►
From YouTube: 2021-01-14 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
C
Yeah
100
less
whatever
the
hell
was
happening
there.
C
A
C
Boop,
oh
yeah,
we
got
it
yeah.
We
had
someone
ask
some
questions
about
first
off
happy
new
year.
Likewise
had
a
relatively
good
and
restful
holiday.
C
So
yeah
first
thing
internationalization,
so
we
have
internationalization
has
been
all
is
on
the
like.
C
C
The
second
thing
is,
we
need
to
know
if
there's
like
a
process
for
this
or
what
the
process
should
be
and
three,
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out
like
how
much
we
care
about
this.
C
C
D
C
I
mean
yes
and
no
like
the
problem
you
run
into
like
the
problem
I
run
into
is
like
I
don't
know
chinese,
I
can't
I
can't
check
with
their
work.
C
C
C
Tracing
and
and
then
for
like
api
sdk
stuff,
like
that,
all
feels
like
it's
still
going
to
come
in
a
little
bit
hot
and
there's
probably
going
to
be
like
substantial
changes
to
tracing
api
and
tracing
acetic
sdk
and
then
metrics
is
still
who
knows,
there's
a
big
meeting
tomorrow
in
metrics.
If
people
aren't
aware-
and
they
wanted
to
sit
in
but
yeah,
there's
there's
that
so.
A
Boston,
I'm
new
to
the
conversation
here.
Yeah,
I
don't
wanna,
I
don't
wanna
just
horn
in
so
jonah.
I
know
you
enough
right,
hi
and
then
austin.
I
definitely
know
you
josh,
just
a
rogue
community
organizer
that
tries
to
do
good
things.
If,
if
we
were
to
accept
community
contributions
to
translation,
at
least
for
the
big
things
that
don't
think
all
that
much
and
there's
like
bodies
of
work
to
do,
and
then
they
get
done.
The
peer
review
process,
like
you
said,
is
hard.
A
If
I
don't
know
chinese
and
even
if
it's
not
like
micromanaging
the
wordsmithing,
even
if
it's
just
making
sure
that
there's
not
stuff
in
there
right
that
doesn't
even
exist
in
the
original
text.
Is
there
any
mechanism
within
the
pool
of
contributors
now,
just
as
a
super
lightweight
quick
review
of
like
this,
this
contributor
that
maybe
hasn't
earned
trust.
Yet
the
same
trust
is
like
core
contributors.
A
A
C
C
C
So,
okay,
maybe
the
open
tracing
side
of
this
is
that
like
open
tracing
got
decently
popular
in
japan
and
we
didn't
have
a
real
way
to
sort
of
integrate
like
international
contributions
into
the
docs.
So
there
was
just
like
a
separate
docs
page
and
it
was
never
in
line
with
the
main
docs
page
right.
C
D
C
C
You
know
we
don't
want
people
translating
stuff,
that's
unstable,
necessarily
because
we
don't
want
people
waste
time
once
it's
marked
stable,
then
like
we'll
accept
the
contributions
as
long
as
you
know,
you're
willing
to
kind
of
own
those
or
maybe
own,
that
that
set
of
them.
A
And
I
do
like
your
idea
about
reaching
out
to
some
of
the
maybe
work,
well-funded
folks
and
seeing
if
there
is
an
opportunity
to
sponsor
the
payment
of
a
service,
but
only
under
the
conditions
that
you
just
said,
which
is
once
something
marks.
The
stable
yeah,
some
core
organizer,
says
or
contributor
says
these
are
worth
sending
to
the
pay
for
service
then,
and
that
happens
in
a
semi-frequent
way.
Right.
B
But
like
some
guy
in
china
wants
chinese
language,
we're
gonna
go
ask
google
to
pay
for
it.
I'm
like
that's,
not
that's
not
enough
of
a
momentous,
tidal
shift
towards
us
translating
to
china.
C
D
C
You
know
as
long
as
you're
willing
to
kind
of
own
those
contributions,
at
least
for
now.
A
It
doesn't
hurt
to
also
have
the
that
notion
of
sponsored
kind
of
situations
as
the
broader
plan
right
as
this
scales
out.
If
it
doesn't
work
out,
there
is
an
alternative.
There's
an
additional.
You
know
growth
pattern.
There.
C
Yeah,
okay:
I
will
take
an
item
to
write
up
that
document
and
make
a
pr
or
the
process
second
thing:
ga
versus
1.0.
So
this
comes
out
of
the
maintainer
meeting
and
let
me
see
if
I
can
find
the
community
issue
on.
B
B
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
Where
you
know
for
like
go,
for
example,
I
have
getting
started
or
I
have
instrumentation
1.0
or
instrumentation
tracing
1.0,
instrumentation,
metrics,
0.5
or
something
and
maybe
go
overalls
at
one
point.
Go
overall
is
1.0,
but
the
collectors
at
version
12
or
you
know
stuff
like
that.
A
I'm
looking
right,
I
haven't
seen
anything
for
github,
but
I
haven't
experienced
anything
like
that
outside
of
like
dealing
with
it
like
a
git
branch
or
version
or
tag
or
something
so
yeah.
B
C
B
C
C
B
C
D
So
in
play
framework,
not
not
that
this
is
super
relevant,
but
play
framework
one
to
play
framework
two
when
we
did
those
doc
sites,
you
know
they
had
different
version
numbers
and
they
they
went
kind
of
together.
We
literally
just
made
two
doc
sites
and
then
made
them
look
as
if
they
were
the
same,
so
you
could
link
from
one
to
the
other.
That
was
our
solution
there.
I
do
think
this
version
mess
is
pretty
terrible
for
users
honestly,
like
the
the
decision
to
fragment
at
all
yeah.
A
C
C
A
B
C
D
You're
grabbing
the
source
directly,
so
yeah,
I
it's
weird
right
like
I
don't
I
don't
know
what
you
do
there
unless
you
were
to
you
either.
If
you
want
to
have
versions,
the
versions
need
to
line
up
with
the
binary
artifacts
that
distributed
right.
So,
if
somebody's
using
version
one,
you
want
the
docs
to
align
with
version
one,
you
could
restrict
it
to
say
like
one.x
and
preview.
You
know
what
I
mean
and
not
allow
people
to
make
docs
that
aren't
compatible
across
that
whole,
like
major
version
stream.
C
So
at
some
point
we're
going
to
basically
attract
spec
version
rather
than
artifact
version,
because
at
some
point
the
spec's
gonna
hit
1.0
and
the
spec
is
going
to
contain
like
if
you
implement
spec
1.0,
you
implicitly
implement
all
this
other
stuff.
C
So
then
we
could
say
cool
here's,
1.0
docs,
and
this
is
stuff
that
we
guarantee
should
work
based
off
of
adherence
to
spec
1.0
and
then,
when
spec
goes
to
1.1
and
things
start
to
catch
up,
then
we
move
to
spec
one.
You
know,
then
the
website
changes
to
1.1
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
Now
that
doesn't
necessarily
help
collector.
B
C
D
A
So,
going
back
to
the
comment
about
the
version
of
the
ga
versus
1.0
and
the
the
sort
of
saw,
the
the
broken
teeth
right,
the
different
levels
and
versions:
yeah,
do
we
want
documents
that
can
be
that
have
the
flexibility?
A
Do
we
want
a
documentation,
sort
of
nomenclature,
conventions
that
can
match
to
a
level
per
project,
or
do
we
want
to
take
sort
of
a
semi-architectural
early
decision
to
just
version
on
like
you're,
saying
the
spec,
and
then
it
has
to
go
across
the
board?
I
guess
my
point
is
if,
if
one
piece
versions
and
it's
important
enough
to
rewrite
and
update
and
add
a
new
version
on
one
and
it's
super
imperative
to
do
that-
and
we've
made
a
decision
that
prevents
that
or
breaks
that
out
into
a
weird
snowflake
pattern.
C
Yeah,
but
on
the
flip
side
like
it's
get
so
you're,
never
losing
you're,
never
actually
losing
history,
which
is
good,
so
you
can
like.
I
guess
I
can
see
the
situation
of
like
okay,
let's,
let's
play
pretend
and
say
we're
versioning
based
off
of
spec
major
minor,
so
spec
is
at
1.0
and
is
it
java
has
also
adhered
to
spec
1.0.
C
Then
we
wouldn't
actually
bump
the
version
number
okay.
So
here's
what
we
can
do-
and
this
is
frustrating
but
like
I
don't
see
a
better
way
to
do
it.
We
handle
them
this,
the
the
site
versioning
by
spec
and
then
in
the
preamble
for
a
docs
page.
You
just
list
what
artifact
versions
you're
using
to
write
those
docs
yeah.
D
Oh
god,
I
was
going
to
give
like
the
user
case
here,
like
the
reason
why
we
had
the
drop
down
box
right
is
I'm
looking
for
documentation.
I
have
version
x.
Let
me
go
find
the
documentation
for
version
x
or
I
search
and
I
get
to
the
documentation
page.
I'm
like
this
isn't
how
it's
working.
I
see
the
version
drop
down,
I'm
like
oh
crap.
What's
my
version,
one
of
the
problems
with
the
current
versioning
scheme,
as
defined
with
the
fragment.
How
do
I
get
to
the
spec
version
from
the
java
version?
D
I
have
you
know
I,
like
everything,
you're
saying
I
think
it's
reasonable
for
the
case
where
I'm
coming
in
fresh,
but
that
case,
where
I'm
doing
something
I
have
a
problem.
I
come
to
the
docs
to
read
them
to
figure
out
that
problem.
How
do
I
figure
out,
which
version
of
the
docs
to
read
if
there's
more
than
one?
Ideally
that's
not
as
significant
with
this
website,
but
that's
that's.
That's.
C
I
mean
yeah
and
also
that
that
at
least
is
a
little
bit
more
like
a
achievable
like
that's
an
indexable
problem.
Right
like
we
could
have
the
root
page
for
each
language
be
like
here
are.
The
here
are
the
artifact
versions
that
correspond
to
this
version
of
the
spec,
and
we
could
even
like
automate
that
if
we
really
wanted
to
or
just
have
a
like
hey,
if
you
release
a
new
like
yeah,
we
just
put
that
in
some.
C
C
C
B
C
This
is
the
this:
is
the
constitutional
republic
of
software
projects,
where
we
don't
have
a
strong
central.
You
know
gc,
that
is
telling
people
you
have
to
do
it
exactly
this
way
right.
We
need
alexander
hamilton
of
oss
to
come
in
here
and
well.
D
B
C
Yeah,
the
docs
people
are
not
the
people
get
listened
to
quite
often
so.
A
That
was
the
other
thought
in
my
head
was
usually
when
I'm
when
I
thrash
around
a
little
bit,
I
think
through
the
problem.
I
I
often
say
who
has
already
done
this,
who
has
thought
through
this
before,
and
I
wonder
if,
if
anybody
has
other
friends
or
I
can
reach
out
to
some
friends
and
like
write
the
docs
yeah,
you
know
just
to
see
if
there's
a
that's
right.
C
We
don't
have
to
make
a
decision
on
this
today.
Yeah
yeah
cool
specs
at
0.7,
so
we
got
some
time.
So
I
I
like
our
thoughts
so
far,
but
yeah
ask
around
your
friends
I'll
ask
like
our
tech
writer
what
she
thinks
and
we'll
go
from
there.
I
have
a
hard
stuff
at
two,
so
let's
actually
jump
to
the
next
one
press
plans
for
1.0.
D
Yeah
we
so
the
josh
google.
We
were
planning
to
do
a
huge
amount
of
press
when
the
ga
came
out
very
shortly
and
as
you
know
that
changed
so
I
guess
the
question
is:
are
we
still
making
a
fuss
about
1.0?
Should
we
make
a
fuss
about
1.0?
D
Is?
Is
question
number
one
and
then
two
like
we
have
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff
pending
that
I
can
press
the
button
on
and
get
ready
to
go
with
the
1.0
of
trace,
and
that
launch
like
is
that
is
that
going
to
cause
problems?
If
we
were
to
do
that,
you
know,
or
do
you
think
we
think
that's
a
good
idea.
C
C
Think
I
think
it
might
be-
I
mean
I
guess
some
of
it
depends
on
like
how
quickly
do
we
think
that
metrics
are
going
to
be
like
metric,
that
the
metric
spec
is
going
to
be
solidified,
because
if
it's,
I
guess
my
point
is
this:
if
it
looks
like
one
of
those
things
where
it's
like,
okay
trace
is
going
to,
you
know,
trace,
got
frozen
so
I'll
trace
1.0
in
a
matter
of
weeks,
but
then
we
have
like
a
strong
metrics
beta
in
a
month
or
two.
B
D
Well,
it
would
be,
it
would
be.
It
would
be
cataloged
to
just
be
that.
Third,
our
the
thinking
that
we
had
internally
was
it
might
be
good
to
have
a
thundering
herd
of
like
just
a
solid
launch
series
of
press
all
the
way
up
to
full
1.0
of
hey.
This
is
ready,
go
ahead
and
try
this.
This
is
good.
A
few
months
later,
hey
this
is
beta
like
go.
Try
the
beta
it'll
be
1.0
real
soon.
Just
like
that
thing,
we
just
told
you
about
that's
1.0,
then
hey.
C
Yeah,
no,
I
I
tend
to
agree
actually
with
that
like
on,
in
only
in
the
sense
that
aws
already
kind
of
like
dunked
everyone
and
did
their
distro
announcement
and
then
right.
C
D
Yeah
yeah
he
he
got
a
really
good
offer.
It's
it's
sad
because
I
was
really
liking
working
with
him,
but
yeah
he's
awesome.
D
Okay,
so
so
I'm
the
best
person
to
reach
out
to
at
google
sergey
is
another
one,
and
we
have.
I
don't
know
if
you've
seen
punya
show
up
in
places,
but
there's
there's
there's
five
of
us
that
are
public,
so
you'll
see
us
around.
C
Okay
yeah,
if
you
want
to
email
me
I'll
talk
to,
I
actually
have
a
meeting
internally
with
mango
right
now
and
so
I'll
ask
her
about
what
we
think
about
that
1.0
stuff,
because
we
have.
We
had
a
bunch
of
stuff
that
was
kind
of
like
in
the
chamber,
and
let's
say
you
know
what.
Let's,
let's
put
this
on
the
agenda
for
next
time
to
lead
off
we'll
talk
about
1.0
announcements,
sound
good
for
everyone,
yeah
all
right
thanks
folks,
thank.