►
From YouTube: Kubernetes Public Steering Committee Meeting 20190227
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
Go
on
kill
that
has
write
access
to
this
so
I
know.
A
number
of
people
are
here
today
to
talk
about
slack
moderation.
Would
we
rather
walk
through
the
board
first
and
then
talk
about
slack
moderation
at
the
end
or
invert?
The
order
steering
members
I
feel
like
I'd,
rather
go
through
our
board.
First,
if
that's,
okay,
we
know
that's
fine
man,
okay
and
I,
see
Brian
has
also
entered
the
room.
Okay,
so
let
me
even
click.
A
A
Okay
blow
it
up
a
little
bit,
that's
a
little
too
much.
This
is
what's
on
the
steering
committee
project
board.
You
apparently
don't
have
anything
blocked
waiting.
So
the
first
thing
on
the
in
progress
column
is
a
PR
by
Phil
to
talk
about
updating
the
steering
committee
charter.
Phil,
do
you
want
to
talk
about
that?
A
little
bit
yeah.
C
Sure
I
just
moved
it
into
block
where
maybe
no
yes,
I'm
required
some
LG
TMS
on
this
thing.
This
is
a
PR
that
I
revisited
I.
Think
Michelle
I
knew
Tim
was
asking
for
some
feedback
around
something.
I
think
this
requires
3/4
approval
from
the
steering
committee,
because
it's
an
update
to
our
Charter,
even
though
it's
pretty
minor
yeah.
D
The
the
point
I
wanted
to
make
there
on
the
feedback
for
the
Charter,
was
we've
been
having
these
side
conversations
about
what
responsibilities
or
asks
we
want
to
make
from
the
sea
and
CF
and
I
was
wondering
whether
or
not
we
wanted
to
make
that
explicit.
Given
some
of
the
issues
we
had
with
moderation,
and
you
know
what
roles
they
might
play
in,
that
type
of
work.
A
So
I
guess
I
would
put
it
this
way.
I
don't
want
it.
Typically.
Iterating
on
charters
takes
a
long
time.
I
don't
want
to
lock
that
down
in
stone
in
this
charter,
I
think
I'd
rather
sort
out.
Are
we
the
sole
conduit
for
requests
of
the
CNC
F,
or
are
there
other
six
that
I
can
request
support
directly
from
the
CNCs
believe
the
CNC,
a
stress
response
would
be
like
anybody
can
file
a
service
desk
ticket
when
it
comes
to
asking
for
things
that
require
funding.
Does
that
lie
solely
with
the
steering
committee?
So.
C
As
long
as
this
jaren
community
gets
notified
and
I
believe
we
do
if
it's
filed,
then
I'm
fine
with
with
it
it's
under
a
certain
amount
and
so
I,
never
late.
In
the
early
days,
I
asked
for
a
single
conduit,
because
funding
was
very
limited
and
it
was
super
confusing
with
people
just
going
directly
to
Dan.
There
was
no
such
notification
mechanism,
but
if
there
is
an
automated
notification
mechanism-
and
we
could
say
like
if
it's
less
than
some
reasonable
amounts
go
ahead
and
file
a
service
desk
ticket,
otherwise,
please
run
it
first.
A
A
D
A
C
E
E
E
C
E
C
F
G
Sorry,
yes,
I
submitted
a
PR
Phil,
actually
made
a
ton
of
comments,
mostly
formatting
stuff,
but
there
is
the
PR
inflate
right.
Now
that
did
you
solve
the
governance
stuff,
actually
sunsets,
one
of
the
one
of
the
files,
because
the
file
had
nothing
left
after
copying,
pasting
it
other
places
into
other
homes,
and
then
it
also
created
a
sig
and
working
group
checklist
which
takes
the
logistic
pieces
out
of
the
policy.
So,
like
those
stuff,
the
contributor
experience
directly
touches
and
influences
essentially
so
I
created
that
as
well.
Let
me
get
the
link
to
that.
G
A
F
A
A
I
believe
this
is
about
going
through.
Maybe
this
is
the
checklist
here.
There
are
some
working
groups
out
there
that
seem
like
they're
still
or
maybe
seem
like.
They
don't
actually
fit
the
definition
of
working
group
and
so
we're
going
to
rationalize
them
into
whatever
it
is.
They
need
to
be
be
that
a
sub-project
of
the
sinc
retired,
due
to
inactivity
or
turn
into
a
user
group,
given
the
definition
that
we
created
for
those
yeah.
H
Derrick
I
had
a
question,
so
we
had
I
think
Harris.
You
and
I
had
talked
on
this
choir,
but
we
are
discussing
in
like
the
resource
management
workgroup
about
also
shutting
down
or
pausing
our
activities
in
favor
of
just
working
within
signal
properly
now,
but
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
were
looking
for
is
like
and
I
apologize.
I
C
G
H
A
C
A
Okay
I
know
so:
sig
p.m.
I
was
in
their
meeting
recently
and
they're
talking
about
redoing
their
charter,
big
big
data.
We
talked
about
how
that's
changing
to
something
else,
and
then
all
of
the
cloud
providers
as
you're
GCP
OpenStack
were
punting
this
in
favor
of
merging
them
all
into
a
single
state
called
sick
cloud
provider.
Right.
You
don't
have
to
talk
about
the
peach
birth
of
that,
but
just
wanna
make
sure
that
was
plain
of
record
yeah.
D
C
By
the
way,
I
did
get
a
version
of
the
image
that
shows
all
the
all
the
SIG's.
The
diagram
checked
in
there's
no
link
to
it
anywhere.
If
someone
wants
to
suggest
a
doc,
if
I
go
ahead
and
drop
the
image
into
some
doc
somewhere
in
the
community
repo,
what
is
is
that
so
I
can
show
us
that
is
see,
diagram,
PNG,
sorry
go
back.
E
C
So
I
just
didn't
in
the
PR
I
discussed
a
couple
of
different
options.
Neither
of
them
seemed
ideal.
I
just
wanted
to
get
the
diagram
checked
in
while
we
could
like
post,
you
put
it
but
like
the
six
lists,
and
we
could
embed
it
into
the
header
for
the
generated
SIG's
list
stock.
But
the
diagram
would
push
off
the
SIG's
list
off
the
first
page
in
most
browsers
or
places
to
view
so
I
didn't
know.
A
D
A
A
A
Does
that
answer
your
question?
Yes,
thank
you.
We
could
probably
add
an
area
for
all
PRS
that
touch
the
the
metadata
generator.
Okay,
I
have
scrubbed
through
everything
and
blocked
it
in
progress.
Is
there
anything
in
backlog
that
we
would
like
to
discuss
today
or
we
like
to
move
on
to
open
discussion?
We.
A
G
J
So,
as
an
update
me
and
Jace
on
the
behalf
of
the
slack
admin
team
have
met
with
CNCs
end
user
community
to
try
and
figure
out
what
the
general
feeling
from
that
group
was
about
how
to
cope
with
the
ongoing
questions
of
what
is
the
scope
of
the
kubernetes
slack.
And
how
should
we
deal
with
moderation
in
order
to
make
sure
that
our
slack
complies
what
their
kind
of
conduct
the
general
gist
of
that?
Was?
J
We
can
try
to
augment
our
human
moderators
with
some
level
of
automation,
but
Jase
feels
strongly
and
I
feel
a
little
bit
less
strongly
that
automation
can
only
go
so
far
and
that
without
a
source
of
humans
to
provide
that
energy
on
the
end
user
community
side,
we
don't
know
how
we're
going
to
manage
the
end
user
community.
In
slack
and
as
such,
we
have
a
posted
recommendation
that
we
remove
end
users
from
the
slack,
but
grudgingly
I
am
NOT.
B
B
As
a
as
a
final
point,
automation
comes
ups,
as
the
de
facto
answer
for
this
and
automation
immediately
initiates
a
whole
new
realm
of
technical
debt
that
somebody
has
to
manage
and
guide
and
has
to
be
responsive
to
undocumented
api's,
on
the
slack
side
and
cetera,
et
cetera.
So
unless
somebody's
really
gonna
say
I'm
gonna
own,
this
and
I've
got
seven
people
that
I'm
gonna
train
up
on
this
tool
and
all
that
and
have
that
liberal
commitment,
I'm
very
reluctant
to
to
entertain
that
as
an
option.
Just
as
a
general
rule.
Why.
D
J
Mcf
does
not
sorry
the
ncf
doesn't
offer
moderators
to
their
communities;
they
they
only
offer
relatively
tightly
scoped
support.
So,
for
instance,
if
we
produced
a
design
doc
for
this
automated
moderation
tool
that
doesn't
exist,
they
could
help
that
exist
that
they
could
help
pay
for
that.
But
they
don't.
They
don't
really
have
a
good
way.
I
have
asked
Cheryl
to
look
into
if
the
CNC
F
can
incentivize
member
companies
be
that
money
be
that
you
know
spot.
J
You
know
promoting
them
as
sponsors
that
then
we
could
sort
of
delegate
this
to
end-user
companies
and
say
hey.
Can
you
some
of
you
find
some
of
your
employees
that
are
willing
to
help
out
in
in
your
duties
as
CN,
CF
end-user
members,
but
suffice
to
say,
I'm,
not
super
confident
in
that
as
an
ongoing
management
strategy.
I
think.
D
B
So
I
totally
I
agree
to
a
certain
extent,
but
I
think
that
we
just
architectural
II
speaking,
are
passed.
The
use
case
of
what
slack
can
handle
it's
intended
to
be
a
private
tool,
not
a
public
tool
and
that
CN
CF
is
willing
to
double
down
on
support
for
discuss,
which
we've
already
accepted
as
a
project
and
implement
it.
So
I
feel
like
they.
They
have
plenty
of
really
solid
answers.
Why
devoting
more
humans
and
pouring
an
endless
stream
of
humans
into
slack
moderation
is
not
a
good
investment.
B
J
That
would
like
more
information
on
that,
but
we
don't
we're
not
it's
not
gonna
get
probably
any
worse
than
it
already
was,
but
the
code
of
conduct
is
what
it
is
and
our
role
as
admins
is
supposed
to
be
to
make
that
happen,
and
even
though
I
believe
more
strongly
than
Jace,
that
automation
will
help
a
good
deal.
I
gradually
admit
that,
even
with
good,
automated
modules
on
slack
I,
don't
think
that
I
can
make
it
fully
comply
with
the
code
of
conduct.
J
Roughly
speaking,
the
the
previous
slack
inviter
tool
was
a
public
tool
called
slack
in.
We
would
basically
remove
all
existing
users
or
deactivate
them,
and
let
people
rear
edge
astir,
using
a
new
inviter
tool
that
uses
github,
ooofff
and
checks
that
all
users
are
we
could.
We
could
come
up
with
whatever
rules
we
wanted
to
whether
you're
a
member
of
a
tremendous
organization.
If
we
want
to
allow
in
other
ecosystem
project
containers
something
like
I.
J
The
we're
not
completely
the
plan
of
deactivate
all
existing
users
and
allow
people
to
re-register
I'm
only
about
80
percent
sure
that
we
can
even
do
that.
Much
slack
doesn't
the
the
AAP
is
for
activating
and
deactivating
users
are
undocumented
and
unsupported
by
slack,
but
so
is
the
user
invite
API?
So
this
is
not
new,
so
yeah.
The
backup
plan
would
be
to
literally
shudder
the
existing
slack
and
make
a
new
one,
which
would
be
highly
disruptive
to
cig
operations.
I,
don't
really
like
that
plan.
E
B
B
B
There's
a
lot
of
ambient
noise,
but
this
it's
hard
because
I'm
I'm
I,
as
somebody
who's
been
on
the
slack
almost
since
day,
one
I
I
recognize
the
value
it
brings
and
people.
You
know
the
more
I
just
want
to
frame
things
this
way
and
forgive
me
for
being
old,
slow
here
but
I.
You
know
I,
there's
an
easy
opportunity
to
jump
to
this
being
radical
and
the
response
to
a
few
bad
actors
and
don't
let
them
spoil
the
pie,
etc.
B
J
If
I
can
just
jump
the
queue
a
little
bit
as
as
another
administrator
perspective,
I
am
also
very
concerned
that
all
of
those
things
which
I
said
are
absolute
true
I
do
not
disagree
with
any
of
them,
but
they
will
not
necessarily
be
solved
by
discourse
as
a
tool
of
discourse.
We
are
actually
as
a
license
limited
to
six
top
level
admins,
so
we
actually
can't
have
more
than
that
right
now,
even
if
we
have
more
volunteers.
I
Next,
yes,
I,
think
one
of
the
core
problems
here
is
that
we
don't
have
a
centralized
system
for
keeping
track
of
project
members.
So,
even
if
we
like
that
whole
issue
around
having
people
check
in
you
know
log
into
slack
with
the
get
them
we
still
have
to
have.
This
idea
of
like
who
is
a
member
and
I,
think
one
of
the
one
of
the
ways
that
we
can
fight
abuse
is
actually
have
stable
pseudonyms
for
people
interacting
with
the
community.
We
can
relate
those
to
email.
I
We
can
make
sure
that
there's
a
nomination
sort
of
vetting
process
that
would
actually
have
a
trust
network
going
on
here
and
so
I
think
it
is
reasonable
for
us
to
act.
You
know
we
can't
we,
the
CN
CF
is
not
going
to
actually
provide
moderation,
but
providing
essentially
a
project
user
database
type
of
system
that
can
then
integrate
with
these
things
could
be
a
critical
tool
to
help
us
get
a
handle
on
these
problems,
and
it
is
something
that
I
think
we
could
ask
the
C&C
it
have
to
actually
fund
building
out.
I
So
this
is
I'm
trying
to
think.
How
do
we
get
to
the
root
of
this
issue?
Because,
even
if
I
think
you
know
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
came
up
recently,
is
that
we
did
have
somebody
who
was,
you
know,
banned
from
slack
rejoin
under
a
different
name,
and
so
this
would
be
an
away
for
us
start
attacking
us,
and-
and
this
is
problem
we're
gonna
have,
regardless
of
whether
it's
discourse
or
slack
or
whatever.
So
just
wondering.
If
that's
something
that
we've
thought
about.
I
What
are
we
talking
about?
I
mean,
so
we
have
that
process
to
add
people
to
the
kubernetes
org,
but
are
synchronizing
that,
with
slack
synchronizing,
that
weather
I
mean
we
can
use
github
as
a
source
of
record
here
now.
One
of
the
problems
with
using
github
is
a
source
of
record.
Is
that
there's
no
provision
for
private
information?
So
one
of
the
other
problems
we
have-
and
this
comes
into
into
play
when
we're
doing
elections,
is
that
we
don't
have.
A
So
it's
tough
for
me
to
talk
about
this
and
also
kind
of
moderate
the
discussion,
because
I'm,
like
super
passionate
about
all
that
slack,
has
enabled
I
feel
like
it's
one
of
the
core
cultural
pillars
of
this
project.
So
I
experienced
a
certain
amount
of
frustration
when
we
talk
about
segregating
the
community
or
the
impossibility
of
maintaining
this
thing
that
has
gotten
less
thus
far
so
I
do
really
appreciate
everybody's
effort.
A
I
understand
that
it's
complicated,
but
so
number
one
if
we
segregate
users
away
from
contributors,
I
feel
like
it's
going
to
perpetuate
the
myth
that
this
is
an
echo
chamber
of
a
community
and
it's
going
to
be
even
harder
to
get
contributor
attention.
I
know
you
know
that
I
know
you
don't
like
it,
but
let's
acknowledge
that.
That
is
a
decision
we
would
have
to
make
number
two
I
feel
like
what
I
have
heard
from
folks,
thus
far
is
that
a
chatroom
is
inherently
difficult
to
impossible
to
moderate
according
to
our
code
of
conduct.
A
Thus
far,
we
have
gotten
by
with,
like
the
state
of
things
as
they
have
been,
is
that
we've
been
unable
to
effectively
moderate
our
code
of
conduct
or
enforce
our
code
of
conduct
on
slack
and
so
one
option
is
we
could,
as
a
community,
decide
whether
or
not
we
are
okay
with
that.
I
think
that
what
I
have
heard
loudly
and
clearly
from
Jace
and
members
of
the
Code
of
Conduct
committee
is
that
safety
comes
above
literally
everything
else
in
terms
of
priorities
that
it
should.
A
It
is
unacceptable
that
the
community
is
willing
to
accept
some
amounts
of
noise
in
the
name
of
continuing
the
culture
that
has
gotten
us
here
and
then.
The
third
thing
is
like
I
really
appreciate,
Jase's
and
and
Noah's
in
Parris's,
and
the
slack
moderators
perspective
as
having
been
on
the
frontlines
so
to
speak,
but
to
me
having
a
ratio
of
trying
to
handpick
30
people
out
of
60,000
people
does
seem
like
it
be
conceivably
doable.
A
I
feel
as
though,
up
until
yesterday,
when
documents
were
PR
din
about
the
moderation
policies
and
how
one
could
become
a
moderator
that
the
opportunity
for
the
community
to
step
up
and
help
out,
didn't
really
exist,
and
so
I
feel
that
it
is
somewhat
unfair
to
say,
let's
not
even
bother
trying
when
we
haven't
even
attempted
to
try
but
I
understand
that
it
is
a
difficult
and
complicated
situation.
I
just
feel
like
to
me.
A
J
We
are
overreacting
sense
as
well,
but
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
that
comes
from
positions
of
privilege
and
power
and
knowing
that
I
am
not
marginalized
within
this
community
and
therefore
miner
drive
by
harassment
is
unlikely
to
have
a
substantial
effect
on
me
other
than
making
me
cranky
for
the
day.
But
it's
not
gonna
force
me
out
of
the
project.
J
It's
not
gonna
make
me
doubt
my
life
choices,
but
we
have
people
that
are
not
like
that
and
again
I
defer
to
the
kind
of
chronic
committee,
but
as
an
admin,
I
see
it
as
my
responsibility
to
protect
those
people
by
enforcing
the
code
of
conduct.
That
is
one
thing.
The
other
is
I.
Forget
I
am
sorry,
so
I
will
shut
up
now.
A
I
think
for
me
it's
the
broader
question
of
I
heard
you
say
something
like
switching
to
discourse,
wouldn't
necessarily
solve
some
of
the
risks
we
have
in
front
of
us
either
and
like
okay,
hey
the
people
who
are
like
slack
is
terrible.
Let's
go
to
IRC.
Please
present
me
a
set
of
tools
that
will
allow
us
to
enforce
the
code
of
conduct
they're
just
as
effectively
as
we
enforce
it
here.
Right,
so
is
there
any
platform
that
would
offer
us
the
kind
of
cultural
capability?
G
So
I
feel
like
everybody's
optimum
solution
here
is
for
us
to
keep
slack
for
both
consumers
and
contributors,
which
I
also
want
to
agree
with
as
well,
because
I
do
think
that
what
Aaron
is
saying
is
accurate
and
how
it
has
been.
The
one
of
the
I
would
actually
say
one
of
the
leading
contributors
contributing
factors
to
the
success
of
this
project.
G
There
are
skills
involved
with
excuse
me.
There
are
skills
involved
with
this,
and
for
us
that
means
we're
going
to
have
to
ask
at
least
10
to
20
people
to
have
this
type
of
to
have
this
type
of
behavior
and
do
it
on
behalf
of
both
the
consumers
as
well
as
the
contributors
and
right
now.
This
whole
entire
scope
is
leaning
on
the
contributors
who
could
be
working
on
projects
like
mentoring
and
succession
plans
for
this
project,
and
they
are
not.
G
They
are
now
going
and
laying
their
selves
on
the
line
to
keep
slack
so
I
think
there's
a
whole
lot
of
hard
or
decisions
that
need
to
be
made
here
and
also
people
are
being
targeted
as
well.
So
I
want
to
keep
slack
I
did
an
emoji
talk,
I
cube
con
on
slack,
so,
like
I,
hear
all
I
feel
like
I,
hear
all
of
the
sides
and
I've
actually
been
on
the
frontline
and
also
been
targeted.
G
So
I
have
several
biases
here,
but
I
will
present
the
facts
to
you
that
we
have
at
least
9,000
weekly
active
people
on
this
250
channels,
and
people
can
be
targeted
at
a
at
everyone
exploit
via
slack
and
slack.
Will
not
confirm
that
either
so,
there's
also
other
proprietary
things
that
are
G.
You
know
we
deal
with
from
a
propriety
dealing
with
proprietary
software
that
we
also
have
to
take
into
consideration
here
as
well.
So
I
just
wanted
to
to
make
that
statement.
A
J
K
J
If
I
can
also
jump
in
with
an
addendum
to
that
as
an
admin,
there
is
nothing
stopping
a
similar
set
of
tools
existing
for
slack
in
the
abstract.
I.
Have
a
document
I've
been
working
on
with
the
designs
back
for
this,
but,
as
Jay
said,
slack
does
not
themselves
support
this.
We
would
have
to
design
and
build
and
maintain
that
tool
in.
In
my
my
optimal
pretty
world.
J
Other
communities
would
also
help
us
maintain
it,
but
there's
a
risk
that
it
would
be
a
piece
of
tech
debt
specifically
for
us
and
we're
already
stretched
pretty
thin
I
think
that
is
an
area
that
CFCF
could
help
with
making
money
up
here
to
like.
If
we
can
give
them
a
good
enough
design
dock,
they
could
contract
someone
to
build
and
maintain
the
tool,
but
it
doesn't
exist
now.
H
H
Think
slack
is
a
key
part
of
project
success.
At
this
point,
like
we
had
been
on
IRC
in
the
beginning
of
the
project,
we
moved
to
slack
slack,
as
my
history
has
had
better
opportunities
for
developers
and
maintained,
errs
on
the
project
to
interact
directly
with
users
that
I'm
not
sure.
If
we
put
too
many
barriers
of
entry
to
like
that
communication
happen,
but
they
would
actually
happen,
but
with
that
I'll
defer
the
comments
to
others
who
might
want
to
speak
about
particular
incidents
and
their
impacts.
L
L
We
just
have
to
get
the
the
API
controls
in
a
place
where
people
who
can't
you
know
easily
spin
up
an
honest
account
and
can't
send
up
new
accounts
in
response
to
people
banning
existing
and
on
this
account,
I
think
that's
a
separate
problem
and
a
pretty
small
like
it
has
high
impact
with
small
scale.
This
is
the
first
time
that
I
know
of
that.
This
is
happier
it
happened
on
zoom'
once
it's
a
pretty
rare
event,
I
think.
L
The
other
question
is
the
more
general
like
what
is
the
level
of
discourse
in
our
forums
and
that's
one
where
I
would
have
to
effectively
defer
to
the
code
of
conduct
committee
I'd
like
to
see
us
be
data-driven
there
and
say,
like
you
know,
do
we
actually
have
a
code
of
conduct
problem
in
our
forum
in
slack
right
now,
I
I,
just
don't
know
and
I'm,
not
sure,
no
sorry
in
our
forums
or
in
our
slack
I
mean
o'clock.
Yes,
we
do.
L
L
H
L
That's
exactly
my
point
is
that,
like
some
of
the
comments
have
to
do
is
oh,
we
can't
scale
to
X
number
of
people
or
whatever
I.
Think
this.
The
the
vector
of
scaling
is
actually
number
of
incidents
not
number
of
people,
because,
ideally
these
things
are
socially
correcting
and
we
set
the
right
social
norms
to
begin
with,
and
people
are
self-correcting
estimate.
J
L
Doesn't
matter
I'm
talking
about
practical,
like
we
need
the
the
most
immediate
example
of
us
having
a
problem
are
very
different
than
the
sort
of
day-to-day
friction
that
would
drive
people
from
a
community
and
I
think
we
should
view
them
differently.
One
is
a
pure
defense.
We
need
to
build
a
better
fence
that,
doesn't
you
know
more
moderators
isn't
going
to
help
with
that
like
putting
30,
moderators
or
60
moderators
or
thousand
moderators
on
our
slack
or
having
better
moderation,
tools
isn't
going
to
help
us
prevent
what
happens
right.
L
Center
defenses
will
prevent
what
happened,
but
then
the
second
part
of
this
is
the
question
of
you
know
is:
do
we
have
a
systemic
problem
and
do
we
in
law?
Let's
do
is
lawlessness
and
they're
phrasing
and
that's
one
where
I
simply
have
not
seen
any
data
one
way
or
the
other
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
have
that
data
before
we
start
making
positions.
I
would
also
say
that
I
am
sympathetic
to
Paris's
notion.
L
That
slack
is
not
exactly
motivated
to
help
us
hear
it
with
the
api's
and
I
can
also
sympathize
with
the
notion
that
we
should
move
simply
to
have
better
control
over
the
api's
and
I.
Think
having
been
present
for
the
IRC
to
slack
move
I
have
very
little
doubt
that
the
community
will
continue
and
continue
to
be
strong,
no
matter
what
medium,
which
is
to
coordinate
on.
J
Guess
I
can
just
continue
the
like
as
an
admin.
The
code
of
conduct
does
not
contain
a
segment
saying
that
a
certain
number
of
incidents
are
expected
or
permissible
and
as
such,
my
enforcement
is
global
and
absolute
and
I
appreciate
that
that
is
unrealistic,
but
that
is
the
standard
to
which
I
feel
I
should
be
held
as
an
admin.
J
L
L
And
and
rate,
so
not
just
number,
not
just
absolute
number
of
it
but
rate
great
like
if
we
said
hey,
you
know
what
the
policy
is.
Someone
reports
it
or
we
try
and
find
automated
tools
to
report
it
and
a
moderator
looks
at
the
history
and
decides
whether
not
to
ban
the
person
like
I
just
have
no
notion
if
that's
sustainable
with
ten
people
or
with
30
people
at
100.
L
People
like
at
we
I,
don't
I
have
yet
to
see
the
data
that
would
allow
us
to
figure
that
out
so
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
the
problem.
I
know
I
want
to
make
sure
we
focus
on
solving
two
different
problems.
This
conversation
happened
because
of
a
security
incident
effectively
right.
Let's
go
solve
the
security
problem,
but
it
is
prompted
a
broader
conversation
about.
Are
we
set
up
to
do
this
correctly
and
our
is
the
artifact
discussion
area
healthy
and
if
we're
going
to
have
that
conversation
I
think
we
need
better
data.
J
J
A
L
It's
important
to
make
a
difference
between
these
people
had
no
intention
to
be
part
of
the
community.
It's
important
to
separate
things
that
whether
we
should
raise
a
higher
bar
about
how
we,
the
people
are
part
of
the
community,
the
trust
network
that
Joe
is
talking
about
from
how
do
we
prevent
malicious
actors
from
entering
our
community
I'm.
G
More
moderators
was
actually
a
thing
well
before
this
incident,
so
I
set
an
issue
like,
ironically
enough,
two
weeks
before
the
incident
and
said:
oh,
my
gosh.
We
need
help
because
I
was
the
only
one
on
holiday
duty
responsible
for
a
platform
of
60,000
people
for
an
entire
week,
and
we
get
at
least
ten
requests
a
week
if
not
a
day
and
it's
a
lot
of
work
and
it
needs
to
be
around
the
clock.
G
A
I
I
mean
so
it's
clear
that
something
has
got
to
change.
I
think
we're
all
agreed
on
that
I.
Think
one
of
the
there's
the
question
of
like.
Do
we
actually
severely
lock
down
or
restrict
slack?
Will
that
actually
get
us
where
we
want
to
go?
Do
we
do
some
of
that
Plus?
Also
perhaps
sonna
some
of
the
sort
of
restrict
who
can
register
and
start
to
actually
dial
that
back
based
on
some
sort
of
trust,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
would
be
interesting
and
I.
I
I
My
gut
here
is
that
people
who
have
been
active
members
of
the
community
that
then
crossed
the
threshold
where
we
need
that's,
probably
pretty
rare
versus
people
who
show
up
just
a
grief
out
of
pretty
much
nowhere
and
so
I
feel
like,
if
that's
my
gut,
and
if
we
can
actually
sort
of
eliminate
the
the
low
quality
users
who
didn't
come
here
to
actually
participate.
That
might
actually
knock
this
back
down
to
something
that's
more
manageable.
That's
that's!
That
seems
actionable
to
me
and
it
seems
like
the
type
of
thing
where
we
can.
C
G
A
Let
me
save
you
from
yourselves
and
I
feel
like
that
is
potentially
disingenuous
to
the
energy
of
community
members,
who
are
willing
to
suggest
things
like
automation,
to
maybe
make
things
better
or
staff
up
the
moderation
team
to
maybe
make
things
better
and
I
feel
like
it
needs
to
be
an
ongoing
conversation
in
a
forum
if
it's
not
contributes
I'm,
not
sure
where,
because
it
feels
like
it's
gonna,
take
some
time
to
resolve.
I'm
happy.
You
don't
like
you
know,
I
guess
the.
L
B
B
B
M
The
only
comment
I
wanted
to
make
is
like
the
the
to
continue.
The
plea
from
contra
backs
is
like
this.
This
is
kind
of
blown,
the
scope
of
our
sake
into
root,
or
just
reiterate
that
point
like
we
there
there
isn't
the
manpower
in
Contra
backs
right
now,
or
the
person
power
I
should
say
in
Contra
Becks
to
like
carry
this
torch.
We
can
do
that
for
our
contributor
base,
but
we're
having
problems
making
like
making
the
decisions
and
being
able
to
power.
M
This
carried
a
torch
of
this
conversation
forward
for
the
60,000
ish
users
of
the
slack
it's
causing
it's
causing
a
real
issue
and
we
meet.
We
need
that
support
like
we
need
to
find
to
have
a
forum
to
continue
that,
even
whether
it's
a
kept,
whether
it's
something
else
as
far
as
the
next
steps,
we
need
a
forum
to
have
that
conversation
and
is
is
steering
taking
this
over
like
that
would
be
my
question.
A
Working
group
is
a
time
bounded
effort.
This
seems
like
it
would
go
on
forever.
I
feel
like,
let's
have
an
email
thread
on
the
steering
mailing
list,
Jase
and
Noah.
Since
you
are
the
two
who
I
think
expressed
the
opinions
that
kick
off
a
bunch
of
fun
conversation
and
contributor
experience,
can
you
start
an
email
thread
there?
A
It
sounds
like
your
initial
ask
is,
could
be,
please
have
some
more
people
to
staff
up
moderation
stuff,
while
we
figure
out
what
our
next
steps
are
and
we
can
find
a
way
to
fork
off
a
separate,
recurring
group
of
people
who
are
interested
in
this
and
call
it
whatever
we
need
to
call
it.
Does
that
seem
fair
to
everybody,
yep.