►
From YouTube: 2021-02-24 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).
B
B
B
B
B
Yeah,
I
think
we
can
start
have
a
very
small
agenda.
So
christianity
is
already
here,
so
we
can
definitely
talk
about
it
wasn't
even
speaking
or
okay,
sorry
yeah
so
prashanth
like
we
want
to
like
do
a
little
bit
more
organization
about
the
country
people.
So
right
now
we
have
started
the
or
let's
say
we
seeded
the
contrib
repo,
with
the
same
maintainers
and
approvers
from
the
main
ripple.
B
So
what
I'm
proposing
is
I'll
by
default.
I
assume
that,
like
nobody
from
the
main
repo
is
willing
to
be
a
maintainer,
slash
approver
for
the
counter
repo,
so
I'll
submit
a
pr
which
basically
removes
that
list
to
be
like
resetting
that
list
to
be
like
zero,
except
prashan,
who,
who
is
only
one
who
expressed
interest
in
being
a
maintainer
and
like
ask
the
existing
people
to
explicitly
interest
that
they
are
continue
or
still
interested
in
being
a
maintainer
slash
approver
for
the
contributor.
B
Any
objections,
like
I
mean
I'm
only
seeing
like
follow
being
the
only
person
who
is
currently
an
approver,
so
I'll
tag
like
everyone
else
to
make
sure
like
we
get
the
list
with
their
explicit
approval.
A
So
see
you
like,
are
we
planning
on
having
maintenance,
approvers
on
per
project
basis,
or
there
is.
B
No
concept
of
maintainer
per,
I
don't
think,
I'm
maintaining
a
concern
yeah
absolutely
so.
Basically,
we
would
still
need
like
maintainers
and
approvers
who
have
the
provide
access
and
then.
A
B
Top
of
that
yeah
we
need
per
directory
approvers,
so
the
directory
approvers
are
like,
I
hope,
anyone
who.
B
B
Again,
it's
not
clear
like
how
the
contributor
sorry,
the
collector
ripper
has
handled
it,
whether
they
have
like
a
different
model.
We
can
still
continue
to
work
on
it,
but
my
first
proposal
is
just
make
sure
like
the
list
is
explicit,
not
a
like
seeded
from
the
original,
because
we,
I
don't.
B
Whether
it
could
very
well
be
that
we'll
have
all
maintenance
and
approvers
be
still
willing
to
manage
the
country
proper,
but
I
want
to
hear
explicitly
that
they
are
willing
to
be.
B
Yeah
I'll
I
just
want
to
like
give
like
one
week
of
time
to
everyone,
because
some
of
them
are
not
very
active
in
the
main
ripple,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
like
they
are,
because
I'm
essentially
putting
their
name
as
the
maintainer
of
a
repo
which
was
not
even
not
even
created
when
the
original
maintainer
list
was
made.
So
so
just
making
sure
like
people
are
okay
with
that.
So
that's
the
main
update
which
I
want
so
this
part
about
per
directory.
I
have
two
questions
to
be
discussed.
B
One
is,
I
think,
christian
has
already
made
a
appear,
which
added
like
separate
approvers
for
contributor.
I
mean
a
particular
folder.
Let
me
just
take
that
and
see
it.
B
So,
in
this
case,
so
basically
what
we
are
looking
at
is
so
for
x-ray
or
aws.
Specific
project
like
the
overall
approvers
are
still
approvers
for
everything,
and
on
top
of
that
there
are
two
other
approvers
for
this
particular
project.
So
we
haven't
really
added
bolu
yet
into
an
approval
list
here.
So
we
need
to
figure
out
like
how
collector
repo
added
it
like
is
a
part
of
the
dot
net
contrib
approvals
list.
B
Or
do
we
create
a
separate
group
for
to
add
people
into
like
a
special
list,
because
I
I
don't
know
how
to
logistically
add
that,
because
if
other
alternate
option
is,
I
can
just
add,
like
bolu
into.
A
B
So
I
I
guess
I
don't
want
to
create
separate
lists
per
directory.
We'll
only
have
the
two
user
list,
which
is
the
maintainers
and
approvers
for
the
whole
world
and
for
individual
things
I'll
probably
have
to
like
invite
individual
people
and
give
them
right
access.
Yeah,
okay,
I'll
confirm
whether
that
is
the
same
as
what
is
done
in
the
collector
repo,
because
collector
is
a
good
example
of
how
this
was
opening.
So
I'll
confirm
that,
because
without
that,
this
pr
doesn't
like
sorry
without
doing
that.
B
This
pr
will
not
have
any
impact,
because
even
if
a
volume
marks
a
prs
approved
it
won't
be,
it
won't
be
considered
as
approval
approach.
That's
what
I
wanted
to
test
like
it
won't
have
this
tick
mark
it'll
be
like
a
random
approval
from
some
random
guy.
B
B
We
can
potentially
do
the
auto
merge
like
so
once
we
have
enough
approvals,
it
can
be
like
automatically
merge,
rather
than
waiting
for
a
maintainer
to
come
and
click
this
button,
because
right
now
it
still
requires
a
maintainer
to
come
and
click
this
button.
I
don't
even
think
approvers
can
do
it.
So
it's
another
scalable
tissue
once
we
have
enough
components,
we
don't
want
to
wait
or
we
don't
want
maintenance
to
be
a
bottleneck
here.
B
B
B
So
my
thinking
is,
if
we,
let's
open
a
actual
package
from
the
country,
repo
and
yeah.
So
let's
assume
that
we
remove
the
contrib
name,
so
this
package
will
be
named
open
elementary
dot,
instrumentation
dot,
mass
transit
and
the
source
repo
would
directly
link
it
to
the
country
proposal
that
that
linking
is
sufficient
to
tell
that
this
is
coming
from
a
country
repo
and
not
the
main
repo.
B
So
if
that's
the
case,
then
having
the
name
contrib
here
is
just
a
duplication
and
not
serving
any
purpose,
so
I
propose
to
like
keep
all
components
named
without
the
contrib.
This
is
also
beneficial
when
we
move
things
from
the
main
room,
because,
right
now
we
have
a
bunch
of
components
in
the
main
repo
which
do
not
have
the
name.
Contrib,
so
the
plan
is
to
eventually
move
this
into
the
country
repo.
B
So
at
that
time
we
cannot
afford
to
change
the
name,
so
we
may
be
better
off
like
removing
the
concrete
name
from
all
of
them
in
the
first
place,
so
that
when
I
migrate
these
components
from
the
main
ripple
to
the
contract,
there
shouldn't
be
any
breaking
changes.
The
new
gates
would
continue
to
be
the
same,
except
that
it's
being
shipped
from
a
different
report.
C
So,
just
repeating
what
you
said,
so
I
be
sure
that
I
get
right.
So
when
those
are
moved
to
contrib,
you
are
gonna,
keep
their
names,
so
it
doesn't
break
the
name
right,
correct,
okay,.
B
Yeah
I
mean
my
alternate
option
is
when
I
move
these
instrumentations
to
the
cone
rib.
I
have
to
change
the
name
which
would
change
the
nuget
name
itself,
which
should
be
like
difficult
for
most
users,
because
we
changed
it
like
four
times
already
in
the
past
and
try
to
be
very
aggressive
or
conservative.
Sorry,
when
we
are
changing
okay,.
B
C
D
C
Telemetry
dot
instrumentation,
okay,
but
that
is
just
fr
frui,
you
know
so,
but
I
don't
think
there
is
risk
of
conflict
on
that
yeah.
That.
B
Makes
sense?
Okay
and
while
we
are
in
the
topic,
we
do
have
like
other
pr's,
which
are
submitted
right
now.
I
think
there
are
a
couple
of
them
which
requires
particular
attention.
One
is
about
wcf
and
there
is
a
grpc
one,
so
I
would
use
these
two
projects
as
the
example
of
how
we
would
organize
this
project
so
by
default.
What
this
means
is
this
pr
should
contain
an
update
to
the
project
owner's
file.
B
I
mean
or
code
owner's
file,
which
would
make
the
person
who
contributed
this
pr
as
an
owner
like
just
like
what
has
made
it
for
the
aws
one,
and
this
would
also
be
similarly
done.
I
don't
know
whether
we
have
made
it
clear
in
the
contributing
document,
but.
A
B
You
actually
add
that
question
so
that,
like
it
would
be
very
clear
like
if
you
are
contributing
a
new
project.
That
means
like
we
are:
writing
you
as
the
owner
of
that
project.
Unless
someone
else
takes
it
and
of
course
we
need
to
fine
tune
the
language,
but
we
cannot
write
on
it
over
time
because
what
if
there
is
an
issue
and
they
don't
respond,
what
is
our
policy?
Should
we
remove
it,
or
should
we
still
maintain
it,
the
old
one?
A
It
you're
creating
a
pr
for
updating
the
contrib.
Then
we
can
get
the
inputs
from
from
the
community
and
would
probably
be
better.
B
Could
you
just
open
up
here,
which
just
adds
like
one
section
to
it
like
by
contributing
you
will
be
default
tagged
as
an
owner
in
that
project,
at
least
that
language,
and
then
we
can
see
whether
there
are
like
opinions
against
it
or
in
favor
of
it.
B
B
Oops,
I
think
that
is
the
update
about
contribute.
If
there
are
no
questions
on
contribute,
I
have
one
small
update
before
we
go
to
the
last
topic.
B
Okay
yeah,
so
this
is
somewhat
indirectly
related
to
the
contrib
repo,
because
we
are
working
to
get
rid
of
activity
source
adapter,
because
this
is
something
which
which
caused
breaks
in
the
instrumentations
in
the
control
paper
because
of
lack
of
public
api
to
do
it
and
we
were
resistant
to
make
activity
source
adapter
publics,
because
we
still
think
there
is
an
alternate
way
of
creating
the
sdk
which
can
completely
get
rid
of
this
feature
so
because
she's
working
on
that
pr,
it's
in
the
main
repo.
So
it's
90
successful.
B
We
are
just
finding
out
the
like
shape
of
the
api,
but
if
that
is
merged
once
that
tier
is
merged,
we
should
be
like
unblocking
all
the
instrumentations
in
this
report
to
move
to
the
newest
version
of
the
core
sdk.
B
So
that's
the
update
and
related
to
that.
The
existing
instrumentations
for
libraries
like
asp.net
core.
They
are
also
working
towards
migrating
from
the
legacy
new
activity
api
to
the
like
activity,
source
based
api.
You
can
take
a
look
at
the
pro
request.
It's
it
has
like
a
lot
of
discussions,
but
my
thinking
is
once
asp.net
core
like
completes
this,
and
it
can
be
used
as
a
reference
for
other
instrumentations
to
move
forward.
B
B
If
elasticsearch
has
a
like
slightly
less
stricter
backward
compatibility
requirement,
they
can
just
like
completely
replace
diagnostic
source
with
activity
source,
but
this
would
be
a
good
standard
for
others
to
follow
so
keep
an
eye.
If
you
are
interested
in
that
list,
keep
an
eye
I'll
definitely
share
an
update
once
this
vr
is
indeed
merged.
B
D
Sorry,
just
fyi:
the
document
has
been
finalized
by
me.
Sorry,
my
throat's
going
down.
There
are
no
open
comments,
so
I
think
we
are
good
to
post
this.
I'm
also
I've
also
emailed
cncf,
but
I
think
the
medium
post
itself
goes
through
cncf
approval,
so
I
think
we
are
good
to
send
out
a
draft
from
medium
itself
so
that
all
maintainers
can
look
at
it.
B
D
D
So
I
think
the
so
first
of
all,
I
need
approval
from
dot
net
maintainers
right
now,
the
medium
post
itself.
I
think
the
writers
of
the
medium
blog
post
get
a
notification
asking
to
review.
B
Okay,
so
basically
you
don't
need
to
wait
for
the
like
monday
morning,
maintenance
meeting,
where,
like
all
maintenance
from
other
sectors,.
D
Yeah
exactly,
I
think,
the
I
don't
know
who
are
added
as
writers,
but
I
feel
like
most
of
the
maintainers
are
added
as
writers
to
the
open
medium
channel
and
I
think
certain
gay
and
morgan
both
are
direct
authors
there.
Okay
yeah.
B
I
have
the
right
access,
I
mean
I
am
added
writer
in
the
open,
telemetry
channel
yeah.
I
should
also
be
getting
a
notification,
but
I
don't
know
whether
it
was
it
is
the
case
for,
like
all
other
maintenance,
it's
it's
something
which,
like
I
think
you
need
to
be
asking
explicitly
to
be
added
as
a.
D
Not
all
maintainers
would
be
writers,
which
is
a
correct
statement.
I
think
yeah
most
maintainers
are
writers,
but
not
I'm
not
sure.
If
all
maintainers
are
writers
yeah
so.
B
D
And
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
everyone
over
here
in
this
call
had
to
prove
this
and
were
okay
with
us
going
ahead
and
posting.
B
This
so
I,
as
of
today
like
there,
is
only
paulo
other
than
me,
who
is
in
this
court,
so
we'll
still
have
to
post
it
in
the
jitter
channel,
where
other
approvers
slash
maintainers
of
this
cigar
present
yeah.
C
B
Yeah
I'll
do
one
final
read
because
it
it
looks
good,
but
I
need
to
read
like
one
more
time
before
I
like.
I
put
an
explicit
approval
mark
in
the
slack
post,
wherever
you
are
posting
saying
that
it
is
good
from
me
and
we
should
at
least
wait
for
like
one
more
approver
or
maintainer
to.
B
Okay,
so
let's
do
this
like
ankit,
make
sure
you
post
it
in
the
it's
like
a
slack
channel
and
ask
the
maintainers
and
approvers
to
approve
and
mark
their
approval
in
the
slack
itself,
because
there
is
no
like
approval
in
this
document,
so
let
them
and
give
it
till
end
of
day
today
or
maybe
tomorrow
morning.
So
if
you
don't
hear
from
anyone
until
tomorrow
morning,
it
means
you
have
the
approval.
B
B
Okay,
I
don't
have
anything
left,
so,
let's
meet
again
next
week,
thank
you
and
if
there
are
any
questions,
just
ping
on
the
slack,
I
think
it's
already
mentioned
last
week
that
we
moved
from
jitter
in
case
anyone
is
not
aware.
We
are
not
monitoring
the
jitters
channel
anymore,
so
please
switch
to
slack
right
thanks.
Everyone
see
you
next
week.