►
From YouTube: 2020-11-05 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
D
C
Thank
you
for
joining,
I'm
hoping
we
can
sort
some
of
these
out
and
then
figure
out
where
we
want
to
concentrate
our
stuff.
I
put
together
agenda
in
this
google
doc.
If
you
guys
want
to
follow
along.
C
Where
is
that?
Are
we
waiting.
C
He's
like
a
cat,
not
sure
whether
he's
gonna
drop
by
or
not.
I
can
wait
a
few.
C
E
Is
the
day
the
day
that
I'm
watching
the
results
with
refresh
every
five
minutes
right,
it's
that
day
of
the
year,
so
I
I
think
splunk
made
a
mistake.
They
should
have
gave
us
free
day
today,
not
yesterday.
C
Sorry
I
put
together
agenda
of
what
I'd
like
to
cover
in
order
to
help
sort
our
issues
we
got
like
126
127
issues.
Let
me
see
how
many
149
sorry
open
issues
27
have
the
bug
label
which
I'd
like
to
have
as
our
primary
concentration,
but
before
that
I'd
like
to
lock
down
on
what
we
would
like
to
use
as
github
labels,
so
that
way,
we'll
know
what
to
apply
when
we
triage
them.
C
I
recommend
we
have
the
p1
through
p3,
that's
a
normal
glacier,
we've
used
for
the
spec
sig,
but
also
a
p0
for
critical
security
fixes.
This
is
just
to
have
the
highest
level
and
there's
just
no
ambiguity
that
like
this
is
the
thing
that
we
have
to
like
really
soon
like.
D
Force
cvs
and
whatnot
like
build
breakages
as
p0
as
well.
B
C
C
There
are
other
labels
that
I
like
to
propose
that
maybe
might
help
with
categorizing
it
so
that
we
can
get
some
like
categories
on.
You
know
like
ideas
of
where,
where
this
is
going
to
apply,
perhaps
a
spec
label
like
spectre,
spec,
metric
specs,
logs
or
an
area
for
receivers
or
exporters
or
processors.
B
C
Important
for
collector
it'll
help
with
having
an
idea
on
like
who
to
dish
it
off
to.
If
we
want
to.
B
I
guess
it
will
help
with
knowing
whether
we're
a
feature
complete
for
traces,
at
least
right.
If
we're
releasing.
If
we're
saying
we
are
gaining
the
traces,
then
we
will
need
to
know
that
at
least
collector
does
not
have
anything
for
the
trace
remaining,
but
not
necessarily
for
robots.
So
I
think
yes,
that's
useful
for
that.
C
Thank
you,
p0p1
p2p3.
I
see
that
cool
thanks
and
then
a
spec
colon
trace.
B
C
For
now
you
can
leave
it
without
the
spec.
We
can
always
change
it
later
right,
because
it's
a
string,
search
of
the
label
that
can
go
across
and
it's
a
convenience
thing,
but
if
we
don't
need
that
we
don't
need
it.
So
the
most
important
thing
is
that
we
have
a
label.
We
can
update
the
label
and
it
won't
make
a
change
to
the
issue.
C
Okay
skip
this,
then
the
other
one
I
suggest
is
having
a
release,
so
it
matches
up
like
release
required
for
ga
release.
Allow
for
j
release
after
ga
and
that'll
have
the
same
context
for
collector
as
we
do
for
the
spec.
B
B
F
Allow
allow
for
g
means
things
that
they
are
simple
enough,
that
we
allow
people
to
have
before
g
and
after
g
means,
we
don't
bother
to
think
about
how
this
should
be
implemented.
Unless
you
come
up
with
a
brilliant
thing,
I'm
not
gonna.
B
Didn't
help
with
labels
you
just
you,
cannot
create
them.
You
don't
have
the
positions.
I
see.
I
don't.
F
C
F
F
By
the
way
for
priority,
do
you
want
to
put
priority
column,
p1
or
just
p1?
Right
now
we
have
p1
p2.
C
Oh
well,
I
prefer
to
have
it
priority
colon
okay,
because
then
it
would
line
up
with
the
specification.
B
All
of
them,
for
you,
you're
doing
this
for
the
core.
I
will
do
that
for
the
contribution.
Okay,
quick
question
about
this,
we
did
have
a
p0.
Is
that
something.
C
Right,
it's
not
in
the
specification
stick,
but
I
suggest
that
collector
sig
have
that.
So
that
way
it
can
highlight.
Like
security,
p0
issues,
I
mean
the
highest
priority
issues
that
needs
to
release
software.
C
If
there's
ever
a
cve,
we
would
never
file
a
p0
against
the
spec
sick,
but
we
file
it
against
right,
java
or
collector,
or
go
and
just
to
show
the
highest
priority.
This
is
like
this
is
higher
than
anything
in
the
specs
like
forget.
The
spec
get
the
fix
out,
because
it's
a
security
issue
go
go
to
work.
Yeah
go
to
work.
I
understand
it
should
be
like
a
super
rare
prioritization.
B
C
B
C
C
B
D
Okay:
okay,
we're
going
to
still
assign
to
milestones.
C
C
B
Okay?
Is
that
for
spec
it
was
clear
right
we
needed
to
have
a
stable
spec
so
that
you
can
implement
the
collector.
It's
less
clear
to
you.
Is
it
if
it's
severe
enough?
I
guess
we
want
to
fix
it.
But
technically
I
don't
know
what's
the
criteria,
but
maybe
okay,
if
it's
not
fixed,
does
it
block
the
release?
B
C
C
Like
it
doesn't
have
to
be
in
the
very
very
next
one,
but
it's
got
to
be
in
at
least
one
of
those
as
opposed
to.
If
it's
like
allowed
for
ga,
then
I
I
bump
the
priority
down
to
maybe
p2
or
p3
or
after
ga.
We
leave
it
off
of
the
prioritization
and
that's
the
same
formula
that
would
be
used
for
specs.
So.
B
I
would
I
would
say
in
my
opinion,
there
are
a
couple
areas
which
are
highly
critical
to
get
right
before
the
ga
one
is
the
configuration
right.
If
you
have
anything
in
the
configuration
file,
we
don't
want
to
change
and
make
breaking
changes
to
the
configuration,
so
I
would
mark
those
as
required
for
ga.
The
other
would
be
our
collector's
own
public
api
that
is
exposed
to
others
that
they
can
consume.
That
also
has
to
be
stable
and
is
required
for
ga.
B
B
F
C
F
B
F
Then
this
one
and
this
one
is
a
blocker
for
whatever
reason,
then,
I
would
like
to
see
that
I
have
to
fix
this,
even
though
it's
not
does
it
make
sense
for
everything
like
if
I
do
a
filter
of
all
the
trace
problems.
I
would
like
to
see
this
included
because
it
affects
the
trace
pipeline.
F
B
F
F
And
then
I
need
to
create
a
miscellaneous
or
something
like
that.
What
does
that
have?
Let's
not
have.
F
It's
it's
not
any
of
the
pipelines.
It's
the
whole
service,
the
the
main
service
so
maybe
create
a
spec.service
event.
F
B
B
F
This
is
the
username
right.
This
is
what's
in
your
user
error.
I
think
I
explained
that
that
there
are,
there
are
referring
different
trees.
C
Oh
andrew
from
lightstep,
the
other
asian
andrew
from
my
step
just
pointed
out
this
early
this
afternoon.
Somebody
is
running
into
this
as.
C
Yeah,
sorry,
you
guys
are
sounding
a
little
muffled
to
me,
so
I
might
ask
again
who
me
or
actually
both
of
you
guys.
B
C
It's
good
enough,
which
one
are
these
guys.
F
F
Yes,
yes,
yes,
and
this
is
the
guy
from
shopify.
I
think
it's
a
p3.
B
D
D
D
B
B
B
I
think,
for
this
program
I
often
separate
bugs
for
each
of
the
failing
tests,
so
I
think
we
can
close
this.
One
and
ben
was
looking
for
those.