►
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
C
Going
to
be
disappointed
when
they
see
how
much
time
they're
spending
on
all
this
like
four
hours
yesterday,
oh.
C
Keep
the
boat
pointed
the
right
way.
C
D
C
D
C
Post
birthday,
hello,
yeah.
C
E
C
So
this
morning,
I
approved
the
in-flight
PRS
and
then
I
made
a
some
slight
adjustments
to
two
and
three
to
try
to
help,
have
more
succinct
goals
and
what
I
did
is
I
copied.
What
the
goal
was
down
to
the
explanations
and
then
kind
of
summarized
a
little
bit,
so
we
can
tweak
the
words
as
desired
and
then
I
wherever
there
was
a
funding
request.
I
moved
that
down
to
the
time
and
resources
inside
the
git
repo.
E
E
E
Let
me
stall
for
you,
so
you
know.
Obviously
this
is
or
we're
talking
education
I'm
a
little
frazzled
from
too
many
trying
to
do
too
many
different
things
simultaneously.
So
I
can't
remember
what
are
we
trying
to
do
today
at
this
meeting.
F
So
this
one
is
to
cover
section
three,
so
we've
gotten
through
curation
and
then
we
covered
last
night
expanding
content.
B
E
E
F
Yeah
well,
the
one
thing
that
they
threw
us
was
actually
just
like,
so
creating
Badges
and
stuff,
which
I
think
makes
sense
to
go
under
this
yeah.
Absolutely.
B
E
Okay,
all
right
I
see
expanding
training
GitHub
with
a
link.
Is
that
the
one
you
want
me
to
follow
so
sorry.
F
E
F
Exactly
just
as
we
did
in
the
last
one
and
to
identify
any
immediate
next
actions
we
should
be
taking
before
we
head
into
our
next
round
and
also
it
sounds
like
we're
going
to
do
async
on
here
on
the
ossf
slack
as
needed,
but
mostly
every
communication
should
be
on
GitHub
right
for
having
a
conversation
making
an
issue
if
it
needs
to
be
great.
So
can
everyone
see
this
read
this
we're
all
good?
Yes,
yes,
cool!
F
So
this
one's
great,
it's
not!
It
doesn't
have
too
many
things
that
we
really
have
to
well,
it's
got
a
couple,
so,
let's
just
run
through
these,
make
sure
we're
all
aware,
and
then
let's
get
some
key
action
standards
and
I'm
just
going
to
open
this
up
with
editing.
So
we
have
them
right
in
so
step
number
one
goal:
number
one
major
hubs
reflect
training
and
certifications.
So
for.
F
Right,
excellent,
okay,
so
starting
with
the
first
one
major
hubs
to
reflect
certifications,
you
can
spend
a
minute
on
this,
so
the
quote-unquote
hubs,
GitHub
and
gitlab,
and
the
major
foundations
to
reflect
certifications
and
accomplishments
of
maintainers,
so
I
think
I
mean
easy.
First,
steps
for
this
is:
let's
go
and
be
clear
about
what
already
exists
out
there.
There
is
a
lot
of
badging
already
available,
but
this
should
be
specific
to
cyber
security,
in
which
case
really
not
that
strong,
we
can
get
some
general
OS
education,
but
not
cyber
security.
E
If
I
make
two
things
cyber
security
and
we're
talking
training
of
individuals,
not
whatever
the
project
does
because
there's
a
lot
of
badges
that
also
talk
about
projects,
so
I
totally
agree
with
you
more
clarification,
good
idea.
F
Let's
see
yeah
so,
let's
see
list
currently
available
individual.
F
Contributor
Badges
and
recognition
from
noted
sources
I'll
make
sure
to
go,
get
those,
and
do
we
want
these
to
be
only
cyber
security,
specific
or
some
generalized
OS
as
well,
which
I
can
find.
E
I
would
say
they
have
to
at
least
include
security
or
cyber
security
in
some
way,
it's
okay,
if
they,
if
they
broaden
it,
you
know,
because
because
number
Warriors
I
mean
including
best
practice
is
about
we'll
say,
security
and
sustainability
under
the
theory,
if
you
can't
sustain
it,
you
can't
secure
it
either.
F
So
this
is
probably
something
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
do
in
tandem
with
the
curation
group,
so
naturally
we're
going
to
find
the
resources
that
already
have
badges
or
recognition
of
some
sort,
and
we
should
highlight
those
and
focus
with
them.
Anything.
A
Else,
yeah
I
would
also
add
that
that
might
actually
be
very
difficult
since
a
lot
of
the
trainings
don't
have
a
categorization
schema
to
be
able
to
reflect
or
filter
which
badges
or
other
Awards
or
other
activities
can
be
reflected.
So
I
know,
with
credly
I,
get
a
lot
of
badges
issued
to
me
from
the
Linux
foundation
for
a
lot
of
the
things
that
I
do,
but
they're
not
there's
no
kind
of
categorization
associated
with
them.
E
Interesting
I
interpreted
thank
you
for
saying
that,
because
I
interpreted
the
text
written
differently
than
you
did
so
so
let
me
explain
how
I
read
this,
and
this
is
just
maybe
some
clarification
needed.
I
read
this
is
hey.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that
if
someone
has,
you
know
some
badge
related
to
cyber
security
training
that
it's
from
some
certain
focuses
that
would
be
included.
Not
that
there'd
be
a
way
to
list
just
those.
E
If
that
makes
any
sense,
if
we
want
to
have
an
ability
to
to
filter,
I,
think
that'd
be
all
I
think
that
would
be
valuable,
but
I
I
think
we
need
to
clarify.
If
that's,
if
that's
what
the
group
is
intending,
we
need
to
say
that,
because
I
was
at
least
interpreting
the
text
differently,.
F
I
think
this
could
be
a
year
one
year,
two
difference,
so
we
absolutely
need
to
curate
reach
out
and
I
think
this
is
something
where
yeah
we're
going
to
need
integration
support
if
we're
going
to
be
doing
that
kind
of
thing.
So
that's
something
that
we
could
do
in
year,
two,
and
only
do
it
with
those
who
we
know
are
maintaining
their
resources
right.
So
yeah.
Let
me
see.
B
A
Mean
I'm
pretty
sure
that
GitHub
already
has
something
like
this
under
right,
because
the
Linux
Foundation
has
an
open
request
with
GitHub
and
a
few
other
sources
to
create
custom,
certification
and
badging
schemas
to
reflect
on
a
maintainer
or
contributor,
or
anybody
with
a
GitHub
handles
profile
and
be
able
to
have
organizations
assign
those
values
so
like
those
works,
are
already
in
place
and
I
understand
the
need
for
an
integration
developer
with
other
activities.
But
there
shouldn't
be
anything
that
prohibits
us
from
reaching
out
to
cradley
and
GitHub
and
gitlab
to
make
them
work.
E
E
F
F
A
Emily
so
I
think
you,
you
made
a
comment,
though,
that
is
valuable
here
and
it
kind
of
goes
back
to
the
categorization
piece
in
that
there's
skill
sets,
which
are
very
particular
things
like
on
LinkedIn.
You
have
the
ability
to
like
recommend
skill
sets
that
or
a
test
skill
sets
of
another
individual,
something
like
that
is
different
from
like
a
certification
and
a
badging
perspective
in
that
Badges
and
certifications,
often
Encompass
various
skill
sets
and,
in
addition
to
just
categorizing
things
is,
this
is
just
open
source.
This
one
is
just
security.
A
E
Yeah,
okay,
I
think
I,
I
think
Emily's
making
a
great
point.
You
know
maybe,
for
example,
specifically
for
both
of
these
year.
One
year
two.
Maybe
we
should
change
cyber
security
training
to
like
secure
software
development,
because
cyber
security
training
would
include,
for
example,
spam
awareness,
training.
F
Yeah
well,
okay,
this
is
I
mean
this
is
my
general
pet
peeve,
with
cyber
security.
All
the
time
like
this
is
a
massive
service
area.
Right,
I
only
think
about
like
repository
level,
security
and
everyone
else
thinks
about
their
browsers
right.
So
right,
yeah
I
think
that
building
out
a
matrix,
so
I
think
we
need
to
work
a
little
bit
more
in
tandem
with
the
section
one,
because,
when
we're
building
out
this
Matrix,
that's
exactly
one
either
column
or
pillar
of
this
so
yeah.
F
Let's
make
sure,
let's
see
work
with
curation
team
to
identify.
F
I
guess:
training
Pathways,
that
line
I,
don't
know
I
guess
the
language
here
is
a
little
bit
big,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
make
a
note
here
that,
when
we're
building
out
that
educational
Matrix,
it
really
keeps
this
in
mind,
but
I
think
for
now
we
can
leave
this.
We
all
know
where
the
GitHub
is:
let's
go
for
goal
two
offer
Financial
incentives
that
are
being
tested,
including
micro
grants
to
maintainers
and
critical
OSS
right.
F
So
for
this
this
is
a
massive
ask
and
this
is
going
to
have
to
really
be
honed
in
a
little
bit.
So
really.
The
first
steps
here
are
I
think
we
need
to
do
just
a
little
bit
more
research
on
what's
currently
out
there
and
what's
not
going
to
be
an
absolute
overlap,
for
example,
sos.dev
I'm
working
with
them
right
now
to
get
them
to
actually
do
it
and
pay
people
so
I
think
name:
one
is
going
to
be
identify
and
align
with
known,
well
identify
known.
F
Incentives
within
and
outside
of
Ella,
because
there's
a
lot
going
on
inside
of
LF.
That
just
does
not
come
together
and
then
aim
to
identify
gaps
in
incentive
scheme.
F
F
B
F
I'm
gonna
put
the
language
here
guaranteed
funding.
This
is
something
that's
becoming
more
important
to
me
when
we're
talking
about
maintainers
is
not
telling
them
that
there
might
be
a
possibility
that
they'll
be
funded
for
the
work
that
they
do,
make
it
up
front
what
the
expectations
are
and
if
they
do,
it
say
that
that
bursary
is
set
aside
so
guaranteed.
E
F
No,
these
are
not.
This
is
not
there.
F
Core
maintainers
so
we're
trying
to
incentivize
core
maintainers
of
our
most
important
projects
right,
so
these
are
adults
which
typically
have
jobs
and
they're
having
to
do
above
and
beyond.
So
in
this
context,
I
do
want
to
be
like
I
want
to
be
certain
here,
because
there
are
some
programs
going
on
right
now
where
they've
got
a
web
page
maintainers
will
email,
slack,
GitHub
them
and
get
no
response.
We
cannot
behave
that
way
if
we
want
to
fix
this
problem,
so
excuse.
E
F
F
A
What
is
the
comment,
Define
conditions
and
criteria
for
eligibility
of
any
new
grants,
and
then
I
have
a
follow-on
associated
with
that,
coincidentally,
prompted
by
David,
and
that
we
haven't
actually
defined
what
these
credentials
are.
Badging
or
education
programs
actually
are
David
had
mentioned
going
and
getting
a
degree,
but
that's
not
something
that
I
had
actually
thought
about
here,
particularly
since
maintainers
usually
have
a
full-time
job
or
doing
something
in
that
regard.
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
clear
on
what
this
is
actually
for.
A
F
There's
a
whole
other
section
for
the
student
audience
very
specifically
here
and
I
will
like
protect
this
with
my
soul.
This
is
the
core
maintainers
that
we
need
to
protect
in
cyber
security.
None
of
them
are
trained
and
if
we
don't
train
them
and
get
them
into
best
practices,
Nothing
Else,
Matters
right
now,
so.
E
F
Okay,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
put
in
for
supply
chain
best
practices
for.
D
E
F
C
F
That's
perfect:
this
fits
a
little
bit
with
the
idea
of
better
rendering
specific
skill
sets
within
cyber
security,
yeah
I.
E
Think
yeah,
but
this
is
for
the
job
boards,
like
indeed
in
LinkedIn.
Instead
of
for
the
software
repos,
like
you
know,
hosting
sites
like
GitHub
gitlab,.
F
Emily
quick
question
your
resume
or
profile
comma.
Is
that
for
three
two.
D
A
So
but
like,
and
that
leads
me
to
the
question
of
what
do
we
put
on
a
resume
to
reflect
those
skill
sets
is
like,
is
there
a
way
that
we
could
potentially
work
with
LinkedIn
and
indeed
to
render
and
a
Consolidated
format,
so
somebody
can
copy
and
paste
that
into
their
resume,
to
make
it
a
lot
easier,
particularly
if
there's
an
attestation
of
a
skill
associated
with
it
or
or
a
course
behind
it.
A
A
E
E
So
it's
not
so
much
a
timeliness,
but
it's
much
more
of
a
like
for
a
cissp
you,
you
should
be
able
to
click
on.
It
immediately
verify
that
that
person
either
does
or
does
not
have
one.
B
A
E
But
that's
that's
what
I
mean
by
the
verified.
I
I
really
had
much
with.
Indeed,
but
I
am
on
LinkedIn
and
you
can
add
stuff
on
some
parts
of
LinkedIn
that
are
just
self
attestations,
but
other
parts
are
verified,
so
I
think
we
want
them
to
be
one
of
the
things
that
it
verifies.
That's
that's
all
and
if
there's
a
better
way
to
it,
it's
a
degree
and
B.
If
you
agree,
is
there
a
better
way
to
say
it
because
I
may
not
be
saying
it
well.
F
We
know
for
a
fact
that
they've
completed
this
I
strongly
prefer
that
all
trainings
end
in
one
verified
at
least
PR,
because
otherwise
what
a
waste
of
time
but
I
can't
guarantee
that
that's
just
my
personal
belief,
no
I
think
for
now
these
two
identifications
and
if.
C
F
E
F
E
Oh
mm-hmm,
I,
I
I
think
what's
happened
is
a
a
gentle
creep
I
think.
Originally
the
3.4
text
was
hey,
improve
a
certification
systems
so
that
other
people
can
integrate
it.
And
then
these
other
goals
were
hey,
make
sure
they're
integrated.
F
Yeah,
so
it
goes
3.4,
3.3
and
then
3.5,
in
my
view.
Well,
no
other
way
around
so
3.4,
3.5
3.3,
so
highest
priority
is
actually
find
out
which
of
these
we
can
verify.
Second
priority
make
sure
we're
verifying
and
providing
that
bump
for
those
core,
maintainers
and
developers
that
we're
trying
to
hire
within
make
sure
those
ecosystems
are
secure
and
then
continue
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
more
standardized
rendering.
F
E
No,
not
3.2,
why
is
it
3.1
I
can't
see
what
you're
not
showing
so
all.
E
E
F
B
F
Think
3.4
has
some
reasonable,
Milestones
already
available
in
it.
These
make
sense.
A
The
only
thing
that
I
would
call
out
is
that
recognition
reward
component
of
it.
We
we've
talked
about
creating
a
cured
badging
program
with
escalating
rewards,
but
we
haven't
talked
about
is
the
ability
for
Community
or
a
maintainer
or
some
other
organizational
body
to
create
on-demand
recognition,
be
outside
of
certifications
and
badging
and
I
kind
of
see?
That's
what
this
recognition
piece
is
talking
about.
I,
don't
necessarily
think
that's
appropriate
for
this
section.
F
Yeah
there
might
be
somewhere
else
in
this
section
for
more
Creative
Solutions
I'm
doing
exactly
that
with
the
security
slams.
So
in
order
to
encourage
more
security
contributions,
we're
actually
asking
the
maintainers
of
the
projects
to
vote
on
their
favorite
contribution
over
the
slam.
So
we
can
recognize
contributors
that
are
doing
good
work
and
it's
it's
not
just
PR's
right.
It's
like
did
you
have
a
good
issue
that
you
pulled
out.
Did
you
have
a
best
practice
you
put
in
place?
What
was
your
community
effort
so
more
work
around?
F
F
Everything
good
for
now
for
3.4
all
right.
Let's
Touch
3.5
highlight
badge
certified
developers
to
organizations
hiring
Developers.
F
A
Was
gonna
say
in
my
mind
it's
just
a
little
bit
different,
there's
showcasing
all
of
those
skills,
certifications
and
badges
to
individuals
viewing
the
profile,
but
more
specifically
we're
talking
about
organizations
hiring
developers.
Is
this
working
with
Recruitment
and
Job
searches
to
allow
organizations
to
pass
and
search
criteria
around
our
Matrix
of
skills.
A
E
B
Sorry
I
was
gonna
say
that
sometimes
when
I
was
working
with
some
recruiters
and
trying
to
get
them
to
understand
how
to
find
even
open
source
developers,
they
needed
a
little
bit
of
training
of
what
that
looked
like.
So
this
could
be
related
to
how
do
I
know
or
trust
a
it's
a
little
bit
of
training
for
the
recruiter.
E
Well,
not
so
much
training,
but
somehow
it's
a
reach
out
to
recruiters.
Then
yeah.
F
F
F
That's
my
dream
of
dreams.
I
cannot
have
that
right
now
and
if
we
had
that
my
life
would
be
much
easier
in
trying
to
hire.
E
A
F
E
A
A
Okay,
sorry
secondary
I
need
Martin.
Okay,
thank
you,
but
I
think
calling
it
out
here
is
good,
but
I
believe
it
might
actually
be
met
by
some
of
the
other
activities
we're
going
on,
particularly
if
they're
working
in
some
of
the
source
code
repositories
and
have
profiles
that
it
can
be
reflected
there.
F
Yeah
I
think
I
mean
I
think
that
this
aim
right
now
is
genuinely
covered
inside
of
action.
Statements
from
section
two
I
think
that
this
this
doesn't
quite
fix
the
problem
of
security,
research,
Gap,
so
I'm
gonna
copy
it
and
remove
it
from
here,
but
I'm
just
going
to
be
very
lazy
and
throw
it
into
the
chat
in
case.
We
do
right
back
in
I.
Think
I
mean
I
think
that
this
is
the
best.
This
is
a
long
range
goal,
but
I'd
say
you're
like
year.
One
we
can
should
be
to
this
aim.
F
Maybe
this
is
more
a
year
to
go.
Let's
leave
this
as
it
is
and
come
back.
F
Yeah
I
think
that's
it
yeah,
and
that
goes
really
well
with
starting
to
get
that
actual
training
material
out
right
so
campaign
around
I'm
just
going
to
label
it
again,
I
think
it's
verified
security.
Skill
sets.
F
Okay,
cool
3.5,
good.
F
All
right,
3.6,
incentivize,
incentivize
maintainers
developers
to
take
courses
I'm
gonna,
can
I
relabel
this
as
contributors
just
on
a.
E
Not
a
big
I
mean,
are
we
we're
focusing
only
on
OSS,
which
case
maybe.
F
Cool
there,
my
pet
peeve
has
been
taken
care
of
now.
This
has
a
lot
of
stuff
already
in
it.
Let's
parse
this
out
a
little
bit
so
number
one
identifying
selected
maintainers
of
projects
pay
them
to
take
courses
have
certifications.
So
this
is
upskilling
for
potential
new
computers.
A
E
F
Yeah,
that's
I
mean
that's
okay,
plus
like
what
critical
means
to
different
people
is
not
always
an
agreement.
It's
like
how
cool
this
project,
or
actually,
how
often
is
it
used
globally?
We
don't
agree
on
that.
Yet
and
I
have
opinions,
but
we
can
work
with
the
orgs
to
identify
what
their
top
I
I.
Personally,
if
we
want
to
do
this
most
effectively,
let's
just
say
we're
the
most
utilized
open
source
projects
right,
that's
what's
most
critical,
then
I
want
to
break
this
out.
F
F
A
very
different
skill
set
I
am
trying
to
train
maintainers
right
now,
because
you
have
to
have
an
awareness
of
community
level
security
issues
right
things
like
malicious
injection.
Those
are
the
kind
of
things
that
I'm
trying
to
train
them.
Now,
as
a
contributor,
you
don't
need
to
know
about
malicious
injection
unless
you
intend
to
do
it
totally
different
training,
say
contributors.
F
This
is
interesting,
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
what
this
one
means.
Why
is
this
important
to
me?
One
pager.
A
F
Okay,
motivational
yeah
align
motivation
to
motivations
for
cyber
security,
training.
F
Well,
we're
going
to
need
both.
We
need
an
army
of
of
new
contributors,
but
let's
have
a
separate
bullet
in
maintainers
to
allow
for
them
to
have
grants
and
then
I
think
this
comes
in
really
well,
because
then
I
want
to
steal
all
of
this
and
put
it
here,
because
there's
so
much
already
available,
that's
just
not
being
utilized
that
we've
claimed
to
be
incentivizing
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that
model
really
takes
action.
F
So
I
think
that
this
is
really
interesting.
These
last
two
ones
support
Mentor
devs
as
they
take
training.
That's
going
to
go
in
the
contributors
section
open.
F
D
A
I
want
to
talk
about
this
line,
67
about
encouraging
contributors
and
maintainers
to
identify
successors.
It's
not
just
about
identifying
successors,
it's
about
providing
a
contribution
ladder
or
a
path.
This
is
something
that
we've
started
doing
within
the
cncf
and
it's
certainly
helpful
with
establishing
some
form
of
structure,
but
it's
more
than
just
identifying
successors.
It's
training
them
up,
so
the
handoff
is
smooth.
F
So
I've
rewarded
that
a
little
bit
67
I
would
put
in
maintainer's
corner
and
also
I'd
kind
of
like
to
make
that
a
higher
priority
than
it
is
at
the
moment.
Oops.
E
F
A
Had
mentioned
just
the
awareness
of
what's
out
there,
a
lot
of
folks
don't
have
time
or
the
capability
to
scrape
the
internet
for
all
the
things
that
might
be
relevant
to
them,
so
even
just
providing
a
service
or
a
newsletter
that
sends
something
like
here's
all
the
conferences
that
are
coming
up:
here's
the
associated
cost,
here's
some
trainings,
here's
the
associated
costs.
This
is
the
skills
that
you
get
out
of
it.
C
It
even
maybe
once
we're
actually
up
and
running,
we
could
influence
the
LF
anytime.
There's
an
LS
sponsored
conference.
We
have
a
slot
that
speaks
to
maintainers
and
contributors.
This
is
all
the
education
opportunities
for
you
formally
at
each
conference
so
that
we
can
kind
of
walk
through
some
of
all
the
goodness.
F
C
F
F
I
think
that
this
will
be
good
I'm,
just
going
to
move
likely
and
guarantee
it.
In
my
language,
okay,.
F
How's
that
well,
okay,
so
I'm
gonna.
E
Say
I'm
a
little
hesitant
about
that
actually,
because
Community
often
incur
includes
the
users
well.
F
I,
so
this
is
why
I
mean
I,
don't
think
that's
bad!
This
is
why
I
put
in
OS
community.
So
sometimes
what
I'm
coming
in
to
do?
Hygiene
support
for
an
open
source
project
I
have
to
work
with
the
community
like
sometimes
the
maintainer
can
help
me.
Sometimes
individual
contributor,
as
well,
and
sometimes
I,
just
have
to
put
it
up
as
an
issue
with
a
bunch
of
like
pretty
little
icons
in
it.
So
somebody
actually
reads
it
and
then
I
get
it
fixed.
F
So
I
do
think
the
ticket
stuff
fits
for
everyone
at
the
community
level,
no
matter
what
way
they
contribute
and
then
Community
absolutely
hits
that
line
of
support
and
Mentor
devs,
because
it
is
true
that
there
are
devs
in
the
space
that
are
non-pr
contributors.
Well,
they
contribute
PR's,
but
non-technical
contributors,
sure
and
in
security.
Those
are
also
super
essential.
F
Cool
and
we
can
always
change
it
later,
I
think
this
is
a
big
one
and
it's
going
to
have
be
a
lot
to
eat
down,
but
3.6,
are
we
happy
with
the
basic
sorting
of
this.
C
Can
we
add
in
a
generic
swag,
we
can't
that's
just
a
way
to
incentivize.
On
top
of
all
these
other
things,
security.
F
Swag,
oh,
do
I
have
ideas
about
security
swag
for
you,
excellent
okay!
Let's
go!
Oh
I
love.
Yes,
let's
do
the
duck.
Hey.
Did
everyone
get
the
open
source,
dumpster
fire
swag
from
Amazon
at
last,
OSS?
What
okay
well
I'm
gonna
go!
Get
that
very
quick
as
a
show
and
tell
while
we
all
read
through
3.7.
F
It's
like
beautiful,
can
you
read
it?
It
says
the
strongest
steel
is
forged
in
the
fire
of
a
dumpster.
B
F
Yeah
yeah,
it
is
great
okay,
so
back
on
topic,
because
we
got
12
minutes
left,
3.7
programs,
Outreach
and
engagement
include
success
criteria.
I
think
this
also
is
kind
of
coming
back
to
that
way
of,
like
verification
and
rendering
a
little
bit.
No.
This
is
different.
This
is
actually
like
pipeline
checking
right.
C
C
F
A
F
Yes,
we
can
do
this
on,
like
a
I
forget
what
this
is
called,
there's
a
specific
name
for
it,
but
it's
basically
checking
in
one
month,
three
months,
six
months
and
nine
months,
post
completion,
so
post
completion,
hiring
assessment
and
you
should
be
able
to
see
when
you
do
it.
That
way.
F
C
This
appears
to
be
a
proposal
to
create
our
own
tool
to
keep
track
of
all
of
our
work
so
to
demonstrate.
We've
had
this
many
Learners,
which
many
Learners
attain
certifications
for
freeze
or
whatever.
A
F
A
F
I,
don't
know
that
it
goes
in
3.8,
because
these
are
really
I
think
that
might
have
to
come
into
another
section.
So
we
can
put
it
in
through
weird
one,
but
I
do
want
to
have
that
for
sure.
So,
let's
make
sure
if
you
can
put
the
language
in
the
chat
and
then
we'll
make
sure
that
we
get
that
there
for
now
3.8
having
this
be
sort
of
our
larger
goal
of
having
that
integrated
vendor
in
I,
think
that
we
can
leave
this
and
that
rendering
really
kind
of
fits
at
well
under
3.8.
F
There
we
go
yeah,
I,
think
that'll
be
good
and
that's
absolutely
necessary
and
I
think
we
need
to
I
mean
we
can
produce
that
at
the
beginning
of
year
two,
but
we
should
have
that
started
in
year.
One
right
as
a
data
scientist
I
have
strong
opinions
about
doing
things
without
any
predictive,
metrics
whatsoever.
F
They
do
unless
you
identify
upfront
what
you're
going
to
be
tracking
and
then
continuously
track
them.
We'll
see,
we'll
see
what
that
all
ends
up.
Looking
like
it
matters,
a
lot,
what
the
Integrations
are
and
what
information
we
can
pull
out
so
3.9
and
3.10.
So
3.9
is
pretty
empty,
expand,
certification,
Badges
and
rewards
programs.
C
Stylistically,
can
you
on
line
104,
knock
the
500k
down
to
the
next
slide?
Please.
C
F
You
cool
I,
identify
Gap
identification
and
success.
I'm
gonna
call
it
success.
Signals
in
this
case
to
be
promoted
with
rewards
programs
and.
B
F
Okay,
at
least
I'll
have
a
job
all
right
3.10.
Are
we
I
think
this
I
think
these
two
are
good,
and
this
is
definitely
gonna
be
a
year
or
two
so
I
think
we're
solid
there.
Okay,
3.4
yeah,
so
3.10
expand
scholarships,
fellowships
grants
and
methods
for
this.
E
F
Yeah
I
think
I
think
there's
actually
more
overlaps
with
section
like
section
one,
not
not
this
section,
but
this
is
also
very
much
within
this
domain,
so
this
is
finding
so
identify
what
needs
to
happen
right
now
is
identify
existing
scholarships,
which
we
sort
of
had
a
discussion
about
yesterday
and
then
again.
This
is
expand
Rewards
into
Gap
areas
and
to
gaps
of
training,
and
this
is
absolutely
year
two,
but
I
think
that
this
is
excellent.
E
By
the
way
and
I
realize
we're
almost
out
of
time,
everything
here
seems
to
be
very
much
focused
on
encouraging
from
the
developer
or
poor
contributor
or
a
maintainer,
basically
supply
side.
What
about
demand
side?
Are
we
doing
anything
to
encourage
organizations
to
try
to
hire
people
with
these
kinds
of
badges
accreditations,
whatever.
F
E
E
A
higher
qualified
people,
if
you
say
security
developer,
if
you
say
security
contributor
for
Mob
organizations
that
excludes
Anyone
Who,
develops
or
contributes
in
any
other
way.
Yeah.
That's
a
that's!
The
problem.
We're
trying
to
counter,
but
don't
don't
buy
into
the
wrong
argument,
is
what
I'm
hoping
for
yeah.
F
Well,
I
think
this
is
a
good
first
step.
Unfortunately,
we
have
one
minute
left.
This
was
a
massive
section
for
us
to
get
through
so
I
think
there's
a
couple
of
these
fall
into
you
here
too,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
for
some
of
these
first
goals
that
we
actually
start
taking
some
action
on
them.
F
So
I
am
happy.
I
mean
I.
Think
we
kind
of
just
need
to
continue
this
discussion
on
slack
and
just
start
identifying.
What
are
those
badges
that
we
know
are
verifiable
and
what
organizations
might
be
wanting
to
work
with
us
for
integration,
but
to
continue
this
conversation
with
this
one
minute
left.
We
want
to
jump
this
back
over
to
the
ossf
slack
and
continue
that
there
and
make
sure
that
for
these
sections,
we've
got
everything
done
for
anything
that
needs
to
be
done
in
Year,
One.
F
I
will
not
see
you
all
there
until
Monday,
because
it
is
late
here
but
I'm
going
to
submit
this
PR
and
please
do
go.
Take
a
look
at
it
fix
my
typos
because
they
will
be
in
there
now.