►
From YouTube: 2021-09-13 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).
A
Austin
I
feel
like
I
should
be
requesting
some
songs.
Can
you
can
you
spin
some
some
awesome
tunes
for
us.
B
C
A
B
C
C
A
A
D
D
E
D
B
C
F
Maybe
the
link
in
the
calendar
event
is
wrong.
Yeah
that
one
works,
it's
probably
the
the
old
notes
or
something.
G
Okay,
I
see
that
morgan
is
not
around
today
having
last
day
of
honeymoon.
So
congratulations
to
him.
Let's
start
the
meeting
one
minute,
then
I
don't
see
chad.
Oh,
I
will
try
to
drive
this
instead
of
him,
but
let's
wait
one
more
minute
into
somebody
else's
joins
and
yeah.
I
see
a
few
items
already,
so
we
have
enough
stuff
to
discuss.
G
Okay,
let's,
let's
start
thank
you,
everybody
for
joining.
Let's
go
over
the
agenda
items.
First
of
all
specification,
as
you
know,
we
are,
we
have
been
doing
a
release
monthly
and
we
we
haven't
done
the
release
this
month.
So
I
think
we
should
do
that,
even
if
it's
middle
of
the
month
just
to
keep
the
current
cadence.
G
So
you
don't
mind,
we
will
do
that.
I
am
guessing
later
today
or
tomorrow.
There
are
two
items
that
I
mentioned
at
the
bottom
of
the
agenda
or
at
the
end
that
we
may-
or
we
may
not
include
in
this
release,
but
we
can
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
later.
H
I
did
hi
everyone.
This
otep
has
reached
enough
approvals
that
we
could
merge
it
and
I'm
not
merging
it
or
asking
for
it
to
be
merged,
because
a
final
comment
from
yuri
asked
that
we
talk
to
maintainers
about
whether
it's
readable
and
understandable,
so
it's
a
I've
been
written
and
tried
clarified
as
much
as
I
can.
I
think
it's
about
the
right
level
and
I
want
to
see
how
you
all
feel
about
that
once
that
merges
the
proposal
is
to
create
a
test
suite
in
the
language
of
java.
H
This
is
some
sort
of
compatibility
kit
that
lets
you
test
your
implementation
to
make
sure
it's
working
correctly.
This
is
pretty
essential.
I
think,
because
we're
all
going
to
rely
on
the
correctness
of
these
samplers
for
counting
spans,
so
absolutely
in
scope,
is
to
create
a
test
tweet
next,
but
I'd
like
you
all
to
review
the
text
of
the
specification,
or
at
least
the
explanation
in
otep
168
and
then
the
specification
is
in
pr
1899
of
the
spec
repo
thanks.
I
G
What
I
wanted
to
say
is
that
probably
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
if
there's
time
you
know
this
call
or
tomorrow's
call
that
you
could
summarize
what
are
the
changes
there,
because
I
think
that
maybe
not
enough
people
have
been
involved
and
it
would
be
nice
that
for
them
to
at
least
keep
an
approval
that
you
explained
in
a
top
level
fashion,
what's
happening
there.
Otherwise,
let's,
let's
go
ahead.
Yep.
H
Yeah,
that's
right
and
I've
always
wondered
exactly
where
the
bar
should
be
for
an
otep,
because
it
is
trying
to
explain
a
technology
and
some
decisions
that
we
make.
And
then
the
specification
needs
to
be
written
to
explain
how
to
implement
what
we've
explained.
But
it
doesn't
need
to
incorporate
the
entire
body
of
that
technical
explanation
and
the
question.
G
G
I
think
it
would
make
sense.
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
an
opinion
about
that.
I
could
say
it's
totally
fine.
E
G
Okay,
let's
sync
up
in
the
slack
about
the
time
line,
expectation
and
we
can
decide
but
yeah
it
would
be
nice
to
have
them
there.
Oh,
I
see
you
also
posted
the
second
one
great.
G
Thank
you
as
usual,
probably
it's
a
good
idea
to
ask
in
your
own
company,
like
everybody,
maybe
there's
some
interest
where
you
can
persuade
some
manager
to
give
us
some
developer
cycles.
There,
okay
java.
A
Yeah,
as
as
written,
we
released
1.6.0
last
night
or
yesterday
morning,
depending
on
your
time
zone,
has
a
lot
of
performance
improvements.
Small
performance
improvements
and
especially
the
otlp
pipeline,
has
been
radically
improved,
but
that
also
means
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
spicy
release
because
we
basically
are
doing
manual
manual
writing
of
bytes
for
otld
completely
at
this
point,
but
I
mean
it
does
mean
it's
spicy
right:
we
don't
have
proto
objects.
G
Thank
you
for
that
java
instrumentation.
I
G
Perfect
thanks
so
much
python,
no
major
updates
dot
net.
Yes,
somebody
wants
to
talk
mention
something.
G
But
never
mind
right
for
some
noise.
Sorry
dotnet
pro,
probably
the
same
situation,
no
matter
your
updates.
I
guess.
E
E
For
like
try
to
get
as
close
as
possible
to
the
current
spec
for
matrix.
J
K
Yeah
hi,
so
basically,
we
have
been
going
through
the
dc
review
process
for
1.2
release
with
josh,
and
so
he
has
formally
completed
his
his
review
and
we
have
resolved
all
the
issues
which
he
has
reached.
We
are
just
waiting
for
the
formal
closure
of
the
ticket
from
him
and
then
we'll
start
planning
for
one
or
two
release,
and
apart
from
that,
the
vc
package,
support
for
open,
telemetry,
c
plus
plus,
is
released
and
the
otp
exporter
is.
K
I
mean
for
c
plus
in
general,
we
have
shortage
of
the
long-term
contributors,
so
I
think
once
we
start
for
the
matrix
api,
we
definitely
need
people
who
can
contribute
over
the
course
of
time
for
the
api
metrics.
So
please,
please,
look
in
your
companies
and
try
to
see
if
you
can
get
some
contributors
yeah.
Thank
you.
G
Yeah,
thank
you
for
the
update,
ruby,
no
updates,
it
seems
swift.
The
same
collector
is
somebody
from
the
collector
team
here.
L
Yeah,
I
I
can
give
a
quick
update
again
bogdan
and
I
have
been
working
on.
You
know,
making
sure
that
we
are
very
close
to
tracing
stability
for
the
collector,
and
I
linked
an
issue
which
you
can
look
at.
Those
are
the
guarantees
that
we'll
be
providing
with
otlp,
fully
functional
for
the
collector
for
tracing
and
that
being
available.
L
The
part
that
we
are
working
on
right
now
is
configuration
stability
and
there's
a
backlog
that
you
can
look
at
from,
which
is
linked
from
four
zero
to
four
and
we've
been
doing
weekly
releases
with
several
contributors
maintainers
working
on
this,
so
thanks
to
bogdan
and
to
anthony
as
well
as
alex
burton
and
others
and
tigran
reviewing
steadily
so
very
close,
and
we
are
hoping
to
do
a
stable
release.
Hopefully,
by
next
week,
fingers
crossed
and
released
and
released
blog
post.
D
Yeah
and
not
much
to
update
again
except
moving
stuff,
can
trip,
and
I
should
have
more
to
update
in
the
coming
meetings,
because
I'm
finally
working
again
so
should
be
a
lot
of
active
development
going
on
going
forward.
Now,.
G
Okay,
let's
go
over
the
rest
of
the
agenda.
Austin
website,
documentation,
updates.
B
Yeah
hi,
so
for
a
little
background,
we
have
a
contractor
from
the
cncf
that
is
previously
working
on.
Grpc.Io
has
come
over
to
the
open
telemetry
project,
so
we
have
some
cycles
from
him
for
a
while
to
help
us
deal
with
some
long-standing
infrastructure
and
templating
stuff
with
the
website,
and
one
of
those
is
about
documentation.
So
if
you
recall
back
earlier
this
year,
we
offer
the
option
to
kind
of
have
your
quick
start.
B
This
in
practice
has
caused
a
lot
of
problems
with
users
and
maintainers,
and
everyone
not
really
knowing
what,
where
to
suggest
changes
or
fix
bugs,
so
we're
going
to
move
to
a
model
where
there
is
for
the
documentation,
lives
on
the
website,
and
this
isn't
all
of
your
documentation.
You
can
still
have
whatever
you
want.
B
If
you
wish
to
ch
right,
if
you
wish
to
change
how
your
docs,
where
your
docs
live,
our
suggestion
will
actually
be
to
put
them
back
into
like
the
the
quick
start,
tutorial
and
stuff
put
that
back
into
the
website
repo,
because
we're
going
to
work
on
perler
on
versioning,
so
that
each
language
can
have
its
own.
B
You
know,
since
every
language
is
kind
of
versions,
of
slightly
different,
there's
no
like
unified,
1.0
1.1,
whatever
we're
working
on
making
it
so
that
each
language
can
be
versioned
independently,
we're
also
working
on
internationalization,
so
stuff
like
that,
would
only
be
available
if
you're
hosting
your
canonical
copy
in
the
website
repo
itself.
So
our
suggestion
would
be
migrate.
B
Things
back,
but
if
you
wish
to
keep
them
where
they
are,
that's
fine
we'll
make
the
prs
to
change
it
over
to
sub
module
and
update
the
automation
and
all
that
stuff
for
you
over
the
coming
weeks.
So
there's
a
link
to
the
issue
that
I
pasted
in
the
notes
you
can
chime
in
there.
We
also
have
some
other
cool
stuff
coming.
If
you
want
to
get
an
idea
of
what
like
the
docs,
what
our
target
for
the
docs
is
look
at
the
grpc
docs.
B
B
The
only
action
a
maintainer
requires
right
now
is.
Let
us
know
if
you
want
to
have
your
docs
live
in
the
website,
repo
or
in
your
repo.
Our
recommendation
is
the
website
repo.
Please
go
on
that
issue.
I
linked
and
comment
there.
Otherwise
we
will
do
we'll
take
whatever
the
status
quo
is
and
make
it
happen.
B
G
Bogdan
you
commented
something
you
asked
something.
Is
this
related
to
the
documentation
because
you
wrote:
are
you
going
to
move
that
right
so
bogdan?
If.
B
B
The
only
requirement
is,
if
you
want
to
change
how
it
currently
works,
then
go
comment
on
that
issue.
Thread
that
I
linked
and
we
will
we
will
do
it
then.
G
Okay
sounds
good.
Okay,
next
item
bob
is
the
cla
individual
contributor
option.
C
Yeah,
so
I
don't,
I
don't
know
if
any
other
maintainers
have
had
this
problem
recently,
I
have
we
had
a
new,
a
new
contributor
for
our
repo,
which
is
great,
and
they
attempted
to
sign
up
as
an
sign
at
the
eccl
as
an
individual
rather
than
a
corporate
entity,
and
it
wouldn't
let
them
I
didn't
know
if
anybody
else
had
seen
this
problem
recently,
if
this
is
a
new
manifestation,
if
there's
any
workarounds,
etc,
etc.
M
Okay,
sorry,
we
had
a
new
contributor
last
week
who
had
a
problem
with
eccla
just
wasn't
working
and
they
tried
like
two
days
later
and
it
worked
so
is
it
ongoing?
I
know
we've
had
some
issues
in
the
past
with
the
eccla
infra.
C
Yeah,
I
don't
know,
if
that's
I
don't
know,
if
it's
the
easy,
cla
infra,
that's
the
problem
or
if,
like
a
configuration
value,
some
upstream
somehow
got
changed,
I'm
not
really
certain.
I
just
know
it
a
brand
new
greenfield
contributor
that
was
not
able
to
that
is
not
able
to
contribute
currently
because
they
aren't
interested
in
signing
up
as
a
corporate
entity,
which
I
think
that
that
would
be
something
that
a
lot
of
people
won't
want
to
do.
M
Ask
them
to
take
a
screenshot
and
post
there's
a
have
you
seen
the
easy
cla
slack
channel.
C
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
trust
as
well.
The
next
items
are
mine,
so
we'll
try
to
go
over
them
and
the
thing
about
those
items
is
that
I'm
wondering
whether
we
should
include
them
as
part
of
the
upcoming
release,
which
will
be
happening
this
week.
The
first
one
is
about
having
a
explicit
preference
for
explicit
global
attributes
limit
over
modern,
specific
default
value.
I
think
it's
relatively
simple
and
it
has
enough
approvals,
but
I
really
would
like
to
get
a
maintainer's
eyes
on
that
one.
G
I
think
it
looks
correct
overall,
the
second
one
is
about
making
you
know
changing
the
default
value
for
compression
the
default
value.
Currently
it
seems
that
there's
no
actual
c
with
a
stable
release
that
supports
this.
So
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
change
that
this
is
we
can
easily
leave
this
out
of
this
release.
I
think,
and
the
last
one
is
oh,
I
didn't
complete
my
comment
there,
but
it's
basically
and
it's
relatively
old
vr
it's
about
allowing
config.
You
know
configuring
the
transport
for
otlp.
G
This
has
enough
reviews,
but
it
was
a
little
bit
polemical
in
the
past.
Josh
suref
requested
changes
and
we
want
to
see
what's
happening
there
and
I
would
like
to
get
especially
for
people
who
have
been
actually
reviewing
this
pr.
What
you're
feeling
you
you
think
we
should
include
that
in
this
upcoming
release.
If
we
merge
it,
should
we
hold
it?
Do
you
have
any
specific
preference.
G
And
for
the
last
one
just
to
be
clear,
it's
about!
Essentially,
we
want
to
al.
It
seems
that
jack
wants
to
add
specifically
to
allow
users
to
specify
more
values
for
otp
transport
transport,
so
I
think
it.
It
sounds
like
it's
a
very
specific
use
case
and
he
really
needs
this.
G
N
So
the
the
gzip
proposal,
I
would
be
slightly
worried
about,
as
you
know,
go
and
I
think
javascript
also
is
looking
to
go
to
ga
this
week
or
next
and
that
doesn't
leave
a
whole
lot
of
time
to
make
a
change
like
this,
and
I'm
not
sure
I
see
a
huge
value
to
it.
So
it
doesn't
seem
like
the
sort
of
thing
that
we
would
want
to
delay
for.
G
This
is
about
the
otlp
protocol
configuration
option.
I
I
can
check,
but
I
think
js
already
defaults
to
using
gzip
compression.
I
might
be
wrong,
though,.
G
N
N
Yeah,
there's
there's
an
open
pr.
We
can
I'll
make
a
comment
down
there:
okay,
okay,
yeah
yeah,
there's.
G
Yeah,
please,
okay,
so
it
sounds
like
maybe
we
should
discuss
it
more,
so
maybe
not
included
in
the
in
this
week's
release.
I
will
follow
up
with,
since
javascript
is
going
to
do
a
release
this
week.
Probably
we
will
have
to
change
that.
We
need
to
discuss
our
options
there,
but
I
will
follow
up
with
that.
One.