►
From YouTube: Kubernetes Steering Committee Meeting 20210118
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,
this
is
the
private
steering
meeting
for
january
18th.
2021
in
attendance
are
bob
killen,
christoph
blecker,
jims,
jordan,
nikita
and
paris.
All
right,
hello,
everybody
happy
2021
such
as
it
is
so.
Unless
someone
has
a
preference,
I
thought
we
would
just
go
top
down
on
the
agenda.
I
think
the
first
item
should
be
pretty
quick.
A
I
know
at
the
end
of
2020
we
paris
kind
of
went
over
simplifying
the
process
slumming
down
some
of
what
we
were
asking
working
groups
to
do
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everyone
had
checked
in
with
their
working
groups
and
kind
of
let
them
know
to
go
ahead
and
open
prs
with
basically
what
they
had
whatever
state.
A
It
was
in
dropping
the
about
you
portion,
so
I
I
did
that
with
my
working
groups,
I'll
check
in
with
them
again
this
coming
week,
just
since
everyone's
kind
of
getting
back
in
the
group
of
things,
but
has
everyone
at
least
let
their
working
groups
know.
That's
that's
the
deal
and
six
for
2020.
A
B
A
A
And
then
we'll
move
on
to
the.
A
C
D
A
Yeah
very
well
right
now:
okay,
I
will
just
set
the
topic
and
then
you
all
can
talk
about
it.
Paris's
pull
request
to
update
the
process
bob,
and
I
had
comments
that
paris
addressed.
Have
other
people
have
a
chance
to
look
at
it
and
does
that
seem
like
it's
a
reasonable
place
to
merge
and
start
shopping
out
around
to
the
sigs.
D
There's
also
two
open
comments
that
I
left
for
us
to
discuss
and
I
did
not
make
any
changes
to
them.
One
was,
I
think
at
least
one
was
from
jordan.
At
least
one
was
from
bob
that
haven't
been
resolved
yet
as
well,
and
we
could.
I
wanted
to
bring
those
up
on
the
call
too.
A
Okay,
mine
was
the
is
the
about
you
one-on-one
meeting
per
yeah.
That's
the
that's.
F
D
F
And
then
the
bobs.
D
D
Yeah
the
metrics,
but
you
said
that
that
worked
so
that's
kind
of
like
a
resolved.
I
guess
I
think
I
was
just
waiting
on
you
so
yeah,
I
think
from
a
like
a
conversational
standpoint.
The
jordan
one
is
the
is
the
biggest
one
that
we
have
left
unresolved
and
just
for
context.
D
Jordan,
weighed
in
because
when
we
took
the
about
you
piece
off
and
instead
of
having
them
put
that
in
we
said
hey,
we
would
like
to
meet
with
you,
and
I
think
my
context
here
directly
says
number
four.
The
steering
committee
liaison
will
work
directly
with
groups
that
have
follow-up
items
and
update
steering
during
regular
monthly
meetings.
D
The
liaison
will
also
coordinate
time
to
follow
up
with
the
chairs
on
their
individual
roles,
and
then
it
goes
into
like
the
context
of
like
what
we
would
want
to
talk
about,
because
that's
the
context
is
like
a
most
people
are
like.
What
do
you
want
me
to
talk
about,
but
then
b
those
were
like
the
questions
that
we
had
taken
off,
so
it
was
kind
of
just
like
already
there
anyway
for
context.
D
So
in
jordan's
point,
which
is
fair,
that's
why
I
left
it
because
which
is:
is
this
follow-up
intended
to
be
per
group
or
per
person?
Just
chairs
or
also
tech
leads
and
for
scale
that
his
personal
accounts
would
be
six
groups,
14
chairs
or
19
shares
and
tech
leads,
so
that
it
is
a
lot
I
mean.
I
guess
like
on
a
yearly
basis.
Checking
in
with
19
people
or
14
or
six
groups
might
not
be
too
bad,
but
I
still
think
it's
like
not
scalable,
so
I
do
think
jordan's
extremely
correct
there.
D
However,
I
feel
like
this
is
one
of
the
most
important
pieces,
like
even
from
the
apache
pmc
perspective.
That's
where
they
really
put.
They
do
submit
like
their
individual
private
tag
stuff
to
the
boards,
and
it's
like
on
an
individual
basis.
D
So
they
say
that
that
really
helps
them
like
talk
about
like
the
things
that
they
wouldn't
necessarily
talk
about
to
the
board.
Otherwise,
so
I
wanted
to
open
up
the
conversation
with
like
how
you
all
think
we
could
still
achieve
our
goals
there
within
our
goals,
being
one
just
better
communications
with
chairs
about
things
that
are
that
like
have
to
do
with
the
role
themselves,
just
giving
us
a
heads
up
on
things
so
that
we
can
prepare
and
also
just
like.
D
We
did
hear
comments
already
from
some
of
the
chairs
that
were
like.
Oh
that's,
nice
that
you
want
to
know
so
I
feel,
like
people
do
resonate
already
with
the
fact
that
we're
trying
to
like
make
build
that
bridge.
So
like
dims
or
anybody.
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
how
we
could
like
scale
that
to
make
sense,
I
think.
B
One
thought
here
is:
let's
make
it
a
group
thing
and
with
the
layers
on
and
then,
if
we
smell
an
issue,
then
we
would
do
follow-ups
with
individuals
or
subset
of
that
group
is
the
way.
I
think
I
mean
that's
only.
D
Jordan's
case
in
jordan's
explicit
case,
jordan
would
be
meeting
with
six
groups.
That's.
A
We
could
even
do
it
both
ways
like
if,
if
we
start
with
the
at
the
group
level
and
then,
if
there's
one
that
seems
kind
of
weird
or
it's
like
there's
a
lot
going
on
there
individual
with
that
for
that
sacred
working
group
and
also
make
the
offer
like
to
if,
if
there's
any
individual
tech
lead
or
chair
that
would
like
to
meet
individually.
Please
reach
out
like
we're
happy
to
do
that.
So.
A
What
I
was
thinking,
because
I
I
think
you
could
certainly
have
a
talk
to
a
group
where,
on
the
surface,
everything
seems
fine
and
so
from
our
perspective,
you'd
be
like
nope
no
follow-up
needed
here,
but
maybe
one
of
them
like
is
really
having
issues
and
really
would
benefit
from
talking.
One-On-One.
B
D
Yes,
I
think
so
and
sorry
I'm
taking
notes
like
old
school
notes
for
me
anyway,
for
this
pr
all
right.
Anybody
have
issues
with
that
approach.
G
H
I
have
one
question:
is
this
supposed
to
be
apologizes
already
mentioned
in
the
dark?
Is
this
supposed
to
be
throughout
the
year,
or
is
it
supposed
to
be
before
all
the
group
summit
reports,
which
is
usually
in
february
but
like
sometime
early
this
year,
either
way
it's
fine?
I
just
want
to
make
sure
when
the
meeting
is
supposed
to
be
held.
A
C
D
D
B
So,
are
we
going
to
run
this
by
the
chairs
and
tech
leads
meeting?
Is
that
the
plan.
D
Yeah
so
then,
after
after
everybody's,
okay
with
the
pr
as
stan
well,
like
you
know,
with
the
the
modifications
that
I've
got
thus
far
I'll,
do
those
like
literally
right
after
this
call.
After
that,
I
was
envisioning
it
that
we
send
another
note
to
kdev.
We
did
last
year.
I
I
already
know
people
didn't
read
it
like
hey
we're
about
to
do
this
thing,
but
I
think
we
should
send
another
one
to
the
leads
and
then
also
another
one
decay
dev.
That,
like
this
thing,
is
happening
and
here's.
D
Why
we're
doing
it?
One
more
time
I
don't
know,
maybe
even
re-bubble
up
the
old
one
like
it's
that
time.
D
C
Like
at
the
last
chair,
I'm
sorry,
oh
sorry
go
ahead
at
the
last
chair
and
tech
leads
meeting.
All
a
lot
of
them
didn't
realize
that
the
annual
reports
were
you
know
upcoming,
and
this
this
is
partially,
like
you
know,
a
failure
on
contributions.
Aside
with
us
sending
out
the
like
need
to
know,
it
was
an
item
on
the
need
to
know,
but
we
just
like
we
should
have
just
fired
that
individually
and
not
added
to
the
list
and
wait
until
we
get
the
list
of
things
to
send
it
out.
D
D
C
One
one
other
idea:
I
talked
to
a
couple
people
about
this.
It
might
be
worth
it
for
us
as
steering
to
open
up
an
issues
in
k
community
for
each
sig
and.
C
It
to
the
leads,
because
that
way
it
closes
out
when
the
pr
is
merged.
So
when
the
report
is
merged
in
yeah,
yeah
and
a
lot
of
people's
workflow
tends
to
be
around,
you
know
if
they're
assigned.
C
So
I
think
that
you
know
would
be
a
good
ai
to
fall
out
from
this,
and
possibly
you
know,
integrate
into
the
work
or
into
the
process
in
the
future.
D
C
E
Well,
so
I
I
have
two
two
things
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up
so
first
on
that
point,
that's
easily
scripted
like.
If
you
want
to
assign
that
to
me,
I
can
whip
that
out
in
10
minutes
and
like
script
out
opening
up
issues
for
all
the
groups
that
are
supposed
to
do
it
I'll
just
script.
It
based
off
of
six
foot
ammo.
Oh.
E
Second,
point
is:
are
we
are
we
asking
that
the
working
groups
that
did
reports
in,
like
the
latter
half
of
2020,
to
do
another
report
for
2021.
D
E
D
D
Yeah
like
and
we
can
even
like,
if
we
want,
we
can
even
like
the
ones
that
did
do
it,
we
can
tell
them
to
like
put
the
folder
as
2021.
D
C
Oh
well,
the
liaison.
D
C
C
Yeah,
the
liaison
list
is
already
out
of
date
with
the
current
six
and
working
groups.
So
if
we
tie
that
into
six
dot,
yaml
and
just
list
the
liaison
there,
it
will
always
be
up
to
date
and
if
a
someone
else
wants
to
speak
to
liaison
that
possibly
wants
to
escalate
above
the
you
know,
sig
leads
that
gives
them
an
easy
discoverable
point.
D
E
My
only
my
only
concern
with
that
is
making
sure
that
we
don't
duplicate
data
and
house
like
in
more
than
one
place,
and
then
one
of
them
gets
out
of
date
like
if
we
want
to
move
it
to
6.
ammo,
like
that's
great
as
long
as
we
just
link
it
from
the
other
place,
so
that
we
don't
have
like
two
sources
of
truth.
C
So
we
we
do
it
on
kate's
dot
or
kate's
dot,
dev,
slash,
sigs
and,
as
like,
we
do
want
to
publish
the
sig,
like
all
the
the
community
group
read
me's
and
things
like
that
there.
It's
just
you
know
slowly
adding
more
content
and
it
will
involve
like
updating
the
the
template,
header
and
some
other
stuff.
So
we
will
be
able
to
publish
all
this
stuff
in
a
more
accessible
fashion.
A
Sorry
next
item
the
the
next
one
was
actually
just
a
status
report
from
me.
So
in
I
don't
remember
october
november
october,
maybe
I
don't
know
we
had
talked
through
the
guidelines
around
the
announcement
policy,
but
there
wasn't
actually
any
mechanics
enforcing
that,
and
so
I
worked
with
sigdocs
over
holiday
break
and
they
re-swizzled
how
where
the
data
for
announcements
comes
from
and
it's
in
a
folder
now
and
that
folder
has
an
owner's
file
and
it
points
to
steering
and
updating
that
alias
is
in
our
onboarding.
A
A
You
that
brings
us
to
the
next
item,
which
was
when
last
ack
of
the
blm
banner
by
steering
was,
if
you,
if
you
squint,
was
when
it
got
restored
after
q
con,
and
we
talked
about
it
slack
instead,
yeah
we're
finally
leaving
it
up
until
the
end
of
the
year
and
so
that
expiration.
A
Date
passed
that
record,
especially.
B
So
one
question
I
had
jordan
was
the
text
of
the
announcement
that
we
had
before,
not
in
any
of
our
repositories
or
in
our
website
anywhere
right,
like
it's
been
it's
there
in
the
git
history,
but
not
not
checked
as
in
it's
not.
A
There
for
anybody
to
look
up
right
right-
it's
not
in
the
latest
head
commits
it's
in
the
history,
but
it's
not
in
the
commit.
We
could
have
the
announcement
there
with
the.
B
Dates
that
it
was
up
if
we
would
like
yeah,
I
I
think
I
would
like
that.
I
would
like
to
like
encourage
us
to
do
that.
B
Okay,
what
were
the
dates
and
what
was
the
text,
and
if
we
have
some
additional
stuff
that
we
want
to
say,
that
would
be
good,
but
at
a
minimum,
the
dates
and
the
text
that
is
searchable.
A
A
A
I
mean
if
we,
if
we
want
to
pull
all
the
banners
that
we
used,
it
might
actually
save
time
in
the
future.
If
we
say
you
know
what
we
want,
the
kubecon
eu
banner
copy
paste
and
like
change,
the
expiration
dates.
B
B
Bob,
I
think
we
should
have
the
exact
dates
when
it
was
up
and
when
it
was
not,
you
know
I'm
sure
these
people
who
watch
for
these
kinds
of
things
and
want
to
create
a
ruckus
around
it.
So.
A
The
way,
the
way
it
was
implemented,
things
higher
in
the
list
take
priority.
So
if
the
kubecon
ones,
which
were
short
term,
are
at
the
top
of
the
list
and
then
this
one,
which
was
longer
term
but
got
temporarily
overwritten,
was
at
the
bottom,
with
the
dates
starting
in
I
forget,
may
may
or
june,
and
then
ending,
I
guess,
beginning
of
january,
that
that
would
match
the
behavior
that
actually
occurred.
A
So
I
can,
I
can
take
action
item
to
compile
the
announcements
source
based
on
the
announcements
that
were
actually
up
in
2020.
H
So
jordan
was
cutting
off
really
badly.
While
talking
for
this
item,
can
anyone
repeat:
what
exactly
are
we
trying
to
make
a
decision
on.
B
So
check
the
doc
nikita
jordan,
jordan
and
bob
they
they
they
took
notes
there.
So,
basically
can
we
keep
the
announcements
text
and
the
dates
it
was
up
in
the
announcement
source,
so
it
is
browsable
searchable,
even
though
it
is
no
longer
rendered
in
the
website
because
it
expired.
B
C
C
A
Paris,
I
know
and
tell
me
if
I'm
breaking
up,
I
know
you
had
wanted
to
I
I
wasn't
sure
if
you
wanted
to
give
rationale
about
allowing
it
to
expire
or
it
seemed
like.
You
were
wanting
more
more
of
a
statement.
So
maybe
you
could
describe
what
you
would
like
to
see
in
our
discussion
and
notes
here.
D
My
thing
is:
if
we're
going
to
put
a
banner
up,
then
we
should
also
talk
about
why
we're
taking
it
down
and
so
like.
That's
why
I
was
against
just
taking
it
down,
because
I
thought
we
needed
to
make
a
statement
to
the
black
community
as
to
what
our
you
know.
What
kind
of
actions
that
we're
taking
to,
I
don't
know
prove
that
black
lives
matter
here
and
I
think,
like
hanging.
D
The
banner
is
also
a
way
of
saying
that
we're
trying
to
figure
it
out
and
that
we're
not
done
our
work
yet
and
that
it's
not
political,
because
black
folks
are
still
dying.
D
So
at
that
I
mean
it's
obviously
a
sensitive
topic,
but
that's
why
I
was
just
wanting
to
take
a
more
sensitive
approach
and
at
least
a
thought,
more
thoughtful
approach.
And
if,
if
people
did
ask
us,
you
know
why
we
still
had
it
up.
We
could
say,
because
we're
still
trying
to
make
sure
that
black
voices
are
heard
here
and.
B
Represented
so
paris,
I
agree
with
you
on
that.
The
other
question
I
had,
I
think
I
asked
on
slack,
was:
what
did
you
see
other
communities
doing?
I
I
couldn't
find
anything.
Did
you
find
anything.
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
have
a
few
like
things
that
are
talking
about
what
I
just
said,
which
is
we're
trying
to
figure
it
out
right,
but
yeah.
No,
I
think
that's
I
think
most,
I
think
most
of
most
communities
that
are
still
that
still
have
the
banner
up
still
have
that
same
mindset,
which
is
that
they're
trying
to
figure
it
out
too.
So
this
isn't
necessarily
something
where
there's
a
whole
hell
of
a
lot
of
past
presidents,
which
is
both
interesting
and
not.
D
But
I
feel
like
if
it
like,
we
did
make
a
statement
and
we
were
you
know
not
quick
to
make
that
statement,
but
we
were
like
confident
on
making
that
statement.
So
that's
why
I
thought
we
would
be
confident
taking
it
down
instead
of
saying
like
what
improved
or
you
know
what
happened
or
something
like
that.
Instead.
A
C
A
I'm
not
sure
like
it
was
put
up
sort
of
in
a
moment
in
time,
and
I
don't
know
that
I
look
at
our
community
and
think
oh
yeah,
like
our
community,
is
really
missing
the
mark
here.
I
I
think
making
a
statement
and
really
what
the
statement
said
was.
This
isn't
consistent
with
our
community
values,
which
is
true,
and
I
think
our
community
values
are.
A
B
Jordan,
one
way
I
was
thinking
about
this
was
it's
like
if
you,
if
I
I
don't,
think,
we've
done
a
systematic
survey
of
our
contributors
to
see
you
know
how
many
urms
and
you
know,
blacks.
We
have
black
community
members,
we
have
in
our
community
right
but
anecdotally,
it
seems
far
less,
but
I
I
don't.
I
don't
even
know
comparatively
what
is
there
in
other
communities
either.
So
one
thing
that
I
was
chatting
with
chris
about
was
you
know.
B
For
example,
we
were
talking
about
how
many
women
attend
the
conference
and
you
know
so
they
are
keeping
some
statistics,
but
not
definitely
not
on
the
development
side.
So
then
the
question
becomes
like:
how
do
we
encourage
more
people
from
these
communities
to
be
in
our
community
and
make
sure
that
we
value
them
right?
So
we
can
go
down
that
path
also,
if
we
all
think
that
would
be
a
goal
to
achieve.
H
We
want
to
be
inclusive,
but
I
think
we
have
a
long
way
to
go
to
be
together,
so
we
should
follow
up
with
some
sort
of
action
like
ours
was
saying
to
make
sure
we
grow
our
contributor
base,
but
I
I'm
not
really
sure
what's
the
answer
here,
but
then
we
should
do
something.
C
E
Black
lives
matter,
and
that
statement
is
not
like
it's
it's
not
like
a
new
value
to
our
community.
We
were
saying
explicitly
like
our
community
has
always
had
these
values
our
community.
Our
community
has
always
prioritized
these
things
and
saying
out
loud
that
black
lives
matter
is
completely
in
line
with
everything
that
we've
said
before
and
continues
to
be,
and
will
continue
to
be
like
in
perpetuity
whether
or
not
we
have
a
banner
up
that
our
values
are
still
there.
Our
values
are
still
consistent
with
that
message,
but.
E
Yeah,
whether
or
not
a
banner
is
up
the
conversation
isn't
over
and
there's
still.
E
E
But
the
conversation
like
to
me
very
clearly
the
conversation
isn't
over
yet
I
think
that's
that's
kind
of
like
the
the
conclusion
we're
all
reaching.
Is
you
know
whether
or
not
we
have
a
banner?
A
Recording
yeah,
I
I
think
we
should
review
the
recording
and
transcribe
what
kristoff
said.
A
I
in
terms
of
like
the
thought
we
need
to
do
something,
but
the
question
is
what
what
dims
and
nikita
were
saying
about
like
are
we
met?
Are
we
measuring
like
levels
of
engagement,
different
different
differently,
represented
people,
and
I
mean
before
you
can
before
you
can
make
progress
to
solve
something
you
need
to
know
like
what
are?
What
are
we
shooting
for?
A
And
so,
if
the
question
is
like
engaging
more
diverse
people
and
having
them
involved
in
our
community,
if
it's
having
greater
diversity
and
leadership
like
those
are
sort
of
different
goals,
and
it
would
be
helpful
to
know
like
which
one
are
we
wanting
to
tackle,
which
one
are
we
wanting
to
tackle?
First,
is
it
engagement
in
just
our
sigs
and
working
groups?
Is
it
attendance
at
conferences
once
we
are
able
to
have
conferences
again,
yeah
like
being
clear
about
like?
D
B
D
So
that's
where
I
feel
like
we
should
start
like
from
a
body
of
that
is
steering
making
sure
that
all
perspectives
are
well
represented
in
the
way
that
we
make
this
amazing
technology.
B
So
this
is
when
I
reach,
for
my
funnel
metaphor:
right
nikita
knows
this,
so
the
the
the
funnel
at
the
top
is
people
who
are
interested
in
the
technology
and
the
second
one
is
next.
One
is
like
people
who
actually
show
up
to
kubecon
right
and
that's
where
we
have
the
diversity
scholarship,
so
that's
useful
and
then
we
are
also
talking
about
you
know
making
sure
that
contributors
who
we
want
to
invite
are
able
to
get
to
the
conference.
B
So
we
started
that
there
then
the
next
one
step
would
be
to
get
to
end
up
doing
the
mentoring
program
and
making
sure
that
there
is
enough
people
coming
to
the
mentoring
program
from
different
backgrounds
and
also
we
have
to
kind
of
like
restart
the
outreachy
gsoc
stuff.
I
think
and
take
take
advantage
of
the
community
bridge
right
and
then
we
get
to
the
point
where
there'll
be
people
doing
regular
work
in
the
community
and
then
we
go
back
to
like
you
know:
reviewers
approvers
and
sig
leads
sick
chairs.
B
A
That's
true,
but
for
those
like
long-term
multi-year
efforts
it,
the
temptation
is
to
say
this
is
so
big.
We
should
expect
to
see
like
very
little
progress
day
to
day
where,
if
you
like,
actually
tackle
one
distinct
area
and
say
well,
let's,
let's
set
a
goal
like
what
what
is
a
goal?
How
do
we
measure
it?
How
you
know.
C
I
do
have
an
idea,
at
least
on
the
the
measuring
side,
and
that
would
be
you
know,
adding
some
more
like
questions
to
the
community
survey.
The
annual
survey
looking
at
people's
backgrounds.
C
C
D
So
if
we
decide
that
I
would
there's
actually
there
are
some
open
source
surveys
that
do
ask
that
already.
So
I
would
say
we
could
just
look
at
those
and
then
ask
amy
to
approve
the
language
like
maybe
like
meaning,
send
the
send
what
we
want
to
ask
first
and
not
necessarily
that
we
want
to
ask
it
and
then
we
can
get
the
lf
lawyers
to
take
a
look
at
it.
But
I'm
in
support
yeah.
C
A
A
Yes,
jordan
I'll,
add
it
after
we
wrap
up
thanks
all
right.
I
think
we've
got
a
couple
distinct
things
to
do
here.
Like
bob
said,
this
is
a
long-term
thing.
So,
as
long
as
we
have
clear
neck
steps
and
people
planning
to
do
those
and
plan
to
discuss
it
again,
I
think
that
is
a
good
place
for
today
I
did
want
to
just
mention
the
last
few
items.
A
A
E
E
E
A
Paris,
plus
one
in
the
chat
derek,
is
the
networking
liaison.
E
Okay,
then,
let
me
at
least
take
the
next
step
of
following
up
with
derek
and
seeing
if
he
has
the
cycles
to
go
talk
to
networking
about
that
and
if
derek
doesn't
then
I'll
put
it
back
to
the
group
and
see
if
anybody
else
does.
A
A
We
have
one
and
a
half
minutes
left
are
either
of
these
last
two
items:
just
fyis
or
was
discussion.
Yeah.
D
I
put
the
component
standard
just
because
I
don't
know,
I
guess
it
just
got
caught
up
in
my
email
and
I
literally
read
it
two
days
ago
and
I
feel
so
terrible
and
I
didn't
know
if
there
was
really
any
actions
here
for
us,
but
we
don't
have
to
talk
about
it
now,
so
we
can
talk
about
it
like
in
slack
or
something
like
that.
So
my
my
I
put
it
on
the
agenda
just
to
see
like
what
do
you
all
know
about
it?
What
did
I
miss
like?
A
I'm
familiar
with
it,
it's
basically
a
long-term
effort
that
was
cross-sig
that
never
got
staffed
or
funded
and
is
sort
of
dead
on
the
vine
and
like
the
people
who
had
been
pushing,
it
basically
ran
out
of
time
and
energy
and
asked
for
people
to
take
up
the
mantle
and
no
one
did
it
part
of
it.
Is
it's
not
super
clear
like
what
needs
to
be
done
and
then
once
there's
a
path?
It's
not
super
clear
what
the
benefit
is
anyway.
I've
got
an
idea.
D
And
I'll
we
can
keep
it
to
slack,
something
that
we
haven't
done
before.
I've
got
an
idea:
okay,
go
ahead!
Sorry.
D
H
The
next
one
is
also
just
I.
I
realized
that
we
had
a
whole
call
about
election
retro
items
and
I
did
have
a
pr
open
before
the
break
and
there's
some
comments
on
that.
I'll
get
that
result.
We
can
get
that
much,
but
there
are
some
other
items
remaining
too.
So
we
should
all
take
a
look
at
it
after
this
week,
like
whenever
we
should
get
that
done.