►
From YouTube: 2021-04-28 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
A
Hello,
I'm
not
sure
if
you've
tried
to
open
the
dock
yet,
but
everybody
seems
to
have
lost
access.
C
A
A
Nobody
knows
who
owns
them.
I
think
it
might
be
mayor
kale,
who
used
to
be
the
javascript
maintainer.
He
works
for
google
and
he's
on
vacation
right
now,
so
nobody
can
reach
him.
I'm
not
entirely
sure
how
it
became
private,
but
who
owns
the
calendar,
invite
the
calendar
is
shared,
so
I
just
modified
the
calendar
like
two
minutes
ago.
So,
if
you
clicked
on
it
from
the
calendar,
you
maybe
got
the
wrong
one
and
maybe
got
the
right.
One
depends
when
you.
B
A
A
A
A
All
right,
we
are
five
minutes
in
now.
I
just
posted
the
doc
in
the
chat
one
last
time
for
anyone
that
doesn't
have
it
yet,
for
anyone
who
has
not
heard
we
lost
access
to
the
previous
dock,
we're
working
on
gaining
access
back,
but
we're
probably
just
going
to
move
to
a
new
document
anyway,
so
that
we
know
who
the
owner
is,
and
things
like
that
and
with
that
we
will
get
on
to
the
meeting.
Let
me
share
my
screen:
is
there
anybody
else?
A
Seems
like
no
all
right,
so
let
me
make
this
a
little
bigger
and
we
will
get
started
sort
of
a
short
agenda
today,
because
we
just
spent
the
last
10
minutes
recreating
this
document
and
didn't
have
a
lot
of
time
to
make
an
agenda
so
might
be
a
short
meeting,
but
we'll
see
how
it
goes.
A
The
first
thing
I
wanted
to
cover
is
the
from
the
specification
meeting
in
our
spec
review
from
carlos
carlos
brought
up
the
suppress,
instrumentation
context,
key
that
we
have
currently
we
export
from
our
api,
a
method
to
suppress
instrumentation,
and
this
is
not
a
specified
method
for
those
that
aren't
familiar.
A
We
use
this
as
a
mechanism
to
prevent
infinite
loops
when
you
have
an
exporter,
for
instance,
using
http
to
send
spans
to
a
back
end,
but
http
is
instrumented,
then
those
requests
may
be
traced
and
you
end
up
with
the
the
tracer
tracing
or
that
the
exporter
exporting
its
own
spans
and
going
into
an
infinite
loop.
A
There
are
various
solutions
to
this
that
have
been
proposed.
The
easiest
is
to
just
add
it
to
the
specification.
You
know
that's
the
easiest,
for
us
is
if
they
like
our
solution,
then
that's
fine.
One
other
option
is
to
move
it
into
the
sdk.
So
to
move
that
method
to
core
or
something
like
that.
A
Anything
is
that
if
we
move
it
into
the
sdk,
it's
then
considered
an
sdk
internal.
It
would
not
be
available
for
instrumentations
to
use
or
for
customers,
but
that
might
be
okay.
A
A
That
you're
trying
to
use.
A
Okay,
sure
just
the
the
the
pr
and
the
specification
is
having
some
resistance,
particularly
there's
one
person
that
doesn't
like
it
and
you
know
just
to
to
have
customers
asking
for
it
is
helpful.
C
B
And
we
do
the
same
trick
to
remove
the
underlying.
E
A
Yeah,
nobody
did
on
the
spec
pr.
We
talked
about
it
in
the
spec
meeting
for
like
40
minutes,
and
I
thought
everybody
was
in
agreement.
But
then,
when
I
made
the
spec
pr,
it
got
blocked
by
one
of
the
and
blocked
by
by
yuri
who
is
like
a
tc.
C
A
C
A
Just
like
some
random
person
that
will
be
overridden,
so
you
know
hopefully
we'll
be
able
to
get
this
through.
I
only
opened
it
yesterday,
so
we're
still
pretty
early
in
the
process,
but
we're
trying
to
get
1.0
out
and
until
this
question's
resolved
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
release
1.0.
So
I'm
just
trying.
E
To
fast
track
it
if
possible,
okay,
I'll
I'll,
bring
up
with
the
python
save
tomorrow
as
well,
because
we
could
definitely
also
comment
on
that
issue.
Since
we've
already
had
our
1.0-
and
we
have
this-
we
have
this
in
our
batch,
then
processor
and
the
simple
spam
processor,
which
are
released
so.
E
A
Yeah,
so
that's
okay!
I
guess
that
does
essentially
what
I
was
told
by
the
the
spec
people
is
that
if
it's
an
sdk
internal,
that's
okay,
the
issue
that
they
have
with
us
is
that
we
have
it
as
part
of
the
api
and
we
could
move
it
to
the
sdk,
which
would
solve
our
problems.
But
then
amir
would
be
stuck
without
it
or
you
know
we
would
have
to
you'd,
probably
have
to
just
import
it
from
core
or
from
some
extensions
package,
or
something
like
that.
A
You
know
we
could
find
some
way
to
expose
it
for
people,
but
you
know,
ideally,
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
be
in
the
api.
E
Like
you
like,
where
do
you
set
the
the
context
key?
If
it's
not
in
the
spam
processor,.
E
E
A
Yeah
ours
a
little
different
because
they're
symbols,
which
are
like
unique
keys
that.
E
E
E
I
think
we
could
we
could
push
against
maybe
the
hesitance
for
this
feature,
because
we
know
it's
really
useful
and
we
have
it
in
in
most
of
our
code.
So.
A
Yeah-
and
I
mean
we
can
always
move
it
into
the
sdk
like
I
said,
and
then
create
like
an
extensions
package
that
people
like
amir
could
use,
but
that's
just
more
work-
and
I
don't
want
to
if
I
don't
have
to-
and
I
don't
want
to
make
everybody
using
it
like
a
mirror-
have
to
change
all
their
code
either,
because
that
would
be
a
pain.
A
Yeah,
that's
all
I
really
had
to
say
about
this,
though
we
do
have.
Since
last
week
we
have
a
handful
of
bugs
that
have
been
opened
and
some
of
them
are
assigned
and
being
worked
on,
and
some
are
not
so
I'd
just
like
to
go
through
these
and
whichever
ones
are
not
being
worked
on.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
somebody
is
handling
them.
A
This
one
was
just
opened
recently.
I
think
it's
fairly
straightforward
but
nobody's
working
on
it.
Yet
is
that
would
anybody
like
to
volunteer
for
this
one.
A
Let's
see
parent-based
sampler
should
not
drop
invalid
span
context
this
one
it
looks
like
already
merged.
Oh
great,
okay,
perfect.
A
A
A
F
Yeah
sure
I
mean
it
was
the
the
conversation
that
we
had
the
last
the
last
week
about
the
fact
that
we
have
like
multiple
sdk
and
that
we
should
try
to
find
a
naming
for
them.
That
is
more
clear
for
for
for
new
users.
So
that's
pretty
much
it.
I
made
a
proposition
and
someone
made
a
control
offer
so
pretty
much.
If
some
people
can
look
at
it
and
discuss
about
how
we
should
name
rgb
found,
sdk
and
stuff
like
this.
A
F
That
is
actually
both
I
mean
some
are
renaming,
for
example,
the
the
node
tracing
package,
which
is
the
the
one
that
we
have,
which
is
called
node
and
some
are
new.
Like
the
brothers,
the
sdk
all
are
not
all
which
contain
like,
as
we
said
before,
we
need
to
be
able
to
bundle
some
exporters
or
some
components
to
be
compliant
with
the
specs,
so
user
can
choose
like
which
expresso
they
want
from
the
environment.
F
And
to
do
so,
we
we
need
to
be
able
to
install
them
so
so
so
yeah.
It's.
A
F
A
Okay,
I
think
looking
at
roundo's
comment
here,
I
think
I
agree
with
him
in
terms
of
the
naming
order,
but
yeah
in
general.
I
think
I
support
this.
This
was
essentially
what
we
talked
about
last
week
and
I
thought
it
was
a
good
idea
then,
and
I
still
think
so
now.
A
A
And
then
we
also
have
the
spec
review
issues
for
the
api
and
the
sdk.
Most
of
these
have
been
or
they've
all
been
assigned,
and
most
of
them
already
have
pr's,
so
they're
all
already
being
worked
on,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
these
are
being
reviewed.
A
Manner
so
that
we
can
get
these
in
because
these
are
currently
blocking
the
1.0
release,
so
this
is
essentially
all
we
have
left
before.
1.0
is
these
api
issues
and
these
sdk
issues?
None
of
them
are
particularly
big
and,
like
I
said,
most
of
them
already
have
prs.
So
getting
them
reviewed
and
merged
in
a
timely
manner
will
definitely
help
with
the
release.
A
I
see
a
chat
from
nav.
Could
we
create
an
api
extension
package,
that's
published
with
the
api
that
way
yeah,
so
that
was
one
of
the
things
that
we
talked
about
was
creating
an
api
extensions
package.
That's
essentially
the
workaround
that
we
will
use.
A
If
we
can't
get
the
specification
merged
is
to
create
another
api
package,
an
extension
package,
that's
essentially
for
things
that
are
not
specified
and
the
idea
there
is
that.
If
the
specification
then
does
decide
to
tackle
this
in
the
future,
it
doesn't
conflict
with
anything
in
the
core
api
package
and
that
wouldn't
have
to
be
revved
to
2.0
or
anything
like
that.
That's
that's
what
the
workaround
will
be
if
we
don't
get
this
specified.
A
So
what
is
this
really
about?
It's
the
chat
that
nav
said.
B
A
A
So,
like
I
said
a
short
agenda
today,
I'm
sorry
for
the
the
lack
of
preparation-
everybody
we
kind
of
got
caught
a
little
bit
by
this
document
issue.
A
Seems
like
no,
I
updated
the
calendar,
so
this
document
is
the
official
document
now
so
we'll
we'll
use
this
one
in
the
future.
Even
if
I
get
access
to
the
old
one
I'll
just
copy
over
all
the
previous
meetings
to
it
so
for
future
meetings,
we
should
use
this
document
just
so.
You
guys
are
aware.