►
From YouTube: 2022-08-18 Governance Committee private meeting
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
C
But
liz,
thank
you
again
for
joining
in
on
the
tag
meeting,
because
I
think
that
was
very
valuable.
I
did
share
it
across.
You
know
many
teams
internally
and
it's
it's.
It's
good
good
good
to
spread
the
word.
C
This
is
an
interesting
question
that
I
think
daniel
was
addressing
and
yuri
was
also
that
tigran
asked
on
the
gctc
channel
about
the
requirement
for
a
member
for
becoming
a
member.
You
need
to
be
sponsored
by
two
approvers
from
other
companies.
C
C
Yes,
yes
exactly
so,
I
think
again,
just
changing
it
for
convenience
may
not
be
the
best
thing
to
do.
Hi
mauryan,
I
thank
you.
Quran,
hey,
hey!
C
All
right
did
we
have
any
topics.
I
was
just
bringing
this
up.
C
E
It
in
person
for
those
that
don't
know
what
I'm
talking
about
I'll,
get
a
link
from
the
it's
in
the
the
gctc
channel.
If
you
haven't
already
seen,
tigran
asked
about
the
requirements
to
become
a
member,
whether
you
need
to
be
sponsored
by
two
approvers
from
other
companies
for
context.
E
There's
a
donation-
I
don't
remember
around
evpf
or
something
like
that
where
they
need
people
to
maintain
it.
But
those
people
are
not
members
of
the
org
and
he's
asking.
I
guess
what
the
policy
is
around
that
should
we
just
fast
track
their
membership?
What
who
should
their
sponsors
be?
And
that
kind
of
thing.
C
But
I
think
typically,
if
they
are,
you
know
a
group
of
folks
that
are,
you
know
again,
starting
to
join
the
project,
contributing
through
a
particular
component.
Then
they
should
be
presenting
this.
You
know
that
about
that
component
to
a
larger
audience
and
hence
they
will
get
sponsorship
from.
B
The
problem
is
that,
in
the
meantime,
right
like
in
the
window
between
when
the
project
officially
enters
our
approach
enters
our
github
organization
and
when
people
might
vouch
them
through
ordinary
contributions,
I
I
think
you
know
they
need
to
be
able
to
be
assigned
issues.
They
need
to
be
able
to
merge
requests
right,
like
we
have
a
policy
that
we
don't
typically
allow
people
to
become
maintainers
or
approvers
without
being
members.
C
B
B
The
the
project
acceptance
we
also
stamped
the
members.
C
Yeah
and
and
then
they
just
I
mean
it's
just
finding
issues
really
at
the
same
time
and
just
getting
you
know
two
gc
members
to
support
right,
so
that
can
be
part
of
the
same
process
and
then
at
the
same
time,
but
I
think
that's
easy
to
easy
to
solve
so.
C
Yeah,
I
think
I
think,
there's
you
just
propose
that
that's
cool,
so
maybe
we
can
just
have
an
additional
couple
of
fields
in
the
form
in
the
donation
form
that
just
lists
out
the
maintainers
or
proposed
maintainers
and
membership.
That's
supported.
E
Think
at
least
equal
you
know
working.
B
Right
exactly,
I
think
the
challenge
is
basically,
you
know
what
happens
for,
like
you
know,
a
super
inactive
maintainer
of
the
old
project
who
comes
in
right
like
right.
That's
why
we
want
the
people
who
are
agreeing
to
donate
the
project
to
agree
who
is
our
core
right
like
who
is
our
course
for
the
people
that
we
want
to
get.
C
C
Think
that
I
mean
that
was
informally
done,
but
maybe
it's
good
to
just
add
a
couple
of
fields.
There
that's
pretty
much.
You
know
like
we
shouldn't
pull
in
the
inactive.
D
Do
we
want
to
do
something
for
this
group
because
I
think
sorry
joined
like
three
minutes
late?
The
context
is
that
they
are
looking
to
be
members,
but
are
not
currently
members,
but
need
to
be
members
in
order
to
assign
issues
and
things.
C
Yeah
I
mean
they're
they're
again
coming
in
with
a
project
or
a
code
component
that
is
being
donated
to
the
project
or
added
in
right
through
the
donation
process.
So
tigran
was
asking
you
know
about
whether
you
know
they
can
be
fast-tracked
in
some
way.
You
know
without
this
membership
you
know
from
two
sponsors
requirement
and
again
liz
has
made
a
lot
of
good
comments
on
the
thread,
as
we
just
discussed
that
hey
list
out
the
maintainers
and
then
you
know
as
part
of
the
original
donation
form.
C
You
know
also
list
out
then
to
do
as
the
gc
reviews
it.
You
know
they
just
say:
okay,
these
are
you
know
two
sponsors
that
that
kind
of
support
these
maintainers
and
they've
already
been
presumably
vetted
out
by
the
atc.
C
A
B
B
I
don't
I
don't
necessarily
think
we
need
to
be
rigorous
about
you
know,
must
be
one
membership
request
per
member
being
added.
I
do
think
we
need
to
track
it,
but,
like
you
know
it
can
be
lightweight.
It
can
either
be
as
part
of
the
donation
process.
There's
a
list
for
members
to
add,
or
we
open
a
bulk
issue
for
all
the
members
being
added.
C
C
C
E
E
And
yuri
already
made
a
pr,
oh
good,
reason
that
the
members
can
vote
in
elections,
which
I'm
surprised
was
not
already
on
the
list
of
privileges,
but
that's
the
way
we've
been
treating
it.
So
I.
B
Can
also
vote
to
change
our
rules,
to
say
that
you
know
it's
that
that
that
github
organizer
membership
is
required
rather
than.
C
Wasn't
it
daniel?
I
mean
I
thought
this
was
something
you
documented
already.
B
B
Are
documented,
but
it
is
different
than
the
criteria
for
for
being
a
github
member.
C
And
I
think
the
only
we
can
just
look
at
it
right
now.
C
A
D
For
this
group,
that's
that's
coming
over
is
the
instruction,
because
it
turns
out
tinkering
thanked
me
about
this
earlier
today,
and
I
hadn't
noticed.
Should
they
should
we
open
a
pr
for
the
group
and
let's
have
them
flag,
some
of
the
gc
members
as
sponsors,
because
we
just
talked
about.
C
D
Do
it
right
now,
just
fyi,
I'm
on
I'm,
I'm
gonna
be
on
vacation
next
week
in
the
following
two
weeks,
so
for
three
okay.
D
Yes
for
the
rest
of
august
back
on
september,
12th,
okay,
so
we
should
probably
do
that
sooner.