►
From YouTube: 2020-11-11 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
Oh
hi,
can
someone
confirm
if
you
can
see
my
screen.
B
A
Yeah,
who
is
in
the
call
right
now,
we
can
just
add
to
that
nd
list
and
wait
one
more
minute
to
see
if
anyone
else
is
joining.
A
Yeah,
does
anyone
know
about
this
item
current
customer
adoption,
beta
versions-
I
don't
know
who
added
it.
It
was
added
last
week
I
just
so.
B
I
I
added
it.
I
wanted
a
little
bit
of
clarity
on
how
are
we
tracking
the
current
customers
who've
adopted
beta
so
far,
not
downloads,
but
any
sort
of
customers
that
have
downloaded
beta
and
I've
and
are
actually
using
it
yeah.
We
we.
A
B
C
A
Yeah,
so
let's
go
over
the
oops
next
item,
so
ga
help
so
allen,
and
I
was
let
me
just
open
the
issue
so
as
we
are
preparing
for
today.
We
wanted
to
get
some
help,
reviewing
the
docs
and
functionality
for
each
and
every
compute
component.
A
So
this
is
like
the
full
list
of
things
which
we
ship
from
this
repo
api
and
sdk,
a
few
exporters,
the
instrumentation
and
then
some
special
thing
to
handle
open
tracing
bridge
and
like
helper
methods
for
enabling
core
slash
dependency
injection
based
applications
easier
to
onboard.
So
these
three
are
like.
Oh,
these
four
are
like
roughly
all
the
components
which
we
ship
from
this
repo.
A
So
basically
we
are
looking
for
all
india's
to
just
pick
one
or
two
like
component
make
sure
the
dogs
are
already
there
and
make
sure
you
can
follow
the
dock,
and
you
see
what
you're
expecting
to
see
like,
for
example,
if
you
use
open
elementary
dot
exporter
dot
console
first
ask
is
verify
that
there
is
a
dock
exist
and
then
follow
the
dock,
and
this
is
the
functionality
which
is
promised.
A
Is
it
working
like
it's
something
like
a
manual
testing
and
also
if,
if
you
are
like
more
familiar
with
coding,
if
you're
a
developer,
just
look
at
the
code
itself
and
there
could
be
many
to-do's,
we
are
aware
of
like
several
to-do's,
but
if
you
see
anything
which
is
like
really
a
blocker
for
ga,
please
bring
it
up
because
we
are
doing
like
overall
review
of
all
the
to-do's,
but
you
want
to
get
more
hands
trying
out
individual
components.
A
No
one
is
expert
on
anything,
so
just
a
overall
app
to
the
community
just
to
help
with
this
part.
So
alan
has
started
volunteering
for
a
couple
of
them.
So
we'll
just
leave
it
open
for
this
week
and
see
how
many
items
we
can
get
if
not
like
we'll
have
to
the
maintainers
and
approvals
will
take
more
items.
A
A
Okay,
yeah
next
topic
is
about
metrics,
so
I'll
give
a
quick
update
on
that
because
a
lot
of
times
people
are
asking
about.
B
Matrix,
sorry,
you
see
just
to
go
back
on
gia
prep
and
I'm
my
my
apologies.
B
I
didn't
add
over
there,
I'm
just
reaching
out
to
morgan
as
well
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
ga
blog
post
that
I
can
get
everyone's
input
on,
probably
by
I'll
I'll
draft
something
by
end
of
this
week,
and
hopefully
we
should
have
it
out
for
everyone
to
comment
and
come
back
to
me
by
next
week
or
so
so
next
seg,
we
should
walk
through
what
should
our
blog
post
should
look
like,
and
that
would
be
helpful.
B
Okay,
you're
going
to
make
a
google
doc
kind
of
thing
right,
yeah,
just.
B
A
A
Yeah-
and
I
mean
I
won't-
have
full
detail
on
matrix,
but
this
is
a
current
plan,
as
I
understood
it.
So
I
put
all
the
information
I
have
here
so
just
the
background.
First,
we
are
not
shipping
or
we
are
not
calling
the
matrix
sdk
api.
We
have
in
this
repo
as
ga,
so
to
avoid,
because
the
package
is
same
for
matrix
logs
and
tracers,
we'll
be
marking
them
as
absolute.
That's
the
easiest
way
to
get
attention
of
users
to
warn
them
that
okay,
this
is
not
ready.
A
This
will
be
changed
for
like
several
times
before
it
can
be
ga,
so
don't
take
a
hard
dependency
on
that.
If
you
are
taking,
please
be
prepared
to
change
when
we
change
the
apa.
So
that's
just
a
background,
but
then
the
question
is
like:
when
do
we
plan
to
do
that
so
right
now?
This
is
the
plan
which
I
have.
The
net
team
itself
would
be
exposing
a
metric
api
in
the
dot
net,
runtime
very
similar
to
activity
api,
and
they
will
be
confirming
to
the
open,
telemetry
compatible.
A
All
the
apas
which
open
elementary
defense
would
be
exposed
as
is
or
a
compatible
way
in
the
run
time
itself,
and
it
will
be
shipped
as
part
of
dot
net
six.
There
is
no
release
after
dot
net
5.
There
is
no
major
release.
The
next
releases
dot
net
6,
which
will
ga
only
in
november
2021
but
as
with
tracing
we'll
have
like
early
previous
versions,
starting
with
mid
mid
june
or
maybe
or
dijon
itself
or
even
earlier.
A
I
don't
know
the
exact
timing,
because
this
is
too
early
and
then
once
that
is
ready,
we'll
build
like
the
sdk
implementations
again
following
the
open
elementary
specification.
So
the
key
things
to
note
here
is
with
this
plan
the
the
date
when
we
are
going.
Ga
is
november
2021
with
preview
packages
coming
2021
june,
somewhat
somewhere,
like
from
mid
mid
next
year
and
of
course
like
there
are
talks
about
like
which
versions
will
be
supported.
A
It
should
support
all
the
officially
supported.net
version
and
exception
being
noted,
is
net452
and
dotnet
four
six
one
anything
older
than
four
460.
and
for
net
core,
it's
unlikely
to
support.net
core
2.1,
because
by
the
time
we
have
the
previewbits.net
core,
2.0
2.1
will
be
already
duplicated.
It's
end
of
the
end
of
life
is
around
august
next
year,
so
yeah.
So
if
there
are
like
any
questions
on
timelines
supporting
frameworks
or
anything
in
general,
please
put
a
comment
here
so
that
we
can
take
that
into
consideration.
A
And
second,
is
we
have
like
two
or
three
other
major
asks.
One
is
so
dotnet
already
has
something
called
even
counters,
which
is
a
metric
api,
which
has
some
built-in
aggregations
built
into
the
dotnet
runtime
itself.
That
is
so
far,
though
only
metric
api
exposed
by
dot-net.
So
we
don't
think
that
we'll
be
like
building
on
top
of
encounters.
So
the
new
metric
api
will
be
like
completely
independent,
like
brand
new
api
brand
new
package,
most
likely
as
well.
A
So
we
want
to
see
like
whether
how
important
it
is
to
support
any
sort
of
backward
compatibility
or
bridge
between
even
counters,
so
we're
trying
to
see
are
there,
customers
who
are
already
using
even
counters
in
any
form
like
either
consuming
or
publishing
events.
If,
yes,
I
created
an
issue
in
this
repo,
please
share
your
feedback
on.
How
do
you
use
it
and
how
important
it
is
for
you
to
have
the
even
counter
to
new
metric
api
mapping.
A
That
second
part
is
really
optional,
but
we
are
really
interested
in
knowing
here
like
any
feedback
about
even
counters
in
general,
and
the
second
is
so.
A
This
is
a
little
bit
too
early,
because
dotnet
just
announced
that
they
are
going
to
ship
a
matrix
api
in
dot
net
six,
and
we
would
expect
more
details
like
design
documents
to
be
available
in
the
dot
net
front
end
repo
by
early
next
year,
like
february
next
year,
so
use
this
use
this
repo,
like
the
not
our
report,
the
document
on
time,
repo
to
report
any
issues
or
any
feedback
about
the
actual
metrics
itself.
A
So
if
the
feedback
is
about
the
api
shape,
then
we
need
to
take
it
directly
with
open
telemetry
specification,
because
dot
net
is
not
inventing
any
new
api,
it
will
just
add
up
whatever
is
open
elementary
specifies
and,
lastly,
any
questions
about
this
is
something
which
I
already
mentioned.
Any
questions
about
this
plan
concerns
or
feedback.
A
Please
share
your
comments
here,
so
by
default,
the
plan
is,
there
is
no
matrix
ga
this
year
it
will
be
next
year
along
with
dotnet,
and
if
there
is
any
concerns,
please
let
us
know
in
the
comments
yeah
I
I
will
move
to
the
next
topic,
because
we
would
be
spending
a
lot
of
time
on
metrics
in
the
next
few
weeks
as
soon
as
we
are
done
with
the
ga
for
tracing
and
logs.
A
Okay,
click
open,
so
this
is
something
which
we've
been
doing
like
on
an
ongoing
basis.
For
the
last
couple
of
weeks,
we
have
been
looking
at
all
the
public
apis
exposed
by
this
repo,
some
of
them
intentionally.
Some
of
them
unintentionally
exposed
helper
methods.
So
we've
been
reviewing
this
over
the
last
two
weeks
and
we
removed
a
quite
large
number
of
them
in
the
last
two
weeks.
A
We
I
think
we
still
have
more
to
remove
so
just
to
share
like
how
we
are
approaching
this.
The
basic
idea
is
unless
this
is
a
feature
requested
by
open
elementary
specification,
it's
not
going
to
be
public,
anything
like
semantic
conventions
or
any
helper
methods
which
will
help
it,
which
will
be
helping
you
to
like.
I
tried
through
activity
like
in
a
quicker
faster
way.
A
All
those
things
are
not
required
by
open
elementary.
So
by
default,
the
assumption
is
we'll
mark
them
as
non
public
and,
on
a
case
case
basis.
If
you
think
that
this
is
really
useful
for
the
overall
community,
then
we
can
promote
them
from
private
or
internal
to
public
epa.
So
that's
the
overall
direction
and
the
way
it's
going
to
be
rolled
out
is
we
have
merged
a
pr
last
week
which
lists
all
the
public
apa
per
project.
So
if
you
take,
for
instance,
there
is
open
elementary
sdk
project,
it
contains
a
folder
called
public
api.
A
It
lists
all
the
public
api,
be
exposed
per
platform.
So
it's
right
now
in
unshipped.
Let
me
just
open
it,
so
it
contains
roughly
one
or
not
100
around
260
apis
and
we
are
still
reviewing
it.
So
I
expect
this
to
be
trimmed
down
further
and
we'll
keep
a
very
small
list.
Whatever
is
required
by
the
specification
and
once
we
ship
the
1.0
version,
we'll
move
it
from
and
ship
to
shipped
and
then
onwards,
we
cannot
break
like
once
a
once.
We
go
ga.
A
We
cannot
make
it
so
we
try
to
trim
down
other
apis,
we'll
be
reviewing
this
list
modifying
this
and
like
opening
issues
as
we
discover
and
it
may
require
like
if
you
had
an
accidental
dependency
earlier,
like,
for
example,
many
people
depended
on
semantic
conventions
as
a
public
class
from
this
repo
we
just
removed
it
like
yesterday.
A
A
A
couple
of
libraries,
which
I
mean
apas,
which
are
like
particularly
affecting
others.
I
think
there
is
an
issue
there
is
a
discussion
going
on
it's
about
diagnostic
trying
to
figure
out
yeah
diagnostic
source
implemented.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
helper
methods
which
were
public
earlier,
which
was
made
internal.
Now,
it's
all
about
subscribing
to
diagnostic
source.
Again
by
default
this
would
be
internal
and
there
is
no.
A
There
is
no
reason
why
you
cannot
copy
it
or
you
can
just
follow
the
dotnet's
official
guidance
on
how
to
subscribe
to
diagnostic
source,
but
if
this
is
becoming
a
really
useful
scenario
for
all
the
community
on
all
the
other
projects,
and
we
will
consider
bringing
it
back
as
the
public
apa,
I'm
happy
to
hear
feedback
on
like
specific
apis
we've
been
discussing
about
property
feature.
That
is
something
which
was
used
heavily.
A
We
may
like
prioritize
that
as
being
one
of
the
thing
we'll
make
public,
even
though
it
is
not
a
requirement
from
spec,
if
it
makes
the
life
of
contributors
easy,
we
can
make
that
happen,
but
just
be
aware,
it
will
be
reviewed
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
we
still
need
help
like
to
review
like
just
like.
I
was
mentioning
for
individual
components.
If
you
think
there
is
a
apa
which
should
not
be
public,
then
please
let
us
know.
A
A
These
classes
have
a
internal
constructor,
so
there
is
no
way
you
can
construct
a
exporter
instance
of
your
own
and
feed
it
to
the
exporting
processor,
and
this
is
a
requirement
from
the
spec
that
you
should
allow
changing
the
export
frequency
batch
size,
etcetera.
So
currently
it's
not
exposed.
So
we
have
to
create
issues
like
this
and
yeah.
I
mean
if
it's
simple
enough
I'll
tag
with
this,
but
basically
ask
is
if
there
is
anything
which
you
think
should
be
public
but
not
exposed,
please
let
us
know
as
well.
D
A
A
Let
me
just
show
that
yeah
so
right
now
the
shift
is
empty
because
we
haven't
shipped
anything
here
so
once
we
do
that
we'll
migrate
everything
from
unshipped
to
shipped
so
that
after
we
ship
1.0
and
if
there
is
any
pr
which
introduces
any
breaking
changes,
we
will
catch
it
right
away
because
the
build
will
fail.
If
you
fail
to
add
it
to
there.
I
think
it
should
be
added
to
one
of
the
list.
A
A
I
don't
know
for
how
long
it's
probably
two
year
or
one
year.
That
is
something
which
will
be
like
announcing
later,
but
at
least
we
cannot
just
change
just
like
we
are
doing
now,
because,
right
now
it's
been
okay,
yeah
eddie.
Do
you
know
like
how
the
movement
from
unshipped
to
shift
happen?
Is
it
like,
auto
magical
or
like
we
have
to
do
some
manual
stuff.
E
If
you
go
to
the
root
folder,
we
have
powershell
script.
It's
these
two
finalize
public
apis,
it's
the
same
as
you
had
in
application
site,
so
it
will
migrate.
Everything
from
the
unshipped
to
the
shipping
folder.
A
Okay,
so
one
just
had
to
run
this
script
locally
and
submit
apr
with
that.
That's
what
we
need.
Yes,
okay,
got
it
and
the
build
would
fail.
If
you
introduce
a
new
apa
and
you
don't
update
either
of
the
file
or
do
you
have
to
update
it
in
one
file
or
the
other.
E
For
example,
if
you
create
a
new
api,
it
will
probably
be
in
the
shipped
one.
But
if
you
add
to
the
shipping
one,
it
would
work
as
well,
because
the
the
publicate
by
analyzers
don't
know
if
that's
a
public
or
not
not
release
it
api.
E
B
E
When
you
building
build
that
in
release
mode,
so
yeah
got
it
yeah,
but.
A
E
D
Yeah
yeah
and
do
we
plan
to
do
the
same
thing
in
the
contra
repo
projects
or
that's?
I
I
see
a
separate.
A
Contributors,
that's
something
which
we
I
want
to
discuss
the
next
about
200,
but
let
me
see
if
there
are
any
questions
about
public
api,
otherwise
yeah.
I
can
move
to
the
next
topic.
E
A
So,
let's
discuss
that
in
the
context
of
the
next
topic,
I
assume
there
are
no
more
questions
pending
about
public
api,
so
this
is
something
which
we've
been
discussing
for
like
quite
some
time
now.
It's
still
unclear.
So
when
I
looked
at
like
the
contrary,
repo
last
week
when
I
was
adding
alanis
approved,
I
just
realized
that
I
added
him
as
uploader
for
country
paper
as
well,
because
the
repo
is
right
now
in
a
shared
ownership.
So
whoever
is
a
maintainer
or
approver
in
the
sdk
repo.
A
A
There
is
no
requirement
that
if
you
are
a
approver
on
one
repo,
you
have
to
be
an
approver
and
you
are
expected
to
be
responsive
in
the
other
way
as
well.
So
I
I
don't
know
what
is
the
best
way
to
handle
it.
I
do
some
like
some
searching
with
what
other
languages
are
doing
like
java
and
python
and
then
come
back
about
ownership,
but
what
one
thing
which
is
still
not
clear
to
me
is
like
who
owns
shipping
packages
from
that
repo?
It's
still
not
clear.
A
Like
michael
and
I
was
having
some
chats,
I
put
like
a
couple
of
proposals
here.
I
just
want
to
hear
like
what
other
things
like
one
is.
There
is
no
single
owner
for
each
package,
so
each
package
like
when
I
say
each
package,
so
each
folder
here
gets
its
own
orange
file,
so
like
aws
x-ray
could
be
on
by
one
person
and
sure
could
be
owned
by
something
else,
someone
else
or
elastic
search.
So
you
could
have
a
like
per
directory
ownership,
but
it
may
have
its
own
issues
as
well.
A
A
It
still
has
question
of
ownership,
but
the
thing
is
we
don't
ship
anything
from
this
repo.
If
a
user
is
interested
in
elasticsearch,
they
can
clone
this
repo
and
they
can
build
the
new
gates
themselves
or
if
any
particular
company
vendor
wants
to
do
it,
they
can
clone
it
and
publish
it
and
their
own
name
a
different
model
than
what
we
currently
have.
So
I'm
open
to
suggestions,
and
we
also
do
not
have
a
listed
document
on
what
is
allowed.
A
In
the
contrary,
we
talked
briefly
about
it
previously,
but
it's
not
clear
like
what
what
qualifies
a
project
to
be
part
of
the
main
ripper
as
well,
I
mean
or
contrary
triple,
and
what
should
we
do
with
the
vendor-specific
thing
like
azure
and
aws?
Should
we
just
move
them
out
to
azure
or
aws
repos,
and
we
only
keep
like
elasticsearch
like
fully
open
source
things
here?
This
is
not.
F
So
clear
yeah
go
ahead.
There
is
a
problem
in
that
seizure,
like
I
understand
like
like,
even
when
we
plan
to
move
it,
people
cannot
use
an
open
telemetry
in
their
name
or
to
send
it
to
the
new
get
the
package
entirely
need
a
different
name.
So.
F
A
A
D
C
C
Key
that
checked
in
the
repository,
so
we
just
don't
want
to
break
anybody
who
requires
signing,
but
it's
not
secret,
saying
or
whatever.
So
anybody
can
build.
A
But
regarding
the
name
like,
if
someone
clones
it,
they
can
prefix
with
their
company
name
like
microsoft
or
azure,
or
something
before
this,
and
then
they
will
no
longer
be
subject
to
the
same.
You
get
restrictions.
C
So
if
you
go
to
a
root
folder
of
this
repository
and
go
to
support
statement
on
readme,
I
try
to
formulate
the
problem
so
like
let's
say
stackdriver
here
and
stackdriver
is
owned
by
like
it's
a
google
product,
but
google
right
now
is
not
very
interested
in
supporting
it,
but
we're
happy
to
support
the
can
like
the
undercommunity
contribution.
C
A
A
What
if
we
cannot
find
the
person
who,
like
let's
say
this,
is
contributed
by
someone
from
ashore
and
he
just
disappeared
like
we
would
have
no
idea
how
to
catch
it
because
we
may
not
know
we
may
not
be
a
domain
expert
on
individual
things.
So
that's
the
reason
why
I
said
like.
Can
we
keep
it
as
a
non-publishing
repo?
A
C
Yeah,
I
know
javascript
publishing
their
npms
and
I
think
go
also
publishes
it.
I
can
check
with
others
in
general.
Like
I
mean
some,
some
repositories
have
moving
very
core
components
out,
because
I
mean
dotnet
is
very
special
language.
In.Net
isp.net
is
basically
net
itself,
so
there
is
no
alternative
of
web
development
platform.
I
mean
not
very
popular,
so
we
keeping
isp.net
in
the
core
repository
in
alternative
world.
This
may
be
country
repository,
so
it's
totally
like
it's
totally
normal
for
them
to
have
supported
country
repository
in
microsoft.
C
Word
it's
a
little
bit
different
because
in
microsoft
like,
if
it's
microsoft
stamped
then
it's
it
has
a
little
bit
higher
bar
and
people
trust
it
more.
So
it
can
be
considered
as
a
core.
It
just
has
that
option
because
of
microsoft.
A
C
That's
why
this
issue
coming
up-
I
think
I
I
mean
I
don't
know
like.
I
just
see
it
as
a
is
necessary.
Evil
like
the
worst
par
situation,
would
be
if
there
are
random
repositories
that
trying
to
publish
open,
sedimentary
libraries
or
they
don't
publish
it
at
all.
I
don't
know
like
whether
it
will
be
better
or
not
so.
Let's
say:
can
you
scroll
up
and
see
like
we
have
this
stack
driver,
thingy
right.
C
Driver
like
what
was
this
stack
exchange,
regis
thingy.
Is
it
yeah.
A
Yeah,
I
think
we
discussed
about
it,
but
the
initial
assessment
was
it's
a
very
popular
library
and
we
don't.
We
want
to
maintain
it
here,
but
I
don't
think
it's
a
strict
requirement
that
we
have
to
keep
it
here.
Like
I
mean
it's
all
debatable,
that's
why
I
I
was
a
bit
confused
like
since
we
haven't
laid
out
the
set
of
criteria
which
decides
what
makes
a
cra
library
what
makes
a
package
part
of
the
main
repo
versus
contribute.
It's
bit
it's
bit
blurred.
A
So
if
someone
asked
me
like
tomorrow,
okay,
why
my
package
is
not
accepted
here,
then
I
have
to
show
some
written
down
thing
so
that
it
says
that
okay,
this
is
not
qualified
for
the
main
repo
here
to
go
into
country.
So
that's
why
I
was
looking
for,
like
some
my
help
from
you
slash
other
zik
members
and
also
from
other
things.
Other
language
seeks
how
they
are
handling
this
problem.
A
Statement
is
okay,
if
they're
different
from
the
packages,
but
then
yeah-
it's
not,
I
mean
by
I'm
not
saying
this
is
wrong,
but
we
should
be
like
more
strongly
emphasizing
that
this
is
not
maintained
by
the
same
folks
who
maintain
the
primary
hd
primary
one
and
something
to
tell
that
use
it
at
your
own
risk
like
if
you're
broken,
yes,
you're
likely
broken,
we
may
fix
it,
but
there
is
no.
A
There
is
no
commitment,
however,
for
the
main
repo
there
is
like
at
least
companies
like
microsoft,
new
relic
house
and
their
dedicated
devs
to
work
on
that.
So
there
is
a
very
high
chance
that
you'll
get
it
fixed,
but
for
this
I'm
not
sure
like
how
do
how
do
we
phrase
that
sentence
here?
So
we
don't
want
people
to
incorrectly
assume
that
this
will
be
supported
if
they
fix
a
bar.
I
mean
if
there
is
a
bug
which
was
reported,
we'll
respond
to
it
in
like
a
reasonable
time.
D
A
D
So
what
if
like
for,
for
example,
let's
say
for
aws,
they
decide
to
like
take
ownership
and
publish
the
new
get
under
aws
namespace?
Would
that
mean
that
they
won't
be
able
to
use
open
telemetry
anywhere.
A
For
that
now
they
can
just
clone,
I
mean
they
can
just
remove
it
from
here
and
host
it
in
aws
own
repos
like
I,
I
would
really
be
happy
if,
like
azure
and
aws,
move
to
their
own
reports
like
azure
can
have
their
own
tripod
and
aws
already
sure
surely
has
their
own
reports
right.
So
you
can
just
like
remove
this
from
here,
move
it
to
vendor
specific
repos
and
ship
it
and
support
it
in
whatever
way
the
vendors
see
fit
so.
D
A
Update
these
yes,
just
like
they
would
do
for
their
exporter
like
if
new,
relic
and
microsoft
has
exporters,
they
have
to
update
it
whenever
we
change
anything
in
the
main
ripple.
Yeah,
I'm
more
concerned
about
things
which
do
not
really
fall
into
a
single
company
like,
for
example,
entity,
framework,
elasticsearch,
mass
transit,
and
we
could
have
like
any
number
of
other
instrumentations
for
very
popular
libraries.
So
question
is
mostly
about
those
because
they're
not
really
sending
data
to
any
vendor.
It
could
be
sending
data
to
any
vendor.
A
So
that's
where
I'm
mostly
worried
about
like
if
we
put
open
elementary,
even
though
it
says
like
conrad,
it
may
give
the
wrong
impression
that,
like
users
get
the
wrong
impression
that
it's
it's
supported
by
the
open,
telemetry
six
and
I
mean,
if
there's
a
bug
which
we
are
not
able
to
fix,
it
may
bring
like
overall,
like
negative
here
for
the
overall
project.
So
I'm
just
guessing.
I
don't
have
any
solid
examples,
but
this
is
a
concern
which
I
want
to
ask
like
what
others
think
about
it.
A
I
think
one
experience
which
I
had
is
in
application
sites.
There
were
like
several
language,
specific
sdks,
like
php
ruby.net
java,
except
the
fact
that
only.net
and
java
was
officially
supported,
so
everything
else
was
community
supported,
but
lot
of
people
took
production
dependencies
on
that
and
when
they
learned
that
it's
not
microsoft,
officially
supported.
A
They
were
unhappy
because
they
already
took
a
dependency
on
that.
So
you
want
to
avoid
like
situations
like
that,
where
people
took
a
dependency
here,
they
later
realized
that,
oh
sorry,
this
is
not
like
as
supported
or
this.
This
does
not
meet
the
same
bar
as
other,
so
I
still
don't
have
the
proper
answer.
I
just
want
to
ask
like
opinions
from
other
folks,
and
if
you
have
any
thoughts,
please
share
with
me
or
like
you
can
message
it
in
the
jitter
channel
or
in
the
one
of
the
issue.
I
can
create
an
issue.
A
C
A
very
tricky
problem,
because
this
disappointment
might
go
both
ways
like
either
people
disappointed
that
there
is
a
bug
and
it's
not
working
or
people
disappointed
that
technology
is
not
not
being
minored
by
open
telemetry.
So.
C
This
place
and
like
nobody
will
like,
if
nobody
opens
this
place
for
others
to
try
and
nobody
shifted,
and
you
basically
have
nothing
and
yeah.
A
Yeah
I
fully
understand
like
that.
I
I
really
think
this
is
a
good
thing
for
how,
because
then
we'll
have
lot
of
adoption,
because
the
more
people
who
contribute
then
you'll
have
more
adoption,
which
will
in
turn,
help
the
overall
project.
It's
just
like.
I'm
studying
with
words
like
I
need
to
put
like
right
words
here,
so
that
people
get
the
right
expectations
and
I
also
want
to
talk
about
like
pull
requests
and
issues
open
here.
A
I
always
have
to
put
this
as
a
lower
priority
than
the
other
one,
because
there
is
only
limited
bandwidth,
so
we
have
to
always
focus
on
something
so
want
to
make
sure
like.
If
you
submit
a
full
request
here,
you
may
or
may
not
get
a
response
in
a
day
or
two,
but
it
could
be
untouched
because
some
of
the
things
are
untouched
for
over
a
month,
and
I
mean
they
could
be
like
disappointed
because
nobody's
looking
at
it.
A
So
that's
what
I
want
to
avoid
like
if
it's
a
separate
list
like
people
who
are
like
individually,
like
passionate
about
let's,
say,
there's
someone
who
is
very
passionate
about
mass
transit
or
elasticsearch.
They
can
be
made
the
owner.
So
if
there
is
any
questions
issues
pr
under
that
folder
only
they
will
be
notified.
A
Like
other
folks
from
the
open,
elementary
sdk
repo,
they
won't
even
get
notified
like
it.
It
will
maintain
a
separate
list
so
that
there
will
be
still
a
place
for
people
to
write
and
contribute
instrumentations,
and
it
should
be
like
more
obvious
that
it's
not
supported
by
the
like
the
same
people,
it's
quite
possible
that
there
will
be
overlap
but
like
officially,
we
want
to
use
like
a
separate
group,
because
this
says
open
elementary
dominator
progress.
A
Okay,
so
that
something
which
I
can
do
so
when
you
create
an
issue
like
you'll,
be
treated
with
like
multiple
options
here,
yeah
it's
currently
not
there,
but
you'll
be
forced
to
pick
one
of
them
and
based
on
that,
we'll
assign
it
to
the
right
person,
yeah,
okay,
something
like
that.
Would
work
and
yeah
I'll
try
to
learn
from
other
languages
and
see
if
I
can
modify
the
like
wordings
here
to
set
the
right
expectations.
C
Thank
you
very
much,
and
I
will
also
try
to
look
at
this
repository
and
I
think
this
repository
is
basically
making
our
promise
like
it's
very
important,
what
we
do
in
asp.net
and
dotnet
in
general,
because
it
executes
on
problems
that
everything
could
be
instrumented.
C
We
just
need
to
scale
it
to
other
technologies
and
yeah.
This
is
important.
A
One
final
question:
like
do
you
think
like
the
aws
and
azure
should
be
here,
or
should
we
ask
it
to
be
moved
to
an
end
check
driver
like?
Should
we
move
it
to
respective
companies
like
google,
aws
and
azure
like?
There
is
no
reason
why
this
should
be
in
a
country
repo
right
I
mean
it's,
it's
not
like
elastic
search
or
entity
framework.
C
Yeah,
my
only
hope
is
this
tech
driver
and
azure
repository
that
whoever
fixing
issues
for
them
will
fix
it,
for
others,
so,
like
at
least
version
upgrade
that
we
might
need
right
now,
because
we
remove
some
internal
apis
or.
C
A
So
let
me
create
issues
here
for
discussing
this
and
see
if
there
can
be
any
takers
and
we'll
give
like
a
good
amount
of
time
for
people
to
migrate.
I
mean
I
can
personally
guarantee
that
I
can
remove
azure,
because
I
work
for
microsoft,
but
I
I
don't
know
about
stackdriver
and
aws
like
like
since
personalities
here
like
do
you
know
if
this
is
something
which
you
can
host
in
aws
reports
and
move
from
here.
D
Yes,
so
we
do
have
public
repository,
or
at
least
we
can
we
can.
We
can
host
it
in
one
of
the
aws.
A
Yeah
I
mean
I
was
thinking
like
if
there
is
an
already
public
repo
for
anything
related
to
open,
telemetry
and
aws,
then
this
should
go
there.
So
it's
like
very
easy
to
find,
like
anything
related
to
aws
you'll,
find
it
there
yeah,
but
anyway,.
D
D
Yeah,
there
are
a
few
options.
I
can
talk
to,
like
my
team,
who
manages
that
repo
and
we
can
like
get
back
probably
next
week.
A
D
And
I
understand
that
that
helps
because,
like
for
a
reason
which
introducing
new
instrumentation,
which
are
very
specific
to
a
vendor
logic,
they
can
be
relatively
quicker,
reviewed
within,
like
mentor-specific
repos,
so
that,
I
think,
is
a
good
thing.
Yeah,
okay,.
A
Yeah
so
the
least
I'll
do
is
I'll.
Just
put
a
note
here
about,
like
I'll
put
a
stronger
word
here
about
this
portability
and
I'll
break
the
like
into
a
separate
group.
Instead
of
using
the
same
team,
we
can
recruit
more
people,
remove
people
who
are
not
having
enough
bandwidth
to
support
this.
So
that
will
be
more
clear
that
this
is
separate.
A
G
G
I
don't
necessarily
expect
an
answer,
but
is
what
is
the
incentive
I
guess
to
submit
my
instrumentation
if
I
had
instrumentation
for
some
library
submitted
here
versus
just
the
hosting
and
github,
you
know
if
there's
no
ci-
and
if
this
is
this
ultimately
just
becomes
kind
of
example,
type
of
thing,
then
it
then
it
becomes
a
little
more
difficult
to
manage
and
actually,
I
think,
could
work
against
the
whole
adoption.
A
Story
yeah,
so
that
part
is
very
clear,
like
I'm
very
happy
that
if
people
are
contributing
here,
it
will
really
increase
adoption.
So
that
part
is
very
clear:
it's
just
a
question
of
like
ownership
like
who
would
own
it.
A
If
there
is
an
issue
like
sega
mentions
that
two-way
thing
like
we
get
a
good
adoption,
but
if
we
don't
do
a
good
job,
maintaining
this
as
we
do
the
other
one,
then
it
can
affect
like
overall
like
what,
if
the
entity
framework
instrumentation
from
this
has
a
lot
of
bugs,
and
nobody
has
like
time
to
fix
it,
then
it
can
also
be
an
issue
as
well.
So
I'm
only
concerned
about
like
what
do
we?
What
is
the
right
messaging
we'll
give
here?
So
whoever
is
using
this?
A
A
Once
that
statement,
is
there
yeah?
I'm
fine
with
that?
In
fact,
I
may
very
well
be
one
of
the
approvers
for
this
report,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure,
like
the
terms
and
support
case
is
very
clear.
G
A
Yeah,
I
think
those
things
like
about
the
overall
infra
like
ca.
We
should
be
able
to
maintain
off
with
the
same
infra
we
have
for
the
main
repo
and
for
ownership,
if
you
do
it
like
per
directory
level
permissions
and
we
might
solve
most
of
the
problems,
because
if
that's
the
case
like
people
who
are
proverbs
or
maintainers
in
the
dot
net,
repo
are
not
going
to
be
even
notified.
When
someone
submits
a
pr
about,
let's
say
stack
driver,
whoever
is
listed
as
the
owner
for
stackdriver
they'll
be
notified.
A
We
can
do
that.
That
should
be
better
than
the
current
step,
because
right
now,
like
I
think
alan,
you
probably
start
getting
notifications
when
someone
submits
a
pr,
because
I
added
to
the
approvers
list
in
the
main
repo.
So
that's
when
I
noticed
this
whole
thing
like
we
were
sharing
the
same
thing
and
when
we
did
the
net
instrumentation,
we
followed
a
different
approach.
We
just
broke
completely
it's
a
different
effort,
supported
by
a
different
person.
So
there
is
no
shared
thing.
A
So
similarly,
I
I
propose
I
I'll
do
this
as
an
issue
right
after
this,
so
we
can
split
the
ownership
and
it
should
be
very
clear
like
who
wants
the
contract
repo
and
I
I
could
very
well
be
one
of
the
owners.
But
the
point
is
we
don't?
We
want
it
like
very
clear
that
this
is
not
owned
by
the
same
people
as
the
others
yeah
nice
class,
okay
yeah.
I
do
not
have
another
topic
to
discuss,
so
I
need
to
put
some
notes
here.
A
So
is
there
any
other
things
which
folks
want
to
discuss
about
like?
I
think
we
still
have
few
minutes
left.
So
there
are
questions
about
metrics
or
public
api
changes
or
anything
in
general
about
ga
next
couple
of
weeks,
I
can
take
that
if
no
questions
yeah,
we
can
end
early.
C
So
for
metrics,
if
we
waiting
for
till
june
for
preview,
do
we
want
to
ask
people
to
keep
using
this
absolute
api?
So
we
want
to
recommend
them
to
not
use
open
syllabus
at
all
and
I'm
asking
because
we
we're
trying
to
adapt
metrics
apart.
Specifically,
I
mean
tracing
as
well,
but
metrics.
We
also
need-
and
the
question
is
how
to
what
would
be
the
right
way
to
do
that
to
start
giving
feedback.
C
A
Why
we
decided
not
to
delete
the
metrics
code
was
to
still
let
people
use
it
and
give
feedback,
because
this
api
is,
I
mean
whatever
we
have
is
based
on
the
in
october
version,
like
october
2019
version
of
the
metrics
back,
it
hasn't
fundamentally
changed.
There
are
name
changes
like
some
concepts
change.
A
So
if
there
is
a
valid
feedback
about
this
feature,
it's
quite
likely
still
a
valid
feedback,
for
whatever
is
a
new
thing,
so
that's
a
reason
why
we
decided
to
just
mark
it
as
absolute
so
that
people
can
continue
to
use
it.
I
mean
my
alternate
proposal
was
just
don't
compile
it
like
just
remove
it
from
the
ga
release
and
then
bring
it
back
like
conditional
comparison
or
something,
but.
B
I
think
sergey
to
your
point.
We
have
to
make
it
clear
that
we're
only
looking
for
tracing
as
an
adoption
metric
and
not
metrics
for
customers
like
we
have
to
make
that
very
clear
that
hey
metrics
is
still
not
g8.
A
Yeah,
so
the
easiest
thing
was
to
do
absolutely.
There
could
be
better
ways,
but
I
couldn't
find
anything
like
the
easiest
is
absolute,
so
that
will
cause
comparison
error.
So
people
will
be
like
greeted
to
some
issues
where
I'll
probably
link
you
to
this
issue.
So
they'll
still
know
like
I'm
using
something
which
is
going
to
be
like.
I
have
to
rework
my
all
my
matrix
code
when
the
new
thing
ships,
but
we
still
mention
like
if
you
have
feedback,
please
mention
here
or
create
a
new
issue.
A
Oh
my
this
would
be
we'll
remove
it.
After
once,
we
go
2.0,
which
would
be
next
year
number
when
the
new
matrix
is
available
from
dot
net.
C
A
It's
a
good
question.
I
do
not
have
a
good
answer
to
that.
Like
I
can
personally
commit
like
I.
I
would
be
spending
more
time
because,
as
we
are
working
on
the
actual
design
in
the
metrics
api,
we'll
be
looking
at
what
we
currently
have
and
we'll
be
like
fixing
things
as
we
find,
but
it's
it's.
It
would
be
relatively
low
priority
than
shipping
the
actual
matrix.
A
E
C
Want
to
take
dependency,
and
I'm
not
sure
we
will
be
taking
dependency
after
that.
But
let
me
let
me
think
about
it.
C
About
it
by
the
way,
so
I'm
I'm
I'm
I'm
stoked
it's
just.
I
just
need
to
adjust
the
plants
now
uh-huh.
A
Yeah
so
I
talked
to
like
a
couple
of
folks
about
like
they
still
want
to
use
metrics
api.
Despite
me
telling
them
hey,
this
is
still
preview
matching,
but
they
said
they
just
need
like
some
apa
so
as
to
send
their
metrics.
They
know
they're
not
going
to
like
trust
that
matrix
or
anything,
it's
just
that
it's
just
that
they
want
all
three
pillars
to
be
covered
by
open
telemetry
like
tracers,
logs
and
metrics.
So
having
something
is
better
than
like.
Nothing,
however,
broken
that
something
is
so.
A
This
is
the
feedback
which
I
got
from
a
couple
of
folks.
They
are
in
inside
microsoft.
I
haven't
heard
much
feedback
from
this
community.
About
I
mean,
of
course,
we
have
a
few
issues
open,
but
I
haven't
received
like
any
feedback,
specifically
about
matrix
api
being
like
not
not
matching
the
spec
or
anything.
Maybe
it's,
because
we
are
always
telling
for
several
months
that
this
is
not
ready.
A
Yeah
but,
like
I
think,
like
what
you're
trying
to
do
is
like
use
this
in
some
internal
projects
in
your
company
and
trying
to
like
fix
low
hanging
fruits
and
like
evolve
it
right.
That's
what
are
trying
to
achieve
right
here,
so
the
only
useful
thing
out
of
that
would
be
we'll
get
like
real
user
feedback
about
a
matrix
api
which
we
should
be
able
to
incorporate
into
whatever
new
api,
which
we
are
designing.
A
The
code
wise,
my
guess,
is
in
2.0
version
of
open
elementary.net.
We
will
just
remove
the
absolute
one
and
replace
it
with
the
dotnet
based
one.
A
And
the
timeline
is
it's
like
very
early
so
like
I
expect
the
net
team
to
have
a
design
dock
in
the
runtime
repo
like
around
february
time.
So
at
that
time
we
can
like
start
giving
feedback
directly
there
or
like
we
can.
Still
I
mean
most
likely.
The
folks
from
donald
runtime
would
be
actively
looking
at
matrix
issues
in
this
repository
so
but
either
way
it's
for
me
to
communicate
feedbacks
from
here.
As
we
are
doing
for
activities
any
feedback,
you
can
bring
it
here.
A
A
Sorry
span
id
and
traceari
to
be
customizable,
so
he
was
asking
me
like
what
would
be
the
like
if
it
becomes
a
spec
thing,
what
would
be
our
best
way
to
handle
it
because
dot
net
5
is
just
shipped,
so
there
is
no
way
we
can
modify
it.net
anyway.
So
it's
going
to
only
come
in
dot
net
6
if
at
all
they
decide
so
sega
like
is
there
anything
we
can
do
like
inside.
A
A
Okay
yeah,
so
it's
just
lower
ground.
There
is
no
way
we
are
going
to
have
anything
in
ga
time,
and
I
mean
dotnet
team
is
also
going
to
have
it
in
dot
network.
It's
already
say
like
dotnet
file
just
shipped
today,
so
okay,
that
makes
sense
yeah
all
right
and
we
have
like
like
lot
of
pro
requests.
I
am
I'm
just
like
focusing
on
some
docs
so
that
it
helps
people
write
instrumentation.
A
Please
take
a
look.
I
need
to
mark
it
just
ready
for
review
and
yeah
anything
which
is
not
marked
every
marking
more
things
as
not
required
for
ga,
like
things
like
persistent
storage,
it's
very
nice
to
have,
but
it's
not
a
spec
and
force
thing.
A
So
I'll
put
it
as
release
after
ga
anything
which
is
not
required
for
spec
and
anything
which
can
be
which
is
not
making
any
public
api
change
like
things
like
this,
which
is
just
doing
like
performance
optimizations
without
changing
anything
I'll
mark
it
as
release
after
ga
and
to
view
it
after
we
are
done
with
all
the
major
ones,
this
just
to
focus
the
energy
on
things
which
really
are
super
important.
A
All
right
yeah,
I
don't
have
any
other
topic,
so
we
can
end
early
and
happy
to
take
any
feedback
offline
as
well.