►
From YouTube: 2021-08-16 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
All
right,
let's
get
started
so
we'll
do
the
sig
check-in
looks
like
we
have
no
update
from
the
specification
sig.
That's
fine.
Do
we
have
anyone
from
the
metric
sig?
I
think
I
see
riley.
Do
you
want
to
speak
to
this.
A
Oh
okay,
we'll
proceed
through
php
bob
working
through
our
contrib
repo,
a
little
bit
more
with
the
aws
folks.
Still
looking
for
more
contributors,
all
right,
perfect.
A
C
A
E
No,
but
it
is
so
we're
updating
the
tooling
to
allow
us
to
release
the
sdk
as
ga
without
releasing
other
components
as
1.00.
Our
existing
tooling
releases
everything
as
the
same
version
and
there's
some
things
that
we
want
to
hold
back.
D
Okay,
then
then,
if,
if
you
allow,
I
want
to
ask,
do
you
have
any
html
for
1.0
release
or
do
you
need
any
help
with
that,
because
some
of
our
customers,
like
they
hear
several
times
already,
that
one
tutor
release
will
be
soon
will
be
soon
will
be
soon?
And
so,
if
we
can
some
somehow
help
we
like
arriving
to
some
definite
deadline,
we
will
be
happy
to
help.
E
So
there's
nothing
specifically
brought
blocking
it
beyond
the
tooling
things.
It's
just
been
a
case
of
you
know
as
we
go
things
come
up
and
we
we,
you
know
a
case
of
continual
improvement
that
we've
never
just
gotten
to
the
point
where
we
feel
like
it's
releasable,
but
the
reality
is
that
nothing
specific
is
really
holding
it
back
and
we
probably
could
release
when
that
once
this
tooling
changes
through
because
well.
E
E
D
B
There
is,
there
is
one
thing
with
this:
I
mean
we
have
to
have
their
like
three
issue.
I
think
at
least
it
was
the
last
time
I
I
saw
that
are
opened
yet
so.
B
We
still
have
like
three
issue
with
regards
to
the
ga
I
mean
this
is
what
daniel
mentioned,
but
also
last
thing,
which
I'm
working
now
is
refactoring
the
the
base
instrumentation
class,
so
that
it
can
safely
extend
so
then
currently
have
some
problems
with
privates
that
are
not
being
initialized
due
to
the
construct
of
the
of
the
abstract
classes,
and
this
this
is
what
I'm
currently
refracting.
So
this
is
also
like.
E
Last
missing
piece,
but
the
instrumentation
class
is
not
or
the
instrumentation
package
is
not
part
of
the
1.0
release.
Anyways.
B
F
Yeah
just
to
be
clear,
I
was
going
to
that.
I
was
curious
as
to
about
this.
That
way.
I
came
up
on
this
project,
so
I
don't
know
if
those
three
items
are
representative
of
what
needs
to
be
done
or
is
the
tooling
the
only
thing
needed.
A
Daniel
all
right
python,
no
update
ci
issue
seems
to
be
resolved.
Dot
net
1.2.0,
alpha
2
delayed
to
this
week,
will
contain
more
metric.
Sdk
features
great,
go
stable,
release
progress.
There
are
five
to
do
10
in
progress
up
from
six
and
35
done
up
from
26.
A
G
Not
yet,
I
think
that
that's
a
good
question
we
have
actionable
work
to
do,
though
those
five
issues,
I
think
one
of
those
is
included
making
sure
that
we
get
active
feedback
from
particular
community
members,
so
I
would
probably
say
once
we
get
to
that
issue.
We
would
have
a
better
idea
as
to
like
what
the
release
timeline
is
going
to
look
like,
but
before
that
we
have
those
four
issues
and
the
10
that
are
actively
in
progress
that
are
kind
of.
G
I
guess
we
can
get
some
indeterminate
t-shirt
sizes
on
them,
but
the
problem
is
like
it's
always
going
to
come
back
down
to
an
open
source
like
contributions
like
those
are
yeah
yeah.
So.
G
Yeah,
I
would
say
the
same
thing
as
well:
there's
been
a
little
bit
of
a
drop
off
in
contributions,
so
it's
a
little
bit
slower
going
then
than
we'd
like,
but
it's
you
know
in
competition
with
the
collector
and
other
people's
bandwidth
for
supporting
you
know
the
company
that
pays
them.
So
it's
also
understandable.
A
All
right,
c,
plus
tc
review
process
was
initiated
by
josh
great,
no,
no
updates.
Beyond
that,
that's
a
pretty
big
update
any
do
we
have
any
one
for
ruby,
swift,
the
collector
or
erlang.
E
E
A
I
will
find
out
swifts
we
had
like
I
can
scroll
through
here.
We
didn't
have
it
last
week,
but
I
remember
having
them
there.
We
go.
We
had
swift
two
weeks
ago,
but
that
maybe
three
weeks
ago,
but
we
have
not
had
ruby
or
erlang.
A
I
think
for
erlang
I'll
have
to
check
in
with
that
sig
to
see
if
it's
still
active,
because
I
think
the
one
guy
who
was
working
on
it
tristan
his
company,
the
company
worked
out,
got
bought
by
uber
and
I
don't
think
they
were
planning
on
investing
heavily
in
it.
So
I'll
find
out.
If,
if
anyone
is
in
fact
working
on
it
because
for
a
while
it
was
just
him,
there
was
an
update
from
tristan
on
august
2nd.
Oh,
there
was
okay,
so
yeah
actually.
A
Here
we
go
we'll
soon
be
working
full
time
on
metrics
through
an
erlang
ecosystem
foundation-
stipend,
okay,
great
okay,
we'll
keep
it
on
so
that
just
leaves
ruby.
It
used
to
be
matt
weir
working
on
it.
A
I
will
I
can't
do
it
this
week,
but
next
week
I
can
attend
their
call
because
I'm
going
on
vacation
starting
tomorrow,
but
I'll
be
back
and
I
will
find
out
what
their
status
is
yeah.
Their
last
commit
looks
like
it
was
four
days
ago.
A
Oh,
of
course,
see
it
because
github
uses
ruby,
yeah,
great
okay,
cool
first
major
topic,
carlos
maintainers,
spec
and
docs
are
getting
too
big
and
head
slow.
Should
we
split
them
by
year
and
or
subsection
eg,
spec,
plus
spec
metrics,
carlos.
F
A
A
I
was
yeah,
it's
happened
so
suddenly,
and
I've
noticed
it
in
a
few
different
docs,
including
some
internal
ones,
that
splunk
that
are
quite
large
were
suddenly
they're
real
slow
where
they
didn't
used
to
be.
So.
I
almost
wonder
if
google
docs
has
pushed
a
bad
update.
C
Java
or
the
java
notes,
we
split,
we
archived
old
stuff
and
all
the
problems
went
away.
Okay,
that's
about
to
say
absolutely
version
of
the
dock.
How
much
did
you
retain?
How
far
back,
I
think
I
don't
know
exactly,
but
probably
four
or
five
months
at
least-
and
it
was
fine.
Just
yeah
three
years
of
docs
was
a
little
bit
too
low
of
notes.
E
Yeah,
I
don't
think
we
need
like
a
bunch
of
docs
by
year
or
anything
like
that,
though,
I
think
just
having
a
single
archive
dock
that
we
just
periodically
dump
everything
into
would
probably
be
good.
H
E
A
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
any
better
or
not.
Did
you
say?
No,
it's
not
yeah
shoot.
Okay,
so
I
I
think,
ted
what
you
described
probably
makes
the
most
sense
where
we
basically
just
turn
the
active
docks
into
the
archive.
It
means
sending
updates
to
the
calendar,
which
sometimes
fail,
but
it's
probably
more
reliable
than
copy
pasting
into
another
one.
Yeah
yeah,
okay,
yeah.
I
A
I
A
I
will
add
that
here
suggestion
yeah,
even
this
one's
pretty
slow,
treat
once
sig
decides
to
archive
their
old
notes,
treat
the
current
doc
as
the
archive
and
create
a
new
doc
for
future
beings,
link
from
the
new
dock
to
the
old
dock,
and
vice
versa.
A
H
Question
sorry,
carlos
just
real
quick:
do
we
I
believe
we
have,
but
I
do
not
use
a
open
telemetry.
Google
account.
I
think
somebody
set
up
one
of
these.
I
don't
think
we
widely
use
it.
Anyways.
H
A
I
think
liz,
so
there
was
there's
there
were
two
or
like
for
for
a
while.
There
were
two
floating
around
for
youtube
and
we
got
rid
of
one
of
them
to
centralize
the
other
one.
I
think
either
liz
or
sergey
have
the
credentials
to
I
mean
I
hope
it's
in
the
one
password
I
haven't
checked
but
like
they
created
a,
I
believe
they
created
a
gmail
account.
That
is
the
youtube
account.
H
Okay-
maybe
it's
just
for
managing,
I.
I
only
bring
it
up
because
you
know
people
are
mentioning.
You
know,
setting
docs
to
read
only
and
it's
just
like
a
reminder
that
these
docs
tend
to
be
in
just
people's
personal
accounts,
which
is
yes,
fine,
but
at
some
point
we'll
probably
get
bit
somewhere.
I
mean,
I
think.
A
A
Yeah
I
mean,
fortunately,
we
have
a
lot
of
google
employees
that
work
on
the
project.
We
can
probably
fix
that
which,
but
at
the
same
time,
let's
not
like,
let's
try
and
not
get
into
that
situation,
so
I
wondered
then
like.
Maybe
we
should
have
an
action,
let's
find
out
from
liz
or
sergey
that
that
main
account
and
I
believe
for
existing
docs.
You
can
just
make
it
an
owner
which
hopefully
would
preserve
them.
Something
goes
wrong.
F
Yeah,
what
I
wanted
to
say
is
exactly
on
that
front,
especially
because
we
really
need
a
new
document
tomorrow,
the
specs,
as
daniel
mentioned
it's
very
slow,
and
tomorrow
it's
going
to
be
very
painful.
If
we
keep
that
document,
so
we
need
some
kind
of
immediate
action.
Yeah.
H
Don't
don't
don't
wait
to
sort
the
ownership
out?
We
can
figure
that
out
later,
but
it's
just
a
just
a
reminder
that
we
should
probably
be
proactive
about
that
at
some
point
for
these,
like
for
these
yeah.
F
A
I
can
do
it
for
the
spec
if
you
want
sure.
Actually
you
should
do
it
because
I
won't
be
on
the
call.
So
if
anything
comes
on
vacation
tomorrow,
if
anything
goes
wrong,
we'll
be
able
to
help
you,
okay,.
A
E
We
did
move
this
over
to
an
official,
open,
telemetry
repo,
but
as
part
of
setting
up
the
repo
one
of
our
like
global
policies,
is
to
have
a
code
owner
review
every
pr
and
since
I'm
the
only
person
maintaining
it
right
now,
there's
no
under
review,
so
yuri
has
been
helping
me
out
a
little
bit
to
keep
me
unblocked,
but
I'm
looking
for
another
person
to
maintain
this
with
me.
E
So
I
don't
know
if
any
everybody
on
this
call
is
obviously
already
a
maintainer
and
probably
has
full
plates.
But
if
you
know
anyone
that
is
looking
to
there,
that
would
that
would
want
to
do
this.
I
don't.
C
E
E
Yeah,
I
plan
to
bring
it
up
in
my
sig
meeting
because
it's
developed
in
js,
so
that
makes
sense,
but
I
just
haven't
had
a
sig
meeting
since
we
moved
it
over
to
the
open,
telemetry
repo.
So
it's
impov
it's
entirely
possible
that
we'll
find
a
jazz
person.
That
will
just
say
yes
and
that's
fine.
G
Yeah
I
wanted
to
write
more,
but
as
the
doc
slowdown
thing
was
a
topic
already.
That
was
blocking,
so
I
don't
know
when
this
happened,
but
I'd
like
to
get
a
little
bit
of
background
on
it.
But
it
looks
like
there's
like
a
essentially
a
catch-all
branch
protection
that
requires
status
checks
to
be
passed
before
merging
and
one
of
like
the
only
status
check
is
the
easy
cla
and
it
was
added
to
both
of
the
go
repos.
I
just
noticed
and
all
of
our
automation
for
dependable.
G
Usually
what
happens
is
the
pentabot
won't
actually
fix
all
of
the
hashes
for
whatever
ghost
sums,
and
so
we
have
automation,
come
back
through
and
clean
it
all
up.
The
problem
is
that
looks
like
this
branch
protection
is
blocking
that
automation
from
even
pushing
to
its
branches,
which
would
push
to
the
upstream
remote
itself.
G
So
I
don't
know
like
why
this
was
added,
but
I'd
like
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
like
why
also
the
process
involved,
I
feel
like
it
would
have
been
really
cool
to
have
notified
the
maintainer
of
the
repo
that
you're
like
this
was
happening.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
something
that
somebody
at
the
project
did
or
if
this
is
a
github
thing,
but
I
don't
know
if
anybody
has
any
context
here.
I
H
I
Privileges,
somebody
added
okay,
let
me
present
because
I
have
access
and
probably
you
can
somebody
should
stop
or
morgan.
A
Sorry
I
was
looking
at
a
different
email.
Stop
spinning
got
it
right
now.
I
Here
tyler
here
is
the
rule
that
I've
never
seen
before.
G
I
don't
know
where
that
came
from,
but
that's
blocking
pushing
to
those
branches
from
as
far
as
I
can
tell
based
on
the
the
output
of
the
error
message.
So
I
don't
know
why
that
was
added
or
who
added
it
or
how
it
was
added.
But
I'd
love
to
not
only
understand
that
but
understand
like
if
we
can
get
some
process
in
place
for
these
kinds
of
changes,
because
if
they're
going
to
be
blocking
workflow
here,
this
is
stalling
the
progress
of
the
project.
So
I'd
like
to
yeah.
I
Did
at
the
org
as
well,
somebody
still
had
had
time
to
add
this.
I
will
I
will
shoot
I'm
worried
that
it
may
be
somebody
from
from
from
cncf
that
did
this.
G
I
I
like
I
get
it
like
it
kind
of
makes
sense
based
on
like
what
the
boxes
that
were
clicked
would
make
sense.
We
want
things
signed
by
the
cla
in
theory
before
they
get
merged
to
maine.
The
problem
is,
is
that
I
think
this
had
unintended
consequences
like
our
dependable.
We
can't
fix
it,
so
it's
sitting
there
with
broken
pr's
right
now
and,
like
we've,
always
made
it
so
that
eventually,
like
by
the
time
that
the
thing
gets
merged,
it
is
signed
by
a
cla.
I
Yeah,
I
understand
I
need
to
shoot
an
email
to
the
tc
to
see
what
happened.
I
don't
remember
anything.
I
Seems
like
a
cncf
change:
okay,
okay,
let's
see,
we
will
figure
it
out.
If
that's
the
case,
I
don't
think
we
can
do
too
much.
Tyler
will
be
we'll
negotiate,
but
we'll
see.
G
I
G
To
figure
something
out
right
because,
like
I
know,
the
collector
also
uses
this
automation
for
the
the
go
some
stuff
so
like
I
I
yeah.
I
just
need
to
understand
like
where
we
need
to
go
with
this.
H
G
C
I
Let
me
let
me
check
who
I
did,
who
made
the
change
for
what
reasons
before
doing
a
rollback.
Maybe
maybe
there
is
a
more
critical
issue
why
this
happened?
That
rollback
is
not
appropriate,
but
let's,
let's
at
least
understand
who
made
the
change
for
what
reason
and
then,
if,
if
there
is
no
critical
time
on
this,
we
can
roll
back
for
a
couple
of
repos.
Until
until
everything
is
solved,
I
will
not
do
the
change.
G
A
All
right,
then,
I
think
we're
done.
I
will
be
on
vacation
next
monday,
so
ted
or
someone.
If
you
don't
plan
hosting
and
I'll
be
back
in
two
weeks,
yeah.