►
From YouTube: OpenSSF TAC Meeting (January 25, 2022)
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).
C
D
I
think
we
have
looks
like
a
good
group
of
folks
already,
so
we
can
go
and
get
started
so
fairly
light
agenda
today
I
think,
but
so
first
off
is
elections
are
have
begun,
so
thank
you,
brian
and
jen
for
getting
that
going
and
sending
out
those
emails.
One
thing
I
wanted
to
to
bring
up,
though,
is
I've
heard
from
a
few
folks
that
they
have
not
received
emails
regarding
the
oppo
vote,
links
and
things
like
that.
D
E
No,
it
went
out
to
the
individual
email
address
that
each
eligible
voter
provided
when
they
filled
out
the
eligible
voter
form
and
the
emails
were
sent
directly
from
opavote.
So
I
replied
to
luke's
email
that
he
had
sent
about
half
an
hour
ago
and
I
replied
with
that
information.
So
if
you
have
any
any
issue
you
you,
you
know
recollect
that
you
had
completed
the
eligible
voter
form.
E
Then
contact
me
I'll
pop
my
email
address
in
the
in
the
chat
and
we
can
help
troubleshoot
why
you
might
not
have
received
the
ballot.
D
A
D
C
I
would
I
would
suggest,
at
a
minimum
making
sure
we
send
a
reminder
to
the
list
post
on
twitter.
Saying,
hey
elections
are
happening
if
you
signed
up
but
didn't
get
one
contact
again.
B
Agreed,
yeah
and,
and
also
while,
I
don't
think
we
can
or
should
it
entertain
new
nominations
for
positions
if
somebody's
eligible
to
vote,
but
for
whatever
reason
you
know
didn't,
go
through
the
the
process.
I
think
we
can
entertain
as
well
as
just
fix
up
things
to
if
they're
already
eligible,
just
didn't
fill
in
the
forms
for
it.
C
Yeah
there
are
a
couple
people
like
we're
talking
about
right
now,
who
are
obviously
should
be
in
the
electorate
and
if
they
haven't
received
one,
for
whatever
reason,
I
think
that's
fine.
B
Yeah
and
if
I
may,
once
again,
I
know
I've
said
it
to
some
folks
already:
we
have
a
terrific
slate
of
people
who
are
willing
to
stand
and
a
very
small
list
of
a
set
of
positions.
B
So
if
you
are
not
elected
in,
don't
feel
bad,
it's
a
this
is
a
pretty
impressive
roster
here.
So
my
thanks
to
everybody,
who's
willing
to
serve.
D
Well,
so
the
links
are
there,
like,
I
said
if
the
folks
haven't
received
those
emails
contact
jen.
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
a
I
screw
up
this
this
name
every
time
I
think
is
it.
Is
it
persia.
D
A
No,
I
won't
share
my
skill
I'll
just
give
a
quick
verbal
update.
Also
sud
entrance
steve
taylor
on
are
on
as
well,
so
I
think
they
can
also
fill
in
some
gaps
for
me
as
well.
But
what
I
wanted
to
do
is
give
a
quick
update
where
we
were
on
the
on
the
perseo
project,
which
we
we
talked
about
at
the
the
december
attack
call.
A
So
it's
a
it's
a
project
with
the
gall
to
to
build
a
distributed
package
repository
so
solving
solving
some
of
the
distribution
use
cases
for
for
serving
secure,
open
source
binaries.
A
We
also
want
to
collaborate
with
and
and
integrate
with
other
open
ssf
projects,
so
kind
of
following
best
practices
in
sig,
store
and
cosign,
and
you
know
other
efforts
which
are
going
on
with
with
the
the
projects
here
and
we've.
We've
made
a
bunch
of
progress
towards
the
bootstrapping
within
openssf,
so
we
have
a
regular
cadence
of
meetings.
We
have
a
bi-weekly
community
meeting.
A
A
A
And
we've
we've
taken
a
bunch
of
steps
on
there
as
well,
so
we
have
a
github
repo.
Let
me
just
paste
that
in
the
chat
for
folks.
A
So
that's
a
link
to
the
to
the
github
repo
for
the
project.
It
also
has
a
link
to
the
the
website,
which
is
a
work
in
progress.
I
think
the
the
github
repos
as
usual
farther
along
than
the
actual
website,
but
we're
working
on
both
in
parallel
we're
using
the
open,
ssf
mailing
list,
perseus
bootstrap
for
for
discussions,
and
we
have
a
couple
slack
channels.
A
So
for
folks
who
have
questions
about
the
project,
you
can
ask
on
bootstrap
and
if
you
want
to
watch
the
the
fireworks
going
on
actual
development,
we
we
moved
over
all
the
discussion
from
from
the
folks
working
on
the
project
from
a
technical
spec
perspective
to
perseus
team
on
the
open,
ssf
slack.
A
So
that's
a
quick,
a
quick
summary
now
I'll
pause
to
give
to
give
either
steve
taylor
from
deploy
hub
or
student
draw
a
chance
to
to
kind
of
also
mention
things
we're
working
on
and
we
do.
We
do
have
three
different
companies
which
are
contributing
code,
full
requests
and
changes
the
project.
So
it's
jfrog
folks,
which
includes
myself,
sudandra
and
and
others
we
have
folks
from
docker
who
are
contributing.
A
So
chris
chris
crane
is
the
kind
of
the
main
technical
person
they're
working,
but
justin
is
also
advising,
and
we
have
steve
taylor
from
deploy
hub,
which
is
a
open,
ssf
member
organization,
who's
also
making
contributions
to
the
project.
Anything
you
want
to
add
sid,
interesting.
F
No,
I
think
you
you
covered
pretty
much
all
of
it
and
everything
has
been
now
moved
to
the
open,
ssf
slack.
So
if
you
wanted
to
just
see
what
is
going
on,
look
at
our
pr's
and
just
chat
with
the
team
welcome.
G
And
then
one
other
company
that
you
missed
stephen
was
logged
in
from
europe.
That
is
also
participating
and
the
the
youtube
channel
should
be
up,
so
meetings
are
starting
to
be
recorded
and
published,
and
we
will
be
adding
our
daily
stand-up
recordings
as
well
for
folks
to
be
able
to
see
what's
going
on
on
a
daily
basis
at
that
level
as
well.
G
One
last
thing
is:
we
did
form
a
bootstrap
governance
document
that
gives
us
some
just
some
basic
governance
guidelines
for
the
project.
We
will
need
to
formally
do
a
governance
document
and
have
elections,
but
right
now
it's
a
little
bit
too
early,
we're
just
getting
our
feet
underneath
us
at
this
point.
A
Okay,
so
that's
a
quick,
a
quick
summary
of
updates
happy
to
answer
any
questions
which
folks
on
the
technical
advisory
committee
have
we.
We
are
looking
for
any
feedback
or
guidance
on
the
project
overall
from
from
the
tac
members
or
other
folks
who
who
are
part
of
openssf
in
attendance
and
one
one
open
item
which
we
can
use
some
help
with.
Is
we're
not
sure
what
the
the
process
is
to
move
from
a
bootstrap
project
to
to
kind
of
an
official
open,
ssf
project?
H
It's
it's
luke
here,
so
so
pertinent
to
your
last
point:
that's
why
I've
tagged
on
the
end.
You
called
it
a
bootstrap.
I'd
come
up
with
the
word
sandbox,
but
I
think
that's
something
that
we
have
to
do
is
establish
what
are
the
tiers
and
the
criteria
for
a
project
to
go
from
an
initial
sort
of
startup
phase
project
to
being
a
full
open,
ssf
project.
So
that's
something
that
I
believe
we
have
to
work
on
on
the
tack.
D
So
we
actually
did
have
some
discussion
on
this.
I
think
this
came
up
on
on
the
email,
alias
as
well
a
few
weeks
ago.
I
think
in
december,
so
sometime
last
year.
Forgive
me
for
time
being.
You
know
completely
irrelevant
at
this
point
in
life,
but
there
was
discussion
around
the
life
cycle
of
working
groups
and
we
talked
about
what
it
meant
to
be
considered
kind
of
this
early
bootstrap
phase
and
requirements
that
came
along
and
there's
a
document
or,
I
should
say,
an
md
file.
D
That's
on
the
tac
github
repo
that
defines
what
each
one
of
those
stages
are.
Now
we
may
want
to
revisit
that
and
and
update.
You
know,
sort
of
this
bootstrap
phase
as
well,
but
there
is
this
requirement.
I
think
it
was
around
a
number
of
companies
that
needed
to
be
involved
number
of
meetings
that
needed
to
have
occurred.
D
H
I
wonder
if
we
need
to
revisit
that
because
that's
in
the
scope
of
working
groups,
so
a
working
group
have
a
you
know,
a
specific
call
to
action
of
there's
a
problem.
Let's
get
together
to
discuss
what
we
can
do
to
fix
this
problem,
whereas
a
project
is,
is
you
know
the
differentiators?
Are
they
have
code?
There's
a
community,
a
governance
structure.
D
H
I'm
happy
to
take
an
action
point
to
work
on
that
as
well,
and
I
you
know,
I
won't
reinvent
the
world.
We
can
look
to
leverage
similar
groups,
perhaps
not
as
involved,
but
you
know
the
cncf
have
a
similar
process
and
granted
they
see
a
lot
more
projects
coming
in,
but
I
expect
that
we'll
see
a
ramp
up
of
new
projects
wanting
to
join.
D
G
C
I
would
also
suggest
we
look
at
the
confidential
compute
consortium
and
bertuccio
and
I
bootstrapped
their
product
growth
planning.
I
I'd
like
to
build
on
what
eva
just
said
like
I'd
like
to
sort
of
have
us
understand.
What
are
we
like?
What
is
the
end
state
that
we
want
like?
What
does
it
look
like
when
a
project
has
gone
through
this
process,
and
now
there,
and
not
just
from
the
project's
point
of
view,
but
also
from
the
open
assets,
point
of
view
and
the
broader
membership
we
open
at
seth?
I
You
know
I
was
part
of
the
cd
foundation
early
on
and
we
didn't
want
it
to
become
a
place
where
people
could
come
and
bring
their
stuff
and
say
here.
Please
take
this
for
us.
We
don't
want
to
deal
with
this
anymore
right.
That's
the
empty
pattern
of
spectacular
proportions,
but
nor
do
we
want
it
to
be
a
thing
where
please
bless
us
with
your
approval
so
that
we
can
suddenly
become
a
big
thing.
I
You
know
you
have
to
you
have
to
like
those
things
have
to
be
earned
organically
by
each
project,
and
so
I
think
articulating
what
it
looks
like
at
the
end
state
for
us
very
clearly,
and
even
if
we
have
to
iterate
on
that
as
we
sort
of
evaluate
projects
and
say
well
that
we
like
this
project,
why
doesn't
it
fit
our
pattern?
Great?
Let's
have
that
conversation.
I
I
think
we
can
iterate
and
evolve,
but
if
we
don't
have
that
clear,
we'll
just
have
all
these
sort
of
painful
conversations
in
the
weeds
without
knowing
why
we're
happy.
C
I
would
I
would
put
forward
that
the
possibly
most
important
function
of
attack
is
defining
that
overall
process
and
goals
and
vision.
What
kind
of
projects
does
the
open
ssf
want
to
gather
under
one
banner?
What
value
do
the
projects
get
in?
You
know
so
that
it's
reciprocal
foundation
gets
value
projects,
get
value
good,
healthy
ecosystem
forms.
How
do
we
define
that?
That's
probably
the
most
important
thing
for
the
tech
and
it's
likely
to
change
over
time
foundations.
C
D
Agree,
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
goals
of
when
we
last
year
created
the
technical
strategy
and
and
goals
around
that
that
was
kind
of
the
idea
of
then
you
know
how
all
these
working
groups
sort
of
sleep
into
that,
and
certainly
you
know
michael's
point.
We
don't
want
open
ssf
to
be
just
a
jumping
ground
of
projects.
You
know
everything
needs
to
fit
into
an
overarching
strategy
and
makes
sense
for
the
open,
ssf
foundation
right
and
then
also
we
don't
want
it
to
be.
D
This
sort
of
you
know
heavy-handed
like
come
get
approval
from
the
tap
for
every
little
thing
as
well
right,
so
I
think
yeah
ava,
like
you,
mentioned
clearly
defining
those
things
having
that
process
is
a
good
thing.
So
we
can
add
that
to
the
agenda
for
next
next
week
or
two
weeks
from
now
the
next
meeting-
and
we
can
start
flushing
some
of
these
things
out.
H
H
A
Yeah,
I
know,
and
thanks
everybody
I
I
think
we
would
definitely
love
to
have
a
like
a
formally
defined
process
for
for
how
this
works
for
open
ssf
and
even
if
we're
kind
of
pushing
the
envelope
by
by
being
one
of
the
first
projects
requesting
this.
I
I
think
that
you
know
we
would
also
love
to
see
this
process
get
formalized
and
benefit
future
projects
as
well.
D
Yeah,
absolutely
and
yeah
no
words
look
like.
I
think
this
is
something
that
needs
to
get
flushed
out
and
as
open
ssf
has
has
gone
on
in
the
past
year
right
these
things
sort
of
come
up
organically
and
we
kind
of
hit
them,
as
you
know,
as
they
come
up.
So
now
is
certainly
a
good
time
to
to
deal
with
this,
as
we've
worked
through
some
of
these
other
things,
we've
needed
to
deal
with
in
the
past
year.
So
no
definitely
a
good
topic.
D
All
right
so
anything
else
on
the
versailles
project
before
we
move
on.
A
Nothing
else
for
me:
if
anyone
has
questions
or
wants
to
reach
out
or
or
engage
on
the
project
we
we'd,
love
and
appreciate
it,
and
probably
the
best
place
is
the
slack
channel.
I
mentioned
persia
dash
bootstrap
or
if
you,
if
you
want
persei-team
as
well.
D
Awesome,
thank
you.
So.
The
final
agenda
item
is
the
developer
tools
working
group
so
last
month,
ryan,
where
who
was
leading
that
working
group
moved
to
a
new
company?
That,
unfortunately,
is
to
my
understanding,
not
supportive
of
him
being
involved
in
openssf
anymore.
So
therefore
he
is
unable
to
continue
leading
that
working
group.
D
So
we
are
kind
of
at
an
inflection
point
with
that
in
terms
of
we
need
a
new
working
group
lead,
but
I've
also
kind
of
noticed
that
that
working
group
seems
to
be
a
little
less
active
and
though
I
was
going
to
mention
the
fuzzing
tools
as
well
that
david
soon
to
has
added
in
there.
I
know
there's
been
some
fuzzing
tool,
work
happening
there,
but
doesn't
seem
like
much
else.
D
So
I
just
wanted
to
bring
this
up
to
the
attack
in
the
sense
that
we
need
a
lead,
but
also
we
may
want
to
kind
of
look
at
how
that
sort
of
fits
within
this
working
group
fits
within
the
overall
open
ssf
charter
and
where
we
see
that
going,
you
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
recently
around
supply
chain,
integrity
and
sort
of
some
changes
happening
with
the
developer
identity,
working
groups-
and
you
know
so
as
we're
kind
of
looking
at
all
of
that
stuff.
D
Does
it
make
sense
to
continue
with
this
one?
I
don't
have
a
preference
either
way
I
just
kind
of
want
to
bring
it
up
for
discussion,
but
does
it
make
sense
to
leave
this
as
is
put
a
new
lead?
Does
it
make
sense
to
think
about
integrating
with
another
group
or
sort
of
rehashing
it?
What
are
has
anyone
on
this
call
been
involved
deeply
with
the
developer
tools,
working
group?
D
I
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
about
this
particular
working
group,
but
I
actually
want
to
echo
something
or
build
on
what
again
ava
said
earlier
on.
In
terms
of
purposes
of
the
tack
and
significant
outcomes
of
the
tech
work,
I
think,
shaping
our
working
groups
and
ensuring
that
the
work
groups
we
have
actually
add
up
to
a
greater
like
a
whole
greater
than
the
sum
of
the
parts.
Kind
of
outcome
is
an
important
thing
to
do,
and
so
I
would
love
to
see
a
conversation
at
the
tech
level
about
hey.
I
I
D
Yes,
absolutely
and
100
acknowledge
that
that
is
the
overarching
goal
of
the
attack.
We've
been
a
little
bit
drowning,
I
think
in
overhead,
in
the
in
the
past
few
months
of
elections
and
other
things
that
have
popped
up,
but
yes,
that
is
absolutely,
I
think,
where
we
need
to
be
and
where
we
should
go.
C
I'd
love
to
just
put
a
stake
in
the
ground
and
say
I
think
again,
one
of
the
most
important
things
for
the
tac
to
do
as
the
body
delegated
by
the
board
to
have
oversight
on
technical
work
is
to
then
decide
how
and
where
to
hand
off
that
authority
to
different
groups
with
intentionality
and
say
this
working
group
here
is
your
charter
and
here's
how
often
we're
going
to
check
in
or
expect
reports
back?
I
think
that
would
be
a
really
good
help
in
setting
up
that
structure.
D
Yeah,
absolutely
one
thing
that
yeah
I've
definitely
wanted
to
have
happen
is
more
check-ins
with
the
working
groups
and
having
them.
Actually,
you
know
the
leads
at
least
attend.
The
tac
meetings
to
provide
updates,
I
think,
would
be
incredibly
beneficial.
It's
been
difficult
to
get
that
to
happen
in
the
past,
so
that's
a
challenge
for
the
upcoming
tech,
but
yeah,
certainly
something
that
needs
to
happen.
I'm
happy
to
have
this
discussion
now.
If
we
want
to
start
talking
about
you
know
with
the
dev
tools
working
group.
D
I
know
josh
bresser's,
I
think,
is
his
last
name
provided
in
email
that
he
would
like
to
lead
that
group,
but
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
much
more
fundamental
conversation
first.
As
far
as
where
do
we
want
that
working
group
to
land?
Do
we
does
it
make
sense?
I
mean,
I
think
what
david
you
mentioned.
It
we
all
kind
of
agree
tools
are
important.
D
We
definitely
want
tools,
but
does
it
make
sense
as
an
individual
working
group
or
just
as
sort
of
a
a
piece
of
each
one
of
the
other
ones?
You
know
each
supply
chain
can
certainly
produce
tools.
It
doesn't
need
to
come
out
of
the
tools
working
group
right.
So
what
are
folks
opinions
and
thoughts
on
that
as
far
as
keeping
it
individual
or
migrating?
It.
I
D
Yeah,
that's
a
great
idea,
so
I
can
start
reaching
out
to
the
individual
working
groups
and
try
to
put
that
together.
I
don't
know
if
it'll
happen
within
two
weeks
or
the
following
one,
but
definitely
we
can
do
that
in
the
past.
For
folks
that
haven't
been
involved
for
the
past
two
years,
we
used
to
have
this
thing
called
the
town
hall
that
kate
williams
primarily
drove,
and
that
was
updates
from
the
working
groups
and
it
sort
of
facilitated
that
type
of
update
happening.
D
But
with
that
not
you
know
occurring
anymore,
I
think
you
know
we
definitely
need
to
get
into
a
cadence
of
having
these
people.
You
know
come
and
provide
updates
to
the
tax.
So.
D
J
Early
march
I
mean
I,
I
would
love
to
figure
out
whether
you'd
all
like
to
see
the
town
hall
be
more
of
a
tool,
for
you
know
bringing
new
people
into
the
project
versus
kind
of
a
status
update
for
everybody
in
the
it
was
already
in
the
project.
I
saw
it
as
more
the
former
you
know
like
hey.
If
you're
new,
you
want
a
kind
of
a
just
an
overview
of.
J
What's
going
on
where
you
know
you
come
here,
whereas
I
think
there's
perhaps
other
channels
we
could
use
for
we're,
keeping
ourselves
updated
on
on.
What's
going
on
with
the
working
groups
and
the
like,
but
but
happy
to
took
off
that.
D
Yeah,
I
think
in
the
past
we
used
it
in
a
couple
for
both
of
those
actually
yeah.
We
kind
of
did
like
this
intro.
If
you're
new
here's
kind
of
what
the
working
groups
are
and
what
they
do,
how
to
get
involved,
and
then
we
also
use
it
as
sort
of
a
showcase
of
work
that
was
done
for
the
working
groups.
In
the
beginning,
every
working
group
kind
of
talked
about
what
they
were
doing
and
then,
as
work
was
evolving,
and
you
know,
various
points
of
achievements
were
occurring.
J
Okay,
well
we'd
like
to
do
another
one
soon
so
yeah,
I
think
it'd
be
great
yeah,
okay,
good,
oh
we'll
get
something
started
on
the
list
on
that
thread.
Awesome.
D
Cool
so
a
couple
of
action
items
for
me,
at
least
so,
for
the
next
meeting
I'll
try
to
get
the
working
groups
to
start
coming
to
tac
and
providing
updates.
D
We
certainly
need
to
discuss
the
dev
tools,
I'm
not
sure,
if
there's
another
active
member
in
there
besides
david,
that,
could
provide
the
update
now
that
ryan,
where
is
gone,
but
we
can
certainly
try
to
figure
that
out,
but
in
light
of
that
is
there
are
there
other
topics
that
folks
want
to
discuss
today?
Do
we
want
to
continue
this
conversation,
or
do
we
want
to
wait
till
next
time
and
kind
of
give
folks
some
time
to
dwell
on
these
topics
and
get
prepared
for
them?.
B
Yeah,
if,
if
I
can
jump
in
real
quick,
you
mentioned
hey
every
all
the
working
groups
give
a
10
minute.
You
might,
you
might
consider
as
an
alternative
having
different
meetings
drill
in
on
specific
working
groups,
so
they
can
really
talk
about
and
you
can
have
more
in-depth
discussions
about.
What's
going
on?
What's
not
working,
you
know
what
might
be
what
can
be
done
to
make
things
even
better
instead.
B
Quick,
the
problem
with
the
10
minutes
is
you
barely
get
in
and
then
you
move
on
it's
good
for
general
knowledge,
but
not
necessarily
for
identifying
and
fixing
challenges.
D
Yeah,
the
last
time
that
we
did
this,
if
I
remember
correctly
the
we
tried
to
to
schedule
this,
you
know
individually
and
and
separately.
I
think
we
broke
it
into
two
different
meetings.
The
challenge
I
think
we
ran
into
was
that
some
topics
were
very
working.
D
You
know
and
let
the
tech
kind
of
decide
how
we
want
to
overall
structure
it
and
then
maybe
have
follow-up
meetings
where
we
do
some
deep
dives
in
the
ones
that
need
more
help,
especially
given
the
new
members
in
our
audience
that
we've
had
recently.
You
know
overviews
might
be
helpful.
What
do
folks
think
about
that?.
I
F
I
D
B
Yeah
because
at
least
in
my
mind,
the
tax
should
be
more
than
just
hey.
This
is
where
you
learn.
It's
the
let's
discuss
the
problems,
because
any
real
anything
where
you're
trying
to
do
anything
real,
there's
going
to
be
challenges,
there's
going
to
be
problems.
I
I
don't
think
we
should
shy
away
from
that.
I
think
we
should
say:
hey
we're
doing
great
here,
we're
instead
of
roadblock
here.
Can
someone
give
us
some
help
or
ideas
on
how
to
make
progress.
C
Other
specifics
one,
I
would
say
I
like
the
way
the
ccc
has
set
up
mentors.
So
every
project
or
working
group
has
a
designated
mentor
who's.
A
member
of
the
tech
who
is
has
offered
to
make
this
self
available
to
that
project
on
an
as
needed
basis
as
an
escalation
path.
D
D
That's
an
interesting
idea.
It's
it's
kind
of
funny,
given
that
if
we
look
at
that
life
cycle,
markdown
file
that
david
posted
the
link
to
thank
you,
we
actually
mentioned
that
one
of
the
requirements
is
that
there's
a
tax
sponsor.
D
C
Let's
have
a
little
bit
of
a
reset
and
I
would
suggest
the
policy
be
that
they
always
need
to
have
that.
It's
not
a
like
you
know,
let's
say
in
the
future,
somebody
steps
down
from
attack
or
rotates
off
and
that
working
group
of
project
no
longer
has
a
sponsor.
Well,
they
need
to
find
one.
Somebody
needs
to
step
up
and
still
fill
that
role.
D
D
All
right,
so
I
will
reach
out
to
the
groups
and
see
about
getting
them
to
show
up
for
updates
anything
else
before
we
give
folks
back
the
time.
B
And
and
really
a
mentor
may
not
be
the
right
word,
I'm
my
sponsor
might
be
better
because
it's
I
don't.
I
don't
think
in
this
case,
you're
really
trying
to
mentor
a
program.
You
know
a
working
group
lead
who
doesn't
know
anything
it's
much
more
of
the
trying
to
give
and
assess
an
assist
and
that
connection
back
to
the
tack
so
that
we
can
so
that
our
leads
aren't
are
aren't
at
least
feeling
alone.
C
And
it's
in
the
ccc
we
chose
not
to
use
the
word
liaison
because
we
don't
want
projects
to
feel
as
though
they
have
to
go
through
that
person.
That
person
is
their
only
channel
and
but
rather
that
that
person
is
available
to
help
them
sort
of
the
designated
point
of
contact
and
that
way
projects
might
feel
nervous.
Emailing
the
entire
attack
list,
saying
hey.
I
got
this
little
thing.
I
don't
know
what
to
do.
Where
do
I
go
with
my
question?
They
have
a
person.
They
can
build
a
relationship
with
to
ask.
B
I
I'm
sure
there's
important
information
I
have
not
included
so
help
wanted,
but
yeah
yeah
other
than
I
don't
like
the
word
mentor.
I
love
the
word
sponsor
because
I
agree
liaison's
not
right
either,
but
I
like
sponsor,
because
that
gives
oh
wait
a
minute.
That's
your,
but
somebody
else
to
help
the
leads
so
that
the
leads
instead
of
feeling
alone
have
somebody
to
you
know,
give
them
a
hand
yeah
to
deal.
F
B
The
challenging
problems,
but
if
we
can
learn
from
confidential
computing
comp,
oh
and
I
see
somebody
has
put
in
a
link
excellent,
I
see
something
I'm
going
to
be
reading
in
the
very
near
future.
D
B
I
B
B
D
All
right
normally,
I
would
agree
absolutely,
but
yes,
given
the
current
environment,
I
think
everybody
wants
to
wait.
I
David,
as
the
note
taker,
you
could
certainly
put
something
on
the
agenda
for
the
week
after
the
election
and
simply
say,
and
then
we
will
assign
the
owners
there.
I
mean
it's
it's
as
simple
as
that.
E
Yep,
the
sixth
I
just
posted
to
the
on
slack,
so
it's
midnight
on
the
6th
of
february
is
when
voting
closes.
J
Right
and
the
election
will
result
in
four
people.
There
will
need
to
be
another
three
appointed
by
the
governing
board,
and
so
I
suggest
waiting
to
seat
the
new
tac
until
those
three
are
appointed
yeah
and
having
this
tax
meet
one
more
time.
I
J
We're
not
going
to
meet
before
that's
known,
but
we
could
conceivably
propose
it
and
have
it
accepted.
You
know,
in
the
intervening
time
so
I
mean
over
over
email
because
we
meet
again
on
march
3rd.
The
governing
board
meets
again
on
march
third
week
I'll
see
if
I
can
do
that
over
email,
so
that
the
next
tech
call,
which
would
be
what
well
there's
feb,
22nd
and
feb
8th
right
so
feb
8,
which
would
be
the
next
one
for
for
this
tax,
should
probably
meet
and
be
the
existing
tax.
J
And
then
I
bet
we
over
email.
We
could
probably
close
the
vote
so
that
the
feb
22nd
tech
meeting
is
when
we
could
seat
a
new
attack
at
the
earliest.