►
From YouTube: 2022-10-04 meeting
Description
cncf-opentelemetry@cncf.io's Personal Meeting Room
A
B
B
B
People
to
join,
but
if
you're
on
please
make
sure
you
add
yourself
to
the
attendees
list
and
if
you
wanted
to
add
anything
to
the
agenda
that
you
wanted
to
talk
about.
B
B
B
Okay,
well,
I
guess
we're
four
minutes
in
don't
know
if
we're
gonna
be
able
to
see
too
many
more
people,
we
could
probably
start
it
up
here
thanks
everyone
for
joining.
If
you
haven't
already
I,
don't
think
yeah!
Okay,
if
you
haven't
already,
please
add
yourself
to
attendees
list
and
the
agenda
is
pretty
sparse
right
now.
If
you
have
something
else,
you
want
to
talk
about.
Please
add
it
there
as
well.
B
I've
got
a
few
other
things,
but
I'm
also
wondering
if
maybe
this
is
going
to
be
a
kind
of
a
short
meeting.
So,
let's
jump
in
here.
What
are
things
from
last
meeting
that
I
failed
to
do?
There
was
an
action
item
for
me
to
create
an
issue.
I
didn't
actually
end
up
doing
it,
but
I
still
have
it
on
my
list
of
things
to
do.
One
of
the
things
that
I
did
include
here
was
a
conversation
with
the
open
Summit.
You
could
go
City
yourself.
B
And
talking
with
the
gosig,
which
there's
a
few
people
on
the
call
that
are
crossed
over
there's
a
question
of
ownership-
and
this
is
I-
think
something
that
we've
historically
had.
Issues
with
in
this
repository
is
that
there
are
a
lot
of
things
that
exist
here
and
they're,
not
really
clear
owners.
B
In
fact,
it's
just
like
the
main
approvers
and
maintainers
at
the
repo
are
the
same
for
all
of
them,
which
can
lead
to
deprecations
and
in
active
state
or
blockages
in
development
pipelines,
because
you're
waiting
on
a
maintainer
to
merge
something
that
has
already
improved,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we've
pointed
out
here,
is
that
if
we
wanted
to
go
with
this
route
of
to
use
moving
the
source
code
modification
into
the
trip,
we
would
need
to
have
a
clear
understanding
of
ownership
model.
B
This
is
something
that
we've
had
as
an
action
item
in
that
site
for
a
while,
and
what
that
essentially
means
is
that
inside
this
repository,
there'd
be
some
sort
of
subdirectory
and
the
code
owners
would
essentially
link
that
to
a
subset
of
people
and
they
would
have
hopefully
elevated
permissions
or
some
sort
of
ownership
responsibility
for
this
code.
B
Somebody's
mic
is
on
as
well
and
they
would
essentially
be
able
to
be
unblocked
from
the
development.
Ideally,
they
can
merge
things
there'd
be
some
sort
of
separate
maintainers,
but
I
don't
think
the
GitHub
permissions
allows
that
currently
they
would,
however,
be
identified
as
being
responsible.
B
This
model
was
based
on
the
collector
contrib
ownership
model
where,
in
the
collective
contrib
there's
a
pretty
clear,
let
me
see
actually
understanding
of
who
owns
particular
things
and
if
things
are
essentially
abandoned,
then
they're,
deprecated
and
removed
out
of
the
repository
I,
don't
know
exactly
where
this
is
kept.
I
thought
it
was
like
code
owners.
Well,
it's
not
that
important,
I
guess
but
yeah.
B
Something
like
this,
where
there's
essentially
like
some
sort
of
ownership
model,
and
that
would
essentially
be
what
we
would
need
to
set
up
here
in
The,
Collector
contrib.
Sorry
in
the
open
television
go
contrib
to
go
along
this
way,
so
that
was
one
of
the
things
that
we
identified
as
a
blocking.
The
other
was
the
development
resources
right
now
we
on
the
kickoff
meeting.
B
We
also
pointed
out
that
there's
two
different,
auto
transportation
projects
here
of
you-
know
an
initial
offering
and
making
sure
that
we
actually
have
developers
that
are
able
to
approve
it,
because
there
are
requirements
in
open
Telemetry
that
we
have
consensus
across
vendors.
So
we
want
to
make
sure
there's
enough
of
a
diverse
set
across
vendors
to
actually
support
this,
and
so
that
is
an
open
standing
question.
B
A
B
I,
excuse
me:
I
I
would
say
we're
in
the
thinking
about
a
face.
I,
don't
think,
there's
actually
been
a
a
hard
decision,
but
I
think
we're
evaluating.
If
that
makes
sense,
president.
A
Okay,
because
I
think
that
currently
this
solution
is
pretty
independent
from
what
we
already
have
in
this
repo
it.
Maybe
it
will
only
depend
on
the
instrumentation
library
or
a
subdirectory
subdirectory
that
is
there.
So
that's
the
only
only
thing.
B
B
A
I
think
that
it
doesn't
depend
on
any
subdirectory
that
that
we
have
here
except
the
instrumentation
one.
B
Right
yeah,
so
just
kind
of
like
a
maybe
to
back
up.
This
is
really
this
repository
isn't
I
think
a
a
good
idea
to
think
about
it
as
a
cohesive
project.
In
fact,
it's
more
I
would
think
about
it
as
a
collection
of
utilities
and
tools
that
augment
and
extend
the
obvious
Elementary
go
project
so
say,
for
instance,
like
Z
pages
here,
I,
don't
think
Z
pages
actually
has
any
dependency
on
anything
else.
In
this
repository,
it's
very
independent
and
it's
its
own
go
package
that
resides
here.
B
We
have
resource
detectors,
instrumentation,
obviously,
propagators
Samplers.
These
are
all
very
independent
pieces
of
code,
so
I
yeah,
it
is,
is
not
necessarily
a
cohesive
project
that
it
would
integrate
with
into.
This
is
a
a
a
catch-all
and
the
reason
we
are
thinking
that
it
would
be
a
good
fit
last
time
if
I,
remember
correctly,
is
because,
with
this
fact
that
we
already
do
have
instrumentation.
A
B
Modification
is
a
really
good
tool
to
start
up
and
to
work
on
manual
instrumentation,
and
so,
if
you
had
your
own
code
base
and
you
wanted
to
take
that
code
base
and
have
Auto
generated
code
put
in
that's
where
we
would
use
the
source
code
modification,
and
so
it
seems
in
line
with
keeping
it
here,
just
kind
of
like
as
a
background
on
that,
but
yeah
I
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
requirement
that
it
has
to
have
some
sort
of
like
strict
coupling
to
the
rest
of
the
packages
in
this
repository.
A
B
Okay,
yeah,
okay,
I
I
think
that
I
will
try
to
again
try
to
get
this
issue
open,
I'm
a
little
under
the
weather.
Lately
I
might
be
taking
off
the
rest
of
today,
but
I
really
am
trying
to
get
this
open
for
it
and
well
I'll
make
sure
to
to
ping.
You
president
issue
just
to
make
sure
your
opinion's
captured
there
as
well.
Okay,.
A
B
Okay,
Dinesh
you're.
Next
on
on
the
agenda
question
asking
with
the
evpf
open
televisionf.
C
B
I
don't
know
I
think
this
has
been
asked
before,
but
I
don't
remember.
The
answer
is.
A
C
C
B
C
I
thought
the
Go
Auto
instrumentation
like
was
set
up
to
work
with,
like
the
built-in
go
net
libraries
exactly
it
captures
the
code
where
this
one
I
think
is
a
me
probe,
for
example,
to
the
network
for
networking
on
the
Kernel
Etc.
So
it's
on
different
layer,
yeah
yeah.
Maybe
we
should
document
the
difference
somewhere
so
that,
like
if
I
have
had
the
question,
someone
else
will
also
have
the
question.
I
think
I
think
you're
making
it
at
least
let's
open
it.
A
C
B
C
See
I
see
so
you
mean
that
to
reference
this
one
yeah,
yeah
I,
can
revisit
that
architecture,
but
I,
don't
I
think
you
can
even
create
an
initial
click.
Key
vow
just
to
ask
for
clarification.
They
probably
you
know,
address
it.
C
Yeah
yeah
I
was
hoping
someone
on
the
key
well
would
be
there
on
this
call,
but
it
doesn't
look
like
that
space.
B
But
Dinesh
I
think
you
bring
up
a
good
question
because
one
it
needs
to
be
clear
if
there
is
going
to
be
a
distinction
and
I
I'd
like
to
understand
this
a
little
better,
because
if
this
is
has
overlapping
concerns
which
it
may
not
like.
Maybe
this
is
entirely
geared
just
as
I
know,
just
to
implement,
like
Network,
Stacks
or
or
instrument
Network
Stacks
in
in
the
CPU.
A
C
B
Yeah,
that's
a
good
point
and
kind
of
like
what
we
were
talking
about
with
prismac
source
code
fitting
into
the
contrib.
Maybe
there's
a
good
reason
to
try
to
try
to
shoot
in
here,
but
I
think
that
we
need
to
explore
that
because
that's
that's
an
important
yeah.
B
Okay,
press
back
Europe
next,
with
the
current
status
of
sumo
logic,
Auto
Oto,.
A
Yes,
I
just
wanted
to
say
a
few
words
about
the
current
status
of
this
tool.
So
recently,
as
we
discussed,
the
the
main
issue
was
probably
this
hidden
potency,
so
I'm
currently
working
on
on
this
property,
and
it
should
be
fixed
this
week
and
next
my
plan
is
to
focus
on
fixing
bugs,
so
I
would
like
to
compile
open
Telemetry
collector
with
this
code
injector
into
it.
So
that's
probably
two
main
goals.
B
Okay,
cool
yeah,
that's
a
good
status
update!
Thank
you
yeah,
because
I
know
that
that
was
things
that
people
were
asking
about
earlier.
B
That's
it
for
the
listed
agenda,
so
I
will
pause
here,
see
if
anybody
else
has
something
else.
I
wanted
to
talk
about
I.
We
could
probably
talk
about
a
little
bit
of
next
steps,
I'm,
also,
okay,
to
end
early
today.
So
I'll
just
pause
here.
B
I
I
think
that
that's
a
good
question
it's
hard
to
have
I,
think
collaboration
across
open
Telemetry
when
it's
still
owned
by
Sumo
logic.
So
we
need
to
get
a
new
home
I
think
that's
priority
number
one
and
then
I
think
building
out
the
probably
project
structure
for
how
we
want
to
actually
build
it
and
what
focuses
will
be
happening
on
it.
I
think
is,
is
Step
number
two,
but
I
I
would
say.
Then
we
need
to
track
that
kind
of
stuff
in
issues.
A
B
B
I
think,
based
on
that,
then
we
need
to
ask
the
question
of
ownership
model
for
the
open,
Telemetry
go
question
team.
We
need
to
have
that
result
and
then
I
think
that
moving
it
to
the
club.
The
contribute
repository
are
the
the
two
steps
that
I
see
so
I.
Don't
think
I
don't
remember.
B
I,
don't
think
there
is
okay.
C
B
Okay,
so
I've
got
that
captured.
B
I
think
that
is
a
good
starting
point
and
then
we
need
to
create
a
actually
I
think
we
could
just
probably
track
it
in
here
and
just
outlining
a
plan
for
the
ownership
and
like
how
this
is
going
to
get
migrated
to
the
contribute
repository
or
if
we
want
to
post
it
somewhere
else.
I
think
that
that's
needed
in
the
discussion
here
prismac
does
that
make
sense.
B
Okay,
so
I've
captured
that
so
I
think
from
the
standpoint
of
what
I
would
like
to
work
on
in
the
next
two
weeks,
I
think
that
this
is
this
is
high
on
my
list
and
I
will
try
to
have
some
sort
of
breakdown
on
this
later
on
in
the
week,
hopefully,
and
and
I
think
this
should
be
able
to
move
us
forward.
Does
that
make
sense,
Prospect.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
I.
Honestly,
you
can
just
make
a
proposal
on
this
issue.
If
you
want
as
to
how
you
want
to
you
know,
maintain
ownership
I
think
that
there
are
like
some
some
details
there.
So,
like
the
common
owner
code
owner
part
of
The
Collector
can
trip
is
really
key
because
it
allows
when
there's
new
PRS
those
those
people
are
added
as
reviewers.
So
that's
going
to
be
really
critical
for
any
PR,
that's
associated
with
this
code.
B
You
want
to
make
sure
that
people
are
automatically
added,
also
that
those
people
are
the
authorities,
so
the
PRS
in
that
code
base
shouldn't
get
merged
without
their
approval
and
they
have
more
context.
So
it's
going
to
need
to
be
something
around
that.
So,
if
you
could,
if
you
want
to,
if
you
could
review
The
Collector
contrib
ownership
model
and
try
to
make
a
proposal
in
this
issue,
that
would
mirror
that
I
think
would
be
ideal
and-
and
we
can
go
from
there-
does
that
make
sense.
B
Okay,
perfect
awesome
anything
else.
People
wanted
to
bring
up.
C
B
B
Okay,
so
I
think
that
that's
a
really
good
start
on
getting
us
at
it
and
taking
next
steps.
There
I'd
like
to
have
I,
think
some
better
ideas
of
how
we
can
progress.
The
evpf
side
as
well,
but
I
think
that
we
need
to
I
think
address
what
Dinesh
was
doing
and
understanding
the
scope
between
the
two
repositories.
First,
so
I
think
Dinesh.
If
you
want
to
open
or
just
comment
in
the
donation
proposal
issue
for
the
eepf,
what
your
findings
are
I
think
well.
C
B
B
Awesome.
Well
then,
let's
end
it
here:
I
want
to
be
respectful
people's
time
and
I
could
also
go
make
a
tea
right
now,
so
I
appreciate
the
break.
Okay,
we
will
continue
this
on
psych
I
think
we
have
a
good
understanding
of
next
steps,
thanks
everyone
for
all
the
action
items
that
you've
come
up
with
and
we'll
try
to
get
this
moving.
Okay,
everyone
we'll
see
you
in
two
weeks.