►
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
Just
in
terms
of
you
know,
do
we
need
to
clarify
what
that
path
is?
How
does
it
work,
and
so
that's
something
that
if
anybody
here
has
interest
in
it's
good
to
be
aware
that
conversations
is
is
taking
place,
there's
an
open
issue
and
I'd
recommend.
You
know
you
go
over
there
and
take
a
read
and
possibly
get
involved.
A
B
A
C
Okay,
so
go
ahead
ruined
and
this
case
it
was
a
bit
ambiguous
if
it
should
be
a
major
or
not
mainly
because
the
spec
was
changed
in
this
case
and
Ghaffar
is
something
very
rarely
used
by
now.
That
was
the
reason
for
the
removal
in
the
spec
and
yeah.
So
now
we
would
just
have
to
decide
if
we
still
consider
that
change
to
these
ever
major
or
not
I
thought
it
would
be
best,
and
we
I
discussed
it
here
or
maybe
just
have
everyone
just
give
their
looking
good
or
or
be
against
it.
D
It's
a
like
is
a
fix
for
the
spec
change,
so
I
guess.
The
issue
is
whether
we
consider
changes
that
are
breaking
but
are
required
for
spec
Amaya's
are
so
major
I.
A
Would
still
be
the
opinion
that
they
are
because
it's
you
know
you
could
still
easily
break
somebody
and
that
kind
of
change,
just
just
because
it
was
changed
in
the
spec,
doesn't
mean
somebody
wasn't
relying
on
like
in
this
case
it's
and
it's
actually
a
removal
from
this
back.
It's
not
like
hey.
We.
It
was
up
for
interpretation
right.
D
If
they
can
just
remove
it
from
the
web,
then
then
I
guess
that
means
they,
because
they
usually
have
a
system
to
find
like
how
many
percent
web
pages
on
the
web
will
be
broken
by
this
change,
and
if
they
found
that
the
percentage
is
like
too
small
and
doesn't
really
need
to
be
doesn't
really
require
any
intention.
They
will
just
remove
it
and
I
guess
this
is
one
of
those
kind
of
changes.
A
D
Guess
in
peace,
I
guess
in
the
case
of
web
spec
changes
if
they
have
done
the
work
to
make
sure
that
the
breakage
is
like
trivial
enough
to
just
be
done
without
any
duplication,
then
I!
Guess
it's
okay
for
us
to
also
go
with
them
and
make
it
non
silver
major,
because
it
doesn't
really
break
that
many
people
on
the
web,
then
I
guess
it's
also
very
unlikely
that
they
are
going
to
break
our
users.
I.
E
A
G
A
A
D
An
exchange
so
I'm,
maybe
we
should
wait
until
next
time
we
are,
but
with
on
the
meeting
I'm,
not
sure
whether
that
the
discussion
blocks
the
proquest
Oh,
though
that's
what
Jen
said
in
the
thread.
D
He
was
thinking
about,
like
maybe
discussing
about
the
process,
to
avoid
concurrent
world
right
and
make
sure
we
don't
do
duplicate
efforts.
D
A
D
E
A
A
Okay,
that
sounds
good.
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
issue,
which
is
under
no
Jessamyn
audit
Google
account
access.
There's
no
update
on
that.
Brian
was
gonna
put,
as
has
suggested,
a
an
approach
which
we
should
PR
in
and
has
the
action
to
take
the
next
step,
we'll
just
leave
it
on
on
the
agenda.
So
we
don't
forget
it,
but
nothing
to
talk
about
this
week
and
somebody
has
something.
G
D
F
G
E
D
I
think
something
maybe
some
work
was
done.
This
makes
snapshot
less
useful
in
reducing
the
the
the
the
start-up
improvement,
because,
if
I
just
compare
the
master
with
one
that
I
built
before
I'm
the
star
of
a
performance
piece
missing,
it's
just
that
the
impact
of
the
snap
snap
shot
integration
was
reduced.
So.