►
From YouTube: 2020-12-03 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
C
B
C
B
C
C
C
B
Okay,
welcome
I've,
put
some
issues,
some
items
on
the
agenda
here
and
apologies
for
not
being
there
on
the
last
meeting
or
usually,
I
would
put
like
I
can't
show
up,
but
I
did
put
in
the
status
of.
B
So
I
saw
that
first
of
all,
there
was
a
collector
0.16.0
release.
I
saw
that
and
then
I
saw
the
contract
released
earlier
today.
So
it's
great,
so
we
got
0.16
released
and
they've
got
fantastic
format,
change
logs,
so
people
can
see
what's
changed
so
that
I'd
say.
Thank
you
for
that
and
then
let
me
see
the
status
of
the
issues.
We're
24
through
triaging,
all
of
the
open,
collector
issues,
26
of
the
contrib
issues,
we're
tackling
the
bugs
first
zero
p
zeros,
which
is
good
p
ones.
B
We
got
two
issues
and
if
I
could
bring
this
up,
I
will
one
of
them
needs
an
assignee
or
d
prioritization.
I
had
a
kind
of
like
a
quick
look
at
these.
C
Now
I
think
we
should.
We
should
still
do
that
and
eric
who
reported
it.
He
said
he
can
work
on
it,
but
we're
just
waiting
on
the
specification
to
be
finalized
before
we
move
forward
with
that.
B
B
B
And
then
this
other
one's
got
assignee
that's
cool
and
still
suitable
as
a
p1,
even
though,
like
some
of
the
conversation
from
before.
C
I
think
it
is.
We
just
need
to
see
what
kind
of
solution
we
can
come
up
with
yeah.
We
need
to
think
about
it,
this
non-trivial
problem.
We
need
to
do
some
experimentation.
Maybe
if
we
don't
find
an
easy
solution,
we
need
to
reduce
the
priority,
and
maybe
it
happens
after
the
release
we'll
see.
Let's,
let's
keep.
B
Okay
and
so
yes,
the
only
other
item
I
had
on
here
was
a
triage,
usually
limited,
seven
minutes,
but
we
can
expand
it
if
you
like
in
order
to
get
through
some
of
these
things
and.
C
B
Okay,
15
minutes,
so
it's
at
the
5
so
at
the
20
minute.
So
I
start
with
the
bugs-
and
we
can
start
here
with
this.
B
A
B
C
Yeah
yeah:
this
is
p3.
It's
a
minor
issue.
C
C
You
should
probably
leave
it
out:
no,
no,
no,
no
yeah
without
without
any
stick.
No.
B
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
I
suggest
that
for
p2
and
p3
we
don't
set
allow
for
ga
because
we're
already
pretty
close
to
the
release
time,
let's
put
it
after
ga,
it's
it's
just
not
going
to
happen.
There's
no
way,
there's
no
reason
to
mark
it
allowed
for
gm.
C
E
D
B
D
Let's
move
on
metrics.
C
Yeah,
so
this
is
matrix,
and
I
think
this
is
a
minor
discrepancy,
so
something
like
three
probably.
B
And
would
there
be
an
area
that
would
this
one.
B
We
can
take
a
look
at
the
bugs
at
of
the
collector
con
trips.
B
Before
we
jump
back
into
the
con
collector,
for
what
am
I
doing?
D
B
B
Is
for
the
owned
by
the
contributor,
should
I
automatically
assign
these
guys
or
one
of
them,
or
should
I
leave
it
out.
C
C
And
after
yeah
after.
C
E
Yeah,
it's
a
high
priority.
If
it's
an
issue.
E
Okay
required
allow
just
a
configuration
issue,
but
we'll
see.
B
B
Oh
okay,
okay,
we
got
an
area
for.
B
Like
okay,
never
mind,
actually
that's
a
point.
Maybe
we
could
talk
about
later
about
cleaning
ups
on
the
label,
16.
B
B
Oh
really,
okay,
so
it's
enhancement,
yeah
party,
like.
C
Okay,
this
is
a
translation
problem
with
datadog
exporter.
They
will
need
to
look
into
that.
So
this
is,
I
would
guess,
a
p3,
maybe.
C
C
The
reality
for
the
country
repository
the
distinction
between
allow
it
for
ga
and
after
ga,
it's
kind
of
unclear,
because
these
are
all
independent
components
and
the
the
vendors
are
really
allow
it
to
make
changes
anytime,
but
we're
not
dictating
the
pace
whenever
they
want
to
do
it.
It's
up
to
them
right.
C
C
Sounds
like
some
sort
of
an
hk's
making
p3
and
it's
traces,
and
I
guess
it's
after.
A
E
B
C
B
B
Allowed,
of
course,
for
ga
if
there
is
a
solution
yeah,
but
none
of
the
spec
issues
relate.
We
know.
B
C
C
Do
we
have
anything
else
to
discuss
guys
any
other
topics?
We
don't
have
anything
in
the
agenda.
Does
anyone
have
anything.
E
C
That
they
don't
intend
to
later
support
right,
so
just
make
it
internal.
If
you
don't
want
to
create
a
problem,
but
for
specifically
for
the
component
interfaces,
the
ones
that
the
core
defines
that
definitely
becomes
part
of
our
contract.
As
soon
as
we
do
once
we
do
the
ga
release
that
becomes
our
own
api
that
we
will
need
to
maintain.
F
Backwards,
okay,
I
do
have
a
question
and
by
the
way
this
is
granville
this
my
first
time
showing
up
to
one
of
these
meetings.
Hello,
but
thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
work
for
f5
networks
and
I've
been,
and
actually
just
recently
built
a
exporter
for
our
f5
cloud
and
I've
been
doing
it
in
a
private
fork
of
this,
and
I
was
wondering
if
we've
documented
what
the
appropriate
steps
are
to
get
an
exporter
in
there.
I've
read
through
the
contributing
doc,
but
is
there
anything
more
than
that.
C
There
is
none,
typically
with
exporters,
you're,
welcome
to
contribute
it
to
the
country
and
the
only
requirement
there
is
that
it
meets
the
quality
bar.
It
passes
the
code
reviews
the
code
coverage
is
sufficient
other
than
that
there
is
no.
We
don't
have
any
other
special
requirements
for
the
exporters.
F
Okay,
that
makes
sense-
and
I
remember
when
I
was
grocking
through
there's-
the
capability
of
markings,
different
modules
as
unstable.
Is
it
appropriate
to
mark
it
as
unstable
throughout
this
process,
or
just
you
know,
put
in
a
pr
with
it
without
marking
it
as
unstable?
It.
C
Depends
on
what
how
you
feel
about
it?
Do
you
feel
that
it's
ready
for
production
views?
If
it
is,
then
there
is
no
need
to
mark
it
unstable
right
now
we
specifically
mark
everything
related
to
logging
as
unstable,
because
logging
is
something
that
open
telemetry
does
not
get
intent
to
support.
C
That
is
one
of
the
reasons,
but
nothing
prevents
us
from
marking
other
exporters
for
traces
or
metrics
as
unstable
as
well.
If
we
feel
like
it's
more
of
an
experimental
feature,
it's
time
to
become
production
quality,
that's
I
would
say
up
to
a
contributor
to
this
site.
The
the
reviewers
may
suggest
if
they
see
that
it's
something
that
requires
more
time
to
to
be
ready
to
be
included.
D
I
just
know:
there's
make
sure
you
look
at
both
contributing
guides.
There's
one
in
core
and
one
in
contrib.
There
may
be
there's
probably
some
overlap,
but
there
may
be
some
additional
content
in
each
like.
I
forget
where
the
advice
about
like
like
splitting
it
up
into
multiple
pr's
and
stuff,
like
that,
like
there's
a
specific
order,
like
you
know,
getting
a
skeleton
in
first
before
adding
like
kind
of
the
contents,
I
think
that's
in
one
of
the
contributing
guides,
but
there's
two.
F
Yeah,
absolutely
I've
got
both
of
them,
but
I'll
make
sure
I
reference
them
again
when,
when
I
push
the
server
as
a
start,
the
pr
chain,
thanks.
C
C
C
C
B
Okay,
so
we
take
it
to
the
37..
Let
me
see
where
this
we
got.
D
A
D
C
B
Okay,
I'll
skip
it
for
now.
Unless
there's
something
that's
really,
because
if
it's
very
siloed
for
specific
owners
of
the
code,
then
they
know
what
they
got
to
work
on.
E
B
So
that's
cleared
and
now
we
can
jump
back
to
the
collector.
B
I
want
that
one
that
one
that
one
and
maybe,
if
it's
like
choose
and
we
can
start
down
at
least
more
recently
and
go
backwards,
let's
put
in
a
feature
request.
C
Okay,
yeah
yeah:
this
is,
we
have
a
feature
request.
C
A
C
A
B
A
A
C
A
B
C
C
B
C
Oh
yes,
we
discussed
this.
I
remember
it's
a
small
enhancement,
it's
p3,
it's
on
the
traces
and
blogs,
and
this
is
the
process
of.
A
B
Okay,
where
are
we
at
that?
One
was
2195.
B
C
B
A
A
D
C
It's
about
replacing
we're
exposing!
Oh,
I
see
yeah,
I
don't
think
so
anyway,
yeah
it's
after
ga,
we'll
look
into
that
right.
We're
gonna
have
to
reject
things
now.
D
A
Oh,
this
happened
once
right,
it's
only
once
okay,
so
it
should
be
after
no,
it's
actually
for
more
than
once
right
so
make
it
allow
it
for
g
and
it
assign
you
already.
Okay,.
B
C
Yeah,
it's
an
enhancement,
it's
something
that
is
allow
it
for
g.
It's
an
ongoing
work,
it's
actually
more
than
one
item
so
yeah.
C
C
We
did
this
already,
no,
it's
actually
it
didn't.
So
this
is
there's
an
ongoing
discussion
about
this,
make
it
allow
it
for
ga.
C
B
And
then
sorry.
D
C
D
B
It's
yeah.
It's
all
viewed
process.