►
From YouTube: OpenSSF TAC Meeting (February 9, 2021)
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
All
right
go
ahead:
sorry,
okay,
so
yeah,
so
our
town
hall
meeting
will
be
on
february
22nd,
that's
a
monday,
it'll
be
at
10.
00
a.m.
Pacific
and
you
know,
do
the
time
zone
math
for
the
other
time
zones
we
will
be.
Our
agenda
will
be
similar
to
last
time
where
we'll
have
kind
of
a
you
know,
a
welcome
and
opening
and
we're
gonna
do
a
quick
update
on
solar
winds
and
you
know
kind
of
how
that
impacts.
A
Our
community
and
others
and
david
wheeler
is
gonna
help
us
with
that.
Then
we'll
do
an
update
on
things
that
have
been
happening
in
the
governing
board.
We've
been
making
progress
on
a
budget
committee
and
some
other
committees
and
we're
doing
this
upside
that
jennifer
virtual
offsite.
That
jennifer
mentioned
then
we'll
have
the
tact
to
an
update
and
there
we'll
talk
about
the
mission
statement
and
other
things
that
have
a
bunch
of
other
things
that
have
been
happening
here
and
then
we'll
have
each
of
the
working
groups
give
an
update
on
their
process.
A
Our
last
meeting
was
an
hour.
We
scheduled
it
for
two
hours
and
it
took
us
an
hour
and
a
half
this
time.
We
think
we
have
a
little
less
content,
so
we're
scheduling
it
for
one
hour.
We
would
love
for
all
of
you
to
help
us
get
the
word
out
we
had.
As
of
yesterday,
we
had
35
people
registered
and
we'd
love
to
get
at
least
double
that
maybe
more
last
time
we
had
about
100
or
120.
So
so
we
think
there's
lots
of
opportunity
for
more
people
to
get
registered.
A
B
A
We
also
are
lindsay
and
carly,
and
we
should,
if
is
carly
here,
hi,
let's
we'll
introduce
carly
next,
but
lindsey
and
carly
are
also
going
to
be
sending
out.
You
know
this
week
and
and
next
week
we'll
be
you
know,
sending
out
reminders
to
try
to
get
the
word
out
and
get
some
more
people
registered.
C
Yeah,
I'm
sure
we
want
to
reach
everybody
people
to
take
in
the
and
use
the
stuff
that
we're
producing,
as
well
as
people
to
come
and
contribute.
But
do
you
have
like
a
a
closer
aim
like?
Do
we
really
want
to
use
these
to
try
to
gain
new
companies
contributing
or
is
there
a
preference
in
there.
A
I
think
we
want
to
do
both.
We
we'd
love
to
use
these
as
an
you
know,
as
an
outreach
opportunity
to
get.
You
know,
new
people
to
to
join
us
and
that's
why
we're
encouraging
people
to
you
know
send
share
information
about
the
meeting
with
you
know,
people
in
their
own
communities,
but
we
also
very
much
want
to
share
information
across
people
who
are
currently
engaged
in
the
community.
So
you.
B
A
A
Okay,
lindsey,
do
you?
Do
you
want
to
introduce
carly,
or
do
you
want
me
to?
I
can
give
the
first
intro
so
first
there's
some.
I
have
some
sad
news
to
share,
which
is
that
lindsay
is
going
to
be
moving
to
another
role
within
the
linux
foundation.
She
won't
be
far
she'll.
A
You
know,
she'll
still
be
in
lf
she's
going
to
be
working
on
events,
and
I
think
she
mentioned
one
of
the
first
one
coming
up
is
a
cncf
event,
so
she's
been
fantastic
and
we're
going
to
miss
her
a
ton
she's
going
to
be
transitioning
over
the
coming
month
to
carly
and
so
we'll
still
be
covered,
but
so
welcome
to
carly
and
and
sad
over
the
coming
months.
That
saddened
we'll
be
sorry
to
miss
lindsay
so
anyway,
lindsey
anything
else
to
add,
and
then
carly.
D
For
us,
I
don't
have
more
to
add
I
just
I've
loved
working
on
this
project.
I
will
still
be
around.
I
am
working.
I
will
be
working
on
cncf
events
and
one
of
my
first
events,
I'm
working
on
is
cloud
native
security
day.
So
I'm
really
not
going
that
far
but
yeah.
I
would
love
to
give
the
floor
to
carly
for
just
a
minute
to
introduce
herself
as
well
go
ahead.
Carly
thanks
lindsay.
E
F
Thank
you
lindsay.
We
will
definitely
be
missed
and
welcome
carly
we're
happy
to
have
you
here
so
the
next
thing
and
is
the
election
process
that
we
started
talking
about
two
weeks
ago.
So
we
we
had
a
couple
of
open
agenda
items
on
that
as
far
as
some
issues
that
needed
to
be
resolved,
and
so
we
opened
those
on
github,
it
doesn't
look
like
we've
had
a
ton
of
progress
on
these,
so
we'll
just
have
to
go
through
them
right
now
for
those
that
did.
Thank
you.
F
So
for
those,
if
you
remember,
lindsay,
had
a
document
that
she
presented
at
the
last
meeting,
that
kind
of
went
through
all
the
items
and
one
one
of
the
proposals
here
was
continuing
the
tax
chair
and
the
tac
representative
for
continuity
across
there.
So
originally
we
stated
that
it
would
stay
for
the
current
term,
which
basically
meant
right
now,
and
then
we
held
the
election.
F
But
now
it's
kind
of
looking
like
the
election's
going
to
just
align
with
the
end
of
the
year,
so
we
kind
of
need,
I
think,
need
to
decide
on
both
of
these
things
kind
of
all
at
once
like
when
will
we
actually
roll
over
the
tag
with
a
new
formal
election,
and
if
that
happens
soon,
does
it
make
sense
to
continue
with
the
chair
and
the
rep
or
at
that
point,
should
we
just
go
ahead
and
just
reset
everything,
so
my
personal
opinion
is
continuity
is
great,
but
if
this
is
far
enough
out
in
the
future,
where
things
are
kind
of
rolling
anyway,
then
maybe
a
full
reelection
as
like
dan
is
mentioning
here
that
that's
good
too.
F
So
I'd
like
to
hear
others
opinions
and
see
where
you
guys
think
about
that.
G
Sorry
I
was
doing
the
old
talking
with
newton
yeah,
no,
that
that
sounds
good
to
me.
So
I
I
just
just
to
check
what
I'm
saying
sounds
good
to
me.
Is
this
the
proposal
of
yourself
and
dan?
F
So
the
proposal
so
the
proposal
right
now
so
there's
a
little
bit
of
fluidity
here,
I
think,
which
is
part
of
the
confusion.
So
the
proposal
as
per
the
document,
was
to
keep
myself
and
dan
as
chair
and
rep
respectively
during
the
current
term.
But
then
there
were
some
questions
of
what
current
term
meant
and
that
was
kind
of
based
on
the
discussion.
F
We
had
last
time,
so
current
term
was
we
were
making
the
assumption
that
we're
going
to
hold
an
election
like
now
ish
right
and
if
we
did
that,
would
we
continue
to
keep
the
chair
and
the
rep
the
same.
But
now
it's
kind
of
seeming
like
based
on
discussions
that
perhaps
there's
a
little
bit
more
content
here.
F
Oh
dan
added
some
more
as
well
that
the
current
term
would
kind
of
mean
when
the
election
was
held,
but
that
election
might
actually
be
happening
a
little
bit
later
now
just
to
align
with
the
the
annual
boundary.
F
E
F
H
G
Yeah
I
mean
I
I'm
in
favor
of
you
guys
staying
on,
I
just
don't
quite
grock
the
the
rest
of
the
questions.
F
A
B
C
That
I
say
that
I
haven't
actually
been
in
something
where
there's
this
some
of
the
seats
collected
by
the
board,
some
of
them
elected
by
the
community.
I've
only
been
in
like
community
only
ones.
A
I'm
I'm
interested
in
your
just
following
on
on
that,
generally,
are
the
other
ones,
you've
been
and
they've
been
elected
only
by
the
community,
or
only
by
the
governing
board
or.
C
A
C
So
that
that
I
don't
know
because
they
haven't
had
this
cncf
like
structure
of
some
of
the
seats,
come
from
the
board
and
some
come
from
the
community.
I
Yeah
I
mean
I
was
just
gonna
mention
open
container
initiative,
you
know
is
the
only
other
foundation
where
I'm
part
of
something
like
the
tax,
the
tob,
the
technical
oversight
board.
We
definitely
do
annual
elections,
but
it's
the
members
of
the
oci
that
get
to
to
vote.
So
we
have
the
staggered,
you
know
seats,
but
an
annual
election
and
then,
a
few
weeks
after
that,
we
do
the
chair
election
so
that
if
there
are
any
new
seats
or
changes
and
role,
then
obviously
that
group
should
be
the
ones
who
elect
their
new
chair.
I
J
A
F
A
Yeah
right
now
we
don't
have
this.
We
don't
have
the
tiered
membership.
So
so
all
members
have
the
opportunity
to
vote
on
governing
board
members.
C
A
A
No,
I
think
we
taught
in
the
governing
board
meeting.
We
talked
about
deciding
that
sooner
and
I
thought
we
said
by
march,
but
I'd
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
our
notes
just
so
that
people
knew
and
could
you
know,
people
who
are
the
governing
board
members
who
would
be
vacating
would
know
and
be
able
to
plan
their
schedules.
A
J
So
I
guess
in
the
spirit
of
open,
like
sort
of
transparency
here,
are
we
talking,
I
think,
at
least
amongst
the
people
here
I
get
the
sense
that
there's
confidence
in
having
both
ryan
and
dan
continue
with
what
they're
doing.
If
we
look
at
and
again
I
just
I
just
want
to
clarify
I'm
not
a
I'm,
not
a
tac
voting
member.
J
I
just
I'm
offering
just
my
thoughts
on
this,
but
if
there's
a
date
that
we're
striving
for,
could
there
be
a
recommendation
put
forward
with
the
transparent
vote
that
just
suggests
that,
in
the
spirit
of
continuity,
given
how
early
we
are
in
the
growth
of
this
community,
it
made
sense
to
go
ahead
and
continue
with
the
two
of
them,
but
just
formalize.
The
voting
is
that
does
that
make
sense?
Is
that
kind
of
what
we're
driving
towards.
F
F
So
I
think
this
all
kind
of
comes
back
to
timeline
like
yeah.
We,
the
timeline
of
deciding,
is
right
now,
but
we
need
to
decide
what
the
timeline
is
for
the
future
as
well.
If
that
makes
sense,
so
when
will
we
hold
these
votes?
When
will
the
staggering
happen
when
we
hold
those
votes
for
the
full
tax?
F
Are
these
two
positions
going
to
stay
the
same
for
that
initial
round,
or
will
we
reset
those
as
well
to
me
it
kind
of
comes
down
to
when
does
it
happen
like
I,
I'm
fine
with
staying
on
and
I
think
dan
is
as
well.
If
that's
what
people
want,
I'm
also
fine
with
resetting
too,
I
don't
have
any
preference
one
way
or
the
other.
F
H
So
should
we
jump
back
because
we
have
the
dock
with
the
full
process
proposal,
and
these
issues
were
only
meant
to
capture
like
the
four
unresolved
things
from
that
document,
so
there
is
yeah.
There
is
something
that
contains
all
of
the
other
details
too.
We
don't
need
to
come
up
with
that
again
from
scratch.
Perfectly
brian.
F
F
F
J
I
was
actually
just
thinking
about
this.
Ryan
is
one
year
enough
from
a
leadership
standpoint.
You
know
I've
generally
seen
two
years
is
about
as
tight
as
it
can
get
with
the
with
an
open
community.
But
it's
I'm
open
to
suggestions.
J
C
So
if
you
increased
the
size
of
your
attack,
you
could
just
consider
this
current.
Those
of
you
that
are
on
attack
now
as
you're
in
the
middle
of
your
your
first
year
and
then
the
the
next
vote
that's
coming
up
here
would
be
just
adding
community
people
to
that
constituency.
M
E
E
I
found
that
this
group
has,
you
know,
been,
I
think,
very
productive,
and
all
of
that
I
I'm
certainly
open
to
the
idea
of
adding
people
to
it,
especially
if,
when
we
think
about
the
vision
for
the
taft,
we
could
imagine
once
we
have
clarity
on
on
the
scope
of
decision
making,
maybe
delegating
some
of
that
stuff
to
individuals
within
the
tech
or
otherwise
making
use
of
a
larger
group
like
if
we
had
a
way
that
we
knew
it
would
be
a
good
use
of
people's
time.
D
F
Yeah,
I
think
we
need
to
resolve
that
in
general,
because
people
might
resign
in
the
middle
of
a
term
at
any
point
right.
Job
changes,
things
like
that,
so
we'll
have
to
figure
out
what
that
sort
of
spontaneous
election
looks
like,
but
to
get
back
to
dan's
question
the
adding
votes
or
adding
seats
at
this
election
process.
I
I
agree
what
jennifer
said
like
it's
a
fine
line
between
productivity
and
having
too
many
people.
So
what
do
we
think
is
a
reason?
C
Many,
the
board
has
what
13
people
yeah
seven
people
on
the
tack
now
and
I
don't
know
if
phil
was
going
to
continue
or
not
so
you
could
potentially
add
six
or
seven
people
from
the
community
and
then
be
at
the
same
numbers
as
the
board.
And
then
you
don't
have
to
do
a
bunch
of
chair
swapping
in
the
next.
I
mean
seat
swapping
in
the
next
few
weeks.
Whenever
this
election
is.
H
J
E
Okay,
yeah
something
I
was
going
to
bring
up
a
bit
further
into
the
conversation,
but
maybe
it
dovetails
nicely
here
is
around
the
voting
mechanism.
So
I
see
that
we
were
going
to
delegate
to
the
individual
technical
initiatives
what
counts
as
a
contributor.
I
would
propose
that
we
try
to
figure
that
out
at
the
level
of
the
attack
and
that
the
individual
initiatives
maybe
uphold
those
things.
E
Just
because
I
worry
that
it
could
be
as
simple
as
join
a
mailing
list
and
then
the
voting
will
probably
get
stacked
by
someone
who
works
at
a
company
that
has
encouraged
a
lot
of
people,
for
example,
to
come
and
vote
for
them
or
whatever
I'd
love,
to
keep
it
closer
to
people
that
are
active
participants,
and
I
think
the
only
way
of
really
doing
that
is
for
us
to
set
the
criteria
of
what
contributor
means
within
those
groups
and
why.
Why
is
this
relevant?
What
we
were
talking
about?
E
I
think
that
having
people
that
are
actively
and
continually
involved
in
open
ssf
for
some
definition
are
the
ones
that
are
going
to,
I
think,
be
more
aware
of,
like
the
level
of
participation
between
different
members
within
the
groups
and
that
that,
like
quickness
to
respond
and
other
things
around
making
active
contributions
is
going
to
be
an
important
criteria
for
selecting
the
right
people
for
the
group.
J
That's
the
model
that
I've
seen
in
the
past.
There's
generally
members
are
put
forward
as
potential
candidates
from
the
community
based
on
those
who
are
involved,
and
then
the
voting
takes
place
or
could
potentially
take
place
with
a
broader
group,
but
the
vote.
The
actual
participants
that
are
put
forward
are
done
from
a
much
smaller
community.
E
Yeah,
like
I,
I
would
love
to
see
some
kind
of
condition
where
we're
keeping
the
votes
meaningful
in
the
sense
that
they
are
directly
related
to
people.
Having
had
you
know
some
deep
involvement
in
openstaff,
and
I
don't
mean
super
deep-
that
they're
on
all
of
the
committees
or
whatever,
but
like
someone
who's,
had
consistent,
active
participation
for
a
reasonable
length
of
time.
E
So
this
is
what
the
proposal
currently
reads
like
to
me
and
that's
what
I'm
advocating
against
actually,
because
I
wonder
if
some
groups
will
air
toward
like,
let's
just
do
the
mailing
list
or
how
do
we
figure
this
out?
Let's
default
to
something
super
super
open,
and
I
just
wonder
if
the
votes
become
less
meaningful
and
relevant.
When
it's
about
how
many
of
your
friends
you
can
get
to
join
a
mailing
list
as
opposed
to
it's
people
that
have
actively
been
working
on
projects
and
other
things
within
open,
ssf.
F
Yeah,
I
totally
agree
with
the
sentiment,
and
I
think
we
we
did
discuss
this
a
little
bit
last
time
and
I
think,
or
maybe
it
was
in
the
meeting
with
lindsay
account,
but
one
of
the
things
I
had
mentioned
was:
if
we
actually
take
this
requirement
away
and
just
let
people
self-nominate
and
then
the
people
that
vote
are
open.
Ssf
members
are
the
ones
that
are
allowed
to
vote.
F
Do
these
requirements
sort
of
just
solve
themselves
right
in
the
sense
that
the
people
that
are
going
to
get
voted
for
are
the
ones
that
people
know
because
they're
contributing
they're
part
of
working
groups
and
they're
active?
And
you
know
that
sort
of
thing.
So
do
we
actually
even
need
to
put
a
stringent
requirement
on
who
can
be
nominated.
F
E
So
there's
two
as
dan
said:
there's
two
different
things
but
ryan
to
your
point:
they're
two
interrelated
things.
So
I
was
mostly
talking
about
who
can
vote
because
I
am
a
proponent
of
us
keeping
who
gets
to
vote
as
to
some
meaningful
definition
of
who
has
been
actively
and
meaningfully
involved
in
openssf
around
the
nomination.
I
actually
propose
to
keep
it
really
open
if
you
are
a
subset
or
if
you
are
a
member
of
the
voting
pool
I.e,
you
have
been
meaningfully
involved
in
openssf.
E
I
think
that
self-nomination
is
really
nice,
because
then
we
prevent
some
of
the
like
gatekeeping
that
that
could
happen.
We
give
everyone.
You
know
fair
shake
at
being
voted
through
the
democratic
process,
but
then
I
would
I
would
propose
we
can
strain
the
votes
to
be
folks
that,
for
some
definition
of
meaningful
have
been
meaningfully
involved
in
open
ssf.
F
Okay,
I
got
you
yeah,
I
mean
that
makes
sense
to
me
yeah
that
then
determining
yeah
who's
able
to
vote
and
what
their
contribution
is
like
that
yeah.
That
feels
shaky
to
me
that
having
to
have
to
make
that
determination
and
then,
if
somebody
doesn't
qualify
like,
is
there
a
way
for
them
to
appeal
that
or
you
know
that
kind
of,
like
I'm
concerned
about
the
management
of
that,
I
think
it's
a
good
idea,
but
yeah
I
just
I
worry
about
how
we
can
actually
enforce
it.
C
So
what
we
did
in
another
group-
and
it
was
a
huge
I
don't
know-
I
found
it
a
big
distraction
because
we
went
through
exactly
what
you
said:
ryan.
It
started
to
dominate
the
tech
conversations,
but
the
what
the
outcome
was
that
was
still
continuously
debated
was
that
you
were
a
eligible
voter.
C
If
you
had
a
commit
in
one
of
the
repos
or
if
a
work
group
lead
would
vouch
that
you
were
a
contributor
on
something
that,
for
whatever
reason,
didn't
have
a
commit
system
behind
it
like
maintain
the
wiki
or
something
so
it
was
basically
do
you
have
a
commit.
And
yes,
there
is
an
exception
process
and
that's
on
the
other
leaders
in
the
community
to
facilitate.
H
That's
roughly
what
kubernetes
does
as
well.
They
have
a
tool
that
generates
a
huge
list
of
people
from
any
activity
they
can
find
in
an
automated
fashion,
and
then
they
share
that
and
say,
if
you're,
not
on
here
and
think
you
did
something
somewhere
else.
Just
send
us
an
explanation
and
we'll
add
you,
somebody
reviews
it
and
then
ask
the
person
if
it
makes
sense.
F
F
Okay,
so
what
do
people
think
about
that
contribution
means
that
you've
made
a
commit
and
then
there's
a
human
interaction
to
try
to
catch
anybody
that
the
automated
tool
doesn't
get.
F
Okay,
so
that
sounds
great
in
terms
of
so
the
next
thing
I
think,
then,
is
timeline.
We
talked
about
syncing
it
with
the
governing
board
election.
I'm
I'm
assuming
that
happens
in
the
august
time
frame
k
is
that
is
that
right.
D
She's
on
mute,
but
yes
that
would
be
an
august
time
frame.
E
F
Sort
of
I
wasn't
specific,
specifically
advocating
the
additional
seats
just
that
we
would
do
the
community
seats,
which
could
be
the
ones
we
have
now
that
are
being
decided
right
so
part
of
the
seven
so
that
I
guess
maybe
that's
the
first
thing
to
be
decided
is:
are
we
for
sure
going
to
add
new
seats
or
not?
I
agree
with
what
dan
lorenz
said
earlier,
that
adding
more
could
be
problematic,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
chasing
people
down
and
getting
decisions
made.
But
if
it's
reasonable
to
focus,
I
mean
I'm
open
to
it.
E
Not
to
derail
the
conversation,
and
if
this
does,
we
can
just
ignore
it
and
keep
going.
But
one
thing
I'd
put
forward
is:
we've
talked
about.
You
know
the
challenges
of
having
a
larger
attack,
but
we've
also
talked
about
the
challenges
of
poor
responsiveness
from
individuals
within
the
attack
as
being
a
potential
problem.
E
I'm
wondering
one
option
could
be
that
we
expand
the
tax,
but
we
set
pretty
stringent
continuation
of
participation
criteria
where,
if
we're
finding
that
someone's
a
member
of
the
attack
but
on
a
repeated
basis,
are
not
you
know,
voting
in
a
timely
manner
on
things
or
taking
part
in
these
meetings
or
whatever
it
is
that
maybe
one
loses
one's
tax
chair
through
some
level
of
non-participation,
but
we
start
with
a
larger
group.
F
E
H
So
I
think
it
does
say
somewhere
in
the
charter
that
you
have
to
have
at
least
attended
two
of
the
last
three
meetings
or
something
like
that.
If
you
want
to
participate
in
a
vote,
it
doesn't
formally
lose
your
seat,
but
you
lose
your
voting
privileges.
F
Yeah,
I
think,
with
the
attack
like
I'm
less
concerned
about
voting,
because
we
don't
vote
that.
Often
I
sort
of
view
voting.
As
you
know,
we've
we've
failed
to
reach
consensus,
so
it
shouldn't
be
a
frequent
thing.
So
I
wonder
if
removing
voting
from
attack
rep
is
really
much
of
a
punishment.
So
much
as
like,
we
really
just
need
people
making
decisions
on
a
daily
basis
right
like
like
what
we're
doing
right
now
we're
deciding
process.
F
C
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
very
important
aspect
for
like
minimum
viable
governance.
One
of
one
of
those
best
practices
was
keeping
voting
boring
so
that
people
didn't
feel
like
that.
They
had
to
be
on
the
tack
to
have
a
say
in
things
or
other
variations
of
that.
F
So,
just
to
kind
of
put
a
stake
in
the
ground
here
I
I
would
actually
propose
that
we
leave
the
attack
at
seven
with
the
option
of
adding
new
members.
I
I
can
see
the
advantage
and
I
can
see
the
disadvantage
so
for
me
personally,
I'd
like
to
see
it
where
if
we
decide
that
there
is
a
need,
like
a
very
specific
need
of
why
we
want
to
add
more,
we
can
do
that.
I
guess
right
now:
I'm
not
seeing
the
specific
need
to
do
it,
but
certainly
open
to
what
others
think.
H
B
F
True,
I
mean
half
the
people
on
this
call
right
now
are
not
technically
voting
members
right
so,
but
we've
had
great
participation
so
yeah.
I
plus
one
that
as
well.
That
sounds
good.
Okay,
so
we'll
go
and
just
keep
it
as
is
for
now
and
then,
but
we
have
that
option
to
add
in
the
future
so
coming
up
so
we'll
have
elections
in
september
and
the
first
elections.
This
september
2021
will
vote
for
the
community
seats,
which
next
begs
the
question:
is
it
going
to
be
three
community
seats
or
four?
F
So
this
initial
proposal
was
four
from
the
governing
board
and
three
for
from
tech
initiatives
or
community.
A
few
of
us,
I
believe,
are
in
favor
of
swapping
those,
but
I'd
like
to
hear
what
other
people
think.
H
F
My
somewhat
strong
opinion,
but
not
super
strong,
is
that
I'd
actually
like
to
see
four
be
from
the
community
or
technical
initiatives
just
because
the
the
nature
of
the
attack
is
community
and
technical.
So
I'd
like
to
see
the
election
more
people
be
elected
by
that
group
than
from
the
governing
board,
but
that's
my
opinion.
The.
I
F
H
H
So
that's
four
seats
we'd
have
to
come
up
with
a
process
for
deciding
which
four
seats
is
it
just.
B
H
Yeah,
I
think
I
mean
the
only
thing
I've
really
seen
for
this
is
either
ask
if
people
wanted
to
step
down
anyway,
because
they
were
done
and
then
draw
straws
for
the
remaining
ones.
F
E
D
H
F
H
Doesn't
guarantee
it
if
everybody
said
they
wanted
to
step
down,
but
that
guarantees
us
three
willing
tax
members
staying
on.
Personally,
I
think
that's
probably
enough
of
a
guarantee
for
continuity
and
we
don't
need
to
like
special
case
anything
else,
but
yep
that.
F
All
right
cool
cool,
cool,
okay,
we
talked
about
term
limits
two
years
staggered
one
thing
I
did
want
to
talk
about.
This
was
so
we
have
this.
Alternating
second
thing:
do
we
want
to
have
restrictions
as
far
as
how
many
terms
somebody
can
conserve?
I
know
dan
you
mentioned
here
term
limits
is
representative
likes,
but
I
sort
of
grouped
the
two
together.
So
we've
got
a
two
year
term,
but
do
we
want
to
limit?
C
So
from
like,
if
you
look
at
this
like
a
maintainer
perspective,
then
you
wouldn't
put
a
term
limit
on
somebody
who's
maintaining
a
project.
It's
is
somebody
continuing
to
contribute
at
that
level,
then
great,
let
them
continue
to
contribute
at
that
level.
F
F
F
F
Cool
and
then
member
makeup,
okay,
yeah-
we
already
talked
about
this,
so
we
swapped
these
and
I
believe
that's
that.
F
We
got
makeup,
we've
got
eligibility
okay,
so
we
can
put
this
into
a
final
document
put
on
that,
you
know,
put
a
nice
little
bow
around
it
post
it.
So
I
think
the
next
step
would
be
to
put
this
as
a
markdown
file
on
the
tac
repo.
I'm
happy
to
do
that
and
then
get
that
merged
into
the
repo,
and
then
I
think
the
next
step
is
doing
what
we
were
talking
about
as
far
as
determining
which
four
seats
would
be
coming
up
at
the
september
vote.
Does
that
make
sense
for
everybody.
E
Did
we
decide
to
sufficient
level
of
granularity
who
is
eligible
for
voting?
Oh
yeah?
We
did
have
that
mechanism
by
scooping
contributions,
plus
a
a
human
base,
side,
channel,
cool,
okay,.
F
Does
anybody
know
in
those
other
orgs
like
that
tool?
Is
it
available
or
do
we
need
to
kind
of
roll
our
own.
C
And
then
also
to
jennifer's
point
in
in
other
meetings,
I've
been
in
we
all
sort
of
walk
away
after
having
agreed
to
things,
and
then
people
realize
they
don't
really
know
what
they
agreed
to
so
I've
been
trying
to
capture,
so
some
of
this
has
been
captured
in
those
other
documents
that
you
had
open.
I
did
try
to
throw
this
into
the
minutes
and
the
minutes
are
supposed
to
serve
as
you
couldn't
attend
this
meeting
live.
Can
you
at
least
understand
the
decisions
that
were
made
formally
or
informally?
C
So
if
people
want
to
skim
real
quickly
this
stuff
and
see
that
I've
captured
it
correctly,
then
I
think
that's
useful
for
people
that
weren't
here
and
useful
for
those
of
us
who
were
here
that
will
later
realize
we
didn't
realize
what
we
were
agreeing
to.
E
That's
fair,
thank
you,
and
I
guess
I
guess
to
that
end
in
whatever
the
document
is
ryan,
that
you
end
up
putting
on
the
tack
repo,
we
should
aim
to
formalize
to
the
degree
of
specificity
that
we
decided
in
this
conversation
exactly
what
these
mechanisms
are,
so
that
we've
just
got
it
all
wrapped
up
very
clearly.
F
All
right:
well,
we've
got
two
minutes
left
and
I'm
pretty
sure
these
last
little
remaining
things
that
we
have
on
here
are
going
to
be
more
than
two
minutes,
so
we'll
have
to
move
them
to
the
next
discussion,
but
really
really
quick.
I
think
that
last
item
that
david
put
on
there
as
far
as
the
security
threats-
I
don't
know
if
people
are
aware
of
this.
There
is
a
new
project
called
security
reviews
that
mike
scaveda
has
created
via
the
security
threats
working
group
and
basically,
what
they're
doing
is
proactive.
F
You
know
security
assurance
work
and
reviews
and
then
publishing
those
into
this
new
repo.
Currently
that
repo
is
private
but
he's
kind
of
getting
all
that
together
and
then
we'll
make
it
public
eventually,
but
it's
going
to
be
the
plan,
for
it
is
to
use
creative
commons
licensing
because
they're
documents
and
then,
if
there's
code,
it'll
be
apache
too,
but
I
don't
anticipate
there'll
be
much
code
in
that
particular
project.