►
From YouTube: 2021-08-25 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
I
don't
have
a
particularly
long
agenda
today,
so
if
anyone
has
anything,
they
would
like
to
add
feel
free
to
add
it
to
the
bottom.
Otherwise,
we'll
probably
have
a
short
meeting
which
most
people
don't
complain
about
short
meetings.
So.
A
A
There
is
one
package:
that's
failing
the
tests
when
I
do
the
update
and
I'm
not
sure
why
the
tests
run
locally.
Just
fine.
I
really
can't
figure
out
what's
causing
it,
but
I
wanted
to
talk
about
how
we
want
to
handle
this
moving
forward.
A
A
But
I
in
general
I
wanted
to
talk
about
if
we
have
one,
you
know
I,
if
we're
doing
an
update
like
this,
that
touches
all
the
packages
and
one
package
is
failing.
I
don't
want
it
to
hold
up
all
of
the
other
packages
like
it
is
right
now,
so
I
think
we
should
create
a
policy.
What
are
we
going
to
do
when
this
happens
should
like?
A
Should
I
update
the
core
on
all
of
the
instrumentations
that
are
passing
and
just
skip
the
aws
one
and
leave
that
up
to
their
to
to
that
component
owner
to
update
it
and
to
figure
out
what
the
issue
is
for
their
own
component,
or
should
we
in
general,
should
we
leave
updates
to
component
owners?
You
know,
should
I
should
I
not
create
a
big
pr
that
touches
everything,
and
should
each
component
owner
be
responsible
for
updating
their
own.
B
A
Oh
well
looks
like
a
bar
here
now,
I'm
not
sure.
If
you're
aware,
I
I
think
you
are
actually
you
are
commenting
on
the
issue
when
we
were
updating
the
core
to
version
25.
The
aws
lambda
instrumentation
was
failing
to
update.
C
Yeah,
I
I
was
taking
a
look
at
that
yesterday
seems
pretty
tricky,
really
couldn't
find
a
thread
to
pull
on
so
totally
in
agreement
with
what
you
guys
just
discussed,
sorry
for
being
late
but
yeah,
I
I
do
not
want
to
be
blocking
the
entire
contributes
release
to
025
so,
and
I
think
that
future
packages
that
are
just
having
singular
failures
shouldn't
block
it
either
so
we'll
investigate
it.
C
A
Okay,
not
hearing
anyone
say
no,
we
are
still
waiting
on
the
exemption
for
the
github
action,
which
does
the
release
in
the
core
repo,
I'm
really
not
sure.
What's
holding
it
up.
I
commented
on
the
issue
and
liz
told
me
that
in
the
internal
cncf
issue
tracker
it's
been
shown
as
in
progress
for
more
than
a
week
now
I
talked
to
some
of
the
other
gc
members
about
this
to
ask
them
what
they
think
might
be
going
on,
and
nobody
really
had
any
insight
for
me.
A
The
only
thing
that
they
thought
was.
Maybe
there
were
internal
discussions
in
the
cncf
about
whether
they
want
to
even
grant
that
exemption,
because
the
github
actions
bot
is
not
like
the
dependable
that
just
does
one
thing
it's
like
it
could
technically
be
used
for
anything
really.
So
I
I'm
really
not
sure.
A
A
What's
holding
that
up,
I
haven't
forgotten
about
it,
but
it
needs
to
be
solved
because
if
we
have
the
same
problem
and
can
we're
just
going
to
end
up
in
a
situation
where
we
can't
release
anything
so
after
this
meeting
I
will
probably
reach
back
out
to
liz.
I
haven't
talked
to
her
since
last
week
and
see
if
she
has
any
update,
but
if
not
I'll,
probably
run
it
under
my
own
personal
access.
Token.
C
A
Yeah,
unless
somebody
else
has
some
reason,
they
think
it
should
be
blocked,
I
mean
until
it
goes
to
1.0.
Some
issue
could
always
be
found,
but
for
now
that's
the
only
thing
that
I'm
aware
of
that's
blocking
it.
A
A
I
know
it
hasn't
been
that
long
yet,
but
I
just
wanted
to
see
how
is
it
going?
Are
there
any
pain
points
that
we're
not
addressing,
or
are
we
being
quick
enough
with
merges,
and
things
like
that?
A
I
was
just
trying
to
get
a
general
feeling
for
anybody
that
that
is
a
component
owner
that
has
dealt
with
you
know
the
pr
release
or
merge
process
over
the
last
week
or
two
if
it
hasn't
been
long
enough.
I
understand,
but
I
don't
know
if
anyone
has
had
any
pain
points
that
we're
not
aware
of
yet.
D
A
Okay,
that
sounds
like
maybe
a
good
feature
for
the
action
to
add
an
automatic
label
on
it
or
something
like
that.
I
think.
Last
week
we
agreed
that
if
a
component
owner
creates
the
pr,
then
we
want
one
other
person
to
look
at
it.
A
A
Looks
like
we
didn't
necessarily
write
it
down,
but
the
way
we
sort
of
I
I
think,
we'll
treat
it
the
same
way
that
we
treat
like
maintainers
and
approvers
right
now,
where
you
know
as
the
component
owner
when
you
push
the
pr
that's
kind
of
your
you
know
when
you
take
it
out
of
draft.
That's
you
are
sort
of
saying
this.
This
pr
has
my
approval,
but
I
think
we
want
one
other
person
to
take
a
look
at
it,
but
it
should
just
be
looking
for
for
obvious
problems.
E
B
D
Yeah,
I
didn't
remember
so:
okay
cool
and
other
than
that.
It's
been
really
smooth
like
there
were.
A
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
I
think
yours
have
been
the
only
ones
that
have
been
sort
of
active
over
the
last
week.
All
that
could
be
wrong
there.
I
did
see
that
some
people,
you
know,
have
been
more
active
on
the
contrib.
So
that's
good
yeah.
Anyone
else
have
anything
to
add
to
that.
A
Okay,
well,
I
guess
we'll
move
on
then
I
just
wanted
to
to
draw
people's
attention
to
this
pr,
particularly
browser
experts,
those
that
we
have,
I
know
bart.
You
originally
wrote
this
instrumentation,
so
I
would
like
your
opinion
on
it.
A
I'm
not
a
browser
expert
by
any
means,
so
it
looks
fine
to
me,
but
I
I
would
like
someone
else
to
approve
it
before
I
merge
it.
B
A
I
didn't
really
have
anything
other
to
to
say
about
that
other
than
I'm
not
really
an
expert
there.
So
I
was
just
looking
for
someone
who
was.
B
B
A
A
E
Yeah,
I
think,
in
the
talk
about
this
yesterday,
it's
a
pretty
small
thing.
I
think
I
I
don't
remember
if
it
was
this
exact
issue
or
a
different
one,
but
I
raised
it.
I
think,
a
few
months
back
something
similar.
I
think
we
decided
not
to
do
a
rename
because
it
was
sort
of
like
a
knit,
not
a
functional
thing
and
it
would
have
caused
some
churn
for
other
developers.
So,
basically,
here
we
have
our
w3c
trace
context,
propagator
called
with
http
in
in
the
name
which
isn't
really.
E
I
think
I
think
it
must
have
just
been
like
a
leftover
from
an
older
spec
or
something
like
that,
but
yeah
in
java,
it's
just
called
w3c
and
python,
just
trace
context,
expand
propagator
and
I
think
daniel.
You
asked
me
if
I
wanted
to
to
fix
this,
I'm
happy
to
submit
a
pr.
I
just
want
to
get
like
a
consensus
if
it's
worth
doing
this
rename-
and
I
definitely
don't
want
to
block
the
sdk
if
other
people
don't
care
about
this,
so
much.
A
Yeah
so
I
do
remember
it
was
not
this
issue.
There
was
a
different
rename.
A
A
A
So
I
would
like
to
call
it
the
trace
context.
Text
map
propagator.
I
think
that
that
is
the
the
python
name,
I
think,
is
a
good
name.
Do
you
know
what
they
call
it
in
the
spec,
though,.
E
In
the
spec,
I
think
it
just
says:
well,
I
I
may
not
have
found
the
actual
the
actual
part,
but
it
just
says
like
the
api.
May
optionally
include
the
w3c
and
it's
not
it's
not
spelled
out
like
a
code
name.
It
just
has
spaces,
they
just
sort
of
say
what
it
is,
but
I
can
look
around
and
expect
some
more
unless
anybody
else
knows.
A
E
Yeah,
okay,
yeah
I'll,
take
a
look
around
and
I
can
comment
on
this
issue
again
and
another
option
of
course
is
like
to
rename
it
and
then
leave
leave
like
a
reference
to
the
old
name,
just
for
backward
compatibility.
If
we
want
to
do
that,
I
don't
know
about
that.
A
A
I
think
bart
you're,
the
only
one
I'm
looking
for
your
opinion
in
particular,
because
you,
I
think,
tend
to
be
a
little
bit
more
hesitant
on
renames
like
this.
How
do
you
feel
about
it.
A
A
Yeah,
which
is
the
text
map,
I
guess,
is
like
a
a
generalization
of
the
http.
You
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be
an
http
header.
It
just
has
to
be
a
map
from
string
to
string.
B
A
D
Looks
like
you're
next
yeah,
we
talked
a
while
ago
about
publishing
the
test
details
to
npm
as
a
public
package.
Remember
that
we
agreed
on
it,
but
I
didn't
see
that
anything
get
changed
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
in
favor
of
doing
it.
And
if
the
answer
is
yes,
then
I
want
to
ask
if
it
can
go
into
the
25
release,
because
I
think
it
might
fix
an
issue
with
another
pro
that
I
try
to
solve.
B
B
B
Then
it
makes
more
sense
to
move
it
to
the
core
people.
If
you
want
to
use
this
in
the
car
in
the
country
as
well,
if.
A
I
think
it
only
provides
like
the
docker
setup
and
teardown
stuff
right,
so
it's
not
really
needed
in
core
right
now.
That
was
why
we
moved
it
to
contrib
to
begin
with.
A
I
think
we
can
add
contribute
to
the
name.
If
that
you
know,
I
don't
see
any
reason
not
to
do
that
other
than
there
isn't
contrib
in
the
name
of
any
of
the
other
packages.
A
Yeah
so
I
mean
we
can
add,
contribute
to
the
name
just
to
make
it
obvious.
If
we,
so
we
could
call
it
what
contrib
test
utils
or
something.
B
I
mean
because
if
you
want
to
use
it
in
the
in
the
car,
you
would
have
the
problem
because
of
the
dependency
on
the
car
on
the
previous
version.
So
once
you'll
be
upgrading,
you
won't
be
able
to
use
it
until
you.
It
will
be,
like
you
know,
update
core
release,
update
country
release,
update
on
hurricane.
B
A
Yeah,
let's
just
change
the
name
for
now,
and
we
can
always
if
we
move
it
to
core
later,
we
can
always
change
the
name
back
and
deprecate
the
contrib
version
of
it
or
something
like
that.
D
A
I
I
think,
putting
contrib
in
the
name
it's
fairly
tightly,
coupled
to
all
of
the
control
components
already,
so
I
think
we
should
just
put
contrib
in
the
name
to
make
that
obvious.
D
A
And
I
think
that
was
the
last
item
we
had
on
the
agenda
here.
Is
there
anyone
else
that
wants
to
bring
something
up.
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you
everybody
for
your
time
and
I
will
talk
to
you
next
week.
Then.