►
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
B
B
B
A
As
far
as
that
is
concerned,
if
it
does
open
a
pull
request,
the
description
should
probably
be
fairly
simple,
like
just
describing
that
this
is
an
automated
pull
request
opened
by
this
tool
and
probably
linking
back
to
where
the
tool
is
as
far
as
the
input
from
it.
I
think
right
now
that
input
is
being
scraped
from
like
currently
is
being
scraped
from
desktops,
so
I
think
dead
stats
we
can.
If
we
get
a
report
set
up
in
dev
stats,
we
can.
D
At
least
for
the
automated
pull
requests,
one
like
from
the
previous
discussions
with
bob,
I
think
we
wanted
to
go
with
like
the
bot
creating
a
pull
request,
because
it
then
makes
it
less
awkward
for
removing
people,
because
in
the
past,
like
whoever
we
were
planning
to
remove
they've
come
up
with
reasons
why
they
shouldn't
be.
But
if
a
bot
does
it,
it
makes
the
whole
process
easier.
D
B
A
Json
configuration,
I
don't
see
where
the
export
button
is
looking
at
a
looking
at
an
example,
but
I
think
that's
that's
probably
a
good
question
for
for
lucas
who
works
on
death.
Dots
like
hey.
What's
the
easiest
way
for
us
to
create
a
report
in
dev
stats
with
our
our
input
and
then
be
able
to
have
that
to
be
able
to
have
that
run
on
an
automated
basis,
because
that's
that's
kind
of
our
source
of
truth.
A
A
E
Yep,
so
I
I
think
there
are
like
we
see
two
clear
parts
to
it.
One
is
like
determining
who
are
inactive
and
then
doing
something
which
makes
this
list
public
and
let
people
respond
to
that
list
and
the
next
part
is
once
we
determine
once
we
filter.
Basically,
if
someone
is
erroneously
in
that
list,
basically
we
prune
that
list
and
then
there
is
someone
who
reconciles
that
list
with
the
actual
state
basically
removes
them
from
any
teams
and
any
org
which
are
there
involved
in.
So
it's
like
two
parts
to
the
problem.
A
It
sounds
like
the
issue
like
looking
over
this
specific
issue
is,
for
the
second
part,
as
opposed
to
and
touching
anything
really
in
the
first
part,
because
I
I
agree,
we
probably
need,
like
I'm,
also
intent
wise
nikita.
You
originally
opened
this
up.
It
doesn't
sound
from
the
issue
intent
wise
that
this
was
necessarily
like
the
fully
automated
end-to-end.
This
happens
automatically,
and
it's
done
by
a
bot
account
or
something
like
that
process.
D
D
A
Yes,
I'm
back
yeah.
I
was
just
saying
like
yeah
there's,
it
sounds
like
there's
two
parts
to
this,
as
everyone
like
pointed
out,
but
do
we,
but
this
looks
this
particular
issue-
looks
like
it's
just
for
part
two,
as
opposed
to
the
full
end-to-end
like
automated
cycle.
So
maybe
we
need
another
issue
to
kind
of
discuss
the
full
end
to
end
and
then
this
tool
that
gwen
and
arno
are
working
on.
A
I
say
like
or
no
as
far
as
inputs
are
concerned,
like
just
a
list
like
a
a
text
based
list.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
like
shove
this
into
yaml
or
anything
like
that.
I
think
that
would
over
complicate
it,
but
just
like
a
list
of
a
text-based
list
of
names
as
the
input
and
then
the
output
is
scrubbing
them
from
any
file.
A
And
then
we
can
figure
out
the
automation
bits
as
far
as
how
we
get
that
list
out
of
dev
stats
into
a
text
base
or
csv
list,
and
then
you
know
what
what
automation
is
actually
going
to
open
up
the
the
pr
and
stuff
after
say
scoping
your
tool.
I'd
say:
let's
just
do
the
middle
part.
The
text
based
list
to
remove
from
every
file.
B
A
A
This
was
the
one
that
was
decided
like
it
sounds
like
there's,
basically,
there's
like
one
or
two
maintainers
for
this
tool
that
still
want
to
keep
it
active,
but
the
consensus
among
the
various
like
cigs
that
would
have
you
know,
touch
points
on
cube.
Aws
was
no,
nobody
wants
it.
Nobody
wants
to
maintain
it
right
now
as
part
of
the
kubernetes
project.
A
A
A
Yeah,
so
the
current
consensus
is
we
archive
it
on
our
side,
so
the
current
the
current
repo,
the
current
code
as
it
was
handled
under
the
kubernetes
project.
We
shove
it
into
our
archive
effectively
our
graveyard
as
the
earth
points
out.
We
we
archive
it
and
then,
if
they
want
to
fork
it
and
take
it
from
there,
it's
apache
2..
A
You
can
do
that
as
long
as
you
conform
with
apache
2,
you
can
keep
doing
that,
but
yeah
the
like
the
the
repo
as
it
is
we're
just
going
to
archive
it
and
let
them
let
them
run
with
us.
I
guess
the
the
big
thing
is
like
timeline,
I'm
setting
at
this.
At
this
point,
like
we
haven't,
set
a
timeline,
I
don't
think
we've
enforced.
Anything
I
think
end
of
september
is
a
very
fair
timeline
of
like
hey.
A
A
They
need
to
to
actually
like
move
them
like
recreate
them
and
link
to
them,
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
because
we're
not
going
to
we're
not
actually
going
to
transfer
the
repo
out
and
relinquish
our
copy
of
the
code,
because
the
current
version
of
the
code
was
authored
by
the
kubernetes
authors.
So
we're
still
going
to
keep
it
in
our
in
our
archive.
A
A
And
then
the
incubator,
as
it
is,
we
we
probably
won't
relinquish
that
org
just
because
we
don't
want
anybody
like
poaching
the
name,
but
we
will.
We
can
go
into
parabolos
and
we
can
strip
out
all
the
members
and
just
like
do
whatever.
Whatever
things
we
need
to
do
to
kind
of
hide
that
org
as
much
as
possible.
C
I'm
not
sure
that
we
should
remove
all
the
members.
Well,
we
have
to
remove
all
the
active
members
but
keep
all
the
admins
like
the
current,
the
current
group
of
people,
plus
all
the
necessary
bots
like
yeah
foundation,
but
just
to
clarify
that
we
don't
want
to
that.
We're
not
going
through
just
everybody
and
everything
from
europe.
So
we
need
to
have
some
vector
keys
to
it.
A
C
C
Yeah
so
cncf
is
working
with
orbit
is
the
need
to
for
the
community
analytics
and
all
the
related
stuff
and
we'd
like
to
pilot
it
for
for
kubernetes
project.
It
has
been
presented
very
first
time
on
july
29th
meeting
for
the
c
contributor
experience
at
any
months
ago.
Chris.
I
actually
did
that
we,
we
had
pretty
good
feedback
from
the
group,
but
we
decided
to
to
push
more
more
activities
after
coupons,
so
we're
back
to
the
discussions
with
orbit
about
pilot
and
this
stuff
and
so
on.
C
We
have
the
next
meeting
of
contributor
experience
group,
where
we'll
have
folks
from
orbit
of
presenting
this
tool
and
we'll
discuss
that
triangle
on
the
value
of
these
four
kubernetes.
I
want
to
highlight
it
here,
mostly
from
the
technical
standpoint.
That's
from
the
community
value
standpoint
also
checked
with
only
today
what
other
permissions
required
full
of
42,
and
they
confirmed
to
me
that
it's
only
read
on
the
permissions
to
to
to
take
a
better
network,
so
nothing
will
be
written
by
by
the
tool
it
will
implement
it
for
kubernetes.
C
C
A
A
This
is
the
actual
permissions
of
requests
if
it
requests
something
different
than
objection,
but
if
it
requests
the
things
that
shows
in
the
picture,
so
the
things
that
the
org
level
that
we'd
be
granted
permission
to,
is
code
issues
metadata
and
pull
requests
which,
because
the
kubernetes
are
like
the
kubernetes
or
proper
itself,
is
all
open
source.
There's
no
private
repos
in
it.
We
don't.
A
Okay,
that
brings
us
to
time.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
joining.
If
there's
anything
else
that
anybody
wants
to
bring
up
or
discuss.
There
is
the
github
management
channel
on
the
kubernetes
slack
or
the
sync
contributor
experience
channel
or
the
signature
experience
mailing
list.
If
you
need
to
reach
the
github
admins
directly
and
privately
github
at
kubernetes.io.