►
From YouTube: 2022-01-20 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
B
D
I
guess
we
can
get
started,
think
or
something
I'm
pretty
sure.
Liz
was
not
going
to
show
up.
I
I
don't
know
if
you
all
saw
her
saga
and
twitter
or
linkedin
or
whatever.
E
D
But
I
think
we
have
quorum.
D
F
I
was
trying
to
keep
give
me
a
second
ted.
You
put
your
name
morgan,
you
didn't!
Oh,
you
are
there
okay,
perfect,
so
we
have
courtroom.
I
think
we
miss
onlys,
so
we
can
discuss
it.
So
first
topic
that
I
had
in
mind
is:
I
know
there
was
discussion
about
an
emeritus
role
or
something
but
nothing
concrete
got
into
our
membership
or
our
documents.
So
I
I
kind
of
want
to
to
have
this
for
good
or
for
bad.
C
Yeah,
that's
a
good
idea,
that's
absolutely
a
good
situation.
I
I
noticed
jurassic
that
you
became
an
emeritus
for
jaeger.
So
that's
I
think
it's
just
is
I'm
assuming
it's
because
of
your
time.
Getting
yes,.
F
But
back
back
to
these,
so
I
think
we
should
get
an
action
item
and
have
somebody
write
a
proposal
because
I
feel
like
we
need
to
add
this
into
the
into
the
membership,
and
probably
very
important
for
me
are
two
things
there:
what
are
their
do?
They
have
any
more
privileges
like
if
in
an
emergency
can
we
call
an
emeritus
to
prove
something
or
something
like
that?
Probably
we
should
not
do
that,
but
I
want
to
be
documented.
F
Second
is
if
I
was
an
emeritus
and
now
somehow
I
change
jobs
priorities,
and
now
I
want
to
go
back.
Do
I
have
a
faster
path,
or
do
I
reset
everything?
I
think
these
are
the
two
points
that
I
want
to
address
in
the
documentation
to
make
sure.
A
In
in
js,
we
do
already
on
our
readme
we
list.
We
just
have
like
thank
you
to
previous
approvers
and
maintainers
for
people,
and
we
list
all
their
names
we
haven't.
Had
anyone
try
to
come
back
yet
so
it
hasn't
really
been
a
question
for
us,
but
if
they
did,
I
you
know,
I
don't
think
it
would
be
a
problem
unless
they've
been
gone
for
a
really
long
time.
I
G
So
yiker
has
it.
We
do
not
offer
a
fast
track
for
emergencies,
maintainers
to
become
interning
with,
and
I
guess
I'm
using
the
wii
here-
and
I
should
not
because
I'm
emeritus
myself,
but
you
is
also
here,
so
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
so
we
have
that
role
and
it
doesn't
come
with
any
privileges.
It's
merely
just
to
show
people
that
appreciation
for
their
past
activities
for
their
best
work.
G
In
terms
of
you
know,
calling
whenever
an
emergency
happens,
I
wouldn't.
I
wouldn't
think
that
an
american
would
pick
up
the
phone
whenever
there's
an
emergency.
I
B
A
Sort
of
a
halfway
to
that
ted-
just
just
put
it
in
the
chat,
but
it's
not
that
they
could
be
called
on
to
be
an
approver
in
an
emergency.
But
if
you're,
just
looking
for
a
second
opinion,
you
can
look
and
you
know,
they're
still
sort
of
considered
to
be
a
code
owner,
even
though
they
don't
have
approval
rights.
C
A
C
F
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
I
think
we
need
a
draft
on
this
and
collect
all
this
feedback
in
that.
A
Yeah
yeah,
I
like
the
the
kubernetes
definition
of
emeritus.
We
obviously
don't
have
the
same
like
tooling
that
they
do
so.
We
can't
just
take
it
wholesale,
but
I
think
it
can
just
be
adapted,
as
is
for
our
existing.
F
F
Thanks
and
yeah,
we
are
three
years
old
so
that
time
may
have
already.
A
C
F
Okay,
so
I
I
I
took
as
an
action
item,
I
I
wrote
there
that
you
daniel,
will
propose
a
craft
on
this
yep
thanks
so
much
the
next
one
is.
I
was
looking
for
this
if
there
are
rules
to
to
remove
approvals,
maintainers
and.
A
F
So
one
there
is
only
one
statement
which
says,
because
this
is
related
a
bit
with
emeritus,
to
to
explain
why.
So,
if
we
have
an
inactive
person
right
now
what
it
says,
it
says
that
if
this
person
is
inactive,
you
remove
the
rights,
but
immediately
after
it
comes
back,
you
give
them
the
rights
so
or
something
like
that.
I
think
the
the
statement
is
in
give
me
a
second
anyway.
So
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is,
I
think
there
are.
There
are
places
like
inactivity.
F
E
I'd
prefer
there
be
one
concept
of
emeritus
that
those
people
get
moved
to
and
if
we
want
to
say
something
like
what
kubernetes
says,
which
is
when
an
emeritus
person
becomes
active,
the
people
who
vote
on
that
role
can
choose
to
vote
that
person
back
into
being
active
again.
E
C
F
Want
to
share
your
screen,
I
was
yeah,
so
I
was
looking
towards
the
membership
and
to
find
out
with
them
editors.
I
don't
know
if
you
know
why
I'm
asking
this,
because
in
java
I
was
one
of
the
very
active
maintainer
and
I
kind
of
stepped
down
now,
it's
almost
a
year
ago,
so
I
wanted
to
put
myself
as
emeritus.
They
did
that,
but
I
still
have
all
the
rights
and
stuff-
and
I'm
like
I
shouldn't-
have
all
these
rights,
even
though
I
did
contribute
a
lot
of
code.
F
I
I
don't
think
I
deserve
to
the
ability
to
to
merge
things
or
to
block
things
and
stuff
so
yeah.
I
have
an
opinion,
but
I
should
it
shouldn't
be
that
anyway,
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what
exactly
things
I
have
or
not
have
as
rights
becoming
an
amenities
there.
F
F
Yeah,
so
so
the
the
phrase
that
I
was
referring
to
is
this
one,
so
inactive
for
more
than
a
month
may
result
in
suspension
until
active
again
this
sound
to
me
that
when
you
become
active
again,
you
immediately
regain
your
privileges,
at
least
maybe
I'm
just
too
much
engineer,
but
this
is
what
it
sounds
to
me
here.
I.
E
F
That
sounds
good
yeah,
so
these
are
the
things
that
I
was
trying
to
cover.
So
probably,
as
I
said,
it's
the
time
of
of
the
life
of
this
project
that
we
need
to
start
yeah.
Adding
this
notion
makes
sense
suspension.
E
F
A
I
E
Should
be
the
maintainer's
discretion,
but
it
is
nice
to
say
that
it
have
for
the
maintainers
to
have
something
to
point
to
when
they
say
they're
doing
it.
That
says
it's!
Okay,.
A
A
A
E
E
E
A
F
Yeah
10
weeks
may
be
short,
but
sometimes
there
may
be
six
months,
for
example,
and
you
maintainers
may
ask
you
to
do
a
couple
of
things
here
and
there
just
to
re
re-accommodate
with
the
latest
changes.
That's
also
fine,
like.
A
E
A
F
A
A
E
Yeah,
so
there's
also
the
so
we've
been
talking
about,
like
I
think
you
know
the
positive
ways.
Somebody
goes
willingly
into
emeritus
status
and
you
know,
hopefully
it
never
ever
happens,
but
there
is
always
the
possibility
that,
for
whatever
reason
someone
is
removed
from
their
position,
whether
they
like
it
or
not,
right
dishonorably,
discharged,
yeah,
and
just
I
I
would
prefer
if
even
in
that
situation,
the
result
is
simply
that
they
are
moved
to
emeritus.
E
C
J
F
So
there
is
a
statement
here
like
demonstrate,
demonstrate
some
technical
judge.
F
I
don't
know
if
it
makes
sense
the
the
the
phrase
there,
but
you
may
be
asked
to
step
down
by
maintainer
if
they
lose
confidence
of
the
maintainer.
So
this
is
this
is
something
that
probably
falls
under
that
part.
That
is
it's
kind
of
like.
C
C
G
So
using
yogurt
organics
as
an
example,
we
have
I
just
linked
here.
The
rules
there
for
changes
in
maintainership
as
listed
in
the
governing
stock
and
so
far
either
have
only
people
voluntarily
stepping
out.
G
And
becoming
emergencies,
but
there
is
a
provision
there
for
a
change
in
the
maintainership
by
age:
two
thirds
majority
vote
by
the
maintainer.
So
if
there,
if
there
are
any
any
bad
behavior
by
a
single
maintainer,
then
two-thirds
of
the
current
maintainers
can
vote
that
maintainer
out
again
never
been
used.
A
J
E
Or
or
potentially
the
the
gc
depend,
I
mean
I
don't
know
how
we
want
to
divide
it
up,
but
we're
talking
about
code
of
conduct
issues.
That's
there's
not
a
technical
problem.
J
Technical
adjustment,
yeah
code
of
conduct
thing
is
gc,
but
technical
judgment
dispute
is
tc.
A
Right,
I
think
we
need
to
say
a
super
majority
vote
of
the
gc
or
something
like
that.
A
A
F
Okay
for
for
maintainers,
but
for
approvers,
do
we
allow
maintainers
that
discretionary?
Do
we
need
to
involve
gcdc
for
that,
since
we
already
have
I
mean
for
maintainers?
I
understand
we
need.
We
need
these
entities
to
to
do,
but
for
approvals,
do
we
apply
the
same
thing.
A
F
Yeah
agree,
dc,
yeah
and
for
kind
of
conduct
I
would
suggest
always
involve
gc,
because
I
don't
wanna
put
this
this
this
decision
of.
Is
it
a
conduct
violation
on
the
maintainers
or
not
like
they?
They
are
mostly
technical.
F
To
be
honest,
I
don't
think
maintainers
are
pm
or
or
hr
or
other
functionalities
that
deal
with
you.
So
I
it's
I
mean
you
become
a
maintainer
only
for
for
engineering
technical
merits
not
for
for
other
merits,
so
probably
from
the
product.
Things
should
always
go
to
gc,
I'm
fine
with
that,
but
I
think
it
should
be
stated
somewhere.
E
Yeah
yeah
that
just
just
to
be
just
so
people
know
the.
Currently
we
just
point
at
the
the
cncf
code
of
conduct
guide
and
that
guide
says
if
you're
in
kubernetes
there's
a
kubernetes
code
of
conduct
committee
and
you
go
to
them
for
everyone
else,
you
go
directly
to
the
cncf.
E
E
Yeah
people
can
always
appeal
to
the
cncf
right,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
write
down
just
to
clarify
to
people
like
if
you
are
having
a
problem
with
somebody's
conduct
in
this
community
like
the
gc
is
the
and
it's
not
a
gc
member.
The
gc
is
like
who
you
should
reach
out
to
and
we
will
help
you
resolve
it.
F
E
A
Right
so
I
guess
this
will
be
two
separate
pr's,
one
to
just
add
the
emeritus
status
and
what
its
definition
is,
and
that
kind
of
thing
a
second
one
for
for
the
cleanup
policy,
and
then
I
guess
a
third
one
for
voting
to
remove
maintainers
and
approvers,
and
things
like
that
three
separate
prs
does
that
seem:
okay,.
J
C
So
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
the
question
bogdan
raised
about
the
approvers
you
know
like
if
the
approvers
are
changed,
for
example
by
the
maintainers,
the.
I
feel
that
the
tc
should
be
notified,
because
I
don't
think
actively
the
tc
monitors
that
in
any
way,
I'm
sure
they
don't.
But
you
know
I
mean
again
just
wanted
to
brainstorm
that,
because
I
mean
the
tc
technically
should
be
aware
of.
You
know
what
the
status
of
maintainers
approvers
sure
is
right
on
every
component
or.
A
C
Yeah
yeah
exactly
no,
no,
I'm
not
saying
that
they're
deciding
I'm
just
saying
you
know
just
notification
because
just
to
be
aware
of
it
is
it
just
completely
passive
that
is,
you
know
the
pc
can
just
go
and
look
it
up
whenever
needed
to.
F
Be
honest:
it's
not
that
passive.
We
mostly
announce
all
of
these
in
the
maintainers
meeting,
so
there
is
a
back
channel.
Yes,
so
in
every
monday
maintainers
meeting
we
announce
all
these
kind
of
membership
changes.
So
I
don't
know
if
if
we
need
a
more
proper
information
to
the
tc,
maybe
we
can
link
the
tc
team
cc.
The
dc
team
yeah.
C
J
C
F
As
I
said,
definitely
sharing
the
information
is
important
and
we
were
doing
this
during
the
maintainers
meeting.
I
don't
know
if
that's
enough
for
for
this
or
we
want
to
cc
or
not
it's.
I
think
we
should
ask
the
tc
hey.
Do
you
want
to
be
cc'd
on
everyone
or
make
the
rule
that
yeah.
D
G
How
many
changes
happen
every
week?
Is
it?
Would
it
be
too
much
if
the
tc
is
pinned
on
every
maintainer
chain?
Membership
changes
not.
G
Yeah,
we
typically
open
prs
to
add
people
to
to
approvers.
Would
it
be
too
much
to
add
the
the
tc
on
every
such.
D
F
It's
just
you
get
more
more
emails.
Personally,
I'm
fine
with
the
maintainers,
so
maintainers
meeting
is
more
than
enough
for
me
because
we
present
all
these
details
there.
So
people
can
see.
A
Yeah,
I
guess
the
only
argument
against
that
would
be
if
some
particular
sig
maintainers
have
like
a
pattern
of
constantly
removing
approvers
and
the
tc
never
even
hears
about
it
yeah.
I
would
assume
that
the
the
approvers
would
appeal
to
the
gc
or
the
tcpa.
D
We're
looking
for
community
membership
observability
here,
I
have
a
hard
stop
at
the
hour
boundary.
Do
we
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
say
before
I
drop
for
those
who
are
able
to
join
and
the
collector
people.
I
hope
will
join
later
today.
I'm
not
planning
on
recording
that
just
because
I
think
it'll
make
the
conversation
just
slightly
easier,
but
if
anyone
feels
strongly
about
that
speak
now
or
forever,
holder
piece
but
hopefully
it'll
be
productive.