►
From YouTube: 2021-06-10 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
It's
definitely
this
one,
this
one.
We
should
be
joining.
C
B
A
Oh
yeah
you're
suggesting
right
now,
though,.
B
Yeah,
I
don't
know
I
am,
let's
see
if
I
go
to
my
other
email.
Oh
that's
why
I
would
be
happy,
then
I'm
happy
that
yeah.
E
A
E
E
Ago
you
need
it
for
for
logging
into
these
groups,
though
all
right.
So
I
did.
We
have
an
set
of
items
that
we
wanted
to
discuss.
I
think
sega
we
can
give
you
at
least
an
update
on.
You
know
we
had
the
incubation
discussion
and
daniel
constance
and
ted
all
could
join
in.
E
So
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
an
update
that
it
all
went
well
alina
joined
in
from
the
toc,
as
well
as
richard
and
bartek
from
the
observability
tag
group,
and
there
are
a
couple
of
action
items,
one
on
our
end,
to
be
able
to
draft
up
a
deprecation
plan
for
based
on
feedback
from
open
census
and
open
tracing
and
provide
that
back
to
the
trcs.
That
ted
and
I
are
on
the
hook
to
do
that
and
bill
will
be
providing
that
you
know
back
to
the
toc
and
then
on.
E
The
tag.
Observability
side
of
bartek
is:
has
an
action
item
to
update
the
technical
leader,
lead,
meeting
notes
or
or
the
comments
that
he
has
made
final
comments
to
given
more.
You
know
up-to-date
status
from
his
end,
so
he
has
to
write
that
up
and
add
that
to
the
doc
head
constants
were
there
other
takeaways
that
we
noted
that
you'd
like
to
comment
on.
E
Think
sega
the
current
date
is
that
if
we
can
get
them
the
I
checked
with
elena
after
the
meeting
and
if
there
are,
if
we
can
get
them
the
action
item
you
know
completed
with
the
deprecation
plan
by
next
week,
then,
hopefully,
everything
will
be
in
public
review
by
the
end
of
this
month
and
then
the
process
from
what
I
understand
is
that
the
public
review
stays
open
for
at
least
two
weeks,
both
public
comment
and
then
you
know
the
process
completes.
B
B
Yeah,
so
we
don't
have
quorums,
I
don't
know
if
we
should
talk
about
the
open
histogram,
something
that
been
brought
up.
F
I'm
not
sure
how
much
I
did
alert
some
of
the
metrics
people
like
josh
mcd,
he's
been
on
vacation,
so
he'll
be
back
next
week.
The
impression
I
got
is
the
people
who
helped
develop
circle,
hist
and
open
histogram
have
been
involved
in
commenting
on
our
protocol,
but
the
protocol,
open
histogram
would
require
is
more
complex
than
what
we
have
in
otlp
right
now
and
I
think
there's
some
concern
around
adding
more
complexity.
F
At
this
stage,
like
things
are
already
pretty
complex,
I
think
so
something
daniel
you
were
noting
is
that
there
isn't
there's
like
some
reference
architectures,
but
there
isn't
like
a
clear
spec
on
how
to
implement
it
and
adding
adding
more
complexity
to
the
protocol
and
the
implementation
just
to
be
able
to
check
a
box
on
open
histogram
versus
having
something
that
works.
Well
enough
that
the
people
who
created
open
histogram
are
like
yeah.
That's
that's
fine.
F
What
you're
doing
there
we
might
end
up
just
going
with
the
second
one,
so
that
that,
but
I
josh
mcdee
will
be
back
next
week.
I
can
have
more
of
a
direct
conversation
with
theo
about
this
stuff.
F
Open
telemetry,
and
so
the
question
becomes
like
what
does
it
mean
to
donate
open
histogram
to
open
telemetry
if
it
means
that
we
inherit
implementations
that
would
give
us
a
speed
boost.
F
A
I
am
also
you
so
you
briefly
mentioned
that
I
I
had
in
the
in
the
slack
channel
mentioned
that
I
was
concerned,
there's
no
spec
or
design
dock
or
anything
like
that.
There's
also
only
a
small
handful
of
implementations,
and
then
we
have
a
bunch
of
languages
that
don't
have
implementations
so
in
order
to
ensure
that
those
are
all
implemented
correctly,
which
one
is
the
definitive
reference
implementation.
I
suppose,
and
how
do
we
verify
that,
like
some
ruby
version
matches
it.
F
Yeah-
and
I
do
think
I
mean
we
definitely
want
to
work
with
that
theo
and
that
that
community
and
it'd
be
great
to
get
them
to
collaborate.
So
I
think
part
of
the
question
here
is
like
well.
F
Is
there
a
way
to
to
have
just
bring
them
over
and
have
them
start
collaborating
with
us
on
the
spec?
How
different
is
is
that
from
officially
donating
open
histogram?
Is
there
a
way
for
them
to
say?
The
thing
we're
doing
over
here
is
like
the
next
version
of
open,
histogram,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
I'm
not
sure
what
their
requirements
are,
but
having
joshua
mcd-pack,
I
think,
will
help
a
lot
because
he's
a
person
who
who's
been
driving
yeah.
E
I
think
I
think
it
might
be.
You
know
again
ted.
This
is
going
back
to
the
january
discussion
when
we
did
the
metrics.
You
know
group
and
the
full
day
session
we
might
again.
At
that
point
we
had
discussed
and
and
josh
once
josh
is
back
josh
mcd.
That
would
be
a
good
thing
to
discuss
with
him.
E
Is
that
having
a
more
in-depth
session
on
histogram
support
and
being
a
you
know,
part
of
that
maybe
doing
a
half
a
day
workshop
where
we
invite
the
you
know
the
authors
of
the
open,
histogram
implementation,
you
know
just
walk
through
an
architecture
or
design
with
them
and
understand
better.
You
know
how,
if
we
how
we
can
collaborate
but
also
supporting
other
histogram
types
right
I
mean
prometheus.
E
F
F
E
Know
josh
surat,
and
I
confirmed
I
mean
again
we
looked
at
that
and-
and
it
is
indeed
today
you
know-
supported
yeah.
F
And
I
I
think,
there's
just
and
again,
I'm
not.
I
only
had
some
brief
conversations
with
josh,
but
the
impression
I
got
is
there's
a
difference
between
supporting
the
different
kinds
of
histograms
and
bucketing
that
data
dog
and
prometheus
are
doing
yeah
versus
open
histogram,
which
is
a
fundamentally
more
complicated
protocol.
It's
not
just
a.
E
What
kind
of
you
know
I
mean
like
cloud
watch,
for
example:
has
this
whole
dynamic
bucketing,
which
actually
doesn't
work
with
open
telemetry,
but
there's
multiple
types
and
and
the
allocation
and
respect
today
is
that
we
have
accommodated
for
each
of
these
different
types
of
histograms
to
be
enabled
in
the
future,
but
nonetheless,
as
daniel
pointed
out
implementation
matters
for
the
different
languages,
and
we
don't
have
those
implementations,
so
we've
got
to
figure
out
a
path
forward
for
being
able
to.
You
know,
pull
in
those
implementations,
if
you
will
yeah.
F
I
think
this
falls
into
that
same
discussion.
It's
just
making
sure
that
we
have
a
path
forward
that
will
make
these
communities
happy
like
we
don't
want
to
close
the
door
and
say
open.
Telemetry
is
going
to
be
the
standard,
that's
like
incompatible
making
sure
like
we
have
a
path
forward,
but
then
also
looking
at,
like
there's
a
difference
between
ensuring
there's
something
in
the
spec
that
I
think
that's
the
work
we
want
to
do
right
now
ensure
that
the
thing
we're
specifying
in
the
data
model.
F
It's
not
going
to
close
off,
not
going
to
paint
us
into
a
corner,
and
I
don't
know
whether,
where
we
stand
with
open
histogram
on
that
front,
if
there's
something
about
the
way
that
thing
works
that
actually
wouldn't
fit
into
our
current
model
and
whether
the
complexity
of
being
like
making
this
this
flexible,
histogram
model
work
with
their
model
is
actually
adds
more
like
fundamental
complexity.
Or
is
it
just
another?
E
Yeah
yeah,
I
mean
again
ted
I'd,
be
super
interested
because
I
know
that
we
have
several
dependencies
on.
You
know:
customers
asking
for
full
histogram
support,
whether
that's
different
types
of
histograms.
E
So
the
other
thing
that
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
from
an
documentation
perspective
again,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
everyone
on
the
documentation.
E
You
know
team
who
actually
updated
the
website,
but
I
think
that,
what's
the
easiest
way
to
update
the
status
because
the
metrics
api
now
is
stable,
so
I
think
that
that's
something
we
should
call
out.
I
think
that's
out
of
sync
on
the
oh
yeah
just
make.
F
Yeah
and
fyi
austin
who's
been
running.
That
group
is
on
paternity
leave
now,
so
we
we
do
need
some
some
extra
hands
over
in
that
communication
sig
to
to
keep
things
moving
just
because
he
was
you
know:
primary
driver,
er,
reviewer,
and
things
like
that.
So.