►
From YouTube: 2021-06-30 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
A
A
B
B
Looks
like
people
that
normally
join
her
here.
I
think
we
can
probably
get
started.
Let
me
share
my
screen.
C
B
I
assume
that's
a
yes.
Can
everybody
hear
me
yeah
yeah
yep
you're
up
yeah.
I
can
hear
right
so
at
this
point,
everybody's
pretty
familiar
with
what
this
means.
I
made
a
pr
for
the
0.23
release
of
the
core.
As
soon
as
that
merges,
I
will
make
the
same
matching
pr
in
contrib.
B
D
Yeah
just
a
reminder:
if
someone
that
is
working
on
anything
just
present
issue
just
for
visibility,
you
don't
duplicate
each
other
like
well.
Sorry
in
the
country
there
are
more
and
more
instrumentation
being
added,
which
is
great,
I'm
just
trying
to
point
so
people
mark
themselves.
They
are
working
on
something.
B
Okay,
I
think
that's
good
advice,
third
one
here,
I
added
this.
I
was
merging
prs
this
morning
and
with
this
one
I
just
happened
to
see,
there
was
still
some
ongoing
conversation.
B
Is
there
anything
blocking
this
pr?
It
appeared
to
be
just
documentation
pr,
but
there
is
quite
a
bit
of
conversation
around
it.
So
valentine
do
you
know
what
the
deal
is
with
this
and
whether
it
can
be
merged.
E
Actually,
I
don't
remember
much
about
this
one.
I
think
it's
quite
old.
I'm
gonna
check
it
right
now.
B
I
think
it's
documentation
only
and
changing
the
default
to
include
grp.
E
Yeah,
it's
not
it's
not
just
documentation.
I
think
they
are
changing
the
the
default,
the
default
url
for
the
for
the
grpc
collector.
I
I
I
mean
I
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
actually
use
or
I
tested
if
this
still
works,
but
I
think
there
was
some
failure
on
the
side
that
was
blocking
the
pdr,
but
I
think
it
should
be
solved
now
with
the
with
the
value
made,
but
it
seems
that
the
the
browser
tests
are
failing
too.
E
So
I
I
don't
think
we
can
manage
it
right
now
and
the
guy
that
I
made
was
saying
that
there
was
some
failure
with
the
rules
of
two.
So
oh,
the
browser
tests
are
failing.
B
E
B
E
But
I
I
mean
I
think
I
was
pretty
much
commenting-
that
it
seems
real,
that
the
grpc
protocol
is
mandatory
for
grpc
because
it
wasn't
before
I
mean
we
always
add
by
default
like
just
the
host
and
the
port
inside
this,
so
that
that
seemed
real.
That
is
some
some
some
sort
of
argument
for
the
jpc,
client,
so
yeah.
B
E
B
Okay,
severin.
F
F
So
there
has
been
a
bunch
of
issues
around
documentation,
so
people
saying
like
hey
the
documentation
for
the
open,
telemetry
js
examples
is
off
and
then
there
were
those
discussions
where
to
have
to
things,
and
so
I
was
wondering
if,
if
this
is
something
worth
discussing
to
see
like
hey,
should
those
docs
be
on
the
website
or
in
their
repositories?
And
then
what
to
do
with
that?
And,
as
I
said
in
one
of
those
tickets,
I'm
happy
to
help
with
that,
but
but
would
need
some
some
guidance
and
help
on
that
yeah.
So.
B
The
reason
it's
in
the
website,
repo
and
the
js
read,
though,
is
because
the
communications
sig
led
by
I
believe
austin
parker
had
all
the
documentation
in
the
website
repo
and
it
never
got
updated
because
you
know
as
maintainers
and
approvers
of
our
own
repos.
We
just
don't
think
about
the
other
repos.
All
that
often
so.
The
process
that
they
came
up
with
was
to
have
the
documentation
in
both
repositories.
B
B
Does
that
make
sense
makes
sense,
yeah
yeah,
so
we
have
the
getting
started
guide,
which
is
out
of
date
to
the
point
that
it's
almost
useless
and
that
has
been
around
since
before
this
process
existed.
So
that's
why
we
have
the
website
getting
started
and
we
have
our
own
folder
getting
started.
B
B
I
was
working
a
little
bit
on
the
website
getting
started
guide
yesterday
and
I'm
going
to
continue
working
on
that
effort,
but
I
updated
the
node
stuff
yesterday
and
the
browser
stuff
will
be
next.
The
next
step
after
that
will
actually
be
there's
a
series
of
docs
in
the
api
repository.
B
So
if
we
go
to
api
there's
docs
in
here,
these
will
also
need
to
be
nearer
to
the
website.
So
I
think
on
the
website,
we
will
want
to
have
underneath
js
a
folder
for
the
api
and
a
folder
for
the
sdk,
and
these
docs
should
be
mirrored
over
there
they're
a
little
bit
incomplete,
so
they
also
need
to
be
filled
out.
But,
as
far
as
I
know,
what's
done,
there
is
at
least
up
to
date,
so
those
that's
the
current
state
of
our
of
our
documentation.
You
said
you're
happy
to
help.
F
F
So
so
I'm
happy
to
to
help
us
either
organizing
it
or
writing
a
few
of
them,
but
whatever
helps
more.
B
Okay
and
then
there
is
also
the
technical
documentation
which
is
auto
generated,
so
this
is
just
the
act
like
api
reference
documentation.
This
is
automatically
updated
on
each
release.
We
have
one
for
the
api
and
then
we
also
have
one
for
the
sdk.
B
B
It
is
typically
up
to
date
because
it
is
so
automated,
but
it's
also
sometimes
not
particularly
helpful
unless
you
already
know
exactly
what
you're
looking
for,
but
I
think
this
is
not
easily
discoverable
by
many
people.
I
think
a
lot
of
people
don't
realize
that
these
docs
are
even
here,
so
they
should
probably
be
linked
from
the
main
documentation.
Also.
F
B
F
B
Yeah,
so
I
think
right
now
the
most
helpful
thing
would
be.
I
just
created
a
pr
on
the.
B
On
the
website
repository
to
mirror
the
docs
that
we,
it
looks
like
oh
yeah
right
here
to
mirror
the
docs
that
I
wrote.
So
this
will
merge
fairly
soon,
but
if
you
could
look
through
the
website,
docs
folder
on
the
js
repo
and
update
the
getting
started
guide,
it's
it's
fairly
basic
right
now.
So
I
think
this
is
where
we
could
use
the
most
help.
F
So
it's
in
the
what
what
folder
is
it
these
days?
Is
it
still
they're
getting
started,
or
is
there.
B
Website
docs
yeah,
so
website
docs
and
then
everything
in
here
is
sort
of
not
necessarily
out
of
date,
but
it's
fairly
basic
at
the
moment.
So
it
doesn't
get
a
lot
of
love.
Very
often,
you
see
I
I
merged
my
pr
an
hour
ago,
but
before
that
the
previous
one
was
three
months
so.
F
F
A
little
bit
how
this
works,
but
but
how
is
the
idea
like
because
I
mean
there's
website,
docs
getting
started
and
then
there's
the
getting
started
itself.
So,
ideally
at
some
point
they
they
should
be
the
same
or,
as
I
mean.
B
F
B
F
F
Okay,
yeah:
I
can
see
that
I
found
a
little
bit
of
time
for
that
and
circle
back
to
you
if
I
need
any
any
assistance
with
them.
Okay,.
B
So
for
now,
I
will
leave
you
to
work
on
the
the
core
repository
documentation.
I've
been
working
on
the
api
repository
documentation,
so
if
we
split
it
up
that
way,
I
think
we
won't
step
on
each
other's
toes
too
much.
Okay
makes
sense.
Yeah.
B
Okay.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
help
happy
to
help.
This
question
is
really
for
for
bart,
because
I
think
you're
you're,
the
one
that
said
that
you
wanted
to
work
on
metrics.
But
do
you
know
what
the
current
state
of
metrics
is?
Have
you
looked
into
the
current
specification
and
the
work
that's
being
done
and
how
far
off
we
are.
D
I
mean
basically
we've
been
discussing
this
internally
and
I
want
to
post
on
a
bit
the
metric
still
waiting
for
the
for
the
few
implementation
like
jmac,
this
working
basically
now
and
then
go,
which
means
once
this
is
done.
There
will
be
some
references
for
that.
D
I
just
want
to
avoid
the
situation
like
it
was
last
year
when
I
was
working
and
the
documentation
was
changing
constantly,
and
you
know
whenever
I
changed
something
it
was
still
updated.
One
week
later,
I
still
have
nightmares
about
that
yeah.
So
I
want
to
focus
in
on
adding
more
instrumentations
with
a
library
that
we
still
think
are
missing
and
after
that,
once
this,
this
whole
matrix
will
be
more
stable.
There'll,
be
some
better
difference
after
validation
with
go.
I
I
want
to
get
back
to
the
matrix.
B
Okay,
so
we're
just
waiting
on
sort
of
the
reference
implementation
to
make
our
to
make
implementing
a
lot
easier.
D
It
just
we're
just
missing
some
of
the
naming
and
for
example,
now
we
have
just
aggregator
and
don't
be
like
processor
and
aggregator.
So
it
will
be
like
two
modules
for
for
something
that
is
happening
like
in
one
module
now.
So
there
will
be
some
differences,
which
will
there
will
be
also
some
renaming
for
the
metrics,
but
basically
in
in
general,
the
export
doesn't
change.
B
B
D
C
D
B
He's
not
a
new
employee
he's
actually
not
even
new
to
open
telemetry.
You
may
have
worked
with
him
before
his
name
is
georg
he's
been
joining
the
metrics
data
models,
calls
for
the
last
five
weeks
or
something
like
that,
and
I
think
he's
been
working
with
the
python
and
c-sharp
teams
on
their
metrics
implementations,
although
I'm
not
sure
about
that
he's,
just
wrapping
up
some
things
internally,
so
that
he
will
have
more
time
to
dedicate
to
it,
but
I
think
starting
probably
next
week
he
will
be
more
focused
on
it.
B
B
I
just
think
it's
the
sdk
that
they're
working
on
now
they
had
initially
targeted
the
end
of
june
to
complete
the
sdk
specification
and
yes
or
two
days
ago
in
the
maintainers
meeting.
B
D
Yeah,
I
mean
that's
the
josh,
which
will
basically
trying
to
implement
the
prototyping
goal.
Besides
that
there
are
like
more
people
involved
in
the
school
metrics,
including
the
prometheus
and
and
few
other
teams
that
also
have
been
working
on
that.
So
the
specification-
and
I
would
say
it's
growing,.
D
B
B
For
me
at
least
yeah,
so
these
next
two
items
that
I
added
are
the
kind
of
the
same
thing.
All
of
our
documentation,
and
particularly
the
examples
are
pretty
far
out
of
date,
and
we
don't
really
do
a
good
job
of
keeping
them
updated.
B
B
B
We
could
also
switch
them
to
be
typescript
so
that
when
we
run
a
compilation,
we
can
immediately
see
at
least
where
the
interface
changes
are
out
of
date
and
other
things
along
those
lines.
B
B
So
I'm
looking
for
a
volunteer,
nobody
has
to
volunteer
on
the
call
today,
but
I,
if
you,
if
you
want
to
volunteer,
please
reach
out
to
me,
because
this
is
something
that
when
we
go
ga,
this
will
be
very
important.
It's
if,
if
our
documentation
is
out
of
date,
nobody
will
be
able
to
use
the
library
so
the
last
three
years
of
writing.
It
is
wasted
if
the
documentation
isn't
good.
G
G
G
And
then
this
final
step
of
the
pr,
maybe
merge
them
into
the
markdown
file
or
something
like
some
embed
block.
B
B
C
C
D
D
Yeah
I
mean
if
you
open
the
the
web
you'll
see
that
you
have
one
package.json
and
then
you
have
the
examples
folder
and
inside
the
example
you
have
like
dedicated.
So
this
way
you
can
run
just
one
comment
to
run
them
all
in
the
web
and
you
just
simply
see.
Are
you
talking.
B
B
D
B
B
B
B
Okay,
this
next
one,
I
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of
any
blockers
that
we
have
that
are
blocking
the
sdk
release.
I
would
like
to
release
1.0
of
the
sdk
soon
it
seems
like
we
are
specification
compliant
and
it
seems
relatively
stable
these
days
and
I'm
just
I'm
trying
to
think
of
what
are
the
things
that
are
blocking,
that
we
can
knock
out
so
that
we
can
get
this
done.
B
The
documentation,
I've
already
harped
on
quite
a
bit
today.
So
I
won't
talk
about
that.
But
one
is
definitely
the
release
tooling
right
now.
The
release
process
for
the
core
repo
is
completely
manual,
and
it
requires
us
to
keep
all
modules
with
the
same
version
that
definitely
will
not
work
when
we
go
to
1.0,
because
we
don't
want
metrics
to
be
1.0,
so
we
will
have
to
go
to
the
learn:
a
independent
versioning.
B
B
But
if
we
want
to
keep
them
independent,
we're
gonna
have
to
come
up
with
a
process
for
when
do
we
update
and
release
each
package?
Maybe
we
can
automate
a
subset
of
the
packages
as
like
the
core
sdk
and
then
manually
release
the
experimental
ones
or
something
like
that.
B
G
B
Yes,
so
the
the
issue
is
that
we
need
to
go
to
1.0
with
a
handful
of
packages.
Like
you
know
all
the
tracing
packages
node
web
semantic
conventions,
things
like
that
they
can
all
go
to
1.0,
but
the
metrics
and
the
metrics
api
still
needs
to
say
on
xero.x.
G
G
So
I
I
can
experiment
with
that
too
for
this
project
and
see,
if
that's,
if
it
won't.
B
I
that
sounds
interesting
to
me.
Do
you
know
if
it
works
with
lerna
or
would
we
have
to
update
our
tooling.
G
That's
a
good
question.
I
think
it's
just
separate.
G
B
I'm
not
against
moving
away
from
learner
if
we
have
to,
but
obviously
keeping
it.
You
know
it
provides
a
lot
of
value
to
us
and
it's
something
people
are
familiar
with.
So
if
I,
if
we
can
I'd
like
to
keep
it,
but
I
don't
feel
very
strong,
I
don't
happen
to
like
learn
all
that
much
honestly.
It's
just
there's
not
very
many
good
alternatives.
B
B
B
I
think
we
had
basically
agreed
on
this,
but
then
it
never
really
went
anywhere.
E
Yeah
pretty
much
the
I
think
we
agreed.
We
agreed
at
the
time
in
the
one
of
the
sig
and
yeah.
It's
pretty
much
that
we
want
to
do
this
before
the
wonder
I
mean
we
should
anyway
either
we
killed
the
name
or
we
charged
it
before
so
yeah.
That
was
just
the
thing
that
found
me
was
kind
of
blocking
the
little.
B
Yeah,
I
I
agree,
definitely
needs
to
be
done
by
before
1.0
if
we're
going
to
do
it,
and
I,
like
the
naming
screen
scheme
that
rauno
proposed
here,
I
don't
know,
he's
on
the
call
yes
but
yeah.
I
I
like
that
naming
scheme
and
honestly
we
just
need
somebody
to
implement
it.
E
B
I
have
a
lot
on
my
plate
as
well.
I
don't
really
have
time
for
this,
but
if
anybody
does
then
yeah,
it
would
be
great
if
somebody
could
handle
that.
B
It's
definitely
something
we
want
to
do
before
1.0.
So
when
I
get
done
with
the
documentation
stuff,
I
can
work
on
that,
but
if
somebody
wants
to
take
it
before
then
then
great.
B
B
Change
the
process
for
contrib
for
a
couple
of
reasons,
I
think,
as
we
add
more
modules,
it
will
need
to
be
more
clear
who
owns
each
one
and
when
prs
get
created.
B
So
I
don't
remember,
who
mentioned
last
week
that
the
python
sig
auto
assigns
approvers
to
new
prs,
and
I
think
that
that's
a
great
idea-
and
I
would
like
to
implement
that
before
I
did
it.
I
wanted
to
give
everybody
an
opportunity
to
speak
up.
If
they
don't
want
me
to
enable
a
feature
like
that,
or
if
they
have
some
idea
for
a
better
process,
I
don't
think
that
that's
going
to
fix
everything
and
I'm
definitely
still
looking
for
ideas
to
update
the
process.
B
But
I
think
it's
a
good
first
step
in
the
future.
I
think
I
would
like
to
have
some
separate
approver
and
maintainership
just
for
contrib,
so
that
we
can
have
people
who
are
responsible
for
contrib.
B
B
I
guess
I
don't
really
have
any
suggestions
right
now
and
I
kind
of
just
talked
for
five
minutes,
but
particularly
about
the
the
auto
assigning.
Does
anybody
have
any
problem
if
I
turn
that
on.
B
It's
the
approvers
list,
but
we.
B
Mostly
that
they
don't
get
reviewed
if
if
it
gets
reviews-
and
then
the
author
doesn't
up
make
updates
based
on
the
reviews,
there's
really
not
much.
We
can
do
about
that.
I
don't
expect
approvers
to
pick
up
prs
from
people
who
you
know
it.
If
somebody
contributes
an
instrumentation
and
then
changes
are
requested
and
it
never
gets
updated,
I
don't
expect
the
reprover
to
go
make
those
changes
they
could.
B
C
Yeah
yeah
yeah.
Of
course
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
whether
there
is
any
other
aspect
to
the
country
repository
in
general.
Maybe
that's
somehow
left
behind,
but
I
now
got
got
the
point.
Thanks.
B
There
are
also
other
parts
that
need
to
be
done
that
particularly
first
time
contributors
may
not
be
aware
of
like
when
you
create
a
new
instrumentation.
Adding
it
to
the
registry
is
always
helpful
and
that's
something
that
it
doesn't
always
get
done,
particularly
if
somebody
is
new
to
the
repository
and
they
contribute
an
instrumentation.
They
may
not
even
know
the
registry
exists,
so
that
would
be
part
of
it,
but
no
it's
mostly
just
to
make
sure
that
reviews
are
happening
in
a
timely.
B
B
Where
is
there,
you
have
this
semantic
conventions,
resource
attributes
link
in
here?
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
this.
G
B
They
both
expose
resource
attributes,
but
I
assume
they're
not
the
same
thing.
D
B
D
B
B
B
And
it
looks
like
you
added
a
full
request
here
for
reviews.
Add
the
browser
extension
yeah.
F
F
Yeah,
the
only
issue
is
that
I
have
instead,
like
I
think
the
coverage
is
now
going
down
and
I
think
every
time
something
changes.
It
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
break
so
it
would
get
to
to
have
it
there
so
that
some
of
the
automation
works
on
it
as
well.
F
Not
tested
no
dude,
I'm
not
sure
so
so
I
I
just
merged
in
the
the
most
recent
changes
to
to
maine,
and
then
it
told
me
like
yeah,
the
code
coverage
went
down
and
and
right
now
I,
if
I
click
into
code
coverage
here
then
yeah
this
the
code
cuff
reports
they
they
confuse
me.
So
I'm
not
even
sure
if
I
understand
what
the
problem
is.
B
Yeah,
so
no
tracked
files
changed,
there's,
probably
no
tests
right
for
the
new
code.
F
I
said
I
mean
I,
I
added
a
few
tests.
It's
not
perfect.
B
Are
they
so
you
may
be
missing
the
coverage
script
in
the
package?
Jason?
B
I
think
there
is
one,
but
maybe
I
yeah
so
you're
missing
the
you're
missing
the
script
that
uploads
the
coverage
data
to
so
it's
being
treated
as
uncovered
code.
B
And
then,
once
you
once,
you
update
that
honestly
with
two
two
maintainers
having
already
approved
it,
I
think
we
can
probably
merge
it.
If
I
have
time
to
review
it,
I
will,
but
even
if
I
don't
also,
I
think,
appreciated
okay.
B
That
was
all
I
had
on
the
list
if
anyone
else
has
anything
that
they
would
like
to
bring
up.
Now
is
the
time,
if
not,
it's
now
83
degrees.
In
my
office,
I
think
I
have
to
go
open
the
door.
B
Okay,
well
thanks
everybody
for
their
time,
and
I
will
talk
to
you
all
next.