►
From YouTube: 2022-01-13 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
A
A
So,
let's
start
with
the
agenda,
I
had
that
first
item
there,
it's
just
a
pr.
I
added
the
observed
timestamp
to
the
two
otlp
protobufs.
Please
have
a
look
and
the
proof:
that's
it
nothing
special
there.
C
Yeah
just
wanted
to
mostly
radiate
something,
so
I
went
to
the
maintainers
meeting
on
monday
and
there's
like
a
sentiment
that
you
know
this
group
is
kind
of
working
off
in
the
corner
and
there's
some
increased
desire
for
the
people
in
that
group
to
get
involved
in
what's
going
on
in
the
log
space,
and
one
thing
I
heard
was
almost
like,
like
an
expectation
that
there's
going
to
be
almost
like
a
complete
re-review
of
what
we've
come
up
with
for
our
data
model.
C
C
So
I
wanna,
I
think
everyone
here
should
be
aware
of
that,
and
and
generally
you
don't
need
to
discuss
this
immediately.
But
if
there
are
ideas
on
how
we
can
sort
of
bridge
that
gap,
how
we
can
you
know,
I
don't
necessarily
want
to
call
it
a
risk
to
our
data
model
because
of
the
connotation
there,
but
because
we
want
everyone
to
have
their
input
and
make
sure
we're
coming
up
with
the
right
data
model.
But
how
do
we?
How
do
we
make
sure
we
can
move
this
thing
forward?
C
Because
I
think
all
of
us
are
pretty
interested
and
interested
in
wrapping
up
the
data
model
as
soon
as
we
can.
D
Do
we
think
that's
the
right
audience
like
like
this
could
be
as
simple
as
just
us
presenting
the
data
model
at
the
maintainers
meeting,
and
I
I
wasn't
there.
I
had
a
bad,
pretty
bad
fever
for
my
booster,
but
were
it
was
a
sentiment.
You
think
that
they
just
want
a
sort
of
a
review
in
the
sense
of
like
hey.
I
haven't
heard
about
this
in
a
while
it'd
be
great
to
hear
what's
going
on
in
the
data
model,
or
was
it
like?
C
A
C
A
Okay,
so
let's
do
it,
I
think
that's
a
good
idea.
Morgan!
Let's
do
that
presentation,
but
also
this
is
the
first
first
time
I'm
hearing
this.
Can
you
maybe
tell
me
who
were
the
people
so
that
we,
I
can
engage
more
with
these
guys
and
see
if
there
is
there's
an
actual
concern
about
the
data
model
or
there's
just
the
lack
of
communication
from
our
side?
That
is
the
concept.
C
Sure
I
know
elita
was
going
to
help
like
like
corral
people
to
address
this
in
part,
so
she
would
be
a
good
person
to
talk
to,
and
I
can
go
back
to
my
notes
and
send
you
a
couple
names
of
people
you
can
reach
out
to
them.
D
Who
else
yeah?
Okay,
yeah
yeah?
If
you
go
back
to
the
notes,
that'd
be
super
helpful
and
then
we
can
queue
this
up
this
upcoming
week.
I
think
the
maintainers
group
will
be
smaller
because
it's
a
holiday
for
some
companies
in
the
states,
but
on
the
24th.
If,
if
we're
ready
to
do
it
by
then
that
might
be
a
good
time.
A
Yeah-
let's
do
that
maybe
present
one
single
maintainers
meeting
once
in
the
specification
meeting,
if,
if
the
time
allows-
and
let's
definitely
engage
with
the
with
the
folks
who
had
concerns
about
this-
but
I
mean
we
definitely
want
to
start
from
scratch
at
this
point
right,
we
want
to
finalize
things
not
not
not
start
with
working.
Okay,.
D
So
I'd
be
surprised
if
there
were
major
issues
raised
like
I
wasn't
there
again
but
like
if
I
had
to
guess
it's
probably
just
a
lot
of
people,
just
saying
thinking
hey,
I
haven't
heard
from
the
log
sig
in
a
while.
I
wonder
what
they're
up
to
like,
what's
and
and
some
of
this
might
even
be
less
about
the
data
model
and
more
about
like
what
are
you
going
to
go
to
beta?
What
do
you
think
you'll
go
to
ga
like
what?
What
is
your
road
map?
What's
your
agenda?
What's
coming
next.
B
Okay
yeah,
so
I
I
actually
looked
at
the
meeting
notes
and
I
posted
the
link
to
those
in
the
chat
but
there's
interesting
item
brought
by
alolita
on
ecs
and
possible
data
model.
Enhancements
then
do
you
know
anything
about?
Are
they
like,
because
I
did
not
recognize
any
issues
on
ecs
to
two
hours
back,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
know
anything
more
about
it.
B
A
B
I
okay,
okay,
yeah,
of
course,
ecs
like
elastic,
not
not
amazing,
service.
Okay,
yes,.
A
Which
is
about
semantic
conventions,
not
not
the
data
model,
but
I
mean
yes
she's
right
there.
Maybe
data
model
implications
from
that,
but
anyway,
I
don't
think
there
is
a
disconnect
here.
We
are
aware
that
this
is
another.
A
Waiting
for
the
op,
essentially
on
this
topic,
so
that
we
then
see
what
comes
out
of
that.
B
A
Okay,
all
right,
I
see
the
the
the
john
watson's
name.
I
will.
I
will
talk
to
him
as
well
on
this
okay,
but
thanks
for
bringing
this
up,
I
was
not
in
the
maintenance
meeting.
So
I
wasn't
aware.
E
A
Okay,
I
think
we're
good
for
now
with
this
then
about.
C
The
longer
name
yeah,
so
we
just
want,
like
I've
been
doing
every
week,
want
to
touch
on
the
open
issues,
but
I
think
they're
kind
of
getting
we're,
definitely
getting
bogged
down
on
these,
but
it
to
me
it
kind
of
looks
like
these
are
both
leaning
towards
removal
of
these
fields
and
in
either
case
I
think
we
could
in
theory,
remove
them
now
and
re-add
them.
C
If
the
decision
is
to
do
that,
and
that
might
be
one
way
for
us
to
be
able
to
say,
okay,
the
data
model
is
frozen,
but
may
have
additive
changes
yet
in
the
future.
So
we
can
talk
about
the
individual
issues,
but
I
also
just
wanted
to
put
this
out
there.
This
idea,
that
is
this,
a
path
for
us,
should
we
should
we
entertain
that,
or
are
we
just
close
enough
that
we
want
to
just
push
through
these.
A
A
A
He
was
supposed
to
go
and
work
with
with
the
client-side
instrumentation
team
to
see
whether
they
are
going
with
zero
side
stands
or
they
are
going
to
the
logs
and
then
whether
in
that
case
it
means
that
they
they
do,
need
the
the
name
field,
and
I
think
we
haven't
heard
from
from
that
work
group
on
this
matter
yet
so
this
one
yeah
kind
of,
if
I'm
worried
that,
if
we
remove
and
then
they
they
come
back
in
a
week
and
then
we
have
to
have
it
back
it
kind
of
is
I
don't
want
to
do
this
back
and
forth
too
much.
A
E
On
the
subject
of
the
name
field,
so
you
know
the
client
sig
is
going
to
look
into
that,
but
in
the
event
that
they
come
back
and
they
do
want
to
use
log.
As
for
their
rum
events,
would
we
still
want
to
model
that
with
the
name
field
or
we
would
would
we
want
to
go
with
the
approach
of
using
semantic
inventions
on
attributes
to
describe
the
name
of
the
event?
E
B
However,
the
update
from
john
just
from
like
four
minutes
ago
is
that
they
are
leaning
towards
using
zero
duration
spans,
and
this
would
make.
B
C
Oh,
I
also
share
the
opinion
that
this
is
really
a
semantic
convention
issue
for
for
event,
types
and
whatnot.
So,
even
if
they
it
looks
like
we
have
a
set
of
all
very
unlikely
things,
perhaps
here
that
everyone,
a
number
of
people,
have
expressed
the
same
opinion
that
we
should
remove
it,
and
this
issue
looks
to
be
meaning
towards
just
admitting
that
we
should
remove
it.
So
we
are
very
close,
it
seems,
but
is
it
appropriate
to
just
do
it
and
then
leave
it
open
for
additive?
E
I
come
back
to
the
point
that
was
brought
up,
which
was
that
any
top
level
field
on
a
log
needs
to
be
unambiguous
in
terms
of
how
it's
defined
in
all
situations,
and
we
we
still
haven't
been
able
to
you-
know
to
describe
what
the
values
should
be
for
name
in
all
situations.
So
you
know,
I
think,
that
that
argument
trumps
trumps.
Everything
in
that
if
we
can
later
decide
that
we
can
re-add
it.
E
But
for
now,
without
an
answer
to
that
question,
I
can't
see
the
the
rationale
for
for
having
it
as
part
of
the
top-level
data
model.
A
So
you're
saying
we,
we
all
can't
agree
what
name
actually
is
and
then
the
fact
that
the
client
sites
war
group
wants
to
use
it
for
for
a
particular
purpose,
doesn't
really
make
a
difference.
If
we
can't
agree
what
it
really
means
in
the
data
model,.
A
Why
don't
you
guys,
maybe
post
a
comment
on
the
issue,
and
I
think
it's
only
john
at
this
point
right
that
has
the
opposing
opinion.
A
Maybe
he's
convinced
as
well
now
at
this
point
I
don't
know
because
maybe
he's
not
thinking
about
this
direction
because
he's
now
focused
on
the
zero
duration
spans
approach
at
all,
so
he
doesn't
care,
maybe
at
all
that's
a
possible
outcome
as
well.
I
didn't
if
he
doesn't
care
and
we
all
think
that
it
should
be
removed.
Then
it's
an
easy
decision
to
make.
A
Okay:
okay,
please
do
that
and
I'll
try
to
chase
bogdan
to
to
see
what
do
we
do
with
the
logger
name.
If
we
can't
make
progress
on
that,
let's,
let's
give
us
let's
say
a
week:
if
we
can't
make
any
progress
on
that
elsewhere
outside
this
sea
regularly
about
that
that
instrumentation
library
name
thing
then
well,
then
we
leave
it
as
this.
A
A
E
Yeah
we
switched
the
java
one
to
do
that
because
okay,
but
you
know
it's
still
experimental,
obviously
so
we're
kind
of
waiting
to
see
what
the
final
decision.
A
A
Okay?
Anyway,
it's
an
auction
item
for
me
to
to
work
with
bogdan
on
on
on
that
related
issue
of
instrumentation
library,
name
and
but
anyway,
I
agree.
We
need
to
set
a
deadline
on
this,
and
if
we
can't
make
any
progress
on
that
one,
then
we
just
accept
the
fact
that
it
is
what
it
is.
We
just
go
with
the
current
state
of
things.