►
Description
ContribEx GitHub Administration Subproject Meeting
A
A
A
A
E
I
can
comment
on
this
a
little
bit
as
I've
talked
to
everyone
involved
in
the
last
ones,
or
so.
Auto-Scaling
has
not
respond
to
me
regarding
moving
it.
I
poked
him
twice
about
it.
I
think
once
his
last
month,
I've
since
six
storage
has
the
open
issue
about
external
storage
right
now
they
were
just
waiting
for
some
final
things.
Do
you
finish
up
and
you
baby
a
cube.
Aws
is
kind
of
in
a
weird
place.
It's
currently
owned
by
said
cluster
life
cycles.
They
don't
actually
know
how
it
became
owned
by
them.
E
When,
when
the
AWS
sig
was
I'll
fold
it
under
cloud
Rider,
they
don't
necessarily
want
it
because
it
competes
directly
with
cops.
The
other
thing
is
sig
cloud
writer
has
said
that
he
would
potentially
take
it
if
no
one
else
is
interested
in
owning
it,
but
it
might
also
be
worth
spitting
it
out
if
no
one
you
know
actually
wants
to
own
it.
A
Yeah
that
I
don't
know
exactly
how
to
do
because,
technically,
like
that
starts
getting
into
like
legal
questions
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
because
code
is
owned
by
the
kubernetes
authors
and
there's
like
CNCs
and
right
till
that
kind
of
like
splitting
it
completely
I,
would
have
the
project.
The
only
precedent
for
that
was
helm,
but
helm
was
moving
out
of
under
us
to
the
PNP
op
umbrella,
I.
A
E
B
A
B
A
B
I'm
wondering
if
the
tepid
Ness
is
because
they're
there
they
want
to
make
sure
that
there
are
contributors
for
it.
Our
maintain
errs
for
it
right
like.
If
you
give
me
a
project
and
say
I
now
have
to
maintain
that
I'm
not
super
excited
about
it.
But
if
I
think,
if
there
were
a
set
of
people
to
do
a
sub
project
for
this,
then
maybe
it
could
be
fun.
So
that's
that's
what
I
was
wondering
about
the
contributor
graph?
B
E
A
A
I'd
like
to
maybe
talk
about
like
deadlines
for
this
kind
of
stuff
for
like
a
folks
making
decisions,
but
that
might
need
to
be
like
reported
back
up
into
contra
backs
for
the
sig
to
make
a
decision
of
like
hey.
This
has
gone
on
for
a
while,
and
we
would
like
to
you
know,
recommend
that
an
action
be
taken
here.
A
B
A
If
we
said
end
of
April,
except
that
anything
that
was
in
flight,
is
good,
like
we
had
like
a
direction
for
things
where
it's
like.
Okay,
we've
got
a
cig,
sponsor
it's
gonna
move
into
K,
cigs,
and
but
we're
still
just
sorting
out
a
little
justice.
We
just
keep
going,
but
if
we
literally
don't
have
a
cig
sponsor
for
these
repos,
nobody
wants
to
adopt
it
for
men.
A
A
E
A
E
A
A
A
A
Yeah,
which
I
can
understand
like
understand
not
necessarily
wanting
to
like
kick
folks
out
of
the
project
but
like
sponsoring
means,
okay,
we're
going
to
actively
support
and
actively
and
clean
the
health
of
this
project
and
if
all
of
the
maintainer
x'
go
away,
we're
assuming
responsibility
for
this
project.
So.
A
A
I
know
I
just
ended
up
like
I
did
an
external
migration
into
casings
that
sort
of
started
in
October
healthier,
but
it
just
took
them
a
while
to
get
all
the
ducks
in
the
road
actually
migrate,
so
that
was
a
secret
source
efi
driver
from
external
in
the
casing.
So
I
know
things
just
take
time:
I
don't
mind
things
languishing
around
if
it's
like
continuing
to
move,
even
if
it's
a
turtle
but
yeah
I,
just
don't
want
at
least
my
concern
is
I,
don't
want
repose
that
are
sitting
around
and
nobody's
owning
them.
F
F
A
B
A
Maybe,
and
not
from
my
end,
I,
don't
think,
oh
so
I
guess
the
other.
The
other
thing
that
I'd
like
to
ask
out
there
so
I
know
that
we
act
in
San
Diego.
We
met
with
the
github
folks
as
far
as
her
like
providing
feedback
I'm
having
that
feedback
loop
with
github
on
upcoming
features
and
things
that
are
going
so
being
mindful
that
there
are
nba's
of
github
and
that
this
is
a
public
recorded
call.
A
E
Out
of
those
outside
of
an
initial
meeting
there,
there
really
wasn't
much
it's
an
access
to
serve
like
another.
Private
repo
has
its
own
issues,
and
not
much
has
come
from
that.
We've
seen
some
of
the
stuff
that
they
were
working
on
started
to
come
out
like
notifications,
rework
but
I,
wouldn't
really
call
it
sufficient
I
was
actually
going
to
I.
Think
one
of
them's
gonna
be
at
scale.
E
I
was
gonna,
try
it
and
sync
up
with
them
to
try
and
like
they
haven't
really
conveyed
what
their
priorities
in
terms
of
the
features
they're
working
on
is
that's
something
I
definitely
can
see
and
there's
been
sort
of
a
lot
of
people
like
one
of
the
big
things
that's
been
recently
is
just
Lords
and
how
they're
a
bit
problematic
and
I
can
I
can
save
this
for
conversation
or
so
like.
If
you
want
to
hear
about
some,
that's
been
going
on.
C
We
can
probably
schedule
something
for
kube
Conniff.
Take
it
helpful.
Probably
I
can
email
them
and
ask
if
somebody
will
be
from
github
by
the
cube
con,
so
we
can
meet
face
to
face.
There
is
any
need
in
that
so
similar
that
we've
had
in
Sierra
I
wasn't
able
to
attend.
It
went
but
I
heard
that
it
went
well
so.
A
Already
be
like
the
specific
reason
why
that
came
to
mind
is
I
know
like
on
the
repo
collaborator
automation
like
one
of
our
one
of
our
umbrella
issues
as
far
as
feedback
that
we
provided
to
github
is
like
they
provide
an
option
to
disable
repo
collaborators,
like
that.
You
just
can't
have
well
sorry
I,
specifically
outside
collaborators
and,
like
you
can't
add
them
from
github,
except
it's
a
feature.
A
That's
behind
their
enterprise
pay
wall,
so
even
be
like
the
teams
for
open
source
kind
of
like
subscription
level
that
we
have
or
the
we
have
a
paid
like
a
paid
subscription
on
the
kubernetes
work
and
Cabrini
security.
Org
that
allow
us
private
repos,
but
even
those
subscription
levels,
don't
include
that
picky
box
and
the
feedback
that
provides
them
is.
A
Please
please
please
take
that
Tiki
box
from
behind
the
paywall,
because
that's
I
think
that's
a
very
useful
feature,
including
for
open
source
organizations
to
have,
but
there's
been
kind
of
radio
silence
on
that
that
particular
issue,
maybe
one
not
like
yeah,
instead
of
like
us
building
automation
around
it.
Just
pour
bet
like
which
would
somebody
adds
a
repo
collaborator
and
we
remove
it.
A
few
hours
later,
it'd
be
great
if
we
could
just
disable
that
ability
to
have
outside
collaborators
period,
I.
B
A
C
E
A
E
E
B
A
B
B
I
mean
then
it
becomes
a
function
of
some
warning
or
report
right.
We
could
warn
on
an
ID
change
or
we
can
warn
on
a
name
change,
as
opposed
to
like
the
ID
is
not
going
to
change
right
and
then
an
admin
can
go
in
and
fix
the
fix.
The
IDs
are
fix
that
names
within
the
config
right.
So
that
way,
we're
not
kicking
users
out
of
the
org
right.
A
We
can
discuss
to
see
how
that
that
one
will
definitely
take
a
little
bit
of
UX
and
design
both
on
our
part,
as
well
as
like
investigating.
What's
the
right
way
to
do
that
through
the
API
is,
but
it
is
possible
because
there
is
like
a
unique
immutable
user
ID,
that's
tried
to
folks,
and
that
way
we
can,
if
we
did
do
that
and
be
both
good
for
a
we're
not
taking
folks
out,
but
also
from
a
security
perspective.
A
C
A
Can
disable
your
second
factor,
but
there's
like
a
six-month
timeout
on
it,
so
that
yeah
so
that
he
needed
to
make
an
entirely
new
github
account
for
six
months,
just
so
that
you
could
still
interact
with
github,
because
his
first
account
like
you,
couldn't
eat
enough.
The
second
factor
for
it:
okay,
we're
over
time
thanks
everybody
for
coming.