►
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
A
Part
of
the
context
that
I
did
here
was
that
you
know
it
was
something
that
we
worked
on
and
looked
at
in
the
the
package
maintenance
team
for
express
and
it's
proven
to
be
successful
there
and
was
seen
as
like
a
path
into
becoming
a
collaborator.
You
know,
so
the
thought
was.
Maybe
it's
a
good
pattern
to
to
mirror
here
and
the
node
project
as
well.
A
B
A
C
C
Of
the
thoughts
I
have
there,
Michael
is
like
we
have
a
bot.
That
applies
a
lot
of
the
appropriate
tags
and
to
me,
and-
and
perhaps
this
is
something
broader
and
may
be
associated
with
the
code
owners,
but
it's
like
beyond
what
like
the
basic
tag
does
or
something
that
could
be
automated
based
on
what
files
are
touched
and
code
owners.
C
A
That
part
of
it
is
like
safer
Express.
It's
not
nearly
as
easy
to
become
a
collaborator
as
it
is
for
node,
so
that
may
make
it
different
right,
like
by
the
time
you've
done
enough
triaging
on
the
node
front.
Well
we're
likely
to
make
you
a
collaborator
anyway,
and
it
is,
it
still
may
be
interesting.
A
A
Maybe
it
would
make
sense
here
to
is
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
have
some
of
the
people
who
were
actually
in
the
discussion
before
we
sort
of
close
it
out
so
I'd
say:
let's
wait
for
a
full
discussion
until
we
have
some
of
the
TSC
members
that
were
there
like
I
think
Jewish
was
there,
if
not
a
few
other
people
right.
C
I
guess
like
the
one
asked
I
would
have
moving
toward
that
would
make
sense,
as
perhaps
like
a
practical
example
of
someone
or
a
situation
where
it
would
make
sense
to
make
someone
a
triage
her
and
not
a
full
collaborator
and
I.
Think
like
one
or
two
examples
of
that.
Would
it
would
help
me
just
like
kind
of
understand
where
this
would
be
helpful
and
useful.
C
A
D
Just
insane
I
think
the
difference
with
Express
was
they.
They
heavily
rely
on
tanks,
so
it
like
needs
more
info
or
need
three
production.
Examples
like
that
and
for
you
to
be
able
to
add
tags,
she
need
to
be
in
a
team
and
the
triage
team
is
successful
there
because
it
gives
people
kind
of
permission
to
help
out
with
the
triage
by
adding
labels,
but
nothing
extra.
C
Yeah
I
guess
like
one
thing
that
I
could
imagine
off
the
bat
like
where
triage
could
help
would
be
like
we
could
give
everyone
on
the
community
committee
triage
role
on
the
note
project.
That's
like
one
place
where
I
could
see.
This
could
actually
help
with
stuff,
and
there
have
been
like
a
few
people
over
time
who,
even
for
their
own
reasons,
are
like
not
engaged
enough
for
wanting
or
doing
enough
like
work
on
the
project
to
be
a
committer
or
have
a
commit
bit,
but
it
could
be
useful
for
them
to
manage
issues
I.
A
A
A
The
focus
angle
is
an
interesting
one
in
terms
of
like,
if
it's
people
who
want
to
click
like
if
it
sort
of
fostered
a
group
of
people
who
would
get
together
and
work
on
that,
could
be
interesting
as
well.
I'd
suggest
we
wait
for
the
full
discussion
for
when
we
have
to
reach
who
was
you
know
at
the
meeting
and
Ben
has
been
very
active
in
the
express
triage
and
I
noted
down
miles.
Your
question
is
that
does
that
make
sense
for
this
time.
A
C
Think
there's
anything
big
to
bring
up
at
this
moment.
I.
Think,
like
the
the
general
sentiment,
the
last
time
I
checked
was
that
folks
are
open
to
it
in
general,
but
definitely
don't
want
to
be
the
people
like
paving
the
path
here.
There's
been
a
bunch
of
other
projects
who
have
been
working
on
it.
So
I
think
we
were
maybe
waiting
to
see
a
little
bit
more
from
github
as
far
as
like
especially
things
around
like
redirects
and
things
like.
D
C
Like
would
make
the
transition
a
little
bit
more
painful
like
there
are
examples
of
how
we
could
use
actions
to
fix
some
of
this,
but
I
think
we
were
waiting
for
a
broader
timeline,
so
I
think
right
now
it's
in
wait
and
see,
and
then
maybe,
if
it's
like
a
month
from
now-
and
nothing
has
really
changed,
I
can
follow
up
internally
and
we
could
see
you
know
maybe
kind
of
iterate
on
it,
but
I'd
say
maybe
wait.
You
know
like
another
couple
weeks
to
see
if
there's
any
signal
from
github
themselves.
C
A
Okay,
that
sounds
good.
The
next
one
is
doc,
no
longer
maintained,
seen
a
structure
of
33
639.
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
Technically,
Joey's
PR
probably
could
go
forward
and
land,
but
the
question
was
I
mean
we
really
needed
to
get
some
additional
views
of
the
discussion.
So
initial
input
on
it
on
which
approach
was
was
was
best.
I
was
tempted,
I
could
have
weighed
in
is
kind
of
a
third
person,
but
given
that
Anna
was
doing
that
work
at
my
request,
as
you
know
stuff,
then
that
would
have
just
made
it
a
bit
too
one-sided
right.
B
A
So
understood,
I
think
the
challenges
is,
you
know
a
few
people
have
looked
at
it,
but
you're
it's
it's
very,
very
detailed
in
depths
gonna
take
many
hours
for
somebody
to
get
to
the
point
where
they
can
comment
so
like
I.
Think,
that's
why
it's
stuck.
If,
if
there
could
be
like
a
you
know,
I
don't
do
you
really
need
to
know
all
of
that
to
understand
the
main
points
of
disagreement.
B
B
B
You
know,
because
I'm
so
much
more
familiar
with
the
way
and
I
was
doing
it
right
so
I
mean
there
are
other
differences
in
terms
of
how
the
snapshots
are
handled
internally,
but
the
the
biggest
one,
for
me
at
least,
is
whether
it
includes
the
user
code
or
not,
which
has
a
difference
on
performance,
and
it's
actually
one
of
the
things
that
that
we
were
trying
to
achieve
what
the
snapshots
when
having
man
are
due
to
work,
because
it
has
an
impact
on
things
like
cold
starts
for
serverless.
That
kind
of
thing
right.
A
So
the
snapshot
I
mean
it
happens,
just
I
get
well
anyway.
There's
that
could
be
a
whole
yeah.
That
would
be
a
whole
topic
so
that
that's
one
where
I
could
see
you
know
without
having
to
read
the
whole
thing
you
can
get
into
like
you
know,
does
it
make
sense
to
have
just
the
node
code
or
the
order?
Does
the
application
code
make
sense
as
well
and
what
are
the
concerns
of
one
versus
the
other
like
one?
A
If
you
know
you
obviously
have
two,
you
can't
use
the
snapshot
with
different
applications
if
you're,
including
the
application
code
right
or
it
won't,
be
optimal
for
multiple,
but
you
know
that
that
I,
don't
think
take
takes
an
in-depth
knowledge
of
the
implementation.
It
takes
more
of
a
what
are
the
usage
scenarios,
understanding
to
figure
out
which
one
you'd
prefer.
You
know
people
would
think
would
be
better.
A
Yeah,
anyway,
that's
my
only
comment
as
like
this
seems
stuck
just
because
it's
you
know,
there's
so
much
detail
that
it's
it's
not
something.
People
can
easily
weigh
in
weighing
on
great
if
it
could
be
cut
down
to.
You
know
that
list
of
five
key
differences
like
in
terms
of
the
you
know
it
doesn't
matter
if
they're
different,
if
they're
equally
good,
it's
more
like
what
are
the
points
where
people
think
it's
there's
a
significant
reason
why
you'd
want
to
do
something
different
right,
so.
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
It
and
I
guess
some
you
wrote
well,
semi-related
is
just
the
four
larger
changes
you
know
we
tried
I
forget
what
we
called
it,
but
like
an
enhancement
process,
proposal,
enhancement
process
or
whatever
at
one
point
I,
don't
know
of
any
other
like
in
the
discussions.
I'm,
not
sure,
we've
come
up
with
anything
else.
That
would
help
in
a
situation
like
this,
where
you
know
you
could
discuss
some
of
those
initial
points
before
you've
gone
down
to
the
implementation
right,
yeah.
B
So
we
tried
that
before
it
ended
up
being
a
place
where
ideas
went
to
die
because
they
were
just
talked
to
death
and
before
anything
was
actually
done
and
now
we
you
know,
somebody
puts
a
lot
of
effort
into
the
code
that
somebody
has
a
competing
point
of
view.
They
just
go
off
and
write
competing
code
and
then
they
argue
or
discussion
or
are
they
implementations?
So
it's
I'm.
A
B
A
A
Okay,
moving
on
to
the
next
issue,
which
is
the
Charter
package
maintenance
working
group,
so
that's
actually
been
open
for
three
weeks.
I
added
a
comment
basically
saying:
unless
anybody
objects
in
the
meeting
today
will
consider
that
approved.
There
are
two
2tc
approvals
and
no
objections.
I
I,
looked
in
our
governance
and
didn't
find
anything
else.
That
said
anything
specific
in
terms
of
chartering,
a
working
group,
so
I
think
that's
okay,
but
if
anybody
knows
otherwise,
let
me
know.
A
I'm
gonna
start
by
what's
in
the
issue
that
was
opened,
build
resources
not
too
much
to
report,
except
that
we
are
setting
up
a
meeting
with
Linux
IT
to
sort
of
give
them
more
information,
we'd
forward
them
a
potential
scope
of
work
that
we
were.
You
know
asking
for
help
on
that
we'd
worked
on
before
they
asked
some
questions,
so
this
meeting
is
to
follow
on
to
that
I
see,
there's
no
major
update
on
modules.
A
B
You
know
the
experimental
mutations
landed
in
core.
It's
going
through
quite
a
lot
of
changes.
We
have
code
owners
enabled
for
it
as
an
experiment
to
see
if
we
can
kind
of
experiment
the
the
landing
process,
an
accelerated
landing
process
now
and
I
had
that
as
a
PR
open
to
see.
But
if
we're
going
to
eliminate
that
the
timeframe
for
the
minimal
timeframe
for
a
landing
things,
how.
B
It's
purely
experimental
and
all
the
PR
there
and
touching
anything
else
other
than
quick
instance.
We
have
code
owners,
support,
we're.
You
know
the
idea
is
that
basically
run
it
as
an
experiment
to
see
if
we
can
land
effectively
with
no
without
a
time
limit
and
still
maintain
well
and
also
test
I,
see.