►
From YouTube: 2021-09-17 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
C
B
E
Yeah
our
first
one
is,
I
think,
under
a
requested
slack
extension
to
be
installed
in
org.
I
remember
we
had
a
policy
to
not
install
anything
because
we
don't
have
any
energy
to
like
review
it
and
re-review
and
hold
it
all
the
time.
But
later
we
decided,
like
I
found
another
mail
threat
when
we
said
that
everything
read
only
is
fine.
Generally.
B
E
D
I'm
looking
at
your
deaf
surgery
just
make
a
link
to
that
md
file
from
some
other
md
file.
That's
you
know
more
prominent
or
something,
but
whatever
okay
yeah
makes
sense
yeah.
I
don't
know
if
this,
maybe
we
should
do
this
last
or
something
because
it
seems
like
sort
of
endless
I'll
put
it
I'll
move.
My
tc
issue
thing
to
end,
but
I
did
want
to
discuss
it
here
on
the
mission
vision
stuff.
I
just
want
to
keep
it
moving.
D
I
the
only
thing
I
really
wanted
to
mention
is
that
in
last
week's
meeting
we
were
talking
about
incorporating
the
values
into
the
mission
vision.
So
it's
like
mission
vision,
then
values
and
I
was
looking
at
the
dock
as
it
stands,
and
the
vision
is
sort
of
a
mixture
of
values
and
vision
right
now
and
I'm
kind
of
okay
with
it
in
that
form,
but
it
made
it
difficult
to
write
a
separate
thing
about
values,
because
anyway
I
mean
we
could
have
values
that
are
more
about
human
stuff.
D
You
know
trust
and
respect
and
stuff
like
that,
which
I'm
happy
to
do
but
like
that's
not
in
any
of
the
current
document,
really
it's
mostly
about
engineering
values.
So
I
which,
which
is
very
overlapping
with
the
vision.
So
I
was
having
trouble,
actually
decoupling
them
and
I
just
wanted
to
get
advice
or
any
requests
or
desires
from
this
group.
B
D
I
guess
I'm
just
getting
it
like.
Do
we
want
to
talk
about
technical
values,
which
I
think
you
know
embracing
interoperability
or
values?
Like
I
mean
whatever
I
mean
you
all
seen
these
things,
so
I
I
I
mean
I
said:
what's
that.
E
I
started
the
document
on
where
this
as
we
discussed
last
time,
so
I
have
like
values
and
like
versus
technical
values
like
stability
and
compatibility,
but
then
one
video
is
like
that.
We
don't.
I
don't
know
how
much
we
execute
on
that.
It's
we
need
to
deliver
something
and
good
is
better
than
perfect,
so
that's
kind
of
like
protest
kind
of
where
it
is,
and
we
open
for
contributions
at
another
video
for
like
protest
white.
So
I
will
share
a
document
quite
soon.
D
Do
you
mind
just
if
it's
I
mean
I'm
okay
either
way,
but
is
it
possible
just
to
I'm
happy
to
rename
the
document
to
be
mission,
vision,
values,
but
just
to
throw
it
into
the
same
document
that
I'm.
D
D
E
Yeah
I
thought
to
do
with
tc
first,
so
like
we
don't
have
like
I
mean
I
don't
want
to
decide
for
everybody.
What
is
our
technical
values
but
and
then
share
it's
fine
to
take
a
couple
more
days
and
not
doing
like
today,
yeah.
D
B
Yeah
alicia
wrote
a
proposal
for
the
announcement
that
we're
going
to
make
with
a
timeline,
I
think,
looks
good,
but
we
should
make
sure
to
get
comments
on
it
by
next
week.
So
we
can
publish-
because
you
know
at
this
point-
elections
are
now
a
month
less
than
a
month
away.
So
let's
get
the
process
rolling.
Please.
F
D
D
I
think
there's
some
real
merit
to
many
of
the
things
that
are
being
brought
up,
but
it's
and
I
think
there
have
been
a
variety
of
attempts
to
get
it
the
actual
problem
of
trying
to
solve,
and
not
just
you
know,
boiling
the
ocean
for
no
reason
and
stuff
like
that.
I'm
not
even
really
suggesting
that
we
do
boil
the
ocean,
but
I'm
having
difficulty
suppressing
my
own
bias
in
the
matter
where
I'm
just
of
the
opinion
anyway.
D
That,
like
the
the
main
thing
that
we
lack,
is
a
detailed
incredible
road
map
that
we
actually
respect
like
that.
I
keep
on
feeling
like
that's
the
actual
issue
and
that
if
we
had
one
of
those
that
included
things
like
documentation,
it
wasn't
just
technology
that
we
would
be
in
a
much
better
place
right
now.
But
I
see
this
shaking
your
head.
So.
B
No,
I
think
the
thing
that
is
there.
I
agree
that
that's
important,
but
I
think
the
other
element
is
what
what's
the
people
management
phrase
for
this
we're
lacking
kind
of
working
norms
right.
We
need
a
description
of
how
we
work
together
as
a
gcntc
and
contributors
right.
We're
missing
that
kind
of
alignment
on
how
do
issues
get
driven
forward
right
like
to
kind
of
make
stand
more
standard.
B
You
know
the
practice,
for
instance
like
jmcd,
basically
driving
metrics
right
or
the
conversations
around
you
know
having
tc
members
vote
and
say
you
know.
Yes,
like
you
know
full
stream
ahead
or
like
I'm
generally
supported,
but
I
have
an
attempt
to
read
et
cetera
right,
I
think
kind
of
documenting
those
working
norms.
It's
going
to
be
helpful
for
people
to
understand
how
it
works
with
us
as
a
community.
D
B
D
I'm
in
violent
agreement,
that's
where
credible
comes
from.
It's
like,
I
think,
we've
had
road
maps
in
the
past,
but
there
hasn't
been
a
structural
kind
of
racy
type
thing
to
make
it
realistic
or
credible.
Yeah.
E
Yeah
I
saw
many
times
and
I
got
some
feedback
on
the
issues
being
discussed
in
private
or
like
in
in
the
meeting
and
then
like.
We
have
a
whole
week
of
meetings
and
then
this
issue,
like
everybody,
supports
the
result.
But
then,
when
it's
written
down
there
are
so
many
feedback,
so
that
kind
of
situations
also
require
some
adjustment
to
how
we
work
and
how
we
document
decisions.
E
And
I
don't
know
like
I
found
it
surprising
that
this
issue
coincides
with
matt
from
envoy
tweeting
that
the
only
way
for
open
source,
it's
a
benevolent
dictator
for
life.
D
Well,
yeah,
I
made
a
comment
about
it
in
the
issue,
but
open
telemetry
is
a
funny
open
source
project
because
it's
kind
of
like
half,
open
source
project
and
half
standards
body
and
like
a
sanders
body
does
not
work
in
the
bdfl
at
all
and
the
vendor.
Fest
thing
I
I
mean.
I
know
this
is
a
recorded
call,
but
I'll
happily
say
I
found
it
incredibly
ironic
like
it's.
Definitely
true
that
this
is
a
vendor
fest,
but
it's
the
result
is
absolutely
not
like
a
bent
towards
vendor
interest.
D
The
thing
is
going
to
like
make
all
the
decisions,
it's
just
a
totally
different.
It's
a
different
expectation.
I
think,
and
that,
but
that's
most
projects
in
cmcf,
not
all,
but
most
are
in
that
bent,
and
I
think
that
that's
it's
it's
creating
a,
I
think,
an
expectation
gap
or
something
like
that.
I
don't
know
if
you
all
if
people
are
nodding,
but
that's
it's
just.
B
To
the
conversation
about
right,
like
we
can
agree
as
a
group
of
people
who
are
keeping
each
other
in
check
to
delegate
our
authority
to
a
to
a
project
lead
for
a
given
project
right,
because
that
person
knows
that
they
need
to
act
in
the
best
interest
of
the
project,
or
else
like
we'll.
Remove
them.
Right.
Like
that.
I
think
that
that
is
the
mechanism
for
getting
fast
velocity,
while
making
sure
that
it
is
neutral
and
standard
compliant
right
right.
D
F
Definitely
our
like
spec
calls
and
other
calls,
definitely
remind
me
of
like
w3c
conferences
and
things
like
it.
It
does.
We
do
behave
very
much
more
like
a
standards
body
which,
as
you
point
out,
then,
is
not
necessarily
a
pi
like
it's
a
positive
thing
in
certain
ways,
but
it
can
really
slow
down
velocity.
F
I
think
there
are
things
we
could
do
to
speed
up
velocity.
Perhaps
that
would
not
be
at
the
expense
of
of
becoming
too
opinionated.
I
do
think
like
anurag's
feedback
about
the
tc
is
fairly
valid,
like
it
is
a
bit
at
times,
even
to
me,
opaque
about
what
sort
of
things
should
go
to
the
tc
and
what
shouldn't,
and
also
when,
when
an
issue
gets
punted
to
the
tc,
how
quickly
a
response
a
resolution
will
come
as
a
result
like.
B
We
could
get
a
lot
more
yeah
working
norms
and
also
like
I
don't
feel
the
answer
is
adding
more
people
to
the
tc
right,
like
I
know,
we've
you
know
heard
feedback.
For
instance,
in
the
past
two
week,
wait
two
three
weeks
about
you
know:
hey
like
we'd
like
more
interviews
or
representation
from
the
pc
great.
We
should
do
that
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
you
know
the
larger
the
pc
gets
the
more
diffusing
and
accountable.
It
becomes
right
exactly
yeah.
G
Is
the
feedback
also,
this
is
the
one
thing
I
can't
remember
grant
sorry.
My
brain
is
really
foggy
this
week,
but
do
we
have
an
aging
out
process
for
the
tc.
F
G
B
A
G
B
C
D
G
G
B
So
so
yeah
I
I
think
that
as
the
project
grows
in
scope
right
like
this
is
why
we
had
the
metrics
subset
of
the
of
the
specular
verse
right
like
the
yeah.
I
don't
know
it's
kind
of
a
right
now.
I
would
like
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
have
alignment
on
how
the
tc
works
together
in
the
longer
term.
I
agree.
The
feedback
about
you
know,
hey
like
we
need
to
rotate
pc
members
is
a
is
a
valid
concern.
I
don't
think
we're
quite
there
yet.
B
I
would
rather
not
be
solving
that
problem
when
they're
more,
like
there's
lower
hanging
fruit
to
solve.
As
far
as
making
the
teasing
and
ngc.
E
D
Yeah,
I
hope
the
tc
is
too
sorry
to
interrupt.
I
think
the
scope
of
the
tc
is
probably
the
expectations
to
tc.
Members
are
too
broad
and
no
one's
arguing
against
having
more
maintainers.
I
think,
having
more
maintainers
that
have
been
handed
accountability
to
actually
make
decisions
and
drive
them
to
conclusions
is
a
better
answer
than
really
anything
else.
D
I
think
of
the
tc
right
now
in
its
current
structure
as
being
analogous
to
the
supreme
court,
where
you
have
this
sort
of
quasi
lifetime
appointment,
we
might
want
to
change
it
to
be
a
little
bit
more
like
an
elected
official
or
something,
but
I'm
not
totally
sure
about
the
term
limits
piece.
But
my
concern
is
that
this
project
is
too
broad
for
the
tc
to
work.
D
Unless
people
only
rtc
members
like
that's
like
their
the
their
job
like
not
just
for
hotel,
but
just
in
general,
it's
just
the
scope
of
the
of
the
role
right
now,
I
think
is-
is
kind
of
too
large
just
give
given
people
have
other
responsibilities
at
their
at
their
work,
and
I
don't
think
we'll
be
able
to
find.
I
don't
think
hotel
is
a
big
enough
project
for
people
to
find
employment
as
a
tc
member,
and
I
think,
that's
kind
of
like
almost
what's
necessary
at
this
point.
D
So
I
feel,
like
our
only
choice,
is
to
add,
make
a
huge
cc,
which
everyone
thinks
is
a
bad
idea
or
make
the
tc
a
smaller
job,
which
I
think
is
a
good
idea.
So
that's
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
argue
for.
A
I
I
kind
of
disagree
with
you,
and
I'm
I
mean
both
both
I
mean
gc
and
pc,
and
I've
been
trying
to
push
ideas
that
I
they
got
rejected
and
so
on.
So
I
think,
when
I
have
my
pc
hat,
the
biggest
problem
is:
is
that
there
is
a
contributor
coming
with
an
idea
and
two
two
people
say
yes
without
having
the
proof
that
that
person
is
an
expert
in
that
domain.
So
I
think
that's.
Why
that's
why?
A
I
want
to
delegate
the
power
of
of,
for
example,
the
semantic
conventions
to
to
somebody
else,
and
I'm
just
there,
as
you
pointed
as
a
supreme
court,
just
just
make
sure
that
if
that
person
or
if
those
three
people
that
we
choose
in
this
scene
are
the
are
approving
this,
then
I
don't
care,
I
don't
even
have
to
read,
but
but
people
are
not
used
to
the
fact
that
they
need
to
build
the
sea
or
the
the
they
put
together.
A
The
experts
to
to
have
something
like
being
being
stamped
by
by
the
community.
D
So
the
concern
from
honorable,
as
I
understood
it,
was
basically
that
the
the
tc
is
I'm
not
saying
that's
essentially
true,
but
the
the
concern
was
that
the
tc
is
effectively
blocking
progress
by
not
doing
stuff
like
not
not
like
responding
quickly
enough
to
issues
and
so
on.
I
think
what
you're
saying
bogdan
is
that
the
tc
should
not
be
in
the
loop
on
a
lot
of
this
stuff
and
should
be
more
of
an
escalation
path.
Is
that
correct,
correct?
I
want
I.
A
It
was
one
of
the
examples
with
riley
that
he
he
led
the
metrics.
He
was
not
at
all
a
dc
member
or
anything,
but
he
he
said.
Okay,
I'm
gonna
get
this
to
completion.
I'm
gonna
champion
this.
I'm
I'm
gonna
go
talk
to
experts
in
this.
I'm
gonna
put
all
these
experts
on
the
same
table,
get
their
feedback
and
then,
when
it
came
when
this
comes
in
face
of
the
tc
members
that
all
the
three
five
experts
that
we
agree
on
to
have
in
this
scene,
then
it's
just
gonna
be
a
no-brainer.
A
D
I
think
that
kind
of
makes
sense
bogdan,
but,
like
the
responsibilities
of
the
tactile
committee,
as
described
in
the
technical
committee
charter,
are
the
tc
is
responsible
for
all
technical
development
within
hotel,
including
you
know,
I'm
just
subset
of
this
technical
direction,
development
process,
approving
changes
to
specs
mediating,
tactical
discussions
which
have
cross
project
impact
impact,
etc.
So
I
think
it
doesn't
sound
like
escalation
path,
it's
sort
of
ambiguous
as
to
like
what
responsible
means,
but
it
doesn't
sound
like
escalation
path
or
supreme
court.
D
D
Nor
is
it
I
think,
what's
perceived
by
others
in
the
sense
that
they're
waiting
for
approval,
not
on
exceptions
but
just
on
ordinary
business,
because
things
often
have
cross-product
impact
and
then
the
tc
is
supposed
to
get
involved.
So
I
I
just
think
like
there's.
There
is
like
a
mismatch
between
I
like
what
you're
proposing.
I
just
don't
think
it's
how
the
tc
is
perceived
right
now.
A
G
Yeah,
actually
I
have
a
question:
has
the
tc
actually
talked
about
this
yet
because
they
also
think
the
other
thing
too
is
like
there's.
Also
no
formal
like
time
for
the
tc
to
meet
with
people,
like
you
can
say
the
maintainers,
but
the
maintainers
isn't
actually
viewed
as
a
real
venue
for
the
tc,
and
so
part
of
it
is
also
bringing
the
visibility
that,
like
people,
don't
have
a
dedicated
visibility
into
the
tc.
G
So
like
one,
the
question
is
how
the
tc
talked
about
this
issue
and
two,
how
they
started,
addressing
the
like
visibility
of
it,
because
also
it
kind
of
feels
like
the
gc
is
meant
to
keep
the
tc
in
line.
And
I
don't
like
that
responsibility
I
feel
like
the
tc
is
meant
to
be
responsible
enough,
that
why
is
the
gc
that's
handling
this
issue?
Instead
of
them.
E
So
I
think
the
question
is
like
all
the
questions,
so
that
raised
is
about
charter.
So
if
you
want
to
change
the
character.
G
E
G
A
To
answer
one
of
your
questions,
we
have
a
every
week
meeting
8
a.m.
Est
time
tuesday
is
called
the
specification
meeting.
G
Where
that
doesn't
have
the
same
visibility
right,
it's
like
having
like
the
community
dc
meeting
is
viewed
specifically,
as
for
the
community
taught
to
the
gc.
So
it
might
just
need
to
be
re
like
marketing
of
like
let's
have
a
public
tc
meeting
right,
because
I
like
from
looking
at
those
things
there.
I
wouldn't
know
that
that's
actually
a
meeting
for
me
to
be
able
to
talk
to
the
tc.
G
But
then
it's
a
different
scope
right,
you're
talking
only
some
specifications
thing
right,
think
about
it
from
someone
who's
coming
to
the
project
I
like
hey.
I
want
to
talk
to
the
tc.
I
don't
know
where
to
talk
to
them,
because
there's
no
public
pc
meeting
I
wouldn't
know.
Well,
let
me
look
at
the
code
ownership.
G
B
F
F
A
Sure,
that's
that's
fine.
We
we
we
can
change
that.
We
also
have
our
meetings,
the
tc
meetings
that
are
happening
by
weekly
reporting
and
stuff
yeah.
Let's
assume.
F
A
We
have
that
recorded,
but
it's
not
with
the
open
presence.
But
let's
I
would
take
that's
an
action
item
to
make
once
a
month
or
something
like
once
a
month,
the
meeting
open
for
everyone
to
join
and
chat.
It
would
probably.
B
Okay,
yeah.
That
would
be
really
helpful
to
make
that
change
and
then
document
it
right
like
to
write
down
how
we
work
with
each
other
right
like.
I
think
I
think
all
this
revolves
around.
You
know
going
back
to
ben's
original
point.
Is
our
roadmap
credible
and
how
do
people
know
who
to
talk
to
right?
That's
that's
what
we
need
to
get
down
button.
Are
you
willing
to
kind
of
confer
with
other
pc
members
about
kind
of
documenting
some
of
the
tc's
practices.
B
Are
you
willing
to
talk
to
the
tc
both
about
opening
meetings,
as
well
as
documenting
how
you
would
like
the
tc2
to
work.
D
And
then,
on
the
actual
issue
I
mean:
there's
it's
going
to
be
difficult
to
tie
up
all
the
loose
ends
in
the
github
issue,
but
I
think
it
might
be
helpful
to
at
least
mention
some.
Is
it
fair
to
summarize
that
you
know
we
talked
about
this
and
the
at
least
the
gc,
which
obviously
has
some
overlap?
The
tc
thinks
the
tc
should
mainly
be,
and
it
should
be
more
of
an
escalation
mechanism
than
on
a
critical
path
for
ordinary
development,
and
that
bogdan
is
writing
up.
Something.
Is
that
fair.
A
C
D
E
F
A
A
G
Last
thing
asking
for
kubecon
and
project
updates:
I
know
ted
talked
about
it.
If
anyone
else
has
anything,
they
want
to
add.
F
Is
this
for,
like,
like.
G
G
G
G
Stay
even
if
it's
small,
that's
kind
of
what
they
have
said.
Also,
I
don't
know
so.
The
thing
for
coupon
is
that
we're
able
to
enforce
that
everyone
has
to
be
vaccinated
to
attend.
I
don't
know
if
they're
able
to
enforce
that
for
vegas,
so
I
might
have
also
contributed
to
why
some
conference
is
canceled.