►
From YouTube: 2022-06-10 meeting
Description
Instrumentation: Messaging
A
C
B
You
said
you're
taking
a
long
vacation
soon.
C
No,
I
miss
I'm
mistyped
on
that.
In
that
thing
I
meant
to
say
june
8th,
I
was
going
to
be
out
for
a
week
not
a
month.
Yeah
alex
corrected
me,
or,
like
pointed
out
to
me,
and
I
was
like
whoops.
C
We
may
or
may
not
have
dimitri
today
it
sounds
like
splunk's
pulled
him
off
of
open
telemetry,
like
even
more
than
before,
like
I
think
he
wasn't
already.
I
think
he
already
wasn't
100
full-time
on
open
telemetry,
but
it
sounds
like
they've
got
to
do
something
else
for
like
the
next
six
weeks.
B
Well,
we
could
get
started.
I
could
probably
leave
this
sweet.
B
C
Yeah,
that's
why
I
focus
so:
we've
been
working
on
contrib
like
dimitri,
and
I
and
anyone
else
has
been
joining.
We've
just
been
triaging
can
trip
because
it
gets
way
more
activity,
yeah.
B
C
The
core
does
cool
and
we've
been,
I
think
I
don't
know
if
we
wrote
it
down
in
a
standard
yet,
but
basically,
if
something
doesn't
have
a
priority,
we
need
to
triage
it.
That's
kind
of
where.
B
It's
at
yeah,
I
made
some
filters
and
I
put
them
on
the
meeting,
and
one
of
them
is
basically
like
issues
that
aren't
prioritized
a
couple,
others
that
are
like
p1
and
zero
issue
p0
and
one
issues
that
are
not
even
assigned.
I
already
checked
those
and
that's
cool.
B
Those
are
good,
so
cool
all
right.
So
let's
see
these
look
pretty
much
like
they
look
all
the
same.
To
me,
p3
and
I
know
alex-
has
already
opened
the
pr
for
these
yeah.
It
looks
like
doing
right.
B
Yeah
I
saw
the
I
saw
your
pr
just
a
moment
ago.
All
right,
cloudwatch
exporter,
needs
to
support
dynamic
log
stream
names.
A
D
D
Yeah,
I
I
think
we're
gonna
have
to
get
a
little
bit
more
pushy
on
getting
components
that
are
not
owned
out
of
the
project.
To
be
honest,
like
even
this,
even
this
other,
like
list
of
pr's
around
status,
headers,
has
brought
out
the
fact
that
many
people
just
aren't
doing.
D
C
D
B
And
there
are
people
pulling
these
components
into
other
builds
to
other
distros,
but
I
I
agree,
I
think,
there's
it's
pretty
clear
that
there
are
there's
a
lot
of
sort
of
overhead
of
just
past
things
that
were
once
useful
and
people
were
once
involved
and
no
longer
are,
and
we
don't
really
have
a
process
for
cleaning
that
up
very
efficiently.
I
don't
think
we
have
to
necessarily
be
super
aggressive
about
it,
but
we
need
to
somehow
be
cleaning
that
up
and
taking
note
of
it
somehow
and
otherwise
it's
just.
D
D
D
Is
going
gonna
care
about
it
so
or
something
like
that?
I
don't
know.
C
D
D
B
Go
ahead,
sorry,
that's
gonna
say
it
feels
like
we
could.
I
don't
know,
maybe
once
in
a
while,
we
have
to
hit
refresh
right
like
like.
We
need
to
just
put
it
out
there
that
hey,
basically
all
components
need
to
be
vouched
or
again
by
their
code
owners.
And
if
you
don't
speak
up
within
a
certain
period
of
time,
then
we
kind
of
have
to
assume
that
you're
getting
reset
that
you're,
not
the
code
owner
anymore.
C
C
It
scary
to
pull
in
new
components
as
well,
like
I
saw
that
there's
the
the
foundation
db
tracing
receiver,
which
sounds
sweet
because
they
like
instrumented
foundation
db
with
traces,
open
telemetry,
is
like
super
cool,
but
like.
How
long
is
the
person
that's
contributing
it
like
in
a
stick
around
and
maintain
it
like?
It
becomes
scary.
D
C
B
Response
yeah,
I
know:
well,
I
don't
know
if
he's
code
owner
but
he's
he
josh
is
definitely
at
google
and
he's
on
the
technical
committee
and
is
very
tuned
into
this
stuff.
I
know
that
firsthand,
but
it
does
look
like
there's
a
documentation
issue
yet
so
I
suppose
we
can
leave
this
open.
C
B
Added
it
and
it
yeah
just
keep
going,
I'm
navigating
back
in
my
browser
and
it
was
cached
cool
all
right.
So
that's
the
receiver.
A
A
C
Maybe
we
can
add
to
our
conversation
at
the
next
sig
alex
around
ownership,
the
when
the
sponsors
become
code
owners
too,
but
that
doesn't
really
mean
that
they
like
own.
This
thing,
like
dimitri,
your
name's,
probably
on
like
50
different
components
in
the
in
contrib
right,
like
maybe
some.
A
A
B
Okay,
so
these
two
I
opened
the
other
day
and
I
just
noticed
that
these
two
receivers
are
scrapers
that
could
pretty
easily
have
integration
tests.
So
I
think
they
should
so
and
then
somebody
already
jumped
in
to
work
on
those.
So
I'm
just
going
to
label
them
as
p2.
C
C
B
Okay,
what
what.
C
A
D
For
what
it's
worth,
the
same
user
opened
the
pr
to
add
trace
date
to
this
tail:
sampler
sampling,
processor.
So.
B
Yeah
good
alex,
would
you
mind
digging
up
that
pr
and
linking
it
here
and
asking
them
there?
It's.
C
B
Silly
question:
what
do
you
guys
think
when
we
ping
somebody
was
just
saying
pinging
us
code
owner?
Are
we
asking
for
something
special,
exactly.
D
B
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
some
ambiguity
there
right,
like
is
the
expectation
that
you
fix
it
like
within
a
certain
period
of
time,
or
do
you
just
look
at
it
and
assess
whether
this
is
something
that
needs
to
be
fixed,
that
you
know,
and
you
can
kind
of
set
your
own
timeline
for
that,
like
there's
a
pretty
wide
range
there.
I
think.
D
To
be
honest,
I
would
I
would
just
get
like
the
guideline
would
just
be
if
you're
a
component
owner
you're
expected
to
at
least
triage
the
issue
like
you,
don't
have
to
fix
it,
but
at
the
very
least
you
should
say
hey.
This
thing
is
a
big
deal
or
not
a
big
deal
or
whatever.
D
B
Yeah,
did
you
guys
this
is
a
bit
of
an
aside
but
related
to
this?
Did
you
guys
see
the
issue
I
linked
in
the
channel
there?
Let
me
just
yeah
yeah.
This
is
something
that
has
appeared
ambiguous
to
me
and
I
think
we
should
clarify
it,
and
I
don't.
I
think
this
is.
It
looks
like
boxing
degrees
and
david.
B
I
don't
know
anyone
object
to
me
merging
this.
This
is
basically
saying
just
providing
a
basic
definition
for
what
it
means
to
be
vendor
specific
and
then
once
we
and
then
it
asks
when
you
create
the
new
component.
Pr
that
you
actually
say
this
is
or
is
not
vendor
specific
and
I
represent
that
vendor,
because
then
it
puts
us
on
the
spot
to
actually
assign
this
to
someone.
Otherwise
it's
just
an
assessment
of.
Is
there
a
valid
use
case
here
that
we
want
to
support,
and
is
anybody
willing
to
do
that.
C
D
C
Has
apis
that
you
could
scrape
for
metrics
right
right?
Let's
say
that
that
company
isn't
interested
in
open
telemetry.
Yet
for
some
reason
I
don't
know
if
it's
true,
but
let's
say
it,
someone
at
another
company
who
uses
f5
might
be
interested
in
open
telemetry
and
want
to
scrape
it,
and
they
might
say,
hey
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
go,
get
that
and
they
might
contribute
like.
Would
we
not
allow
that
because
the
vendor
didn't
contribute
it.
D
Well,
I
think
that
would
be.
That
would
be
fine
if
they
contributed
it,
but
at
least
it
would
clarify
that
we
don't
have
someone
from
the
vendor.
You
know
actively
participating
in
the
community
right
like
I
feel
like
that.
D
B
I
basically
said
that
the
person
proposing
the
component
should
represent
the
same
vendor
that
the
component
is
associated
with
and
that's
not
to
say
that
we
can't
have
that
component
if
they're,
not
it's
just
that,
we
won't
consider
it
a
vendor
who
is
coming
to
us
and
asking
for
us
to
play
fair
with
all
vendors
right
like,
I
think,
that's
what
obligates
us
to
support
vendor-specific
components
is
that
a
vendor
who's
willing
to
come
and
contribute
to
the
project
is
you
know
we
have
to
play
fair
amongst
all
the
vendors
right,
so
if
the
person
is
not
associated
with
that
vendor,
then
in
my
opinion,
that's
just
like
a
random
technology
that
we
have
to
just
assess
as
like.
B
D
B
D
B
B
Otherwise,
I
hesitate
to
even
put
like
a
priority
on
a
new
component
thing,
because
we
don't
want
to
make
judgments
on
how
important
it
is
with
like
kind
of
speaking
to
the
use
case.
We
just
need
to
establish
whether
it's
either
required
or
or
someone
has
to
make
a
judgment
on
the
use
case.
That's
going
to
be
boolean
decision
pretty
much.
B
This
one
and
put
a
priority
on
sorry.
I
need
to
be
better
at
triaging,
my
own
issues,
someone
already
volunteered
to
help
with
this
one
too.
D
B
Okay,
so
this
one,
I
think
there
was
some
push
back
on.
I
mean
I
don't
again
it's
a
it's
a
proposed
component.
I
feel
like
it
shouldn't
yet
be
prioritized
it's
more
yeah.
B
All
right,
jason
format,
support.
B
Yeah,
let's
finish
this
one
work
in
progress
to
update
the
collector
to
work
with
json
format.
B
A
We
should
ask
jacob
from
influx
yeah.
I
believe
he
is
actively
in.
C
A
A
D
D
Maybe
we
should
bring
this
one
up
to
the
the
sig
meeting
seems
like
a
good
thing
to
talk
about.
C
C
C
A
Yeah,
I
believe
ryan
is
working
on
that
you
can
tell
him
if
he's
working
here
or
not.
Oh,
I
can
do
that.
A
D
Can
we
mark
all
of
these
as,
like,
I
don't
know,
p2
or
p3?
I
don't
know
what
they
fall
under.
A
B
B
I
asked
I
picked
him
on
one
of
them
because
basically
he
called
out
something
that
was
marked
as
milliseconds
as
an
integer
of
milliseconds.
He
said
it
should
be
seconds
and
because
it
would
have
to
be
converted,
it
would
have
to
be
a
float,
and
I
just
can't
find
anything
that
justifies
that
assertion.
So
I
see
a
lot
of
that.
There's
some
other
things
too,
but
yeah
I'd
like
I'd
like
to
hear
from
him
before
doing
anything
with
that.
B
B
That's
presenting
it
to
you
that,
like
someone
thought
about
what
was
a
reasonable
unit
doesn't
mean
that
they
were
always
correct,
but
oftentimes
they've
made
a
sensible
choice,
but
that
said,
yeah
I
mean
back
ends
are
going,
gonna
have
to
be
able
to
work
with
them,
but
I
don't
know
it
doesn't
seem
like
that
high
of
a
bar
for
a
back
end
to
convert
like
pretty
much
if
they
do
seconds
and
bytes,
and
maybe
a
couple
of
other
units
they're
pretty
good
to
go.
I
don't
know
you
could
have
a
processor
for
it
too.
B
Maybe
I
don't
know
or
yeah
shared
library
would
just
standardize
on
it,
but
I
I
feel
like
it's
not
it
doesn't
follow
the
assertion
he's
made
at
least
as
far
as
I
can
tell
so
I
feel
like
for
now.
Probably
we
don't
act
on
this
really,
but
I
I
don't
know
I
mean,
should
we
maybe
this
is
maybe
this
is
something
we
should
discuss
with
the
sig
2.
B
C
A
A
A
B
D
D
D
A
B
B
I
don't
know
I'm
and
this
I
need
to
read
through
this
more
to
form
an
opinion,
but
it
just
sounds
I
mean
it
seems
like,
even
regardless
of
which
way
this
goes.
It's
not
unreasonable
to
say
we
should
probably
standardize
on
base
units
like
that,
would
make
it
easier
for
everyone
and
who's
consuming
the
data.
Yeah.
D
C
C
Yeah,
the
like,
we
should
mark
those,
probably
as
p3s,
and
it's
like
hard
for
us
to
justify
changing
those,
probably
until
like
suspect,
unless
the.