►
From YouTube: 2021-04-12 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
A
B
B
C
Let
me
see
if
I
can
find
my
name
in
this
document.
D
Yeah,
we
there's
been
a
bit
of
a
progress
since
then
we
haven't
ga
the
end,
but
I
think
a
lot
of
stuff
has
been
there.
C
Yeah,
it
looks
it.
I
we
had
a
bit
of
a
hackathon
here
at
work
and
one
of
the
projects.
The
project
I
picked
up
was
to
get
the
whole
thing
compiled
in
our
code
base
and
it
was
mostly
there.
I
was
able
to
get
the
whole
trace
stack
up
and
running
and
remap
it
into
our
internal
traces.
So
there's
definitely
a
lot
of
progress
here
and
it
mostly
just
built
other
than
an
open
issue
that
was
resolved
within
a
matter
of
a
day,
so
yeah
definitely
a
lot
of
progress.
B
Okay,
yeah,
perhaps
we
can
start
you
one
minute,
yeah,
let's
see
whether
there's
some
more
to.
B
B
B
B
B
The
first
question
comes
from
from
me
as
I
I
added
the
jager
exporter.
It
depends
on
if
I
choose
to
select
the
implementation,
the
protocol
of
thrift
over
udp,
so
I
added
a
dependent
dependence
of
the
rift,
but
I
found
that
the
rift
also
depends
on
boost,
so
I
need
to
introduce
boost
and
for
I
thought
that
you
added
some
location
to
remove
booster.
D
D
I
don't
think
it's
it's
a
huge
deal.
I
mean
I
was
trying
to
go
in
the
opposite
direction,
since
we
can
replace
our
current
embark
variant
with
upsell
variant
with
google
upsell
variant
yeah
that
would
have
made
our
entire
code
bluest
license
free.
It
would
only
have
like
apache
license
and
I
think
for
json
hpp.
We
require
mit
license
it's
just
when
we
list
all
the
licenses
used
by
the
project.
B
D
Mit,
like
I,
was
trying
to
get
them
now.
If
you
require
boost
what
would
be
the
best
way
to
handle
it,
can
we
say
that,
for
example,
scope
it
in
a
way
that
a
jagger
exporter
requires
boost
license,
so
that
way,
if
we
provide
a
pre-built
of
sdk,
how
does
it
work
in
the
so
jagger
is
one
of
the
required
exporters
right,
yes
required
by
the
spec,
that's
right.
D
D
B
B
D
I
hope
it's
acceptable.
I
think
there
was
something
some
discussion
related
discussion
in
the
spectric
or
elsewhere
and
back
then
it
was
a
discussion
between
apache
and
plus
mit.
B
For
you,
you
mentioned
we
list
the
dependencies.
How
to
how
do
we
list
all
the
dependencies?
Do
we
need
to
create.
D
Show
some
examples
like
how
we
did
it
in
a
different
project
in
a
different
open
source
project,
pretty
much
like
a
markdown
document
there.
At
least
these
are
the
components
we
used
so
that
when
commercial
product
ships
us
they
can
probably
use
that
file
as
a
reference
and
follow
this
as
a
guideline
like
to
register
the
usage
of
open
source
in
their
commercial
pool.
D
It's
just
more
like
a
kind
gesture.
I
think
to
provide
that
sort
of
summary
so
that
customers
don't
have
to
reverse
engineer
research
it
themselves.
I
hope
we
are
not
making
them
a
disservice.
If,
if
we
do
that
as
long
as
we
do
it
diligently
and
we
capture
the
components,
so
I
I'd
still
most
likely
conclude
the
pr
which
would
remove
the
boost
license
from
variant.
D
So
I
think
be
just
a
bit
more
consistent
if
we
just
rely
on
abseil
in
the
main
api
surface,
but
technically
they
are
not
breaking
anything
because
right
now
we
already
require
boost
lessons
so
by
reintroducing
another
component.
That
depends
on
that.
B
D
I
personally
was
treating
is
like
hey,
it's
nice,
we're
making
it
simple
we're
removing
any
boost
code.
Like
that's
how
I
treated
that
now.
I
think,
as
you
say,
from
a
practical
technical
standpoint,
it
won't
make
sense
to
remove
it
because
it's
easier
for
you
to
use
the
existing
library
which
requires
boost
again.
C
My
only
comment
here
is
working
in
a
place
where
getting
boost
isn't
always
as
trivial
might
be,
if
it's
only
required
for
one
exporter
making
that
exports
are
configurable
on
an
opt-in
basis
and
not
requiring
boost,
if
you,
if
you
don't
need
it,
because
otherwise,
unfortunately
getting
boost
and
consistently
or
on
a
large
code
base
can
be
sporadic
and
yeah.
D
I
I
I
kind
of
agree
because
it's
like,
let's
say
for
the
sorry
for
bringing
this
like
for
the
windows
80w
exporter,
for
where
there's
out
of
proclistionary
over
80w
in
that
configuration
for
that
customer.
I
don't
even
need
boost
because
they're
not
using
jagger
exporter
and
in
nowhere,
and
therefore
they
require
the
jacker
exporter,
which
then,
as
the
least
components
they
use,
and
I
think,
by
law.
D
They
have
to
mention
what
source
code
they
use
and
all
that
like
for
the
government
setting,
for
example,
it's
easier
when
they
don't
depend
on
it
like
they
say
in
this
configuration.
These
are
the
libraries
we
use.
D
This
is
the
header
which
now
I'll
fix
it
will
require
only
the
upsell
for
the
variant
optionally
gsl
for
spam,
or
even
the
standard
library,
compiler
primitives,
instead
of
any
custom
libraries,
if
customers
building
with
c
plus
plus
20,
for
example,
but
those
who
require
jagger,
which
is
required
by
spec
in
that
case,
we'll
give
them
a
reference.
Doc,
which
says:
hey,
jagger
exporter
right
now,
actually
requires
the
boost
license,
because
that
was
the
fastest
shortest
path
to
make
it
happen,
and
we
haven't
found
any
other
viable
alternatives.
B
Yeah,
I
think,
for
encountering
for
all
exporters.
We
have
built
a
flag
to
to
to
enable
or
disable
each
one.
I
think
the
default,
I'm
not
sure
the
default.
Maybe
we
can
make
it
default,
often
the
document
the
dependencies
for
each
exporter
right.
I
think
very
few
customers
will
just
need
all
exporters.
D
I
think
there
was
a
comment
from
walid
in
one
of
my
pr's,
where
I
was
trying
to
document
the
options
just
for
my
exporter.
He
asked.
Maybe
it
makes
sense
to
have
a
separate,
a
bigger
dock,
which
documents
all
of
the
build
options,
and
in
that
document
we
can
say
with
jagger.
For
example,
option
requires
boost
license,
because
the
underlying
dependency
requires
boost.
D
That
would
still
let
me
kill
the
boost
in
the
variant
implementation.
So
then
other
exporters
which
are
non-jagger
don't
have
boost
dispensers.
E
Yeah
look
at
that
tom.
Regarding
the
the
jaeger
exporter,
I
mean
jager
exporter
like
jager,
the
kind
of
terrible
value
of
protocols
to
support
I
mean
there's
rift.
There's
http,
there's
also
protobuf
via
a
trpc
yeah.
I
wonder
why,
besides
decide
to
go
with
with
thrift,
because
I
see
traveler
at
least
according
to
the
spec
compliance
matrix,
they
only
support
protobuf
fire
to
your
pc.
B
I
choose
the
thrift
compact
binary
particle
because
I
I
saw
the
the
default
jugger
agent,
which
runs
with
this
protocol
yeah.
So
that's
that's
when
I
tested
the
jagger
agent
released
by
the
agent
report
owned
by
the
jaeger
ripple
and
the
grpc
and
another
one
http
seems
for
the
collector
not
for
agent.
B
E
Okay,
that
makes
sense-
and
another
question
like
for
this-
the
what
I
went
to
the
license
dependency.
How
will
we
ship
that,
like
the
thrift
library,
is
this
we'll
include
this
as
a
sub
module
in
our
code?
We'll
include
code
itself
or.
B
For
this
it
has
a
feel
like
protobuf.
It
has
a
few
generated
files
right
for
such
files.
I
checked
in
the
copy
directly
into
our
reports
without
a
reaper,
so
no
sub
module,
the
files
are
copied
from
the
jaeger
trees
in
repo.
I
think
that's
the
original
jager
ripple,
so
there's
no
subreport
and
for
the
runtime
code
and
for
now
I
added
the
vc
package
reference.
So
that's
that
user
library,
linking
to
the
library
directly
so
yeah,
that's
how
the
current
dependencies
is
used.
E
B
Boost
is
in
included
by
the
header
and
the
c
plus
five.
The
generator
code
includes
both
headers
and
the
classified
source
source
files.
E
B
E
E
B
Yeah
thanks
and
yeah,
I
think
we
can
it's
very
strong
preference
because
you
choose
to
to
implement
like
the
http
or
grpcs
as
the
pr
is
still
going
under
review,
and
I
think
I
made
the
protocol,
we
can
choose
a
different
particle.
Currently
it
is
in
udp
and
we
can
swap
in
another
jpc,
I
think
that's
doable.
So
if
that's
preferable
or
profitable,
please.
B
B
Okay,
I
think,
for
the
first
question,
it
looks
good
to
me
or
any
other
feedback
or
question
on
this
one.
C
Max
just
click
on
that
so,
given
that
the
license
requirements
are
now
different,
depending
on
your
build
options,
I
just
think
it
might
be
useful
to,
on
the
one
hand,
document
kind
of
build
options
with
license
on
it.
On
the
other
side,
I
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
build
target
of
a
license
produced
based
on
your
configuration
to
actually
tell
you
what
licenses
you've
now
consumed
as
an
artifact
potentially
just
might
be
useful
for
publicity
of
what
was
needed.
C
D
Yes,
it's
also
interesting,
because,
usually
I
don't
know,
I
need
to
double
check
on
that.
One,
for
example,
with
package
in
the
nougat
package
windows,
there's
usually
a
license
file
and
you
can
require
the
license
acceptance.
So
I'm
wondering
if
it's
acceptable
for
the
code
for
the
license
file
to
actually
have
like
multiple
licenses,
because
it's
a
single
file
right,
so
it
could
be
like
apache.
D
Then,
if
we
pre-built
with
json
hp,
it's
gonna
be
like
a
section
with
mit
and
then
there's
a
several
section
with
the
boost
for
jagger
exporter,
assuming
that
we
provide
a
pre-built.
D
Otherwise,
if
it's
a
compile-time
thing
like,
if
some
customer
uses
either
vc
packages
cmak
to
actually
build
the
thing
it's
more
of,
we
should
clearly
refer
them
to
the
document.
Say
hey
when
you
guys
build
this
thing.
D
Please
consider
that
if
you
enable
this
option
like
somehow
like
it
depends,
but
we
did
have
our
plans
to
release
some
form
of
a
binary
or
like
this
for
linux,
we
did
right
call
this
api
stability
idea
is
that
different
vendors
may
implement
the
api
stable
share
library
right
where
you
can
supplement
or
replace
one
with
another.
D
B
D
Code
great
question:
I
don't
know
I
mean
I
I'd
still
proceed
with
the
change
to
remove
boost
from
the
very
end
for
the
jagger.
Maybe
if
we
start
with
the
document
that
describes
this
required,
exporter
is
mandated
by
the
spec,
but
it
also
implies
that
we
have
to
depend
on
a
boost
for
that
yeah.
D
Maybe
if
don't
do
anything,
help
with
like
creating
a
separate
dock
which
describes
all
the
build
options,
build
options
for
what
type
of
build
option
do
you
mean
like
for
all
features?
We
have
right
now
with
prometheus,
for
example,
which
is
a
funky
option.
I
don't
think
we
are
planning
to
release
metrics
as
part
of
ga
right.
It's.
D
D
Then
there's
this
with
protobuf
for
the
grpc
exporter
for
the
aohlp,
which
I
think
we
should
also
describe
then
there's
the
with
stl,
which
assumes
that
you're
running
with
c
plus
plus
morning
compiler,
and
then
we
also
smalls
to
the
standard
classes
like
span
and
string
view
and
variant
to
the
runtime
itself.
D
Like
those
things,
the
build
options
we
currently
list
in
the
cmake
quest
and
then,
as
you
add,
with
jagger
jaeger,
we
can
tell
that
this
option
enables
the
edgar
exporter
at
compile
time,
and
it
requires
acceptance
of
the
boost
license,
because
the
downstream
dependency
needs
boost.
D
D
Well,
it
asked
me
to
create
one.
Maybe
I
can
start.
B
E
Yeah
we
just
done
another
question
tommy.
I
was
just
quickly
looking
up
this
wrist
stuff,
and
I
mean
there
is
a
standard,
thrift
library
that
the
apache
itself
provides.
That
is
a
apache
2.0
license
and
the
one
of
the
thing
that
you
is
using.
That
is
basically
that
is
stuff
directly
from
the
jager
project
that
they
that
from
the
jager
repository
something
they
provide.
E
B
B
But
I
think
in
that
one
we
can
generate
on
the
fly
right
we
can.
We
can
create
a
sub
module
with
jagger
id
idl
or
ripple
and
generate
the
such
files
on
the
flat
so
that
that's
doable,
but
just
because
the
same
snow
change
change
for
jagger
protocol.
I
think
in
the
last
a
few
years,
so
I
just
cloned
copied
the
snapshot.
E
Yes,
because
because
I
I
trust
for
me,
I
didn't
see
any
codes
from.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
where
the
boost
dependency
comes
in,
because
I
think
there's
a
swift
library
itself
that
has
is
just
a
battery
2.0
license,
and
then
there
is
yeah.
There's
these
idl
files
from
jager
that
one
has
to
compile
and
they're,
not
sure
where
the
value
dependency
comes
in,
but
whether
those
compiled
files
yeah.
B
Compiled
files,
you
know
you,
reference
boost,
share
the
ptr,
so
if
I
just
remove
the
booster
defense
dependency,
it
will
not
compile.
Currently,
our
checker
exporter
with
work
complain
missing
boost.
B
B
If
there's
some
way
to
eliminate
the
booster
dependence,
I
think
that
would
be
great,
but
so
far
I
got
since
it
is
necessary,
as
I
think
this
thrift
generator
files
declares
itself
to
support
even
c
plus
plus
zero
zero
three.
So
it
depends
on
boost
to
do
to
do
such
backward
compatibility.
D
Yes,
I
loved
an
issue
last
week
before
my
vacation
and
now
I'm
getting
back
to
that.
There's
a
standard
security
scanner
code
qr,
which
github
provides
the
github
action
and
I'm
planning
to
set
it
up
as
a
separate
check
as
part
of
cai
process.
The
main
benefit
is.
We
would
also
have
that
nice
security
tab
which
will
list
whatever
issues
that
called
ql
identified.
D
I
guess
the
main
reason
why
I
proposed
to
set
it
up
is
some
our
own
internal
processes
require
that
too,
and
it
would
be
of
benefit
to
the
others
if
we
discover
security
issues
early
on
at
ci
stage,
so
I
I
have
a
proposal
that
we
should
set
it
up.
There's
no
drawback.
Really
it
may
trigger
some
false
positives,
but
if
there's
a
false
positive
you
can
actually
suppress
it
like
say
moon
physics,
because
explanation
provided,
why
won't
fix?
Otherwise,
it's
a
great
thing
to
monitor
for
any.
D
It
is
somewhat
useful.
I
I
find
it
somewhat
useful.
It
has
been
finding
flagging
some
bad
api
calls
and
also
we
can
customize
that
the
setup
elsewhere,
for
example,
if
we
clone
that
code,
we
can
run
the
same
setup
with
more
strict
set
of
rules,
but
by
default
I'm
thinking
of
implementing
it
with
just
the
standard
default
set
of
rules,
and
maybe
two
runs.
One
is
the
windows
one
and
the
other
one
is
gcc
I'll
link
strong.
D
Pretty
much
and
another
follow-up
question.
Is
I
found
a
few
warnings
in
our
existing
code
like,
for
example,
controversial
topic
about
the
usage
of
underscore
s?
Functions
like
copy
underscore
s,
the
rest
of
compilers
and
libraries
and
companies
do
not
really
implement
that.
D
But
microsoft
does
and
in
a
few
spots
we
could
either
have
with
def,
or
we
could
revert
the
code
to
use
more
standard
plus
plus
rather
than
c
functions,
thus
eliminating
the
usage
of
potentially
unsafe
functions,
and
I
want
to
get
that
cleaned
up
because
for
compliance
reasons,
I
have
to
finish
that,
like
code
ql
and
secure
life
cycle
development
things,
so
I
wanted
to
cover
it.
This.
D
D
As
we
get
to
ship
it,
we
need
to
be
very
strict
about
following
the
proper
process
with
respect
to
this
open
source
code,
and
I
hope
it
would
build
benefit
to
the
others
as
well.
D
You
mean
for
the
or
for
the
I
mean
for
the
open,
telemetry,
separate
space,
great
question,
so
different
visual
studios
generate
different
warnings.
Right
I
mean
we
do
have
a
build
book
with
17
and.
D
My
immediate
customer-
it's
not
a
good
answer,
I
know,
but
my
immediate
customer
is
now
on
17
right
now,
so
first,
my
top
priority
is
make
sure
that
17
does
not
trigger
any
warning
and
19
would
have
a
it's
on
a
few
new
warnings
right
now.
Our
code
is
not
clean.
I
think
there
was
a
pr
which
cleans
up
the
grpc,
which
disables
a
bunch
of
warnings
in
jrpc,
which
we
are
not
going
to
be
fixing.
We
assume
that
these
are
fine,
but
our
own
code.
We
should
try
to
keep
to
get
to
zero
warnings.
D
Hopefully
so,
whatever
I
see
right
now,
I
can
do
two
manual
runs
17
and
19
clean
it
up
all
and
then
see
if
we
maybe
stop
tracking,
so
that
we
don't
reintroduce
new
warning
and
obviously
for
every
snapshot
for
every
release
that
I
have
to
do.
For
example,
let's
say
right
now
we
are
at
0.40
right.
D
I
I
do
perform
some
extra
quality
controls
before
I
drop
it
to
the
other
customer
as
a
source
code
and
verify
so
for
every
new
tag.
I'd
still
perform
manual
checks
if
we
have
new
warnings
introduced.
So
I
guess
it's
gonna
be
a
good
practice
if
at
least
we
manually
track
and
we
work,
so
you
probably
noticed
that
I
logged
a
bug
against
get
m
function.
B
D
That
the
way
how
it's
currently
handling
it,
it's
crucial
warnings
disabled
just
for
that
module
pope,
so
that
the
warnings
are
not
permanently
disabled
for
the
rest
of
code.
It's
only
isolated
disabled
for
grpc
yeah,
I'm
not
sure
if
we
can
fix
your
pc
works.
D
D
And
it
just
happens
that
again
for
the
selfish
reason,
right
now
for
my
immediate
deliverable
for
atw,
I'm
not
relying
on
your
pc,
but
I
guess
it'd
be
good
so
that
we
have
better
understanding
of
web
rewarding
and
to
try
to
drive
this
down
to
zero.
Maybe
once
we
get
there,
we
can
treat
all
warnings
as
errors.
D
Maybe
if
we
get
to
zero
warnings
on
windows,
we
can
set
the
flag
to
now
treat
all
warnings
as
errors
and,
if
there's
some
code
that
cannot
be
compiled,
then
the
author
would
have
to
suppress
explicitly
explaining
why
they
suppressed
it.
For
example,
in
some
depending
library
like
grpc
scenario
and
then
re-enable
those
warnings
elsewhere
in
the
rest
of
the
code.
D
D
C
Say
you're
getting
with
a
hard
g
yeah
I
mean
look
it's
a
minor
topic,
but
I
I
was
adding
a
couple
of
small
contributions
and
I
guess
I
had.
I
saw
some
inconsistencies
about
google
test
usage.
Then
I
found
this
pr,
which
was
kind
of
half
in
flight.
I
think
there
is
a
couple
of
things
that
probably
change
on
that
pr,
but
I
was
hoping
just
to
push
this
along
get
it
landed
so
that
other
contributors
can
just
kind
of
get
started
easier.
C
I
think
it
got
a
little
bit
stale
as
all
aprs
beyond
a
few
weeks
tend
to
so
it's
hoping
to
to
have
it
revived,
I'm
happy
to
wrap
it
up
myself
other
than
I
don't
have
access
to
push
to
that
branch,
but
yeah.
I
was
just
hoping
to
bring
it
up
to
see
what
others
think
about
this
one.
B
Okay,
is
this
one
only
on
your
documented
change
right.
C
C
File
yeah.
I
think
I
think
it
looks
like
any
a
new
file
in
this
case,
quite
a
lengthy
one,
but
okay.
C
C
It
I'm
not
sure
if
you
can
somehow
enable
it
for
me,
but
I
don't
think
that's
how
it
works.
I
think
only
the
repo
owners
can
change
it.
C
D
So
I'm
just
wondering
like
this
one
looks
good
in
general:
can
we
give
it
a
half
pass
and
merge,
maybe
and
then
have
a
separate
issue
logged
to
clean
it
up
and
make
it
better,
because
overall,
it's
a
good
contribution
right,
so
I
mean
maybe
can
we
consider
most
of
these
things
like
as
nitpicking,
and
the
only
thing
that
needs
to
happen
is
make
sure
that
markdown
lint
is
happy
about
it,
which
I
can
run
and
fix
it.
B
Yes,
I
think
I
approved
it
rightly
approved
it,
so
I
think
we
can
move
ahead
and
emerge
this
way
and
improve
it
in
future.
Prs.
D
D
E
D
Okay,
like
update
branch
click
on
update
branch,
just
to
see
what
happens
because
then
it
will
rerun
the
checks
on
using
all
the
latest
markdown
linking
rules.
B
Yeah,
I
just
clicked
updated
the
branch,
let's
see
if
it
all
passes,
I
think
we
could
request
the
loudness.
D
Okay,
how
about
I
I
fix
it
guys
like.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
maybe
just
push
to
the
original
owner
repo
yeah,
as
I
expected.
B
D
I
can
try
to
take
a
look
if
I
can
push
to
the
owner's
repo
like
or
maybe.
D
C
If
there's
any
follow-up
from
once,
you
have
a
quick
scan
over
it
or,
if
any
anything
to
address
further
feel
free
to
dump
that
on
a
github
issue,
and
I
can
follow
up
afterwards
just
to
to
fix
up
anything
there.
All
right
cool.
C
C
Yeah,
if,
if
you
have
a
couple
of
minutes,
just
wanted
to
to
kind
of
ask-
I
mean
this
was
one
of
the
things
I
picked
up,
but
I
guess
I
I've
had
some
time
made
available
for
me
to
spend
a
bit
more
time
on
this
project.
C
So
I'm
more
than
happy
to
start
picking
up
some
some
items.
So
if,
if
you
guys
want
to
fire
away
a
few,
maybe
kind
of
starting
items
and
then
growing
kind
of
increasing
them
in
complexity,
I'm
more
than
happy
to
spend
a
bit
more
time
helping
out
now
that
I
have
time
to
dedicate
to
this
project
again.
B
C
No
worries
somewhat
related.
I
noticed
that
the
current
participation
in
the
last
few
sessions
has
been
mostly
microsoft.
D
We
have
services
depending
on
supply
class
in
azure,
and
this
project
is
important
to
us.
C
E
Extremely
happy
to
have
you
because
yeah
we
microsoft
is
currently
the
strongest
compute
contributor,
but
we
would
love
to
have
others
contributing
too
so.
C
Even
the
simple
logistics
like,
I
think,
there's
a
rule
that
you're
not
meant
to
approve
from
the
same
organization
twice,
which
I
can
imagine
fights
you
guys
a
little
bit
here.
We.
B
D
C
Okay-
well,
hopefully
I
I
I'll
ramp
up
and
once
I
guess,
once
I've
had
a
few
changes
under
my
belt
I'll
see.
If
I
can
go
for
the
what's
the
the
status,
it's
the
contrib,
I
can't
remember
what
the
first
level
is,
but
there
is
a
community
membership
at
the
first
level,
which
is
not
maintainer.
D
But
so
you're
not
again
you're
a
member
of
no.
C
No
I'm
not
at
the
moment
at
the
moment.
I
have
no.
No
do
we
need
to
sponsor
you
well,
I
was
gonna
do
a
couple
of
pr's,
but
I
guess
once
I
get
up
to
that
level,
I
was
hoping
to
to
to
get
and
get
a
membership.
So
at
that
point
I
will
be
asking
for
some
sponsorship.
Yes,
not
just
yet.
I
wanted
to
get
a
few
pr's
under
my
belt
before
I
go
for
that.
C
Yeah
no
worries
and
glad
to
plan
to
join
in
on
this
a
little
bit
late,
but
better
later
and
sorry,
never
brother.
B
Okay,
our
next
meeting
is
next
wednesday
in
the
morning
in
pst
time
zone.
C
I
was
very
happy
to
see
that
a
new
slot
was
added
in
a
more
convenient
time
zone.
For
me
back
a
year
ago,
is
only
the
1500
specific
time
slots.
Yes,
I.
B
See
thanks
okay,
if
no
more
topics,
I
think
we
can.
I
will
return
15
minutes
back
to
to
you
yeah
all
right
cheers
guys.
Thank
you.