Open Telemetry Uncategorized, 19 Aug 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 2022-08-19 meeting

Description

cncf-opentelemetry@cncf.io's Personal Meeting Room

A

B

B

Hey carlos happy friday.

A

Yeah say to you: how are you doing.

A

Nice sorry for the noise, I'm working from a coffee shop. Today we have coffee with the last heat wave.

A

It got a little hot. I was naive enough to not install this in my flat, so now I'm paying the consequences anyway. Yeah, I hope weather-wise. It's fine in the states.

A

So we're waiting for reggie right.

C

Good morning, good morning, how are we doing.

C

Good good, um so um let me show my screen here.

C

See the screen there um let's go ahead and take a look at our board.

C

And I guess we can start at the the ones that we were kind of left off uh really last week.

C

There hasn't been any other commentary on that. One.

B

I I feel we can accept it and then respond to the guy who opened the hdl asking him.

C

You said to respond to him and say what.

B

I encourage him to open the process.

A

So, basically yeah we will be saying that this is a valid issue. Are you going to like? Please write something.

C

And I'm yeah and I'm sorry riley and maybe you guys can um put what you think we should say back to him. I didn't quite understand what you were saying there.

A

So really correct me if I am wrong, but basically the idea is that, like we are saying yeah, what you're saying is correct, would you mind creating a pr to pick up.

B

Basically, I think the like the issue makes sense and if he would be waiting to create a poor request to address the the community should be able to feel, and it makes sense for happy to move forward.

C

So you guys can please create a pr.

C

Does that make sense.

C

B

Sounds okay to me, I feel the wording might need to be polished a bit because not necessarily the guy who created the issue should follow up with the pr. So it's more like negotiation or a question you can decide either to accept or just ignore or refuse.

C

B

So it sounds like this wording seems too strong to me. We're essentially like making this a task for the guy who opened the issue, but not necessarily, we need to do it.

C

So we can say something like.

C

We want we want them to to provide more more information, then, and to collab, have further discussion on the item, but not just.

B

Like a simple enough thing to maybe just ask, would you be willing to create a pr or something.

B

Yeah, so I I feel the wording needs to be softer polish it, but.

B

It's very subjective.

C

um Yeah, I'm not quite sure what the word should be here: um okay, so so here's.

B

My suggestion uh number one uh instead of saying things to make sense, um be it be stronger, so so just say this makes sense or say like thank you for reporting this. This makes total sense and will.

A

You be waiting.

C

B

Send the broadcast to address it.

C

Seems to make sense: okay,.

B

I feel seems to make sense it's a very weak word. It seems like we. We have no standing point like we're very subjective here. We're guessing.

C

B

I think by saying triage extended we're saying this makes sense.

C

ah Okay, so you're saying maybe we shouldn't say that that maybe we should okay now we're saying that it should be accepted number one and that's why we have triage accepted yeah. The situation.

B

Already right, if we're saying this needs more investigation or something we need more information, then essentially what we're saying is it seems it makes sense, but we need more information, but that's a weak worthy right. We're saying she has accepted it's a strong word in saying: yes, we agree.

B

We should do something about this and then there's a weak wording after that. So the question is, would you be winning like you discovered this issue, which is awesome, and would you be waiting to follow up.

C

All right all right, because there's additional questions that we want perhaps to be.

C

Something like this.

B

C

Okay, all right all right.

C

So we'll go with that and.

C

C

All right, so the next one would be metric names. Specific specification doesn't match. We just did that. Okay,.

A

C

I need to okay.

C

So this one here, like tigran.

A

Well, that's uh the fact to accept it. It's a discussion when geometric conventions um yeah, I would say it's accepted, of course, yeah.

C

C

And no additional words really need to be placed here. You agree.

C

C

C

All right and next one here.

A

Definition of boolean.

A

Well, we accepted we actually asked bruno to create this issue during the past, respectful.

C

A

A follow-up of the authk enabled or disabled, so it's accepted factory.

C

Okay, it's good.

B

C

Okay and then it's profiling, one.

A

um Yeah, this is oh volcanoes really.

B

It's tricky so it's basically following the process.

B

Yeah, I feel like the church distribution is based on funding, so I'm not even sure. What's the what's the semantic, if the market has changed, accepted or rejected.

B

So maybe this like needs more information.

C

A

I guess I guess.

C

That's kind of a question for us in terms of things like this, as you say, it needs funding. It needs commitment from various sponsors out there.

C

You know if we say that it's accepted, are we saying that profiling is accepted as a new signal and and there's a full committed uh commitment to it or.

C

Or we're just saying that it's something that should be considered.

A

Let's, if I I can add some context, so basically, uh you know the profiling uh signal is a new thing and there's already two people, you see joshua and tigran, who are the sponsors um so this this this issue is uh so I don't think that, given that we already have the sponsorship, we need to say that we are accepting that to me. This issue is more like not requesting to do a change, it's more like just tracking. You know like dishes we had before we had.

A

We had a imitation remember back in the day when we released one of your traces, so I would say that these kind of tracking issues- probably they don't need that. um Probably you know like accepted or not accepted, because they are kind of meta. You know.

C

Yeah, maybe that's a different in. Is there a different type of category? I mean we have this right.

A

Right yeah I mean most issues is like we have to say: is that something that we are able to discuss or is not valid or yes? And this one is like also you know, one of the signals is that a member of the c is creating that.

A

So you know that false are that you know it will be valid, and now it's like attracting not even like a question.

C

Yeah like like none of these, you know triads accepted, and so on um I mean we can't or rejected.

A

Right right I mean, I could say triage accepted. If you ask me, I mean you can give me your opinion, but uh I would say that I mean this like it's just too preservative like yeah, it's fine, but you will not have any value. Let's say you know.

B

Yeah, it's not adding additional value. One potential value I can see is instead of like in the next triage meeting. We bring this again because it's not packed with stretch then we're just burning cycles to market as something that we know it. It makes no actual sense, but purely as the indicator that we we already looked at this issue and decided it's not something that we should change.

C

B

I'm a little bit hesitant to market the trade accepted because excited it seems I mean, although we won't misinterpret that, but I'm not sure if others reading this would interpret that as uh it's accepted that this profiling state should be created and it should start.

C

Do we do we need something like, and you know, triage acknowledged, there's triaged, um something not not as strong. I guess in terms of being accepted.

B

Yeah, I I feel in that way we're inventing two issues to solve. One issue, so don't seem to be worth it.

C

Okay or or, and- and you touch on the other point, which is if we don't market- then it it's- we we leave the impression that we haven't looked at it and and therefore hasn't been uh assessed in some way, which in this case we're not really trying to assess it other than acknowledge that it is something that two tc members have are sponsoring and are monitoring, but it's not ready for prime time in terms of of it being officially an officially sanctioned uh activity.

C

Right, they're still going through the process of developing a position at some point they will provide something to the tc to say it will be an official. It will be an accepted, otep, correct.

C

What was that riley, I'm sure.

B

Or maybe carlos, do you think this issue should ever exist here or it should be in the community report.

A

I think it should be the current repo yeah now that you mentioned that it's like a trucking issue, whether you probably should go there. So in that case I could say: let's not put it well, you can choose the label. Well, let's leave a comment here and say: hey: do you think that it would make sense to put that in the community repo? You know yeah you're right.

B

Yeah, so so I I try to follow up on that. There are a couple things I I'm curious. So so maybe this issue shouldn't be created here, I'll double check the process document put bypad and see like. If there's any question I should make and also it's unclear whether this should be assigned to the project leader or should be assigned to a tc member, because I expect explicit knowledge from like currently there's implicit. We discuss this in the tc meeting and sounds like chat, but I expect josh durash and hilgren.

B

I just placed a respond and say: yes, I'm willing to sponsor us put my name on the table right, yes and yeah, but then once they mentioned that, then we can proceed. Then this product is becoming fully funded and and the guy who's driving this app like the project lead, should just get some permission: giga and josh. They can grant the guy permission, they could manage the product and and create the board, and then he can close the issue.

B

But currently it seems like we're just exploring how we actually run the process proposal by time and there's no such clarity.

C

Okay, so I I liked that aspect of it, so you say it should be in the community.

C

This is the question.

B

I I I don't know because we don't charge the issue in the community and it seems uh issue created in the community takes longer time to to have a the initial response. But this is just my proposal, not necessarily say the community report folks would agree with me.

C

Yes, yes, I understand, um but it is a good question and I guess you know if, if we have the discussion with with the folks in the community repo and there's a disagreement or whatever, then you know and folks say that it really shouldn't be there and the question for us is: is there a different label or something that we need? Because you know it's not something initially we're saying we accept yet in terms of being triaged and accepted and will be an official project here. But it's still going through this embryonic uh evolution.

C

All right- and so we may need to come up with a different term if we remains here to deal with things like this. Does that make sense?

C

Okay, all right! um So I'm I'm not putting a label on this and with riley and in college you guys be talking with the tc folks and and maybe come back with info on that.

B

C

C

ah There it is there okay and so then the next one. It would be just.

B

The next one is the client instrumentation.

B

The one we looked at is the profiling.

C

ah Okay, okay, gotcha.

B

So it's the same thing as profiling,.

A

That's correct in.

C

The same same line, all right, so that's it! That's another important question then forced to still get resolved.

C

C

That's that one um do we need to look at this one here, that's already not gonna think so right, let's look at it anyway, just as a check.

A

Yeah, who put that label accepted or it was you.

C

No, it wasn't me, it could have been.

A

Okay, that makes sense to me, and did you want to revisit that.

C

So, in a situation like this, uh where someone other than us right have said triage accepted, do we agree disagree? Do we? How do we deal with that.

A

So here's my suggestion and again I would like to hear rayleigh's opinion, but if it's somebody from the pc, I think we can accept that at least initially.

A

If it's somebody that is not a pc member, we can revisit that just to go check that it's fine yeah.

B

C

C

So, as far as our sorry there's nothing else, I'm going to add that I'm not going to put it into our log here either to agree. I should not go into this log.

C

C

All right, um let's take a look at this next one 27 38.

B

Yeah so so the the javascript has a high demand of not picking delta or cumulative, but pick something in the middle that maximize the memory, efficiency and seems both jack and and gmacd. They have energy to drive this.

C

A

C

Okay, so accepted.

C

C

C

Is that 38 up there.

B

Carlos, I have a quick question. So if you look at the client instrument that issue someone already created a project tracking item in the board and that that thing is marked as.

B

Current projects- and I don't even know if there's a sponsorship- oh reggie, would you click on the project, attract and climb history.

C

So, which one I'm sorry.

B

The client instrumentation 2764.

B

Yeah and if you scroll down, you see, there's a reply from keygrain and click that link.

B

So the client instrumentation is a current like one of the current projects and it's unclear to me who moved that.

A

uh We, I think we can ask big grant since he created, I think he created both of these projects.

B

He might, he might be creating that and make the like like three of these guys, the owner and and they have power to move it.

B

So it's like it's a new process, we're still trying to explore, but it seems like we're a little bit off.

C

So the question is: who has authority to move things on the project board right? And you don't want anybody to have the authority to do that? It should be a.

B

Couple of folks.

C

Authorized to do so.

B

I mean having access is okay, but I mean it has to be based on common consensus. Currently.

C

B

We have maybe tigran and I have different understanding. We interpret things differently or maybe tigran didn't do it, but someone here like the one of the three folks: they they moved it, the memories that will generate confusion and- and maybe we should cut it out and solve that confusion earlier.

C

Yeah yeah, I would be concerned about you know if you let's say you had, you know, 50 people working on the projects and any of them could move the state of the project uh from one column to the next. um If you said it, if you required that it required consensus to move, that's that's one thing, um but typically I would expect you you need to limit who had the control to to actually edit the board.

C

um But I agree with you uh right that everyone should be able to view it, but necessarily should be able to to move things on the column.

B

I I feel the axis model is correct, like the three guys showing here they should have permission to move this around, because if they completed the project, they should have the power to move it to complete it.

C

Yeah, so it's it's a question of ownership of the projects right that are associated with the item.

B

The ownership is correct, the question is consensus, it seems people have the ownership, they make make decisions without a good cause.

C

We shouldn't do the next week. Yes, I agree with that one as well. So so, what's your is there.

B

I'm I'm calling this out and and give some time for colors to think about that, and then I'll I'll probably read this issue with the next tc meeting then like it wouldn't be a surprise for everyone, at least carlos know what I'm talking about right.

A

A

Okay, yeah thanks for listening, yeah.

C

Okay, something like that anyway, um all right- I know we're almost out of time here, but let's see what else we can do.

C

um We have time to tackle this one. Let's take a look at it.

B

My gut feeling this needs more information. I think anything related to security is a bit sensitive and- and we talked about like uh since folks are keeping inventing environment variables at some point we talked about. Maybe we should consolidate that and to do some configuration file, and I I just think like if we accept that people just go and invent a file for all the individual environmental variables that that seems to be a a kind of warmth.

B

So number one: I'm not convinced that this is a a highly demanded thing.

C

B

Like it's just a new requirement, number two is I, I think it needs more design discussion instead of just allowing jaeger, because I can imagine later zip, king and all the other alarmed variables will start have the same thing.

A

Yeah my opinion about this one is that I don't like it, but I see the need and we should disclose um what are our options there yeah. So I could say yeah before needed,.

B

In fact, it seems like a an issue that we we should discuss and come with a clear position, so the direction where we should be heading towards.

B

And it's not a small change, in my opinion,.

C

B

It might be a small change after a discussion about the technical direction.

A

I hope it doesn't get accepted. I think it will increase in my increasing complexity to you know too much, but anyway, this is.

B

And I haven't for carlos it's the field that needs more information. Tag is enough because we're saying this needs more information, but yes, we're not saying what type of information do we need so.

A

Yeah, um that's a good question. I don't know yeah. Actually I mean I would prefer that we bring that with respect fall next tuesday, but um yeah.

B

So we can say that yeah.

A

B

So I'll rephrase my question: do you think we should rename that to needs more discussion.

C

hmm Yeah, that's that's a good good point. Maybe.

B

It's like, if I create an issue saying I I think we should have x widely and then you give a tax. It needs more information. Then the national question I have for you is: what information do you need.

C

True, but is the same, is the same thing going to apply to needs more discussion? It's like well what? What part of this do? We need to discuss.

B

This more discussion is essentially weaker because it can mean I I feel we need more discussion, but at this point I'm not even ready. I'm not asking for any information.

C

Yeah, no, I can hear what you're saying um it's it's highly qualified and I think, potentially you could you you you.

C

It perhaps is a more a softer way of of just saying we need to discuss and to get more information right. If you say.

B

Probably keep in mind and see later there are people getting confused so far. It seems okay.

C

Yeah yeah yeah, I I agree.

C

Given we've gone down this path, I would say continue with this, um but maybe we need to consider having having another set up or deprecating this from the news in the discussion, if that's more appropriate, for what we're trying to do.

C

But I I I agree with you: there's still the follow-up question to something like this to say: well what information do you need? What information are you lacking? One of the questions uh with this would be you know. Is there something specific that we're telling this individual to go off and do either in terms of talking with us or, um as you say uh again, what pieces of information are we saying that they need to provide that we think is lacking?

C

Well, what additional discussion is required that is uncertain.

C

C

Okay, is there anything else you want to add to this at all.

C

Okay, um I know we're over time. I guess we should go ahead and stop here and and then we'll continue on next week. Does that sound right.

B

It's a good question so for the second item on the list, it's a question: how do we create your question.

B

It's not a proposal.

C

B

And I responded I was trying to help, but I feel like there's no way we can charge this.

B

Did we just close this and and encourage folks to move to the discussions?

B

We already have the discussion style, although I personally don't like it.

A

C

How have we dealt with things like this in the past.

B

I hardly see this like most of the issues they're saying we should do something about it or like here's, the proposal I like it's probably the second or the third time, I'm seeing people trying to discuss about something like they don't understand certain center they're looking for help and if you scroll to the very top, you see a time called discussion. So so, if, if you ask my preference, I I would prefer just to close the issue and mention hey. You should go to the discussions. Tab.

C

That would make sense to me carlos. What do you think.

A

Yeah, I don't know, I think that this is very subjective and me you know like yeah, I don't know.

B

Yeah- and I I totally understand carlos and on the other side my worry is being like- I, I try to help people all the time, but my worries. If I answer the question here next time, they're going to ask three questions and at certain points there will be a hundred questions and certainly I cannot handle. Then it becomes the burden for the tc. And if you don't say anything about it, then all the issues will be hanging around and the real issues would be hidden by by those noise.

B

And then the product will look super bad because we have so many issues that we don't respond to so yeah. That is a high order bit like I want this product to have a long-term success and even like being a little bit aggressive here, telling people that they should stop talking about the the question and move to a different place. It might be a little negative thing, but I feel is necessary.

A

You know like this, is you know originally you don't think of this as a naming issue, an enemy is like subjective and it's like yeah. I don't know anyway. um Let me think about that. Let me ask I mean I have been asking stuff like this a lot internally here in the company for some weeks and I think he's getting fed up. So maybe he can tell something you know um I don't know yeah. Let me.

C

Know yeah, it sounds like there's something to be said for if, if we have a mechanism- and I can't again- I don't have the silly history with the group here, but um if there is a channel for just general types of questions that are not associated with deficiencies within our product, you know, then we need to be clearer in terms of which channel folks should be using for the for, for general commentary right um in q.

C

A um and you know if the thrust of of this channel that we're in today is for statement of issues with the product and or recommendations and so forth for the product, uh then fine. What we should deal with is just that and when we see just a general q a then we should recommend them going to the other channel uh just to keep things consistent in terms of of how we're we're trying to deal with things here, because I can appreciate what you're saying riley in terms of we.

C

If, if things keep on coming here or they go both places right, then you start to to lose what the right priority is of the comments coming in.

C

It starts to blur and you start to say well, it's a duplication, then, between the uh the general comment area and what we're trying to treat next year.

B

Yeah, it's just a reminder for ourselves. I feel we won't be able to have a clear conclusion today, so maybe just leave it and think about it and come back next week.

C

Yeah yeah that.

B

C

Reasonable to me um we can, we can concentrate on this for another week or so and decide on uh what the best approach is. um That sounds about right. Anything else. We want to touch on before closing today of the three that remain anyway,.

B

I I think we're done for today.

C

A little bit there yeah all right thanks guys enjoy the rest of your day and your weekend and we'll see you next week, stay safe. Take.

A