►
From YouTube: OpenSSF TAC Meeting (February 23, 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).
B
All
right,
hey
everybody,
welcome,
we'll,
go
and
get
started,
we're
just
talking
about
the
town
hall
overview.
It
seems
like
it
went
really
really
well
any
other
feedback
from
participants
positive,
negative
places.
We
think
we
might
improve.
C
You
know
this
is
not
about
yesterday's
meeting
specifically,
but
jennifer
had
made
a
suggestion
earlier
that
I
thought
was
good,
which
is
that
we
try
to
tie
the
timing
of
the
town
hall
to
I
think
we
were
talking
about
in
the
tag
having
the
the
working
groups
provide.
You
know
updates
to
the
attack
and
we
thought
we
might
do
that
quarterly,
and
you
know
maybe
just
ahead
of
the
the
next
town
hall.
C
B
Yeah,
I
definitely
agree
with
that.
I'd
like
to
get
working
groups
providing
updates
of
attack
on
a
more
regular
basis,
yeah,
and
if,
if
we
can
parlay
that
into
the
actual
town
hall,
I
think
that
would
be
super
helpful.
So
if
we
can
get
on
sort
of
a
quarterly
rhythm
with
them,
you
know
that
would
be
useful.
What
other
people
think.
D
I
think
I
think
what
we
were
thinking
initially
with
that
and
and
what
I
was
proposing
is
that
when
you
mention
ryan
of
quarterly
rhythm,
we
identify
in
advance,
like
you
know,
the
third
tuesday
of
every
quarter
at
3
p.m
or
whatever.
We
decide
on
a
recurrent
basis,
find
a
few
of
those
deadlines,
one
for
town
hall,
content
and
then
one
for
the
town
hall
itself,
and
then
I
think
we
had
talked
about
and
I'm
not
sure
where
we
landed
with
it.
D
B
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
great
idea,
curious
what
other
people
think,
but
yeah
that
I
would
absolutely
love
to
have.
We've
got
krobe
here
today.
Do.
C
We
want
to
take
a
minute
and
do
that
now
or
do
we
want
to
make
it
a
maybe
an
agenda.
I
don't
know
how
it
wasn't
on
the
agenda,
so
maybe
we
can
add
it
later
in
the
agenda
or
how
to
or
or
do
it
on
an
on
another
day.
But
I
think
it's
a
good
discussion.
B
Yeah
yeah,
I
don't
have
a
really
heavy
agenda
today,
so
I'm
happy
to
continue
this
particular
topic
and
then
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
part.
C
Okay,
so
let
me
let
me
lay
out
so
there
are
a
few
things.
I'm
gonna
hop
in.
C
So
there
are
a
few
things
that
we
want
to
do
on
a
quarterly
basis.
There's
we
want
to
send
a
newsletter,
so
we
used
to
be
doing.
We
used
to
have
this
concept
that
we
would
send
a
new,
have
a
press
release
quarterly
and
we're
moving
away
from
that
based
on
direction
from
our
our
pr
folks.
They
would
like
us
to
just
think
about
press
releases
as
when
we
have
you
know
big
meaty
announcements,
and
then
we
do
a
press
release
around
that
otherwise
kind
of
general
ongoing
updates.
C
And
then
you
know,
there's
also
a
sort
of
attack
review.
C
B
C
So
I
think,
probably
the
way
that
we
want
to
do
it.
You
know
just
thinking
timing
is,
we
might
want
to
have
the
attack
review
first
and
then
that
feeds
into
the
newsletter,
and
then
the
town
hall
comes
after
right
around
the
time
of
the
newsletter,
and
we
have
been
doing
the.
We
have
been
doing
the
press
releases
and
we
did
the
last
newsletter
at
the
the
last
week
of
our
quarter.
So.
E
C
I'm
not
not
not
sure
I'm
just
putting
it
there
because
there
had
been
discussion
about
some
sort
of
cadence
for
the
tag
to
review.
So
that's.
B
Is
that
to
review
like
the
work
groups
or
word
groups
or
group
updates?
Okay,.
B
I
was
going
to
say
so
yeah
using
this
generic
tech
review
term
to
interpret
it
my
way.
It
would
be
sure.
B
Since
it's
unclear,
okay
yeah,
I
was
going
to
say,
yeah
getting
working
group
updates,
I
think,
would
be
good
and
then
somehow
formalizing
that
into
the
newsletter
along
with
whatever
the
working
group
updates
are
plus
whatever
the
tac
is
currently
working
on
right.
So
the
updates
that
we
have
been
putting
into
that
town
hall
meeting
could
go
into
the
newsletter
as
well
as
kind
of
pull
that
all
together
and
put
it
in
one
thing.
B
C
What
kind
of
so
we
haven't
been
having
we
haven't
been
having
the
attack,
you
know,
we've
been,
we've
been
reviewing
content
for
newsletter
and
town
hall
in
the
gb
planning
meeting,
which
has
some
tech
numbers
added.
Do
we
want
to
have
the
sort
of
attack
formally
approved
content
for
newsletters
in
town
hall.
B
I
think
I
don't
know
that
we
necessarily
need
to
make
it
formal,
like
formal
approval,
but
it
would
be
good,
I
think,
to
share
it.
You
know
a
preview
with
the
tax
so
that
you
know
we
can
provide
input.
You
know
just
like
we
do
with
blog
posts
in
general
or
other
sort
of
that.
B
I
think
the
tech
members
should
have
an
opportunity
to
take
a
look
and
make
sure
everything's
accurate,
but
I
don't
think
we'd
necessarily
have
to
wait
for
the
tax
to
sign
off
right,
just
give
an
opportunity
to
make
corrections
if
necessary,
but.
C
Okay,
so
we
could
come
up
with
a
schedule,
something
like
so
wgwg
tack
provide
content
for
news
letter,
and
that
could
be
that
that
really
needs
to
happen
at
least
two
weeks
so
end
of
second
one
week
ahead
of
newsletter.
C
C
B
Yeah
at
bare
minimum,
I
think
it's
a
good
start,
so
we
can
okay
yeah
adjust
if
we
need
to,
but
I
think
it's
good
okay
cool
thanks!
Thank
you!
Well,
since,
since
you're
already
here
and
talking,
do
you
want
to
roll
into
the
internet.
B
C
Yeah,
well,
I
guess
you
know
we
can
kind
of
do
governing
board
updates.
So
there
are
two
things
well
jennifer's
going
to
talk
about
the
off-site.
So
that's
one
thing,
the
other
two
things
that
I
could
mention
here,
one
just
to
fyi
we're
working
on
the
scope
of
our
budget
committee,
and
so
we've
got
a
an
upcoming
amendment
to
our
charter
to
to
add
in
the
the
budget
committee,
I
don't
have
those
right
handy
to
to
share
the
actual
content
of
them
with
you.
C
So
you
know
if
somebody's
interested,
you
know,
let
me
know-
and
I
can
share
that
out-
but
it's
not
essentially
where
our
our
budget
committee
will
be
similar
to
what
a
lot
of
other
foundation
budget
committees
are
like
that.
You
know
they'll
hand
her
the
handle
coming
up
with
the
budget
and
sending.
C
Board
for
approval
and
and
then
we
also
said
that
they
would
handle
so
you
know,
management
of
any
funding.
Maybe
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
saying
that
the
right
way.
So
you
know,
if
they're
funding,
requests
from
the
attack
to
the
governing
board,
then
the
budget
committee
would
handle
disbursement
of
those
funds
as
appropriate.
C
So
that's
one
piece,
the
other
thing,
that's
the
other
that
then
addendum
to
the
to
the
charter
that
we're
looking
at
is
an
intellectual
property
policy
and
in
that
we're
defining
the
all
of
the
allowed
software
code
licenses
and
also
licenses
for
documentation
and
data,
and
then
the
process
will
be
anyone
can
any
one
of
our
technical
initiatives
can
choose
from
any
of
the
specified
allowed
licenses
and
then
for
if
they
want
something
outside
of
that,
then
it
takes
a
governing
board
approval
for
that.
C
So
those
are
those
are
both
coming
along.
We
can
share
the
the
full
text
of
those
they're,
both
both
are
being
reviewed
and,
in
some
cases,
they're
being
reviewed
by
the
attorneys
of
members
of
the
governing
board,
and
you
know
if
anyone
wants
details
more
details
ahead
of
line
ahead
of
time.
I
can
share
the
document
with
you,
otherwise
I
expect
the
governing
board
will
vote
on
those
at
our
next
meeting,
which
is
march
4th
if
all
of
the
governing
board
members
are
ready
to
vote.
C
G
No,
but
what
it
says
is
that
for
specs
there's
another
license,
that's
often
used
and
for
databases
there's
another
license.
That's
often
used.
C
D
Yeah,
thank
you.
So
the
governing
board,
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
doing,
is
trying
to
streamline
our
decision,
making,
make
it
as
clear
as
possible
across
the
open,
ssf
and
and
basically
just
document
all
of
those
things
and
figure
them
out,
because
I
guess
we've
had
some
some
challenges
from
time
to
time
around.
You
know
where
a
decision
is
made
and
how
so
obviously
figuring
out
that
stuff,
putting
it
all
on
the
table,
sorting
it
and
resolving
it
and
and
documenting
those
findings
is,
is
a
worthwhile
exercise.
D
So,
the
week
before
last
we
had
two
sessions.
They
were
each
two
hours
long
for
members
of
the
governing
board,
and
basically
I
led
us
through
an
exercise
where
we
outlined
all
of
the
major
and
minor,
sometimes
decisions
that
we
foresee
open,
ssf
needing
to
make
as
a
functioning
organization,
so
things
we've
either
encountered
or
we
expect
to
encounter
in
the
future.
D
We
tried
to
brainstorm
as
many
of
those
as
we
could
and
we
came
up
with
a
huge
number
of
them
all
the
way
from
big
things
like
charter
changes
to
relatively
small
things,
like
writing
and
posting
a
tweet,
and
we
categorized
those
decisions
together
in
a
pretty
consensus-driven
model,
with
a
fair
bit
of
discussion
and
thought
into
some
preliminary
categories.
So
they
were
governing
board
and
its
subcommittees.
The
tac,
the
individual
working
groups
and
other
and
other
could
be
like
linux
foundation
or
whatever.
D
So
we
went
through
all
these
decisions,
we
discussed
where
we
thought
that
they
fell
and
we've
spent
a
couple
of
sessions
on
that.
But
I
think
we've
resolved
a
number
of
major
open
questions
that
we've
had
for
a
long
time
that
are
beginning
to
arise
in
different
areas
of
governance
at
openssf.
D
So
I
think
we're
just
taking
like
a
very
engineer's
sort
of
approach
to
this
in
carving
it
up
very
precisely
in
articulating
that
and
in
agreeing
on
efficient
decision-making
mechanisms,
so
I
think
it'll
be
a
game
changer
for
us
just
in
terms
of
how
decisions
are
made
across
this
organization.
I
think
it's
going
to
enable
us
to
get
a
lot
more
done.
D
A
lot
faster
and
it's
been,
I
think,
a
really
good
team
building
exercise
in
the
gb,
because
we're
forcibly
making
ourselves
deal
with
issues
that
may
arise
in
the
future
and
dealing
with
them
proactively
from
like
a
really
calm
perspective
and
thinking
about
the
trade-offs.
So,
overall,
I
think
it's
gone
really
really
well,
but
of
course,
part
of
this
whole
thing
is
making
sure
that
it
makes
sense
for
all
of
the
stakeholders.
D
So
as
we
work
through
these
lists,
what
we
will
be
bringing
back
to
the
attack,
probably
by
the
next
tac
meeting,
will
be
the
things
that
we
feel
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
attack
and
then
we'll
just
want
to
make
sure
with
the
tech
that
that
all
feels
right,
that
the
attack
doesn't
feel
that
anything
is
missing
or
miscategorized.
D
So
we'll
seek
to
make
sure
that
all
parties
in
both
the
governing
board
and
the
attack
are
comfortable
with
that,
but
we've
basically
kept
it
to
the
gb
to
do
this
initial
card,
sorting
exercise.
So
that's
where
we're
at
we
intend
to
finish
probably
sometime
next
week.
D
It
might
be
early
the
week
after
if
scheduling
is
difficult
and
then
we'll
bring
that
stuff
back
to
this
group
and
from
there
we'll
have
a
very
clear,
well-documented
way
of
making
all
kinds
of
decisions
in
this
organization
really
efficiently,
which
I
think
will
really
accelerate
what
we're
doing.
So.
D
If
anyone
has
questions,
I'm
happy
to
answer
those,
otherwise
you
can
expect
in
a
future
tech
meeting,
probably
the
next
one,
an
update
to
come
as
to
where
things
landed
with
gb
and
we
will
bring
with
us
the
documentation,
of
course,
on
all
of
those
things.
B
Very
cool,
thank
you,
jennifer.
Any
questions
for.
B
So
one
thing
I
forgot
to
put
on
the
agenda
here
was:
there
was
an
email
thread
and
I
apologize
I
forget
who
it
was
through,
but
regarding
the
election
process
that
we
had
discussed
last
time,
I
know
I
said
that
I
would
get
that
into
a
markdown
file
and
get
posted
up
on
on
the
repo
I
have
to
apologize.
B
I've
had
virtually
no
time
to
work
on
openssf
the
past
two
weeks,
but
the
good
news
is
this
week
is
looking
great,
and
so
I
plan
on
doing
that
today
and
then
I'll
send
that
out.
So
I
think
we've
got
that
finalized
and
finished,
and
then
it
in
that
email
thread.
B
I
think
it
was
lindsey
or
carly
I
forget,
but
they
mentioned
that
we
need
to
have
an
official
vote,
and
so
I
plan
on
unless
somebody
has
different
opinions,
but
once
we
put
it
in
the
markdown
using
our
usual
voting
process
by
approving
the
the
pr.
So
if
anybody
has
thoughts,
otherwise
let
me
know,
but
otherwise
that'll
be
the
the
plan
going
forward.
So
hopefully
I'll
get
that
published
up
today.
C
D
C
The
election
process,
so
we
we
want
to
get
the
have
governing
board
eyes
on
that
because
it
has
the
component
of
it,
which
is
that
the
governing
board
elects
some
members
also
so
so
that'll
be
so
ryan
will
attend
our
next
meeting
on
october
october
march
4th
to
to
share
the
current
status
with
us.
Yeah.
B
All
right
so
then,
the
the
next
big
thing
that
I
had
that
we've
kind
of
been
sitting
on
for
a
while
is
the
working
group
charter
reviews.
So
there's
a
couple
of
things
there
first
off.
I
don't
think
that
we've
got
for
most
working
groups
in
the
state
to
where
we
can
actually
do
a
charter
review
with
them.
So
since
we
do
have
a
couple
of
working
group
leads
with
us
today,
I
wanted
to
kind
of
get
some
generalized
feedback
about.
B
What
do
you
guys
think
would
be
the
right
way
to
to
start
driving
that
to
get
working
groups
ready?
I
don't
want
it
to
turn
into
this,
like
painful
overhead
process
that
everybody's
got
to
go
through,
but
at
the
same
time
we
do
kind
of
need
to
get
it
done.
So
I
guess
looking
to
kind
of
dan
and
crow
and
see
if
there's
anybody
else
on
this
call
and
jennifer
helps
lead
some
things
as
well.
H
I
thought
the
two
groups
I'm
involved
with
had
appropriately
followed
the
template.
I'd,
be
I
maybe
we
send
out
a
message
to
each
of
the
working
group
leads
stating
we're
going
to
be
reviewing
this
and
try
to
find
a
time
where
the
appropriate
parties
can
get
on
a
call
and
kind
of
look
at.
What's
there
and
compare
to
the
template.
E
I
think
we're
overloading
terms
here,
I
think
there's
two
different
templates
that
people
could
be
referring
to
there's
the
charter.md,
which
I
don't
think
anyone
has
followed
because
it
doesn't
quite
make
sense.
It
expects
working
groups
to
elect
technical
steering
committees
and
all
sorts
of
heavyweight
things,
and
then
there's.
E
B
Well,
sort
of
both,
so
we
tried
to
kill
the
charter
md
in
a
sense
right
that
we
were
going
to
update
that
to
make
it
a
little
less
ridiculous
for
everybody
like
forcing
the
election
of
members
on
these
small
working
groups.
But
I
thought
we
were
going
to
review
that
with
the
I
think.
Was
it
the
governing
board
that
was
doing
that
as
part
of
the
that
policy,
the
policy
updates
that
they
were
doing
or
did
that
kind
of
get
dropped.
E
I
think
there
was
the
yeah.
The
immediate
concern
was
the
ip
policy
which
I
think
is
getting
resolved,
but
then
there's
the
rest
of
it.
I
don't
know
how
much
we
care
about
the
rest
of
it.
E
I
think
we're
at
a
point
where
we
can,
once
the
ip
policy
part
is
figured
out,
we
can
easily
review
the
readme.mds
and
understand
what
everyone
is
hoping
to
be
doing,
and
then
I
don't
know
exactly
how
much
the
attack
wants
to
be
opinionated
and
how
working
groups
are
structured
and
governed,
and
that
kind
of
thing
I
think,
more
imminent,
is
just
understanding
what
they
all
are
hoping
to
do.
B
Yeah,
that
seems
reasonable.
I
think
the
main
goal
here
is
for
us
to
just
really
see
what
everyone's
doing
make
sure
there's
not
overlap
right.
If
there
is
sort
of
coordinate
them
a
little
bit
better
but
yeah,
I
don't
think
we
should
be
terribly
opinionated
about
how
they're
run
and
we
should
let
the
working
groups
decide
that
amongst
themselves,
but.
C
I
thought
and
lindsay
helped
me
remember,
so
I
thought
that
there
was
some
discussion
with
scott
miller
at
the
linux
foundation
about
creating
a
simplified
template,
so
there
might
still
be
a
simplified
charter
template
for
technical
initiatives.
C
There
might
still
be
other
things
in
that
from
the
prior
charter
template
that
are
relevant
for
groups,
I'm
not
sure,
but
so
maybe
lindsay.
Can
you
just
yeah.
A
I
remind
you
first,
the
main
charter
needs
to
be
approved
and
then
there
is
the
option
to
do
like
a
lighter
weight,
technical
charter.
If,
once
that
main
charter
is
approved,
we
feel
that
we
need
something
else.
So
that's
an
option
for
sure,
but
I
think
the
main
thing
first
is
to
do
the
main
charter
and
see
what
that
covers
and
gets
us
to
and
then
review
the
need
for
an
additional,
lighter
weight
charter.
J
C
C
B
Okay,
so
we
can
go
ahead
and
start
the
reviews
then,
and
we
can
send
out,
invites
I
see
that
crow
mentioned
you
know,
invite
them
so
yeah
we
can
go
and
send
out
invites
to
to
this
meeting
just
a
sort
of
a
background
like
crob
and
dan.
Do
you
guys
feel
that
inviting
folks
in
the
next
two
weeks
is
reasonable
or
do
people
kind
of
need
some
prep
time
like
for
any
particular
reason
like
we
said,
I
think
the
readme's
are
ready
to
go
so.
H
B
Yeah
we
made
the
readme
sort
of
the
priority
like
dan
was
mentioning
because
the
charter
md
file,
it
was
some
template
that
got
copied
from
somewhere
and
then
we
realized
that
it
was
definitely
heavy-handed
for
what
our
uses
were.
So
we
came
up
with
the
readme
approach,
but
I
think
we
still
have
this
need
to
have
a
more
lightweight
charter.
That's
being
you
know,
created
right
now
that
lindsay
was
just
mentioning,
so
we
can.
B
We
can
leverage
that
when
it's
appropriate,
but
I
think
in
the
meantime
it
probably
makes
sense
to
go
ahead
and
do
the
review
with
just
the
readme.
If,
if
folks
are
comfortable
with
that,
I
see
that
you
mentioned
that.
That's
partly
why
you
showed
up
today,
we've
got
time
so
if
we
want
to
go
ahead
and
do
yours
now
that
I'm
totally
cool
with
that,
if
folks
are
open
to
that.
D
C
B
Yeah,
that's
the
ideal.
Absolutely
I
know
in
the
past,
we've
definitely
had
a
difficult
time
getting
every
lead
to
show
up
to
this
meeting,
but
we
can
certainly
make
that
we
could
try
for
that
in
the
next
tac
meeting
and
see
how
much
representation
we
get,
but
at
least
then
they
have
the
opportunity.
So
that's
that's
totally
fine
with
me.
D
I
think
to
the
point
that
we
discussed
earlier
having
that
one
where
we
have
them
report
on
a
quarterly
basis
is
really
going
to
help
because
it,
even
if
there's
one
and
they
have
to
plan
like
every
three
months
to
come
to
this
meeting
for
an
hour,
and
we
coordinate
that
well
in
advance.
It'll,
be
really
great
to
have
everyone
all
in
the
same
place
on
a
periodic
basis.
E
B
C
B
Yeah,
so
I
think
the
the
review
of
the
the
readmes
or
the
charters
or
whatever
we
want
to
call
these
things,
is
separate
from
this.
Like
newsletter
update
kind
of
thing,
I
think
we
need
to
get
through
these
reviews
first
and
then
we
can
use
that
as
part
of
the
update.
You
know
if
it
works
out
that
way,
but
I
view
those
as
separate
things.
B
Yeah
so
I'd
like
to
at
the
next
hack
meeting,
if
we
can
get
good
representation,
you
should
do
that
in
two
weeks,
if
possible
a
month
at
the
latest,
but
I
think
I'm.
B
D
B
We're
gonna
try
to
get
everyone
as
much
as
we
can
yeah.
So
if
we
can
get
everyone
in
two
weeks,
we'll
do
it,
then
if
there's
too
many
conflicts
and
a
month
out
is
when
we
can
get
it
done,
then
we'll
do
it
then,
but
I'd
like
to
try
to
get
as
much
as
we
can
done
sooner
rather
than
later.
C
B
So
we
do
have
the
readme
yeah
I
mean.
That's,
that's
a
good
idea
as
well.
I
was
just
thinking
like
when
we
so
dan
you
started
saying
deep
dive.
I
wasn't
anticipating
like
a
deep
dive.
It
was
more
like
a
review
of
the
of
the
read
me,
so
we
wouldn't
like
get
into
too
many
details,
but
are
you
thinking
that
there
would
be
more
discussion
down
into
the
the
details
of
each
working
group
that
would
necessitate
more
than
10
minutes.
E
B
We
can
split
it,
you
know,
do
half
and
half
and
then
people
that
show
up
at
each
one
that
they're
interested
in
can
show
up
to
each
one
and
then
that
way
we
have
a
little
bit
more
time.
If
we're
worried
about
it.
Certainly
you
know
if
we
can
get
through
them.
We
will
right,
but
you
know
I
don't
want
to
artificially
force
things
through.
If
we
haven't
had
a
proper
discussion
on
it,
either.
C
B
K
E
B
Okay,
so
we
can
start
scheduling
these
for
the
next
stack
meeting
and
then
the
one
after
that,
if
necessary,
and
then
we
can
get
that
invite
sent
out
to
the
working
group
leads.
Does
that
seem
like
a
reasonable
plan
for
everyone.
B
J
C
K
F
B
I
can,
I
could
certainly
volunteer
and
and
then
go
convince
mike
to
show
up
as
well.
C
C
C
K
C
C
And
the
two
weeks
out
from
the
ninth
is
nine
plus
14.
whoops,
the
third,
the
23rd
23.
D
B
B
If
it's,
if
it's
open
to
discussion
where
I
should
say
that
there
are
topics
still
being
discussed,
meaning
that
people
aren't
ready
to
vote,
then
I
think
we
need
to
just
push
it
to
another
meeting.
So
we
can
continue
the
conversation,
but
if
it's
we
get
through-
and
we
just
want
time
for
some
reason
to
vote
or
people
want
to
vote
anonymously
or
something
like
that,
then
we
can
push
to
another
platform.
B
But
I
think
for
discussions
that
we
should
continue
them
until
you
know
people
feel
comfortable
and
issues
have
been
resolved
like
because
I
think
that
if
there,
if
there's
a
conversation
going
on
basically
where
we've
got
a
conflict
between
two
groups,
we
should
probably
try
to
resolve
that.
Instead
of
just
holding
a
vote.
C
Oh
yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
ask:
do
we
want
to
cap
discussions
at
20
minutes
so
if
and
then,
if
in
order
for
all
three
I'm
just
you
know,
I'm
just
thinking
respect
for
people's
time?
Do
we
want
to
cap
discussions
at
20
minutes
for
any
one,
individual
group
and
then
and
then
call
that
group
back
for
another
meeting?
If,
if
the
discussion
goes
outside
of
20
minutes,.
C
C
Can
we
go
back
to
so?
There
was
something
we
said
just
now.
That
makes
me.
I
think
we
might
want
to
update
something
about
our
quarterly,
I'm
going
to
call
it
our
town
hall,
because
the
town
hall's
the
culminating
event.
So
I
think
what
we
said.
I
what
I
was
hearing,
but
it's
not
what
I
had
written
so
I
had
written
word-
can
group
intact,
provide
content
for
newsletter
one
week
ahead
of
newsletter.
C
Maybe
there
was
one,
maybe
it's
just
that
there's
one
thing
ahead
of
that
which
is
wg
quarterly
updates
to
tack
and
that's
going
to
be
the
attack
meeting
ahead.
B
Yeah
there's
an
interesting
timing
thing
here
so,
depending
on
what
we
meant
for
the
yeah.
We
want
to
do
this
for
sure
I
I
agree
with
that
and
then
but
then
the
next
two
items
that
you've
got
on
there
is
that
the
working
group
and
tech
provide
content
for
the
newsletter
a
week
before
the
newsletter
totally
cool.
But
then
the
next
item
I
think,
is
interesting
like
so
then
we're
going
to
review
in
the
same
week.
C
No,
it's
going
to
be
the
week
between
when
the
contents
provided
and
when
the
newsletter
goes
out.
So
the
other.
F
C
So
april
29
and
then
the
the
content
would
be
due
to
the.
C
To
the
you
know,
the
pl
we'll
call
the
to
the
planning
committee
because
they're
the
ones
that
pull
it
together
today,
that
might
change
and
be
a
different
committee
in
the
future.
But
we'll
say
planning
committee
content.
C
C
Friday,
16th
april
2
april
16th.
D
B
C
C
So
I
think
it
should
be
ahead
of
this
friday.
You
know
friday
the
16th
deadline,
the
the
working
groups,
are
every
two
weeks.
C
So
I
guess
we'll
just
say:
tac
meeting.
F
B
C
Okay,
I'm
sure
I
can
spend
a
few
minutes
on
this
and
come
up
with
some
labels
for
each
of
these
milestones,
and
then
it
will
read
better
but
I'll
I'll
work
on
that
and
maybe
bring
it
back
for
this
group.
B
Yeah
the
next
meeting
yeah
the
gist
of
it's
good,
but
yeah.
Thank
you
for
doing
that.
So
I
noticed
real
quick.
While
we're
in
this
section
nick
had
pointed
out
a
question
for
august,
was
it
july
or
august
because
july
would
be
the
quarter,
but
are
we
pushing
to
august
due
to
anniversary
reasons
or.
C
B
Cool
all
right,
so
I
think
we've
gotten
through
all
of
that
any
questions
before
we
wrap
that
up,
okay,
cool,
so
we've
got
10
minutes
left
the
there's
two
things
one
I
completely
forgot
was
to
do
introductions
of
new
people
because
I
know
there's
quite
a
few
new
people
on
the
call
today
that
I
didn't
notice
until
about
halfway
through
this
meeting.
B
So
I
want
to
do
that
really
quick
and
then.
Lastly,
I
I
just
want
to
mention.
I
don't
want
to
go
through
and
do
this
because
I
know
it's
boring
for
everybody,
but
we
do
need
to
start
working
through
all
of
the
active
github
issues.
So
I'm
going
to
spend
some
time
this
week
reviewing
those
I'll
close
things
out
that
I
know
can
be
closed
and
they've
already
been
resolved
and
then
I'll
probably
be
assigning
some
to
folks
as
well
that
need
that
need
updates.
B
But
we
should
try
to
start
making
some
progress
through
those.
So
if
people
have
time,
please
take
a
look
at
those
and
close
out
anything
that
you
think
is
has
been
resolved
and
you
know
prop
up
anything
you
think
might
need
to
be
active,
but
I
don't
want
to
spend
the
next
10
minutes
just
going
through
all
of
those
things
together,
that's
a
little
tedious,
but
so
with
that,
let's
do
some
quick
intros,
I'm
just
going
to
rattle
off
the
people
that
I
don't
recognize,
but
that
I
think
are
new.
I
It
is
yes,
yeah
hi,
nick
osmore.
I
do
product
security
of
our
code,
so
I
know
we're
a
vendor,
but
I'm
on
the
I'm
on
the
securing
our
own
stuff
side,
not
necessarily
selling
things,
but
I've
been
doing
product
security
for
a
number
of
years
here
at
barcode
and
at
rcmc
before
that.
I've
been
part
of
safe
code
working
on
a
few
documents
over
the
years.
B
I
No
as
part
of
safe
code,
someone
mentioned
your
town
hall
last
week,
so
one
of
our
our
working
group
meetings.
So
I
joined
yesterday
and
just
looked
the
calendar
and
blocked
off
some
time
to
join
some
of
the
meetings
over
the
next
couple
weeks.
Just
to
see
what
you
guys
have
going
on
and
see
how
I
can
help.
B
Very
cool
all
right
well
again
welcome,
let's
see
who
else
is
okay,
I
think
you
added
nick
twice.
He
was
already
on
there.
B
Let's
see
who
else
is
new
matt?
I.
L
No,
I
I've
been
attending
work
groups
here
and
there
trying
to
figure
out
where
I
fit
and
arrange
my
schedule,
but
I
work
in
the
open
source
group
and
ibm
working
on
various
projects,
I'm
most
interested
in
securing
our
tool
chains,
our
pipelines
and
so
I've
been
attending
the
tools
working
group.
But
since,
since
phil
my
good
friend,
phil
estes
switched
affiliations
recently,
I
was
asked
to
start
paying
attention
to
this
group
by
my
colleague
chris.
B
B
Well,
we're
glad
to
have
you
as
well
is
that
everybody,
because,
as
I'm
clearly
recognizing
names
but
from
other
meetings,
so
anybody
else,
that's
new
to
this
particular
meeting
that
that
I'm
not.
B
Catching
nope,
everyone
cool
all
right.
Well,
does
anybody
have
any
topics
that
they
want
to
cover
in
the
next
five
minutes?
Otherwise
I
will
gift
you
five
minutes
of
your
day
back.
C
I
maybe
I
should
just
mention
so
I
one
thing
that
I
had
said
that
I
would
work
on
is
a
2021
roadmap,
technical
roadmap
and
I
have
to
apologize.
I
I
told
ryan
this
yesterday,
but
I
have
not
made
any
progress
on
that.
D
C
Been
kind
of
swamped
with
some
other
things,
the
last
two
weeks,
so
so
apologies
there.
It's
still
something
that's
very
important
and
on
my
mind
I
just
haven't
gotten
to
it.
So.
B
Yeah
no
worries.
Thank
you
yeah.
I
know
it's
seems
like
everybody's
been
busy
the
past
two
weeks.
I
don't
know
what
happened
but
or
dealing
with
power
issues
here
in
texas,
well,
yeah,
there's
that
we
had
a
little
bit
of
that
here
in
the
northwest
as
well,
but
not
not
to
the
extreme
that
you
guys
have
had
it.
Thankfully,
but
yeah
everything
getting
turned
back
on
over
there.
You
guys
doing
okay.
L
Doing
do
ibm
actually
passed
out
water
yesterday
in
the
parking
lot
biggest
concern
now
is
getting
getting
potable
water,
so
yeah
wow,
yeah,
hopefully
yeah.
Hopefully
that
works
out
for
you
guys.
B
Thanks
all
right.
Well,
on
that
happy
note,
like
I
said,
I
will
get
the
the
markdown
file
for
the
process
that
we
talked
about
earlier
done
today
and
then
we'll
be
looking
at
those
open
issues
and
if
other
people
can
take
a
look
as
well
and
then
we'll
get
the
invite
sent
out
for
the
upcoming
meetings
for
the
working
group
leads
to
attend,
and
then
we
will
see
you
all
in
two
weeks
thanks.
Everyone.