's
like
really
annoyed
with
something,
but
not
necessarily
enough
to
like
stick
their
neck
out
on
a
mailing
list
or
that
guy.
So
because
again,
that's
the
down.
That's
one
of
the
downsides
of
lazy
consensus
is
we're.
We
just
kind
of
push
forward
and
just
suggest
a
thing
and
we'll
suggest
that
this
is
the
way
we
need
to
do
it.
D
And
if
we
don't,
if
we
don't
hear
anything
we'll
push
forward,
but
I
know
people
will
not.
Everybody
is
willing
necessarily
to
stick
their
neck
out
to
hold
up
something.
That's
going
and
a
lot
of
these
other
cases
like
our
BOTS
and
our
automation
is
flexible
enough,
that
we
can
accommodate
other
other
situations,
other
workflows,
without
necessarily
or
explain
like
here's,
how
we
can
adapt
your
workflow
to
work
with
our
automation.
We
can.
D
A
Make
sense
to
let
everybody
in
this
call
or
on
this
call
or
watching
the
recording
we
give
13
other
cigs,
especially
larger
technical
SIG's,
to
to
let
people
know
that,
there's
some
activity
going
on
I
guess
we
can
always
feel
free
to
copy
and
paste
the
stuff
that
Aaron
just
put
into
the
agenda
too.
So
if
anybody
else
has
on
any
sync
calls
just
let
the
SIG's
know
that
there
there's
some
stuff
that
they
should
be
looking
out
for
from
a
contributor
workflow
perspectives.
I.
D
Might
even
yeah
laryngeal
studies
gonna
be
talked
about
in
the
community
meeting.
I
might
send
out
a
note
as
well
to
the
sig
leads
list
as
well,
and
just
let
them
know
like
hey
we're
gonna
be
doing
more
things.
We're
trying
to
like
unite
the
experience
across
the
entire
project,
and
if
you
have
comments,
feedback
complaints,
please
do
bring
them
to
us
because
we're
family
yeah.
C
D
D
Okay,
I
just
put
in
the
meeting
notes,
so
there's
there's
an
issue
that
I
had
opened
up
requesting
comment
about
how
we
structure
our
github
teams.
What
they're
named?
What
is
the
kind
of
base
level
standard
that
we
expect
every
cig
to
have,
because
we
used
to
have
this
sprawl
of
like
seven
teams,
that
we
expected
everybody
to
have?
Not
everybody
did,
and
there
be
times
where
BOTS
and
automation
would
like,
expect
a
team
to
be
there
and
would
paint
a
team,
but
that
team
doesn't
exist.
All
sorts
of
mess
around.
D
Then
we
expect
everything
to
have
and
then
a
cig
if
they
want
to
create
more
teams,
if
there's
more
like
unique
roles,
or
they
want
to
set
up
their
notification
slightly
different
leaves.
That
would
be
completely
up
to
the
sig.
But
I
proposed
basically
having
like
a
core
like
a
cig,
foo
team.
That
is
just
like
the
sig
itself.
D
Sig
few
leaves
or
sig
food
chairs,
just
like
from
technical
leads
I
had
put
in
their
leads,
just
as
a
combination
of
the
chair
and
technical
lead
roles
like
the
leadership
of
a
particular
sig
because
they
might
have
chairs
they
might
have
technical
leads,
they
might
have
a
combination
of
the
two
they
not
depending
on
their
charter,
but
basically
SiC
food.
Six,
who
leads
sick
food,
PR
reviews,
so
you'd
have
a
specific
github
team
to
ping.
If
you
need
somebody
to
pick
up
a
PR
review,
that's
what
I
suggested.
There's
some
comments
on
there.
D
If
anybody
has
any
other
input,
that
would
be
great
I.
Think
probably
my
next
step
would
be
formalizing
that
I
wouldn't
actually
driving
like
hey
we're
gonna
we're
gonna.
Do
this
and
we're
gonna
make
sure
that
your
team's
early
structured
in
this
way
and
if
you
still
want
these
other
teams
like
if
you
want
an
API
reviews
team
or
you
want
a
like
yeah,
if
you
want
more
teams
than
that
great,
but
you
can
do
that.
D
But
we
expect
every
cig
to
have
these
teams
and
structured
like
this,
and
if
you
don't
want
the
extra
teams,
then
we'll
clean
them
up
and
that
would
be
great
to
have
anybody.
Has
he
comments
on
that
I
think
putting
them
on
the
issue
would
be
great
if
anybody
has
any
thoughts
about
scheduling
and
driving
that
forward.
That's
just
been
one
that
I've
wanted
to
do,
but
have
not
had
the
cycles
to
drive
forward
and
talk
to
people
and
evangelize
and
then
make
happen.
E
I
do
feel
like
if
people
who
are
having
trouble
with
github
notifications
are
the
people
who
would
complain
about
this
and
they're.
The
people
that
are
gonna
see
this
it's
kind
of
a
recursive
problem.
So
how
do
we?
How
do
we
get
to
people
like
Brian
grant?
Who
will
absolutely
refuse
to
use
these
ghetto
groups
period?
I
mean
I
can
talk
to
him,
but
he's
he's
just
one
of
many
that
that
has
given
up
on
getting
notifications.
D
Well,
I
think
like
there's.
At
least
this
is
just
my
opinion
and
my
viewpoint
as
somebody
who
gets
a
lot
of
github
notifications
himself
and
has
to
manage
those
I
think
everybody
kind
of
has
their
own
system.
Some
people
do
them
by
email
and
triage
them
through
their
email.
Tim
Hawken
has
had
put
out
to
the
email
list.
Like
here's
my
example
gmail
rules-
and
this
is
how
I
triage
a
lot
of
that
stuff
through
through
Gmail.
D
D
D
D
Yeah,
the
one
your
George
Lincoln
and
chop
I
put
in
the
meeting
notes
as
well.
We
do
have
a
PR
dashboard
that
you
can
kind
of
view
your
own
PRS
and
which
ones
are
still
kind
of
sort
of
pending
on
you
and
triage.
That
way,
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways
to
handle
those
those
notifications
but
I
think
one
of
the
biggest
problems
we've
had
with
the
github
teams
is
that
there
are
it's
not
really
trance,
apparently
enjoying
it's
difficult
to
join
and
github
team.
D
You
can
request,
there's
a
button
if
you're,
not
a
member,
you
can
request
to
join,
but
I
found
that
the
notifications
for
those
are
really
flaky
like
sometimes
I
will
get
a
request
to
join
a
github
team
and
other
times.
I
will
not,
but
I
think
that
problem
will
go
away
when
we
have
the
parabola
tool
in
our
setup
to
be
able
to
manage
those
from
a
mo
file.
D
So
if
somebody
wants
to
join
a
github
team
like
a
peer
review
team,
then
they
do
a
pull
request
into
the
repo
and
add
their
name,
and
then
it
gets
approved
by
the
cig
and
then
they
can
get
get
those
pings
and
then
they
can
manage
the
notifications
themselves
like
it
will
don't
be
subscribed
to
the
notifications
and
then
can
manage
those.
However,
they
choose
to
manage
them,
whether
it's
through
PR
dashboard,
whether
it's
through
a
third
party
tool
Gmail.
Whatever.
A
D
You
can
do
whatever
your
sig
allows
you
to
do,
because
we're
not
I,
don't
think
we
have
firm
guidance
on
mandating.
You
need
to
have
these
teams
right
now.
I
would
want
to
I
may
may
double
check
the
documentation
on
what
we're
mandating
I
personally,
don't
care
if
you
go
and
remove
the
teams
for
sig
testing
I,
don't
feel
like
I
want
to
mess
with
contributor
experiences
teams
until
we
have
a
defined
like
goal
of
where
we're
going.
D
D
I
can
definitely
like
guide
and
help
but
like
if
somebody
wants
to
drive
this
forward.
As
far
as
like
writing,
something
out
to
Cade
out
and
the
sig
leads
and
be
like
hey
here's,
what
we're
going
to
do!
Here's!
What
the
proposal
is.
Please
leave
comments
or
we're
gonna.
Do
this
in
a
time
box
and
just
be
able
to
write
that
up,
send
it
out
to
the
list
and
then
manage
the
time
box
once
it's
actually
done
the
the
clicking
to
setup
change
deal
with
the
teams.
That's
the
easy
part!
D
But
if
somebody
wants
to
do
that,
feel
free
to
ping
out
a
band
and
we
can
help
set
you
up
and
it
would
be,
you
know
if
you
want
to
get
your
name
out
in
front
of
the
community
as
far
as
driving
the
stuff
board.
This
is
a
pretty
simple
way
to
just
kind
of
manage
it
and
get
the
time
box
out
and
answer
the
questions
as
I
come
in.
So.
G
D
D
A
A
A
D
Just
want
to
evangelize
hear
that
there's
a
proposal
out
to
change
the
requesting
complete
membership
in
the
community,
as
well
as
like
the
github
orgs
that
procedure,
there's
a
PR
open
to
change
that.
Basically
right
now,
it's
going
through
an
email
list.
The
email
list
is
not
great
and
it's
hard
to
track
and
things
kind
of
get
missed
as
far
as
like
with
which
person
is
handling
a
particular
a
particular
thread.
D
So
we're
going
to
transition
that
over
to
opening
a
github
issue,
we
have
like
a
github
issue,
template
against
the
kubernetes
org
repo.
So
the
proposal
is
basically
change.
Changing
our
official
procedures
that
if
somebody
wants
membership
in
any
of
our
oars
like
if
they
want
to
become
a
member
of
the
community
or
if
they
are
already
a
member
of
like
one
org,
but
they
want
to
apply
for
that
membership
in
a
different
or
Gaz.
D
A
A
Alright,
so
next
item
on
the
list,
we
actually
have
all
three
election
officials
on
the
line.
Right
now
the
steering
committee
elections
are
coming
up.
For
those
that
don't
know
last
year
was
actually
our
first-ever
steering
committee
election.
There
was
an
abstract
committee,
mostly
founders,
and
then
they
added
some
more
folks
on
to
make
a
group
of
13
people
with
the
intended
goal
of
having
seven
eventually
for
more
of
a
permanent
I
guess,
structure
nothing's
ever
permanent,
but
more
permanent
than
what
the
bootstrap
committee
was.
We
are
starting
that
process.
A
The
the
hot
link
in
the
agenda
is
to
our
first
kick-off
issue,
George
on
the
line
you're
on
the
line.
I
myself
are
the
election
officials.
We
actually
pulled
the
data
today
for
the
eligibility
members,
so
there
also
be
a
exception
form
that
will
come
out
so,
if
you're
not
necessarily
on
the
eligible
eligible
list,
but
believe
that
you
should
have
a
vote.
Nsa
in
this
election
you'll
fill
out
that
form
and
then
we'll
keep
the
process
moving
from
there.
A
A
Nothing
dad
okay,
cool
and
yeah.
So
this
this
election
cycle,
we
have
three
seats
up
for
grabs
and
nomination,
we'll
do
a
call
for
nominations
and
all
kinds
of
super
fun
activities.
So
all
the
side,
political
science
folks
out
there.
This
is
the
cool
stuff,
I,
think
+12
Eeyore
all
right.
Any
questions
about
that
from
a
high
level
like
I,
said,
you'll,
see
in
the
issue
that
this
is
literally
the
kickoff
we're
planning
stuff
Aaron's,
making
a
great
face.
E
I
mean
it
may
be:
is
it
specific
to
the
election,
though
meaning
that
like
yes,
you
can
only
have
X
hundred
percent
from
from
people,
but
maybe
people
don't
necessarily
know
that
only
one
Googler
could
get
elected
this
time.
Is
it
you
know
what
I
mean
you
assume
saying
about
it
being
specific
to
this
election,
so.
A
E
E
May
be
putting
makeup
of
the
people
who
were
the
seats
are
for
election
or
I?
Don't
know
just
it
feels
like
that's
a
critical
piece
of
information
that
people
people
are.
If
they
don't
know
that
they
could.
You
know
it
could
change
that.
Has
material
impact
on
people's
decision
to
run
or
not
I
mean.
H
It's
gonna
say
it:
it
gives
people
informed
knowledge
on
the
situation,
which
has
impacts
like
if
a
bunch
of
people
are
gonna
run
from
a
company
and
a
bunch
of
them
would
say
you
know,
I'd
want
to
be
the
second
or
third
person,
as
J
said.
Well,
then,
maybe
they'll
drop
out
so
that
other
person
would
get
more
votes
from
their
company
and
throw
their
weight
behind
that
person,
because
they
would
rather
see
that
person
do
it.
H
Here
we
need
other
people
from
other
companies
and
that
could
also
encourage
people
to
say
you
know
what
it's
not
just
gonna
be
stacked
with
there's
this
many
positions,
and
so
it's
just
gonna
go
to
Google
or
it's
just
gonna
go
to
Microsoft.
It's
just
gonna
go
to
some
of
these
companies
because
we
need
that
diversity
and
it
lets
them
know
hey
sign
up.
It's
not
just
gonna.
Go
this
way,
no
matter
how
popular
they
end
up
being
because
we
need
that
diversity.
Kind
of
it
gives
informed
disclosure
on
this.
A
And
said
in
chat,
I
see
nothing
wrong
with
refreshing
us
all
in
the
fact
that
these
cases
are
accounted
for
in
the
rules,
but
I
don't
feel
a
need
to
play
out
scenarios
I
think
the
scenarios
is
kind
of
what
I
was
hanging
on
to
like.
We
can
definitely
like
I
can
like
a
copy
and
paste
some
of
the
rules
into
the
announcement
email.
If,
if
that
would
like
call
that
out,
I
feel.
E
E
So
that
so,
if
they're,
not
if
their
positions
are
not
being
replaced
and
it's
an
election
of
a
subset
of
people
and
the
Ergo,
the
bootstrap
community
members
are
hanging
on
to
those
seats,
it's
not
necessarily
obvious
I,
guess
I'm
trying
to
explain
something
that
I'm
having
a
hard
time
explaining
is
I.
Have
none
my
coffee,
yet
it
isn't
necessarily
somebody's
gonna
have
to
go
in
and
actually
do
the
math
to
understand
what
the
implications
of
the
company
affiliation
are.
It's
not
it's
not
straightforward.
D
Well
I'd
say
it
I'd
say
it's
kind
of
tough,
because
at
the
same
time
as
like
you
know,
the
there
is
a
clause
around
the
max
representation
that
a
company
can
have.
We
also
clearly
call
out
in
the
rules
that,
like
there
is
very
limited
to
no
corporate
campaigning,
we're
supposed
to
be
electing
people
to
the
steering
committee
based
on
their
individual
contributions
to
the
project
as
opposed
to
electing
them,
because
of
or
in
spite
of
their
corporate
affiliation.
D
So
it's
kind
of
I
know
it
doesn't
really
seem
clear,
at
least
from
my
perspective
like
how
much
we
want
to
highlight
or
talk
about
that,
even
though
it
is
very
true
that
it
is,
it
is
something
that
will
impact
the
election.
If
there
are
multiple
people
from
you
know,
accompanying
Google
being
one
run,
but
there's
also
like
multiple
people
on
the
steering
committee
from
Red,
House
and
Microsoft
yeah.
E
E
Yeah
I
think
that
helps
any
anything
in
that
direction.
Helps
it's
just
it.
It's
I'm
just
telling
you
it's
not
necessarily
super
straightforward
to
understand
what
the
limits
are.
If
you
don't,
if
you
walk
into
this
blind-
and
you
don't
know
if
you
haven't
been
involved-
you're
really
not
going
to
know
easily
how
many
people
from
any
given
company
could
be
elected.
That's
all.
A
A
Have
that
in
there
too,
on
the
steering
committee
read
me
and
we're
linking
to
that
in
the
in
the
copy
of
the
announcement
that's
going
out
today,
I
mean
the
constant
that's
going
out
is
gonna
have
three
major
documents
attached
and
all
of
the
calls,
so
the
call
for
nominee
is
to
call
for
for
membership
to
vote.
So
all
of
that
detail,
it's
gonna,
be
spelled
out
in
there
Matt.
So.
E
A
The
results
of
an
election
101
second
I'm,
trying
to
get
appear
to
read
it
if
the
result
of
an
election
result
in
greater
than
one-third
representation,
the
lowest
vote,
getters
from
any
particular
company,
will
be
removed
until
representation
on
the
committee
is
less
than
one
third
that's
buried
in
steering.
We
need
to
have
everything
anyone
needs
in
the
voter
guide.
We
can't
ask
people
to
take
through
steering
Rico
and
we're
not
where
we
are
actually
putting
it
in
the
voters
guide,
as
well
as
the
announcement
that's
going
out
today.
I.
F
H
You
know
we
have
a
hard
time
getting
people
to
read
the
manual.
So
what
would
a
tldr
look
like?
What
would
something
simple
that
helps?
People
come
to
the
implications,
and
maybe
it
doesn't
go
out
as
part
of
the
technical
process
and
somebody
does
it
as
a
separate
thing,
but
I
think
to
have
well-informed
as
best
we
can,
given
that
people
just
don't
tend
to
read.
The
docs
is
just
something
to
think
about.
I
A
I
A
Re
and
like
I
said
this
is
just
kicking
off
the
process.
We
vote
camera
or
the
details
on
my
right
now,
September
something
1519
something
around
there
and
then
we
announce
first
week
of
October.
That
goes
like
October
4th,
okay
George.
So
what's
the
work
item
here
for
me
to
add
representation
thing
to
the
voter
guide?
Yes,
yes
and
I-
guess
link
also
linked
to
the
steering
committee
charter
link
to
everything.
That's
in
the
announcements
election
copy
right
now,
where
it
says
copy
under
subject,
insert
link
for
elections.
A
D
Just
think,
the
only
thing
that
maybe
make
it
clearer
is
the
magic
number
is
for
right
now,
there's
a
12
seat,
steering
committee:
you
can't
have
more
than
four
from
a
company
based
on
the
1/3
representation
in
this
election
so
like.
If
you
have
four
great,
if
you
have
five,
then
somebody
will
probably
will
get
bumped
off
the
like
it'll
go
to
the
next
person,
because
you
can't
have
five
from
one
company.
D
A
Alright,
a
orange
orange-
let's
talk
about
this
later
as
far
as
making
sure
that
this
is
somehow
over
year
without
bias
or
discouraging
people
to
nominate
themselves,
because
that's
literally
the
last
thing
that
I
want
to
do
here
are
the
concerns.
But
if
somebody
wants
to
run,
they
should
run,
and
you
know
if
they
have
the
sponsors
to
run,
they
should
run.
A
A
It's
been
I
think
at
least
16
to
20.
At
this
point,
I
don't
have
the
results
in
front
of
me,
but
I
also
have
not
closed.
The
poll
I
was
thinking
of
keeping
it
open
for
a
few
more
days
and
then
sending
out
a
reminder,
one
more
time
and
saying
that
we'll
discuss
on
the
call
next
week
to
see
what
that
looks
like
for
those
that
don't
know
on
the
the
contributor
experience
mailing
list,
there
was
a
doodle
poll
that
went
out
for
a
global
meeting
time
change.
A
The
only
change
that's
going
to
happen
is
to
one
out
of
four
of
our
monthly
meetings,
the
other
three
or
four,
depending
on
the
month.
How
many
Wednesday
is
there
are
like,
depending
on
the
month
three
three
of
those
meetings
would
still
stay
at
this
exact
time
and
then
the
other
one
would
be
going
to
the
winner
of
this
doodle
poll
else.
He's
taking
the
morning
I'm
taking
the
night
time
specific
and
kristoff
and
G
rod
are
going
to
help
us
out
with
if
we
need
it
or
come
on.
A
A
Our
main
goal
here
is
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
very
smooth
process
with
this,
and
it's
not
two
calls
to
being
a
call
from
this
time
and
then
a
call
from
another
time
and
then
have
different
topics,
we'd
like
to
try
to
blend
them
as
much
as
possible.
So
we
can
get
diversity
of
opinions
on
on
similar
issues.
A
A
This
is
questions
about
how
people
like
our
communication
platforms
and
how
they
like
the
Cantera,
they're,
contributor,
workflow
and
just
mentoring
stuff.
So
this
is
the
last
call
for
questions
suggestions
so
if
you've
ever
wanted
to
know
anything
about,
say,
200,
kubernetes
contributors
or
more
and
there's
a
good
reason
as
to
why
you'd
like
to
know
it.
Please
definitely
put
that
on
the
suggestions.
A
A
Plus
one
all
right,
two
weeks
sounds
good
to
me
cool
all
right
and
then
so
that
would
mean
we
will
have
some
really
awesome
data
no
later
than
the
end
of
September
and
that's
cool
for
us,
because
some
of
the
stuff
on
here.
Oh
actually,
let
me
do.
Let
me
call
out
one
of
these
questions.
In
particular,
one
of
the
questions
I
think
it
was
at
one
point
number
fourteen,
but
know
what
I
said
at
one
point.
A
If
the
stuff
that
were
working
on
is
just
so,
we
can
kind
of
get
a
pulse
for
priority
almost
and
that
would
kind
of
help
us
with
tasking
each
other
out,
especially
if
we
have
a
few
cycles
to
burn,
and
things
like
that.
So
we
know
what
the
community
thinks
is
important
and
potentially
pain
points
for
them.
So
if
there
is
a
project
that
anybody
on
this
call
is
working
on
that
is
not
listed
in
this
question,
question
TBD
right
now:
yes,
it's
actually
number
15.
A
If
there's
a
question
in
here
or
a
project
that
is
not
in
here
that
you
are
working
on
that
you
would
like
validated.
Essentially,
please,
let's
get
it
on
here
and
it
also
it
makes
our
sig
look
like.
We
are
super
busy
because
we
are
and
I
know
everybody
on
this
call
is
super
busy.
So
good
timing
is
additional
input
to
cube
cons,
contributors,
limit
content
planning.
Exactly
that's
why
I'm,
like
that's
Russian
is
battling
out
the
door.
Let's
get
some
dia
all
right,
I'm
good
on
the
survey.
A
A
Add
this
to
the
agenda,
but
this
is
essentially
doing
two
things:
it's
discovery
and
a
little
bit
more
research
so
that
we
can
kick
things
off
and
decide
on
decide
on
things
in
an
educated
manner
with
research
so
that
we're
not
just
constantly
picking
off
low-hanging
fruit,
meaning
just
combining
smaller
things.
So
we
can
do
kind
of
a
larger
move.
A
I
know
everybody
here
feels
the
communication
toil
that
we
have
I
know
everybody
feels
like
we
have
a
lot
of
noise
to
signal,
so
this
is
important
for
us
I
think
to
to
really
work
on
this
as
a
priority.
So
the
two
items
that
are
kicking
off
one
is
this
survey,
and
then
the
other
one
is
a
huge
list
of
communication
channels,
cat
that
includes
calendars
and
collaboration,
platforms
and
Docs
that
we
have.
So.
This
is
an
inventory
of
who
owns
what,
when
it
is,
how
it
is
the
audience
I
mean
it's
just
really.
A
A
J
A
I
It's
an
item
from
the
last
week,
so
everybody
heard
under
this
median
last.
We
could
remember
that
we've
shared
here
template
for
community
slide
deck
and
my
plan
was
to
publish
it
at
announce
it
publicly
tomorrow
at
the
community
median
and
melon
eyes.
So
I
made
this
one
week
time
for
getting
your
comments
and
iris
if
none
of
them,
so
it
could
be
due
up.
The
final
call
here
at
this
medium
to
receive
some
suggestions
commander.
If
not
I'll
go
ahead
tomorrow,
announce
it
publicly.