►
From YouTube: 2022-12-01 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
B
C
Have
like
I
have
little.
C
And
even
put
it
to
be
on
top
of
your
head
like
here,
you
know
like
right
now:
it's
blocked
by
your
head,
so
you
put
it
like
a
bit
higher
you'll.
A
A
D
Yeah,
let
me
just
share
quickly,
and
so
just
was
going
through
some
of
these
and
some
of
these
old
ones.
I
didn't
have
enough
context
and
also
wanted
so
I
thought
we
could
close
this.
D
D
D
Cool
I
will
close
that
out
and
then
there's
this
where
I
think
is
fairly
uncontroversial.
D
D
D
Great
and
then,
since
we
have
everybody
that
this
one
I
can't
because
I
submitted
it
myself,
I
can't
merge
it
without
a
green
check.
I'll
take
care
of
that
one.
Thank
you.
C
So,
are
they
not
meeting
anymore
or.
D
What's
the
they
were,
so
they
were
never
meeting
so
there
was,
they
were
never
meeting,
but
there
was
a
meeting
times
in
the
our
readme
and
so
some
somebody
posted
here
saying,
hey
it
says
you're
meeting
but
I
can't
find
it
on
the
calendar
and
the
rest
folks
thought
about
scheduling
a
meeting,
but
they
never
ended
up
setting
up
a
meeting.
So
I
asked
if
we
could
just
remove
the
meeting
times
for
now
and.
D
Oh,
this
one
is
a
bit
of
a
bigger
change,
so
this
is
the
open
Telemetry
bot
account
that
I've
set
up,
and
so
the
proposal
here
is
to
have
a
GitHub
org
secret
with
the
personal
access
token.
D
For
this
open,
Telemetry
bot
and
maintainers
can
request
the
TC
to
allow
their
repo
access
to
it,
because
the
org
Secrets
can
be
controlled
repo
by
repo,
and
so
the
main
thing
that
are
it
does
two
things
you
can
read
it
if
you
want,
but
one
of
the
big
ones
was
the
cncf
CLA
requirement
of
that
we
were
having.
We
ran
into
this.
D
Daniel
had
opened
an
issue
a
while
back
and
so
I
believe
and
Daniel
I
think
this
I'd,
like
your
confirmation,
that
you
also
agree
that
this
resolves
your
original
issue
here
and
I
did
just
to
double
check.
I
opened
a
a
service
desk
ticket,
they
sent
me
the
easycla
and
the
easy
CLA
folks
said
that
signing
the
CLA
for
our
own
bot
was
totally
legit.
C
B
No,
the
problem
was
that
the
bot
preview-
originally
there
was
no
oh,
we
asked
the
easycla
team
to
accept
the
bot
and
they
said
no,
so
we've
received
mixed
messaging
from
the
the
cncf
over
the
last
few
years
over
this,
but
as
far
as
I
know,
the
current
policy
is
that
you
can
exempt
bumps
from
the
CLA.
B
It
doesn't
matter
which
bot
was.
You
know
whether
it's
the
dependency
bot
or
this
bot
or
the
the
open
Telemetry
bot
just
having
some
way
to
do
automated
actions.
Yes,
the
original
and
yeah.
This
can
be
closed.
If
there
is
an
open
television
about
that's
fine,
their
contention
was
that
there's
no
way
that
the
a
bot
user
could
make
any
arbitrary
change
to
the
repo
like
if
they
have
right
access
to
the
repo
there's,
no
way
to
guarantee
that
it
doesn't
make
that
it
doesn't
add
additional
IP
or
something
like.
D
A
D
Yeah,
so
that's
a
good
point
and
a
key
part
of
this
proposal
here
is
that
it
does
not
require,
and
in
fact
there's
you
do
not
need
and
should
not
give
this
account
any
permissions
to
any
open
Telemetry
repository.
D
Used
is
to
submit
PRS
to
the
repo
and
then
the
maintainers
still
have
to
approve
and
merge
them.
Foreign.
D
Cool
and
then
just
wanted
to
mention
that
I
created
two
new
labels
and
labeled
some
stuff.
Accordingly,
all
right
that
was
it
I
didn't
want
to
take
up
too
much
time
on
that
this
is.
This
is
another
issue.
That's
come
up
several
times
before
and
about
giving
maintainers
admin
permissions
and
it
was
sort
of
res.
It
was
sort
of
resolved,
but
not
really
resolved
I
mean
it.
D
We
said
that
yes,
maintainers
can
request
like
on
a
spec
case-by-case
basis
they
could,
but
it
still
seems
to
be
causing
some
contention.
There's
some
recent
issues
requesting
admin
rights.
D
So
what
I
wanted
to
propose
for
all
of
these
was
just
a
blanket
say,
allow
if
somebody
wants
and
if
I'm,
if
the
maintainers
want
admin
rights
but
require
them,
then
to
document
all
the
changes
that
they
make
kind
of
how
within
the
Java
instrumentation
repo-
and
you
can
see-
and
this
is
why
I
I
would
have
been
very
pained
if
I
did
not
have
admin
rights
while
I
went
through
and
figured
out
all
of
the
different
things
that
I
needed
to
set
up
the
different
permissions,
so
I
do
support
maintainers.
D
Having
this
permission,
admin
rights
to
figure
this
stuff
out
but
I
think
as
the
repos
mature
more
like
at
this
point,
we've
worked
through
I
think
all
of
these
Kinks
and
we've
documented
them
and
I'd
probably
be
okay
with
giving
up
admin
rights
in
this
repo.
At
this
point,
so
anyway,
that's
and
then
revisit
this
again
in
a
year,
just
kind
of
Kick,
the
Can
down
the
road
but
unblock
people.
D
B
I
guess
I
added
the
next
one,
so
the
I
linked
the
original
issue
here,
I'm
sure
everybody
here
is
aware
of
it.
I
wrote
up
a
quick
summary
that
kind
of
distills
the
the
talking
points
and
the
proposed
Solutions.
As
far
as
I
remember,
there
were
only
two
proposed
Solutions
should
I
share
my
screen,
or
is
everybody
open?
Have
the
document
open
here.
B
B
The
advantages
of
the
CLA
as
I
understand
it
is
that
some
companies,
particularly
Google
I,
believe,
will
not
use
open
source
software
unless
it's
covered.
My
acla
they're
well
understood
by
institutional
contributors
and
that
an
employer
can
sign
a
CLA
for
multiple
people.
B
A
B
B
The
disadvantage
that
I
can
think
of
here
is
that
it
may
prevent
adoption
or
contribution
by
some
large
Enterprises.
Google
is
the
one
that
comes
to
mind,
but
there
may
be
others
particularly
to
do
with
contribution.
I
don't
know
if
adoption
is
that
big
of
a
deal
for
most
companies.
B
The
second
option
is
the
hybrid
approach
for
those
that
are
not
aware
of
this.
The
idea
is
that
you
have
a
single
repository
in
the
organization
of
dco,
ignored
users,
and
you
need
to
sign
the
CLA
to
add
yourself
to
that
repository.
So
you
would
sign
a
CLA
make
a
PR
against
that
repository.
That
adds
you
as
a
CLA
signatory
and
then
the
dco
bot
would
ignore
you.
So
this
would
allow
you
to
contribute
under
either
a
CLA
or
a
dco.
C
Just
to
clarify
Google
doesn't
want
to
do
that
because
there
are
legal
consequences
with
this
year,
so
with
CLA,
you
are
protected
against
against
ipt
and
a
bunch
of
other
things
like
IP
lawsuits
and
stuff
like
that
with
this
year,
because
there
is
no
previous
case
that
proved
this,
like
you
know
the
the
U.S
thing
like.
If
there
is
no
previous
case,
Google
didn't
want
to
be
the
first
one
would
get
into
a
lawsuit
with
dco.
So
because
of
that,
it's
not
it's
not
necessary.
C
B
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
I'm
sure
that
the
cncf
does
employ
lawyers
that
we
can
talk
to
about
this
stuff.
One
alternative
solution
would
be
to
remove
the
real
name
requirement
from
the
CLA
I.
Don't
know
if
that's
possible,
but
do
we
have
a
contact
at
the
cncf
that
can
help
with
these
things.
E
E
Oh,
yes,
we
go
to
Chris
anischeck
and
then
he
sends
us
to
someone
else.
B
D
E
D
B
I
mean
I
think
if
any
one
of
us
opens
the
service
desk
ticket
you
should.
We
should
all
be
able
to
see
it
so
I
think
that's
probably
the
way
to
go
just
to
keep
the
the
communication
channels
as
open
as
possible.
C
B
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
reasons
to
not
want
to
give
out
your
real
name
in
public
in
a
particularly
some
people,
particularly
like
trans
people,
are
worried
about
people
finding
out
who
they
are
and
where
they
live.
And
things
like
that.
C
You're
right
so
again
still
do
we
trust
the
person
who
is
not
giving
to
an
entity
their
names
that
they
are
doing
the
right
thing
for
the
project.
A
I
think
a
bad
actor
would
just
make
a
name
up
so
I
don't
know
if
I
care.
D
F
It
would
be
great
yeah
to
get
a
cmcf
lawyer
to
talk
to
us
about
one
of
these
things,
because.
F
F
A
In
in
2019,
Sarah
Sarah
was
working
at
Google
and
she
said
it
was
a
blocker
and
I
seem
to
remember
someone
from
Microsoft
having
similar
concerns,
but
I.
Don't
remember
like
I,
don't
it's
a
long
time
ago,
yeah
but
like
Sarah
and
whoever
else
was
involved.
It
indicated
like
it
wasn't
just
Google.
It
was
most
of
the
big
companies
had
similar
concerns.
F
F
B
A
Anyway,
let's
file
that
ticket
and
then
try
ask
if
you
don't
mind
reaching
out
to
Sarah
just
find
out
if
things
have
changed
and
then
I
think
we
can
look
at
maybe
doing
the
hybrid
approach
or
we
look
at
saying
telling
people
that
you
know
if
you
really
hate
the
CLA
that
much
like
make
something
up
and
put
it
in.
A
A
C
Then
we
can
head
back
and
forth
yeah.
We
can
ask
that
question.
Okay,
also,
if
the
name
is
not
public
anywhere,
it's
just
provided
in
the
form
I
I
still
would
like
to
understand.
What's
the
concern
with
providing
that
name,
even
if
you
provide
your
real
name
like
it's,
it's
you
are
providing
to
an
institution
like
cncf
is,
if
you
don't
trust
cnca,
do
you
trust
our
project
dude
like
what
what
what's
the
concern
there,
because
it
feels
to
me
that
indeed
it's
it's
a
privacy
thing,
don't
get
me
wrong,
but
you
are.
B
Yeah,
it's
it's
name
and
mailing
address
as
far
as
I
know
and
I
think
the
the
risk
is
that
people
who
want
to
contribute
to
the
project,
but
are
not
employees
of
the
cncf
day
or
the
Linux
foundation
and
have
no
other
association
with
them
are
just
hesitant
to
get
that
information
out
to
what
they
view
as
an
external
party
that
they
don't
have
any
real
association
with,
and
you
know
anything
can
happen
that,
can
it
can
you
you
have
no
idea
how
that
information
is
stored
or
handled
I'm.
B
B
Okay,
so
I
guess
I'll
go
ahead
and
create
the
cncf
ticket.
Unless
somebody
else
really
wants
to
you,
then.
A
Left
Focus
well
for
those
who
are
left
should
I
just
submit
the
maintainers
talk
just
to
lock
it
up
for
keep
going
to
you.
Yes,.
B
Yes,
okay,
I
think
so
there's
a
new
requirement
now
that
if
there's
more
than
I
think
two
people
listed,
you
need
at
least
one
girl.
So
if
it's
me
and
you
and
Lolita,
that's
not
a
problem,
that's
what
we've
been
doing.
Yeah
I
think
it
goes
without
saying
that
I
would
volunteer
for
that
again
and
I'm
sure
I'll
only
do
it
too,
but
you'll.