►
From YouTube: 2023-03-23 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).
B
C
D
It's
in
the
invite
of
the
calendar.
G
E
Was
anyone
missing
from
the
TC
during
the
Leadership
Summit
on
a
remote
class?
Is
anyone
not
there
when
we
talked
about
the
context
for
this
call
here.
E
C
H
C
E
Me
just
start
with
a
you
know
some
context
here,
perhaps
so
during
the
Leadership
Summit
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
in
in
San
Francisco
for
some
of
us
or
remotely
for
for
others,
we
one
of
the
the
points
that
we
discussed
was.
There
is
no
official
communication
between
the
GC
and
the
TC
right.
So,
of
course
we
have
this
like
Channel
gctc.
What
we
the
bandwidth
there
like
is
very
thin.
E
E
And
this
is
it
so
we
we
thought
about
having
a
recurring
machine
once
a
western
once
a
year
once
a
month,
so
that
we
can
discuss
topics
that
that
relate
to
more
broadly
to
the
project.
That
requires
like
leadership
discussions,
and
there
are
things
that
the
GC
can
discuss.
But
then
we
often
stop
the
discussion.
Saying
isn't
something
that
we
should
bring
to
the
GC
and
I
assume
that
the
GC
has
similar
blocks
right.
E
So
you
may
have
like
sessions
where
you
can
think
that
you
know
perhaps
the
GC
the
GC
should
be
involved.
So
that's
the
context
for
this
meeting
here.
There
are
I
think
two
agenda
items
for
today
that
I
brought
from
from
the
meeting
notes
from
the
leadership
so
I
made
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
but
before
we
start
there,
anyone
wants
to
make
any
comments
or
some
initial
thoughts.
G
C
E
Right
so
I
captured
a
only
two
special
items
for
today
and
if
you
do
have
other
other
items,
of
course,
the
fridge,
including
here
and
the
first
one,
is
around
spec
changes
right.
So
the
the
we
have
so
far
been
kind
of
reluctant
to
change
the
spec,
and
there
are
a
couple
situations
where
we
might
need
to
consider
changing
this
pack
in
detriment
of
our
users
in
in
respect
for
bigger,
Community
or
a
bigger
ecosystem.
And
the
first
case
is
ECS
merger
right.
E
So
we
as
far
as
understood
from
from
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
once
we
accept
ECS
into
open,
Telemetry
ECS
here
elastic
common
schema
and
once
we
accept
that
into
laboratory.
It
is
going
to
conflict
with
a
few
semantic
conventions
that
we
have
today.
So
what
what
do
we
do
in
that
case?
Or
do
we
break
current
open
to
laundry
users
in
on,
in
the
name
of
the
bigger
ecosystem
that
ECS
is
bringing
or
Joey
require
this
bigger
ecosystem
to
adjust
itself
to
power
and.
C
E
E
This
is
what
I
understand.
Please
yeah.
A
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
I,
don't
think
it's
the
right
thing
to
to
freeze
the
semantic
conventions
that
are
marked
as
experimental,
but
at
the
same
time
we
should
recognize
that
portions
of
those
semantic
conventions
are
already
heavily
used
right
in
the
industry.
So
for
those
parts,
if
we
decide
to
go
ahead
and
make
breaking
changes,
I
want
us
to
be
careful
with
how
we
approach
it.
At
the
very
least,
we
need
to
give
an
advanced
notice
right.
A
So
if
we
decide
that
this
changes
is
happening,
then
three
versions
ahead:
six
versions
ahead
right
six
months
ahead,
we
say
that
this
is
changing
and
and
and
give
time
to
everybody
to
to
be
prepared
for
for
a
change
like
that
to
the
vendors
to
the
end
users
to
everybody
right,
so
that
will
require
some
small,
maybe
tooling,
changes
to
the
semantic
convention
generator
so
that
you,
you
mark
something
as
effective
from
version
number
right.
We
merge
the
pr
it's
accepted.
A
We
know
it's
coming,
but
it
is
when
you
generate
the
code
in
a
language,
it
still
uses
the
old
ones
right.
It
gives
enough
time
for
everybody
to
be
free
to
be
ready
from
version
1.25
right.
This
is
going
to
be
in
effect,
but
not
just
yet
something
like
that
right.
Maybe
some
other
solution
is
possible
here,
but
generally
I
want
to
ask
that
we
are
careful
with
it
with
those
things.
Yes,
they
are
experimental
and
a
significant
portion
of
those
I'm
not
worried.
A
B
Josh
yeah
Josh
I
want
to
comment
on
like
a
meta
thing.
That's
happening
here.
So
if
you
look
at
specifically
the
two
things
you're
talking
about,
it
is
the
expansion
of
logs
and
it's
the
expansion
of
metrics
to
open
Telemetry.
So
what
what's
happening
is
you
know
we
started
off
and
we
we
went
with
tracing
stable,
1.0.
First
and
symante
conventions
were
really
focused
on
tracing
and
we
build
out
a
tracing
ecosystem
and
today
in
open
source,
I
think
partly
due
to
not
having
a
unified
back
end.
That
does
all
things
together.
B
We
have
a
diverse
community
of
tracing
people,
metric
e
people
and
loginy
people,
and
that
Community
gets
even
more
diverse,
like
within
those
communities,
and
so
when
we
think
about
what
we're
doing
now
is
we're
taking
like
conventions
that
people
you
know,
the
existing
semantic
conventions
are
basically
kind
of
like
Jaeger,
open
tracing,
open
census,
Blended
together
right
and
it
works
really
well
for
that.
Jaeger,
Community
really
really
well
and
those
who
have
built
on
the
tracing.
B
That's
provided
from
that
when
we're
expanding
one
of
the
things
with
ECS
that
we're
running
into
right
is
deviating
from
Jaeger
to
bridge
into
logging.
B
When
we
look
at
metrics
and
we
look
at
Prometheus
right,
I
think
because
Prometheus
is
like
the
de
facto
metric
standard
in
cncf
like
we
really
need
to
be
friendly
with
them,
but
we
to
some
extent
we
need
to
merge
with
what
they
have
and
to
some
extent
we
need
to
bring
them
into
the
tracing
world.
B
It's
a
two-way
street
and
I
just
want
to
call
that
out
and
tracing
is
underrepresentative
in
terms
of
voice.
It's
over
represented
in
open,
Telemetry,
underrepresented,
externally,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
as
we
make
decisions
and
judgment
calls
log,
you
know
it's
even
more
so
very
underrepresented
inside
of
open
Telemetry
and
very
over-represented
outside
right.
B
So,
as
we
make
decisions,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
bouncing
those
needs
between
the
three
and
understanding
that,
like
it's
not
just
about
like
you
know,
Prometheus
is
bigger
than
us.
Let's
do
it
this
way.
It's
about
we're,
merging
these
communities
and
we're
trying
to
provide
a
solution
that
can
fit
that,
like
teaches
them
to
work
together.
That
should
be
kind
of
how
we
think
about
this.
Okay,.
H
G
So
I
agree
with
all
that.
I
just
wanted
to
to
address
the
issue
of
of
making
breaking
changes
and
looking
into
it
more
I
think
there
will
be
maybe
a
little
trickiness
on
the
part
of
like
the
packages.
We
issue
with
things
like
constants
in
them
having
to
figure
out
how
to
hand
out
multiple
versions
of
those,
but.
A
D
H
G
G
Are
all
very
overcomeable
I'm
just
pointing
out?
There
is
some
some
elbow
grease
on
our
end
to
just
make
sure
we're
capable
of
supporting
multiple
versions
of
instrumentation
because
we're
not
in
a
place
yet
where
Native
instrumentation
has
gotten
out
there
in
such
force.
It
feels
like
most
of
the
instrumentation
people
are
using
today
is
installed,
instrumentation,
probably
a
lot
of
it
provided
by
us,
so
just
being
willing
to
maintain
multiple
versions
of
those
instrumentation
packages.
G
For
me,
I'm
feeling
much
more
comfortable
with
going
ahead
and
making
breaking
changes
as
part
of
stabilizing
things.
Just
looking
into
that,
like
even
without
having
to
rely
on
The
Collector
doing
schema
transforms,
it
just
seems
like
we're
still
in
a
spot
where,
as
long
as
we're
just
willing
to
maintain
some
Legacy
instrumentation
packages,
it's
it's
okay.
Talking
to
you
know,
we've
got
Jack
on
the
call,
but
talking
to
Trask
as
well,
it
seems
like
you
know.
G
The
Java
agent
would
be
able
to
to
handle
you
know
being
able
to
install
different
schema
versions
of
instrumentation.
So.
G
To
me
like
we,
we
have
a
lot
of
ways
to
ensure
that
we
don't
break
people,
including
people
not
just
automatically
upgrading
to
new
instrumentation.
That's
gonna
pull
the
rug
out
from
under
them.
G
It
seems
like
we,
we
have
all
the
ordinary
tools
in
you
know,
package
management
and
major
version
bumps
to
to
deal
with
that,
holding
the
semantic
conventions
out
into
their
own
repo,
with
their
own
version
number
and
their
own
management
I
think
is
going
to
make
all
of
this
a
lot
easier
to
do
both
in
terms
of
UCS
but
also
like
you
mentioned,
starting
to
bring
in
Prometheus
and
other
people.
It
does
feel
like
we're
establishing
good
relationships
with
these
other
groups
and
because
a
number
of
them
don't
necessarily
have
their
own.
G
You
know,
ECS,
like
thing
I,
think,
there's
a
a
real
potential
with
the
ECS
merger
to
to
start
trying
to
actively
pull
some
of
these
other
groups
in
and
say,
like
hey,
let's
give
you,
you
know,
voting
rights
on
this
thing
and
please
help
us.
You
know
come
up
with
universal
standards
for
metrics
and
logs
and
other
things.
G
G
H
Yeah
I
I
mean
again
I
agree
with
you
Ted,
but
I
think
that
again,
there's
work
to
be
done
there
right
because,
as
tigrin
rightly
pointed
out,
you
know,
there's
a
need
for
tests
or
compliance
some
kind
of
a
compliance
Suite.
Once
these
spec
you
know,
conventions
are
built
even
at
an
alpha
stage.
H
You
know
again,
it
would
be
good
to
consider
you
know
kind
of
building
a
compliance
Suite
in
parallel
as
we
develop
that,
but
at
the
same
time
also
ensuring
that
we
address
clearly
perhaps
as
an
appendix
in
the
specification
what
backwards
compatibility
means
because
I
think
that
you
know
one
of
the
constant
feedback
that
I
am
you
know
again
Hearing
in
the
larger
end
user
Community.
H
Is
that
what
are
the
backward
compatibility
and
inversion
compatibility
guarantees
that
the
project
is
providing
right,
because
even
that
applies
to
instrumentation,
especially
for
Java
and
other.
H
You
know
more
mature
components
that
we
have
or
libraries
that
we
have,
and
it
is
very
unclear
right
now
what
those
compatibility
guarantees
are
from
the
project
right
because,
like
even
if
you
move
from
118
to
1.20,
22
now
or
23,
you
know
there
are
actually
breaking
changes
that
are
even
happening
on
our
libraries
right
and
do
you
have
a
world
and
I
am
hearing
that
very
actively
from
folks
who
are
using
these
instrumentation
libraries.
H
G
Totally
agree:
I
just
I
was
worried
earlier
that
the
only
way
we
were
going
to
be
able
to
do
this
was.
C
G
Telling
people
they
had
to
run
a
collector
and
hope
that
these
schema
transforms
worked
out,
but
looking
into
it
more
for
the
instrumentation,
we
provide
it's
possible
for
us
to
just
maintain
multiple
versions
of
his
packages
and
not
necessarily
move
people
up
to
a
breaking
change
in
the
semantic
conventions
like
automatically
right.
Just
by
using
you
know,
major
version,
numbers
and
stuff
like
that,
so
I
think
I
I
think
we're
good
I
mean
there's
I.
Think
for
some
of
these
automated
installers.
There
might
be
a
little
bit
of
trickiness
about
how
they
expose.
B
G
Facility
to
end
users,
but
but
I'm
feeling
a
lot
more
confident
that
we
we
can
do
this
without
automatically
forcing
breaking
changes
on
people
unexpectedly,
where
it
is
much
more
difficult,
is
once
native
instrumentation
gets
out
there
right
I
think
it
will
be
much
harder
for
like
rails
to
give
you
options
about
which
versions
of
our
conventions
we
are
so
I
really
do.
Think,
there's
value
to
us
saying
these
things
are
stable
and
then
once
they
are
stable,
yeah
really
not
messing
with
them.
Even.
G
And
it's
it's
sort
of
just
like
yeah.
Those
things
will
pop,
probably
just
get
stuck
on
some
particular
version
of
our
semantic
conventions
and
be
like
this
is
the
version
of
this
spec
that
we
we
produce
and
and
that's
that
so
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
I'm
I'm
all
for
as
merging
with
ECS
and
like
stabilizing
these
things
like
doing
the
work
to
kind
of
hash
it
all
out
and
make
a
really
good
spec,
but
I'm
still
of
the
opinion
that,
like
once,
we
call
them
stable.
You
should
probably
just
live
with
them.
H
And
then
you're
thinking
that
there
would
be
some
kind
of
an
enhancement
process
that
adds
to
that
stability,
spec
right,
okay,.
G
E
E
The
symmetric
conventions
changes
not
this
pack
changes
right.
We
split
scientific
conventions
from
this
pack.
H
A
E
E
A
C
B
E
Yeah
I
don't
know
the
only
two
examples
that
I
do
have
are
semantic
conventions
and
and
this
problem
magic
was
brought
in
in
that
context,
so
and
I
wanted
to
anticipate
what
our
reaction
could
be
if
we
were
faced
with
a
similar
challenge
for
respect
now.
E
I
I
understand
that
change
the
the
doc,
but
you
know
if
we're
waiting
for
new
major
versions
to
make
making
changes.
If
that's
the
answer,
then
that's
good,
but
at
the
same
time
yeah.
B
I
wanna
I,
wanna,
emphasize
I,
don't
know
if
you
saw
Daniel
dialer's
semantic
convention,
Otep
around
experimental
IDs,
but
I
actually
think
this
is
going
to
start
applying
to
our
specification
as
well
effectively.
B
B
If
we
want
to
get
people
to
take
a
dependency
on
open
telemetry,
breaking
changes
basically
are
just
a
non-discussion
for
at
least
the
next
five
to
ten
years.
Right,
in
my
opinion,
at
least
five.
Are
you
talking
about
the.
F
A
B
And
semantic
conventions
we
have
more
freedom,
which
is
one
reason
to
pull
them
out,
but
in
the
API
we
just
cannot
make
breaking
changes.
We
can
do
additions,
we
can
add
features,
but
this
could
lead
to
an
uglier
API
than
we
really
want,
and
that's,
okay,
because.
F
B
This
point:
it's
a
standard
right,
yeah
and
it's
the
same
semantic
conventions
will
actually
have
to
take.
A
similar
approach
is
my
guess,
with
once
a
name
is
taken,
it's
taken
right
and
if
we,
if
we
mess
it
up
the
first
time
that
we
need
to
be
very
careful,
yeah.
F
G
G
I
think.
That's
also
another
reason
why
it's
helpful
to
pull
them
out,
but
actually
just
from
talking
with
the
go
maintainers
this
week
around
changing
how
we
do
go
specific
versioning
to
help
that
Community,
you
know
be
able
to
accept
additions
to
the
API.
One
thing
that
came
up
was:
they
were
a
little
confused
about
that
versioning
document,
so
I
am
going
to
go
back
in
and
make
an
edit
to
clarify
that
when
we
talk
about
a
breaking
change,
we're
never
ever
ever
going
to
break
a
signal.
G
G
Don't
think
that
document
makes
it
totally
clear
it
does
sound,
but
maybe
a
little
bit
like
we
might
issue
tracing
2.0
or
logging
2.0,
but
like
what
Josh
just
said,
it's
just
not
it
did
it's.
It's
not
feasible
to
actually
do
that,
because
we
have
to
presume
people
will
write
instrumentation
and
never
update
it
ever
again,
and
someone
else
is.
C
E
Right
so
I
I
know
the
doc,
the
veteran
Mission
and
I
think
it
is.
Oh.
F
E
One
one
problem
that
I
have
well,
so
what
I
have
in
mind
is
something
that
actually
Josh
also
touched,
and
that
is
we
should
really
make
sure
that
we
get
it
right
first
right
and
but
it's
very
difficult
to
know
that
we're
right,
if
we
don't
have,
if
you
want
already
I
know,
we
have
some
background
and
we're
mostly
right
for
traces,
because
you
know
open
tracing.
E
But
my
impression
is
that
our
view,
one
of
metrics,
would
not
be
at
the
same
level
as
or
the
same
Community
acceptance
as
we
have
with
traces.
The
feedback
that
I
have
you
know
is
still.
The
API
is
hard
to
use
compared
to
the
other
apis
out
there,
not
only
like
Prometheus
but
micrometer
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
Now
are
we
saying
that
that
we
are
waiting
five
years
before
we
actually
improve
the
API
okay?
So
we.
B
We
just
haven't
had
the
time
to
do
it,
we're
not
going
to
suddenly
get
rid
of
our
notion
of
gauge
or
like
delete
histogram,
because
we
say
it's
not
you
so
that
we
would
not
do
that,
that
those
remain
those
are
stuck
they're
there.
We
might
add
something
else
that
makes
everything
better,
but
we're
not
just
going
to
delete
those
right.
Everyone.
H
D
Jurassic
one
quick
feedback
because
I
keep
hearing
this
that
tracing.
We
got
it
right
because
of
open
tracing
and
stuff
like
that.
To
be
honest,
open
tracing
was
kind
of
successful
because
there
was
nothing
before
so
people
didn't
have
anything
to
compare
with
to
say.
Oh,
this
is
more
complicated
than
my
micrometer
or
my
my
thing
now
when
you
come
and
propose
a
new
API
that
changes
the
commonality
for
from
micrometer
from
Prometheus,
they
will
always
resist
to
change.
D
It's
it's
a
human
being
of
resistance
of
a
change
so
so
I'm
I'm,
not
100,
gonna,
buy
this
thing
that
that
things
were
they
are
bad
with
metrics
or
anything,
but
sure
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are.
We
are
not
blaming
the
community
of
doing
a
bad
job,
because
some
Old-Timers
in
Prometheus
or
or
micrometer,
don't
like
our.
G
D
D
B
Okay
and
internally
I
have
three
metric
apis.
None
of
them
are
open,
telemetry,
three
different
ones,
I
know
I
know
them.
You
know
them.
Yeah
I've
tried
to
convince
them.
We
talked
about
this.
They
they
all
make
fun
of
each
other.
Like
there's
a
different
reason
for
each
one
to
exist,
and
you
know
we're
trying
to
be
the
Baseline
good
enough.
Everybody
can
use
it.
You
know
general
purpose
thing.
There's
specialized
use
cases
that
I
don't
think
we
are
trying
to
attack
at
least
not
yet,
but
yeah
there's
going
to
be
differences.
E
We're
off
topic,
so
let
me
break
it
here,
so
I
think
the
original
topic
is
what
we
do
is
expecting
the
the
the
the
with
respect
changes.
So
how
do
we
deal
with
that
and
what
I
got
is
we're
going
to
get
it
right
and
if
we
don't,
then
we
change
it
on
YouTube.
That's
basically
the
message
that
I'm
having
and
I'm
happy
with
that.
If
that's
the
consensus
this
the
you
know,
the
discussion
started
like
that
and
if
that's
our
answer,
I
am
happy
with
that.
Yeah.
G
G
E
And
then
the
other
side
of
the
discussion
is
the
the
current
problems
that
we
had.
They
were
touching
semantic
conventions
and
we
were
fixing
that
by
spleaching
semantic
conventions
for
only
specs,
so
that
we
can
evolve
them
separately
now.
Children
at
the
very
beginning
mentioned
that
you
know
we
have
a
tooling
problem.
This
was
also
discussed
during
the
Urban
Leadership
Summit
a
few
weeks
ago
and
I.
B
Myself
are
working
on
that,
so
I
have
to
drop.
Unfortunately,
because
I
have
a
conflict,
but
the
we
have
a
whole
semantic
inventions
like
Manifesto.
We
have
a
whole
like
project
proposal
of
all
the
things
that
need
to
get
done.
If
you
haven't
looked
at
it,
please
go
look
at
it
because
I
don't
want
to
rehash
everything.
That's
in
there
in
there
we
have
validation
tools.
We
have
all
that.
B
What
we're
missing
is
people
to
do
the
work,
so
we're
going
as
fast
as
the
working
group
can
account
for
and
yeah
so
ludmello's
working
on
a
submit
a
semantic
convention.
B
Url
translator
in
The
Collector
I'm
working
on
one
for
the
Java
SDK
they're,
both
going
to
take
a
little
bit
because
it's
actually
rather
tricky
to
get
that
right
in
terms
of
in
practice
of
what's
supported,
feedback
will
be
coming,
I
need
to
drop,
unfortunately,
I
apologize,
but
please
go
look
at
what
we
listed
in
terms
of
like
work
to
be
done
there
and,
let's
not
rehash
all
of
that
right,
because
it's
already
documented.
We
already
approved
a
working
group
on
it.
B
E
E
We
do
have
another
item
that
looks
like
it
has
been
addressed
already
as
well:
GC
and
TC
responsibilities.
So
we
actually
started
talking
about
that
late
last
year,
I
think
at
the
GC
and
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
then
Josh
apparently
got
an
action
item
to
work
on
a
new
Charter
is.
G
I
I
haven't
read
this
proposal
yet,
but
at
the
summit,
one
of
the
things
we
were
discussing
is
we
need
more
project
management
in
the
spec
and
that
it's
not
fair
to
make
the
TC
be
both
the
project
managers
and
the
the
technical
holders
and
that
it's
actually
because
the
GC
is
present
and
elected.
G
The
GC
should
should
have
the
the
product
project
management
role
of
deciding,
given
that
we
cannot
work
on
every
project
all
at
once,
which
are
the
projects
we
should
be
working
on
and
to
help
facilitate
ensuring
that
those
those
groups
are
like
formed
up
correctly
and,
like
you
know,
put
into
a
position
to
succeed.
The
GC
needs
to
help
the
the
TC
with
that
part
of
the
job,
because
if
it's
not
the
GC,
then
it's
not
clear
who's
who's
doing
that
work.
So
yeah.
H
G
H
D
G
G
A
F
G
All
right
so
just
pressing
into
books
here,
I
found
that
one.
C
G
H
H
F
H
G
So
for
semantic
conventions
trash
because
their
group's
gonna
get
some
working
prototypes,
showing
just
showing
us
managing
two
different
versions
of
the
HTTP
semantic
convention,
so
we'll
have
working
code
with
both
the
current
semantic
conventions
and
the
proposed
changes
based
on
the
ECS
merger
to
actually
prove
this
is
not
a
dumb
idea,
but
Josh
is
going
to
write
an
Otep,
separate
ant
semantic
convention
for
the
spec
I
will
remind
him.
He
said
you
do
that
dresses,
spec
change,
discussion
on
March
23rd
is
that
this?
G
G
Okay,
you
can
mark
that
one
off
next
semantic
ability.
Nothing
came
out
of
this
discussion,
oh
yeah.
Well,
this
is
more
just
what
we're
talking
about
contrib
and
instrumentation
yeah,
the
other
maintainer
issue
that
we
have
come
up
with
a
feature
tracker
for
instrumentation,
where
users
can
upvote
or
indicate
their
desire.
So
we
have
data
to
support
decisions
are
in
support
or
argument.
That's
a
great
idea.
It's
conveniently
assigned
to
no
one,
but
we
all
agree.
It
would
be
nice.
H
G
Austin's,
not
here
so
I
think
we
should
assign
it
to
him.
I
know
he
he
cared
about
it,
but
I
I
will
I
will
poke
him
about
this
stuff
because
yeah
he
had.
He
had
big
feels
about
how
we
should.
H
G
C
G
E
Be
more
open,
I.
Have
this
section
item
I,
have
this
sectional
item
as
part
of
the
same
as
part
of
the
graduation
action
item,
so
we
talked
about
making
a
proposal
for
what
is
tier,
one
Church
do
what
is
stable,
what
do
we
Define
and
stable,
and
how
do
we
Define
that
we
are
ready
or
not
or
I?
Don't
we
first
call
ourselves
stable
in
them?
We
think
about
graduation
and
I'm
working
on
that
doc
already
and
I
shared
with
Dan
and
I
think
alorita
already.
But
it's
really
early
draft
system.
H
Feel
free
to
put
some
time
just
let
us
know
what
time
works
for
you.
We
can,
you
know
totally
work
together.
H
H
G
Great
so
Gathering
and
incorporating
end
user
feedback
by
the
way
I
have
been
doing
some
of
this
work
just
floating.
The
idea
of
us
moving
to
stack
overflow
and
I've
gotten
the
comms
group
on
board
with
this
and
the
maintainers
seem
to
be
down
with
that
as
well.
So
that's
both
us
starting
to
monitor,
stack,
Overflow
more
as
part
of
our
like
weekly
Sig
meetings
and
also
starting
to
either
ourselves
or
with
the
help
of
the
comms
group.
G
Copying
and
pasting
answers
we're
giving
in
slack
in
other
private
places
over
on
to
stack
Overflow
where
they
can
get
search
indexed
so,
but
the
other
action
item
ideas
here,
that's
interesting
way
of
phrasing.
This
BHS
voting
mechanism
and
the
registry
for
instrumentations,
which
don't
currently
exist,
sounds
nice.
Something
tells
me
BHS
was
not
proposing
that
he
was
going
to
write
that
code
head.
G
Yeah,
you
never
know
you
might
be
bored
running
late
step.
Ted
Austin
Alita,
create
proposal
for
GC
to
distill
the
discussion
points
above
and
propose
Community
guidelines
for
feedback
channels.
Okay,
disabling
discussions.
Great
so
I've
already
had
some
of
these
discussions
with
maintainers,
but
sounds
like
aloida
Yumi
and
Austin
are
maybe
on
the
hook
for
just
pushing
this
community
stuff
over
the
finish
line.
So
maybe
we
should
just
connect
up
with
each
other.
G
E
Yeah
and
just
before
this
one
I
scheduled
a
recurring
one,
I
think
we
thought
about
the
third
Thursday
and
then
I
wrote
here.
The
first
but
I
ended
up
scheduling
the
second
Thursday,
because
it
would
be
too
close
to
this
one
here
and
the
third
is
kidcon
week,
so
yeah.
So
second
Thursday,
it
is
if
it
doesn't
work
for.
E
Is
this
is
so
this
event
here
is
not,
but
if
you
look
at
the
third
sorry
second
Thursday.
E
Which
I
created
this
morning,
yeah
nice,
so
yeah
this
one
here
created
manually,
the
one
for
April
13th
should
be
a
recurring
one
and
you
all
should
have
received
an
invitation
now.
My
only
question
now
is
I'm
not
used
to
like
creating
those
those
meetings
and
I
just
realized
that
the
zoom
link
has
a
password
in
it
and
I
created
an
event
as
part
of
the
open
Telemetry
calendar.
So
is
that
correct
or
should
I
have
been
more
careful
or
shouldn't.
A
A
E
I'm
asking
because
we
have
the
same
Zoom
link
as
we
have
for
the
GC
actually
and
I
think
the
gc1
is
not
public,
but
it
is
published
afterwards
to
YouTube.
So
if
this
one
here
is
public,
but
the
GC
is
not
yes,
then
we
should.
We
should
change
the
GC
link
to
something
else.
There's
the
GC
is
public
and
just
from
time
to
time
we
make
it
private.
Then
it's
fine
that.
G
That's
the
way
we
do
it
is
it's
a
private
meeting
in
the
sense
that
it's
only
the
GC
in
attendance,
but
we
do
it
is
a
transparent
meeting,
so
we
use
a
regular
Zoom
link.
It
gets
published
to
YouTube
or
notes
or
or
published
it's
just
it's
not
a
it's,
not
an
open
invitation
for
anyone
to
show
up
the
way
this
one's
created.
It
kind
of
is
I.
Don't
know
that
that's
a
problem!
Someone
really
wanted
to
talk
to
us.
I
guess
it'd
be
fine
if
they
showed
up.
E
And
perhaps
a
another
question
derived
from
that
one
is
there
are
there
are
links
now
to
the
Leadership
Summit
nodes
and
that
doc
has
like
a
permission
of
anyone
in
their
internet
with
the
link?
Can
access
that
and
we
have
I,
don't
know
if
we
have
anything
there
that
we
discussed
like
the
graduation,
that
we
do
not
learned
I
don't
want
to
make
public
in
some
way,
I.
Don't.