►
From YouTube: 2021-09-09 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
A
C
B
F
D
All
right
so,
what's
on
our
agenda
here,
I
think
ben
had
to
raise
the
question
yeah.
A
Very
very
little
I
mean
I
when
I'm
doing
like
stupid,
docs
updates
I
used
to
well.
I
formally
would
do
it
by
just
hitting
edit
and
github,
because
it
was
so
easy
and
it's
in
the
cloud
and
everything,
but
now
once
you
do
that,
you
can't
update
your
branch.
I
know
this
is
super
tactical,
but
I
was
kind
of
curious
if
like.
If
anyone
cares,
like
I
mean
I
can
just
like
revert
the
I
have
an
admin,
so
I
I
mean
I
can
just
change
the
permissions.
A
A
A
The
only
way
I
can
solve
this,
if
I
like
don't
cheat,
is
by
closing
the
pr
reopening
it,
but
I
guess
the
larger
point
is
like
it
was
kind
of
nice
to
be
able
to
just
like
edit
files
and
github
and
then
update
your
pr
and
you
just
can't
do
it
anymore.
I
guess
at
some
point
in
the
last
month,
or
so,
we've
changed
the
permissions.
G
A
A
Right
right
right,
no,
I
understand
that
anyway.
Okay,
I
think
the
short
answer
is
I'm
going
to
close
my
pr
and
reopen
it
with
the
fork.
I
I
don't
know
how
to.
I
don't
think
you
can
change
the
the
the
source
source
for
a
pr
after
it's
going
to
create
it.
So,
let's.
I
A
I
G
I
A
D
Ben,
could
we
discuss
the
mission
doc
or
please.
A
G
D
A
more
any
comments
incorporated,
I.
A
Yeah,
I
I
remember
what
liz
said
last
week.
Maybe
if
people
haven't
taken
a
look,
they
can
just
do
that.
Briefly,
it's
they're
they're
two.
The
only
thing
I
will
say
is
that
I
think
we
did
agree
that
the
mission
and
the
vision
are
like
separate
things.
The
mission
is
very,
very
short:
the
vision
is
a
bit
longer.
Yeah
we'll
have
both
and
I
think,
there's
only
one
actual
mission
candidate
and
then
there
are
two
vision.
Candidates,
but
yeah
it'd
be
great
to
get
feedback
about
about
what
people
want
to
do
from
here.
E
A
I'm
curious
if
there's
liz
provides
some
last
week,
but
if
others-
and
you
know
totally
absolutely
no
offense
taken
it's
not
about
the
author-
have
preference
between
the
the
basic
framing
of
the
first
vision
or
the
second
vision
statement.
E
I
have,
I
guess,
like
admit
about
within
the
vision,
really
the
candidate
too,
about
the
challenge.
Four,
nobody
should
have
to
become
a
telemetry
expert.
I
almost
think
this
is
misleading,
because
there
has
to
be
someone
like
there's
always
going
to
need
to
be
someone
in
an
organization
that
actually
like
knows
these
things
in
depth
and
like
be
able
to
debug
it
for
others.
It's
like.
We
almost
want
the
people
who
end
up.
E
I
don't
know
it's
like.
Do
we
want
to
be
the
people
who
consume
the
telemetry,
that
reproduce
be
like
not
the
experts
or
like
make
it
transparent
for
anyone,
like
you
know,
say,
like
application
teams
are
using
it
underneath
the
hood
and
they
don't
realize
that
those
are
the
people,
don't
be
experts
because
I
think
they're
all
they
always
need
to
be
an
expert.
I
feel
like.
E
D
Brings
up
a
good
point
because
ted
you
know,
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
constantly
seeing,
especially
with
the
collector,
is
that
there
are
clearly
two
class.
You
know
two
classes
of
users
developers,
you
know
who
are
actually
building
components
for
the
collector
and
and
and
then
the
end
users
who
are
customers
just
consuming
the
end-to-end
pipeline
right
and
just
using
it
as
as
which,
which
I
think
constance
is
referring
to
as
application
yeah.
B
We
could
call
them
out
by
name
and
say
application
developers,
but
if
they're
contributing
then
they're
not
right,
just
users
right,
like
anyone,
who's
contributing
is
now
a
contributor
and
obviously
they
have
to
know
how
it
works.
But
yeah
we
could
specifically
say
application.
Developers
should
not
have
to
be
telemetry
experts.
A
A
Constance,
I
mean
just
I
mean
the
word.
Nobody
is
it's
too
strong
yeah
and
I
think
the
point
in
my
mind
is
like
I
think,
very
reasonably.
A
lot
of
end
users
consider
open
telemetry.
A
It's
that's
going
to
continue
to
be
the
correct
decision
made
by
end
users
in
many
situations
and
I
think
that's
kind
of
what
I'm
getting
at
you're
right,
though
someone
probably
doesn't
need
to
become
an
expert,
but
just
like
you
know,
someone
and
a
lot
of
big
dynatrace
customers
is
probably
a
dynatrace
expert,
but,
like
most
people
are
not
and
that's
good
for
dynatrace
right,
I'm
just
using
that
as
a
positive
example
daniel.
Hopefully,
that
makes
sense
but
like.
J
But
I
I
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at.
We
can
say:
turnkey
solution
works
for
majority
of
scenarios
or
for
many
scenarios.
I
E
Yeah
because
we
would
have
to
write
because
then
that
would
be
a
part
of
like
what
we're
trying
to
scope
of,
like
you
know
like
we're
a
here
for
what
we
develop
later
on,
like
these
are
the
80
percent
of
these
cases.
We
want
to
be
dead,
simple
in
terms
of
you
just
turn
on
a
flag
or
something
like
that,
and
it
works.
H
Yeah,
I
think
it's
pretty
similar
to
what
sigrun
was
attempting
to
do
with
ubiquitous
and
easy
to
use
section.
So
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
define
scenarios,
you
can
just
say
telemetry
collection
scenarios
or
something.
H
I
mean
in
general,
I
like
the
framing
in
band
vision
more
because
it's
like
outside
in.
I
agree.
It's
it's
better
for
vision,
but
tikron
road
is
better
for
road
map
like
a
specific
guidance.
How
to
develop
this
framework.
C
We
want
easy
to
use
to
be
of
value.
We
want
vendor
neutral
to
be
of
value.
We
want
language
neutral
to
be
a
value,
love
it.
Okay,
standards,
compliant
value,
broad
signal,
support
value,
and
now
we've
used
everybody's
content,
which
is
also
awesome
because
you
know
like
digrun,
did
good
work
and
it's
super
important.
A
I
actually
don't
I
want
to
say
at
least
for
myself.
I
could
give
a
about
this
isn't
going
to
have
my
name
on
it.
I
don't
care
at
all
about
who
oh
yeah,
writing
it
just
on
that
front,
but
yeah
and
I
sort
of
agree
with
you,
sir.
A
I
wonder,
though,
one
the
the
first
whether
it's
insider
outside
in
the
first
vision,
is
much
more
about
positive
statements
of
where
open
telemetry
should
be
vision-wise
and
the
other
is
framed
more
in
terms
of
problems
to
solve,
or,
I
guess
negative
statements
I
don't
know
people
have,
I
mean
that
that
could
be
done
either
way
in
either
proposal.
Do
people
have
a
preference
about
that,
like
it
wouldn't
change
most
of
the
long
form
content,
but
the.
D
I
would
say
that
positive,
transforming
the
knots
into
positive
as
positive
way
of
framing.
That
would
be
helpful
because
that
that
always
resonates
very
well
with
you
know,
mission
and
vision,
right
and
and
and
if
we
can
just
transform
the
same.
You
know
sentences
into
a
positive
way.
Then
that's
ideal.
A
Cool
yeah,
it
didn't
it
didn't
work
for
moses
and
the
ten
commandments,
but
but
I'll
try
it
for
the.
C
Who's
doing
the
other
thing
that,
in
in
your
mission,
vision
too,
you
could
take
the
vision
and
frame
it
in
terms
of
you
know.
We
believe
in
a
world
where
developers
have
direct
access
to
high
quality
telemetry
and
are
able
to
make
effective
decisions
based
on
this
information,
the
you
know,
because
we're
talking
about
observability
as
the
future
kind
of
thing.
So
you
know
we
will
have
vanquished
the
problem
that
we
cannot
expect
software
developers
that
or
maintain
all
of
this
by.
C
You
know
simplification,
so
you
just
you
write
it
in
the
sort
of
the
future
future
positive
world
sense
the
we
fixed
all
of
this,
and
what
does
it
look
like.
C
But
thank
you
you
and
tigran
for
putting
these
together
and
starting
on
them.
It's
you
know
I
can.
I
can
take
a
pass
through
and
and
flip
some
of
this
if
you'd
like
or
you
know,
flip
it
more
toward
that
positive
future
statement.
A
And
then
for
the
values
piece
I
I
am,
I
think
there
has
already
been
some
work
on
a
more
a
tc.
G
A
Like
you
know,
engineering
values,
kind
of
thing-
if
I
remember
correctly,
is
that
correct.
H
A
A
A
I
was
thinking
more
about
something
we
could
a
sign
on
the
wall
where
we
could
point
to
just
explain
why
we're
saying
no
to
scope
creep,
which
isn't
like
a
code
of
conduct
thing.
That's
just
you
know
that
that's
the
the
thing
that's
not
really
captured
in
the
vision
like
some
kind
of
done
is
better
than
perfect
kind
of
thing.
I
feel
like.
We
desperately
need
that
right
now
and
I
don't
think
that's
the
vision,
that's
a
values
thing,
and
I
that's
what
I'm
really
asking
about.
C
In
kubernetes
we
chose
basically
statements
about
the
tension
between
two
things.
Where
we
would
choose
you
know,
community
over
company,
we
would
choose
automation
over
toil,
you
know
so
we
we
chose
values
that
we
could
use
to
make
decisions
exactly
like
that
and-
and
I
think
that's
super
useful
as
opposed
to
just
you
know,
we
value
integrity
hooray,
but
you
know
who
doesn't
and
did
you
want
to
work
with
them
if
they
were
going
to
mention
that
anyway,
you
know
like
so
yeah.
E
A
My
question
constance
is
whether,
like
what
I
we
can
talk
about
that,
but,
like
what
artifact
does
that
content
live
in
like
that's
not
exactly
at
least
not
the,
at
least
in
my,
like
internal
formulation,
isn't
really
a
vision
statement,
it's
more
of
like
a
you
know.
How
do
we
behave
value,
technical
values,
kind
of
thing,
which
I
think
is
extremely
important-
maybe
actually
more
needed
right
now
in
some
way
than
the
mission
envision,
but
that
that's
I'm
just
wondering
like
what
is
that
document?
E
Can
we
not
put
them
in
both,
because
I
guess
like
one
thing
naively,
is
that
imagine
the
mission
statement
is
going
to
get
a
lot
more
views
than
the
technical
values
and
since
it
is
so
important,
you
have
a
way
of
phrasing
in
the
mission
and
then
after
we
put
it
back
in
the
values
and
another
similar
phrasing.
Just
because
I
think
that
might
be
something
useful
for
like
end
users
and
like
companies
that
are
going
to
try
to
adopt
it.
Be
like.
Oh,
like
we
know
that
someone
back
there.
A
Mission
vision,
values
as
like
the
trinity
of
these
things,
so
we
could
certainly
include
it
there
and
just
take
a
cut
at
some
stuff
that
we
feel
good
about.
I
would
definitely
want
the
tc
to
take
a
look
at
it,
but
I
think
it
will
definitely
bleed
into
that
realm,
but
it
is
somewhat
about
like
sort
of
the
product
of
open
telemetry,
which
I
think
of
as
a
gc
thing.
A
As
eliza
said
a
number
of
times,
I'm
speaking
for
liz,
since
liz
is
in
a
non-verbal
mode
today,
but
yeah
we
can,
I'm
totally
happy
to
try
and
condense
the
existing
document
that
we
have
into
like
a
third
values
section.
D
So
so
the
action
item
there
ben
is
that
we
would
add
a
third
section.
A
Yeah
and
as
long,
I
would
appreciate
if
someone
can
point
me
to
the
most
recent
things
we
have
written
down,
even
if
they're,
not
that
recent
on
the
technical
values
just
so
that
we
don't
conflict
or
reinvent
the
wheel.
A
I
do
and
that's
why
I
was
proposing
that,
like
I'm
happy
to
take
the
thing
we've
already
written
and
condensed
it
and
then
have
them,
take
a
look
or
just
as
honestly
as
just
trying
to
accelerate
things
if,
if
the
tc
would
rather
just
take
it
like,
you
know
clean
room,
it
that's
great.
I
just
want
this
to
get
done,
so
I'm
trying
to
accelerate
it,
but
I
I'm
very
happy
to
not
do
any
of
it.
Actually,
I
I
just
wanted
to
get
done
quickly.
H
Yeah,
I
think
we
have
enough
information.
I
just
what
the
thing
I
will
do
is
digging
around
for
bits
and
pieces
of
documents.
A
B
One
specific
thing
I
see
missing
from
the
statements
that
maybe
could
be
called
out
more
prominently
is
allow
native
instrumentation
for
open
source
right,
like
that's
a
a
thing
that
we
have
as
a
goal
that
current
systems
don't
do.
D
B
A
I'm
doing
that
right
now:
okay,.
H
So
at
some
point
I
started
documenting
like
long
ago
outlining
values
like
how
companies
how
the
best
companies
can
adapt
open,
telemetry
and
like
vendors,
mostly
and
values,
will
like
try
to
do
as
pure
as
possible
like
try
not
to
have
too
many
plugins
or
such
do.
We
have
place
for
that
in
either
tcu
on
gc,
or
it's
just
recommendations
that
we
can
share
separately
from
values.
D
Like
give
me
an
example,.
H
D
Yes,
I
see,
I
mean
we
should
call
it
out
if
it
is
not
already
in
the
in
the
dc
recommendations
right,
some
kind
of
in
section,
which
is
maybe
technical
recommendations.
H
It's
not
purely
technical.
It's
just
recommended
like
what's
the
best
for
community,
how
you
adapt
it
and
end
users
yeah.
H
D
Yeah
we
are
going
forward,
I
think
sega.
The
action
item
that
I
think
daniel
and
I
had
was
to
work
on
a
dock
and
I'm
sorry
I
don't
have
it
ready
right
now,
but
I
should
be
able
to
share
that
by
this
weekend.