►
From YouTube: 2021-11-18 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
Still
be
an
approver,
let's
say,
like
you,
have
merge
rights.
A
C
Where
are
we
at
here?
We
have
one
minute.
Theoretically,
I
on
on
the
stock,
I
mean
I
realized.
We
had
kind
of
a
vigorous
debate
about
some
stuff
yeah.
A
E
F
Yeah,
we
can
certainly
do
that
and
then
we
can
reassess
what
the
issues
are
again,
but
there
should
be
standard
reassessment
right.
I
mean
again
every
quarter
we
should
be
looking
at
which
approvers
are
actually
doing
approves.
How
many
approvals
did
they
do?
What
did
they
do
and
the
same
thing
goes
for
maintainers.
Also
again,
we
have
to
be
more
data
driven
and
you
know,
and
and
review
driven
it's.
F
E
I
can
make
a
joke
about
that
numbers.
We
very.
E
E
Duration
of
prs
we
can,
we
can
make
a
number
it.
E
A
A
B
Yep
right,
it
should
definitely
not
be
automatic
right,
like
all.
This
is
about
maintainer
control
and
and
giving
maintainers
the
ability
to
delegate
to
people
that
they
trust,
which
I
had
initially
assumed,
was
going
to
be.
The
set
of
approvers
bagan
tells
me
that's
wrong.
That's
fine!
You
know
if
we
need
to
create
a
separate
class
of
people,
so
be
it
like.
B
Let's,
let's
figure
this
out
so
that
we
can
get
the
you
know,
get
some
of
the
less
glamorous
work
off
of
your
your
plates
bug,
bugman
and
danielle
and
drossy,
so
that
you
know
we
can
have
a
project
that
is
moving
faster
and
that
people
feel
like
they're
able
to
make
more
progress
on.
D
G
So
perhaps,
as
a
result
of
this
conversation,
we
could
have
like
a
separate
proposal
or
recommendation
on
on
activities
that
maintainers
should
be
engaging
with
you
know,
so
I
certainly
have
one
one
way
of
working
and
bogdan
has
another
one,
but
I
I
know
that
I
could
certainly
have
a.
I
could
benefit
in
in
having
a
general
direction
on
what
is
expected
of
me
as
a
maintainer.
G
So
should
I
be
mentoring,
other
folks,
should
I
count
on
a
couple
of
hours
a
day
to
help
other
folks
in
becoming
proofers,
or
should
I
be
labeling
issues?
I
haven't
been
doing
that
and
I
should
have.
I.
F
Mean
I
definitely
go
and
triage
all
the
issues
and
and
bogdan,
and
I
have
worked
closely
on
you
know,
making
sure
that
they
are
second
level
triaged.
We
can
do
it
more
regularly
with
a
wider
set
of
maintainers,
as
we
have
we're
lucky
enough
to
have
more
now.
So
certainly
you
know
that
helps
for
sure
and
that's
something,
but
you
know
it
there's
also
been
discussion
that
maintainers
don't
necessarily
have
the
bandwidth
to
go
and
do
triaging.
So
therefore
you
know
they
look
at
it.
They're
they're,
pros
and
cons
right
to
both
approaches.
G
Yeah,
but
I
mean
I
think
I
maintainer
or
or
the
role
of
of
maintainer
is
not
only
about
coaching.
It's
not
only
about
reviewing
specific
prs.
It
is
also
about
the
health
of
the
project
as
a
whole
right.
So
you
do
have
to
watch
all
of
the
issues
you
do
have
to
answer
user
questions
on
slack
on
or
whatever
other
channels
are
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
You
know,
so
I
think
those
expectations
have
to
be
clear
that
you
know
maintain
being
mini.
Maintainer
is
not
only
about
coding.
E
E
What
should
we
do
I,
for
example,
if
if
anyone
has
more
time,
I
can
tell
you
what
I
thought
to
do
for
for
contrib,
for
collector
country,
for
example,
to
improve
the
velocity,
because
it's
probably
one
of
the
worst
projects
right
now.
In
terms
of
that,
I
want
to
talk
with
daniel
to
to
do
the
tool.
E
You
said
you
mentioned
that
you
have
a
tool
for
code
owners
thinking
I
wanna
I
wanna
start
enabling
that
that
tool
first
and
make
sure
that
we
rely
more
on
the
code
owners
or
having
a
set
of
owners
virtual
owners,
whatever
they
are
called,
because
they
they
don't
have
really
an
equivalent
in
what
we
mean
in
proverbs
or
maintainers
or
something
so.
But
we
have
these
owners
for
for
contributings.
E
I
don't
know
if
we
have
or
or
at
one
point
splunk
we
have
a
splunk
exporter
and
stuff
like
that,
so
we
want
to
give
way
more
control
to
these
components
to
the
to
the
code
owners.
That's
that's
one
of
the
things
that
I
want
to
do
because
in
the
end,
I
don't
care.
If
amazon's
ecf
doesn't
work,
it's
is
their
problem.
If
it
doesn't
work,
is
their
client
are
there
clients
and
yeah
for
the
things
that
are
shared
and
stuff?
I
think,
and
how
do
we
merge
them?
E
I
think
I
think
that's
a
good
question.
How
do
we
make
things
mergeable
easily?
Maybe
maybe
another
option
is
to
have
a
bot?
I
I
think
that's
that's
going
to
be
the
next
one.
For
for
these
components,
that's
that's
my
my
thing
on
on
on
contributes
to
to
improve
things,
but
I
would
like
to
have
more
tools
around
this
to
to
ensure
that
we
we
can
do
automatically
things
and
maybe
mark
the
vendor-specific
components
as
vendor-specific
and
give
the
right
of
the
bot
to
merge
them
by
just
the
code
owners
listed
there.
A
Yeah
and
that
that's
more
or
less
what
the
what
we
did
in
js,
it's
not
a
bot
that
automatically
merges,
but
it's
it
helps
us
to
see.
This
person
owns
this
this
part
of
the
directory
tree
and
if
they
approve
it,
then
I
can
just
merge
it
and
it's
it
would
be
better.
It
was
automatic,
but
I
haven't
had
the
time
to
dedicate
to
the
tooling
to
make
it
truly
automatic.
Yet.
E
So
one
thing
that
we
can
do
daniel
if
you
can
is
at
least
one
of
the
owner
if
they
comment
on
ready
to
merge
or
something
like
that,
to
put
a
label
ready
to
merge.
So
then,
at
least
in
the
morning
I
can
go
and
filter
by
that
and
just
if
you
don't
do
the
bot,
I
just
press
the
button
blindly,
because
I
know
they
have
this
right
to
say.
Yeah.
F
B
With
a
comment
that
would
be,
that
would
be
great
yeah,
yes,
so
yeah.
This
is
something
that
I
know
kubernetes
has
solved.
We
can
borrow,
borrow
their
work,
it's
fine!
So,
okay,
it
sounds
like
we
have.
We
know
what
we're
doing
next,
which
is
like.
Let's
refine
this:
let's
try
to
make
more
sophisticated
rules
possible
with
the
bot
and
then
we
can
figure
it
out
from
there
cool
excellent
thanks
for
being
over
everyone.