►
From YouTube: OpenSSF TAC Sept 20
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
C
C
Right
so
I
know
we're
three
and
a
half
minutes
in
sir
miter
for
folks,
to
put
your
name
in
the
attendance
start
off
the
meeting,
with
a
an
apology
between
being
in
Dublin
last
week
for
the
event
taking
a
few
days
off
for
vacation
to
tour,
Ireland
and
then
flying
home
yesterday
from
that
and
digging
out
of
my
inbox,
I
didn't
necessarily
have
I
didn't
put
in
the
time
that
I
had
hoped
to
to
build
out
the
agenda
for
today.
C
I
did
throw
in
some
things
that
have
been
in
the
back
of
my
mind.
So
maybe
we
will
go
through
them
in
terms
of
kind
of
the
next
steps
post
kind
of
getting
112
merge,
but
give
them
maybe
just
use
them
as
discussion
points
and
getting
get
some
general
feedback
or
or
ideas
around
how
best
to
proceed
on
a
couple
of
these
different
topics.
But
today
may
end
up
being
a
lighter
agenda
day
anyway
and
I
know.
C
We
have
a
few
folks
here
looks
like
from
the
attack
that
are
they're
need
to
drop
or
won't
be
able
to
make
it
due
to
PTO
or
other
things.
So
with
that,
looking
across
the
invite
list,
I
do
not
I
guess
who
is
on
point
from
the
GTI
project
to
give
their
update.
A
So
Bob
I'm,
sorry
to
chime
in
here
the
GTI
project-
is
not
ready
to
give
their
update
at
this
point.
They've
had
a
big
event
over
the
weekend,
the
gnu
cauldron,
and
so
that
has
just
added
more
sort
of
to
the
Community
conversation
there.
So
we
will
have
them
come
in
a
couple
of
weeks
to
do
their
update,
if
that's
all
right,
it's
just
they're,
very
fresh
stuff
that
they're
working
through,
and
so
they
weren't
prepared
to
do
that.
C
That's
fine
I
could
yeah,
we
can
figure
out
the
exactly
to
which,
which
date
to
move
into
on
the
calendar,
that'll
be
fine.
I
know:
we've
got
with
with
the
upcoming
holidays
in
November
and
December.
It
may
be
tricky
to
swap
some
stuff
around,
but
we
can
figure
it
out
all
right
and
then
I
know
we
had
an
update
from
the
securing
software
repositories.
Working
group
Jacques
I,
see
you
on.
Are
you
going
to
be
speaking
on
on
that
today?.
B
I
will
be
with
the
Proviso
that
I
I
didn't
realize
this
was
coming
so
I'm
just
making
it
up
on
the
spot.
Very
briefly,
securing
software
repos
is
going
well.
We've
got
representation
from
a
number
of
communities,
Java
Ruby,
python,
node,
folks
and
cargo
shop
regularly.
We've
also
had
visits
from
folks
who
work
in
Gentoo
and
PHP.
B
Obviously
we'd
like
to
grow
that
in
future.
But
you
know
things
have
sort
of
turned
to
the
the
nitty-gritty
of
getting
stuff
done.
B
One
thing
that
I've
been
championing
myself,
which
I
hope
to
bring
before
Tech
sometime
in
the
next
month
or
so
is
getting
together
a
shared
help,
desk
facility
or
or
operation
for
various
ecosystems,
where
the
work
is
mostly
volunteer,
driven
the
context
there
is
that
we
would
all
like
to
roll
out
NFA
to
a
wider
audience
to
larger
cohorts.
B
B
It
would
be
nice
if
the
open
ssf
was
able
to
sponsor
the
availability
of
at
least
one
person
who
could
pick
up
that
support
bin
and
also
in
the
proposal,
will
be
a
request
for
funding
for
contracts
to
be
let
out
for
developing
the
tools
and
Integrations
with
various
ecosystems,
so
that
there
is,
you
know,
basically
the
lowest
privilege
necessary
to
achieve
the
task
in
a
consistent
way
across
the
different
ecosystems,
because
of
course,
that
you
know
becomes
a
fairly
juicy
point
of
attack
in
itself.
B
C
All
right
now
that
I
appreciate
you
doing
that
Chuck.
The
thing
that
popped
into
my
mind
was
more
around.
C
What's
just
for
the
sake
of
discussion,
let's
say
that
we
do
move
forward
with
setting
up
that
sort
of
shared
help
desk.
How
could
we
generate
events
to
get
to
be
published?
Maybe
perhaps
at
the
broader
ecosystem
to
say
this
particular
user
had
their
MFA
token
reset
and
what
other
events
might
we
look
to
generate
in
the
life
cycle
of
a
user
on
a
package
repository
or
a
package
on
a
package
repository?
What
other
events
that
should
we
be
emitting
as
metadata?
C
That
would
help
to
provide
greater
assurances
to
how
that
help
desk
would
be
operating
in
a
as
transparent
away
as
possible
so
that
it's
not
just
viewed
as
a
as
another
point
of
attack
or
as
another,
perhaps
nefarious
user.
That's
going
to
manipulate
their
that
responsibility
so
thinking
through.
How
could
we
actually
build
that
out?.
C
B
C
B
Folks,
who
haven't
haven't
heard
this
before
the
concept
is
essentially
that
we
publish
various
kinds
of
events
into
the
transparency
log,
so
things
like
the
package
was
pushed.
The
package
was
yanked,
a
person
had
an
MFA
reset,
a
security,
sensitive
operation
and
a
name
was
resurrected
like
there
are
all
these
sorts
of
things
that
a
monitor
wants
to
know
or
ideally
would
be
able
to
know
they're
going
to
the
transparency
Locker
to
make
it
a
lot
more
secure.
B
A
B
Yes,
collectively
across
them,
there
would
be
at
least
as
an
order
of
magnitude
or
of
a
million
between
npm
pipei,
ruby,
gems
and
maven.
B
Yeah
so
the
point:
the
point
is
that
we
want
to
roll
it
out
to
more
people
sure
so
at
the
moment,
Pipi,
rubygems
and
and
npm
have
rolled
out
to
quite
limited
cohorts
and
that's
led
to
support
patterns
of
various
size.
So
in
the
case
of
ruby
gems,
it
applies
to
the
top
100
gems
I
think
it's
affects
about
150
or
200
people
we're
already
seeing
five
requests
a
week.
B
Several
hundred
Pip's
an
estimated
10
requests
per
week
on
I
think
several
thousand
developers.
So
you
know
make
your
jokes
here
if
you
wish.
So
basically,
if
you
turn,
but
it
turns
out
that
the
rate
is
actually
relatively
with
those
those
two
data
points
and,
of
course,
I'm
fitting
a
very,
very
tenuous
regression
line.
B
It
turns
out
that
there's
a
relatively
stable
sort
of
relationship
to
the
number
of
packages
I'll
just
have
to
pull
up
my
proposal
to
see
what
it
was
because
I
didn't
memorize
that
you're
looking
at
about
basically
0.025
requests
per
package
per
week
and
that
that
relationship
roughly
holds
between
ruby,
gems
and
pipia,
which
are
the
ones
I
have.
Data
for
npm
have
their
own
data,
but
I
don't
know
if
they
can
share
it
yet
and
I
don't
have
data
for
maven.
A
B
Yeah
it'll
it'll,
be
part
of
The.
Proposal,
basically
says
that
we
start
with
one
person
and
ecosystems
increase
their
cohorts
until
that
person
is
swamped
and
then
we
stop
and
we
come
back
from
a
proposal
to
say
we
need
to
add
a
second
person
and
so
on
until
we're
satisfied
that
we've
gone
about
as
far
as
MFA
as
we
should
now,
if
you
had
the
magic
wand-
and
you
were
designing
a
package
system
from
scratch
today
for
a
popular
ecosystem,
you
would
just
make
MFA
mandatory
from
the
start
all
right.
B
A
B
Yes,
yes
and
npm
are
already
doing
a
lot
of
requests
per
week.
They
they
have
multiple
service
desk
agents
at
the
moment,
who
do
deal
with
a
very
wide
variety
of
workloads,
but
a
lot
of
that
does
come
back
to
MFA,
okay,
so
formally
I
will
bring
this
before
you
like
this.
This
is
just
like
the
informal
I
still
want
to
put
it
to
a
vote
in
the
group.
We
need
to
tack
and
then
get
tax
blessing
and
then
send
it
off
to
governing
board,
for
consideration,
have
a
check.
A
A
B
C
C
C
All
right
yeah,
as
that
evolves
along
I'm,
certainly
happy
to
hear
more
and
happy
to
help
push
that
discussion
forward.
So
thanks
thanks
for
that
all
right!
Next
on
the
agenda,
I
had
just
thrown
in
and
maybe
I'll
hand
it
over
to
Brian
here,
if
he's,
if
he's
up
for
it,
maybe
just
to
give
a
quick
recap
of
last
Tuesday
in
Dublin,
which
was
open
ssf
day
EU,
so
I
guess
Brian
put
you
on
the
spot,
any
any
just
quick
synopsis
highlights.
C
You
want
to
share
with
the
broader
attack.
I
know
we
had
some
of
the
folks
in
attendance,
but
not
everybody
was
able
to
make
it
so.
E
Right,
no,
we
had
a
a
nice
crowd.
We
had
a
I
think
some
drop-off
because
of
kovid.
E
You
know
another
Fair
number
of
people
who
didn't
didn't
make
it
because
of
that,
but
we
had
about
110
people
click
in
in
the
morning,
so
the
room
you
know
had
about
that
many
and
it
looked
like
you
know
it
was
maybe
one-third
folks
who
you
know
had
traveled
into
Dublin
in
two-thirds
folks
who
were
kind
of
new
for
the
new
to
the
community
that
that
kind
of
thing,
that's
my
rough
kind
of
guess,
I
we
haven't
done.
E
You
know
like
a
post
event
survey
yet
or
anything
I.
You
know,
I
was
really
happy
with
all
the
presentations
it
covered,
a
pretty
wide
sweep
of
of
the
different
things
going
on
at
the
open
ssf
and
in
concluded
with
fireside
chat
with
Jamie
Thomas
our
chairwoman
and
had
a
speaker
dinner
the
night
before
that
was.
E
That
was
a
really
nice
way
to
build
some
bonds
as
well,
so
yeah
I,
think
I
think
you
know
the
attendance
numbers
were
a
bit
lower
than
I
would
have
liked,
but
you
know
also
had
let
me
get
the
specific
number
from
the
live
stream
we
had
on
Virtual.
It
shows
113
in
the
AM
sessions
and
88
in
the
PM
sessions.
E
We're
watching
virtually
as
well
so
total
reach
of
about
240
people
and
yeah
I
I
I
know
some
folks
stuck
around
for
some
of
the
other
open
source,
Summit
Europe
sessions
and
yeah
I
was
really
glad
to
connect
with
the
European
Community.
While
we
were
there.
C
Awesome
thanks
Brian
and
also
a
special
thanks
and
shout
out
to
croak
for
playing
the
role
of
MC
again
and
also
donning
the
the
swan
hat
yet
again
so
I
appreciate
it
you're
doing
that.
C
And
also
for
Khalil
I,
don't
know
if
khalil's
on,
but
thanks
for
bailing
us
out
with
the
at
least
for
my
talk.
We
had
some
technical
difficulties,
getting
the
laptops,
all
coordinated.
C
So
thanks
for
everybody
who
got
that
done
as
well
all
right,
Crowe
speaking
of
you,
I,
wanted
to
give
you
a
a
couple
minutes
to
maybe
quickly
recap
the
thread
that
you
had
started
on
the
mailing
list,
around
kind
of
a
shared
reference
architecture,
slash
diagram
kind
of
encompassing
the
efforts
that
are
going
on
within
the
openssf.
D
D
All
right
in
conversations
both
last
week
and
in
days
of
your
I've
found
it
a
lot
of
people
that
aren't
part
of
the
working
groups
or
aren't
part
of
the
foundation
already
find
the
foundation
a
little
bit
intimidating
to
figure
out
where
some
good
jumping
on
points
are.
We
have
a
lot
of
activities
going
on
a
lot
of
amazing
work
and
I'm
glad
that
the
attack
has
started
to
formally
talk
to
each
of
the
working
groups
to
get
more
formal
updates.
D
I
think
that's
definitely
going
to
help
share
some
of
the
messaging,
but
for
newcomers
it's
a
little
challenging
to
to
figure
out
where
to
jump
on
board.
So
something
we
did
as
part
of
the
the
best
working
group
is.
We
did
a
little
reference
architecture
that
described
each
of
the
member
projects
and
efforts
within
the
group
and
tried
to
show
what
the
intentions
were
kind
of.
What
the
theme
of
the
group
was
and
to
try
to
help
explain
for
newcomers,
how
to
jump
on
board
and
participate
and
collaborate
with
us.
D
So
I
was
thinking
more
of
a
foundation
level
and
I
just
threw
together
a
very
simple
diagram
that
I'm
showing
here
based
off
of
information
about
a
month
or
more
back.
This
was
what
was
in
our
web
page
and
our
git
repo
about
each
and
then
Brian's
mobilization
plan
proposal,
so
I
just
quickly.
D
Swagged
out
these
are
the
the
working
groups
at
the
time
we
would
need
to
add
end
user
working
group,
and
these
were
the
projects
or
initiatives
under
each
and
then
with
the
hexagon
I
added
in
the
proposal
for
the
alignment
of
the
sigs
from
the
mobilization
plan
and
shot
a
note
out
to
the
mailing
list
and
I
got
some
pretty
good
feedback.
D
So
I
later
today,
plan
on
sending
out
a
doodle
to
anyone
interested
so
that
we
can
take
the
idea
behind
this
diagram
and
shape
it
into
something,
and
potentially
it
could
be
a
couple
different
artifacts
to
help
describe.
You
know
all
the
efforts
of
the
foundation
and
then
try
to
show
some
relationships,
and
then
you
know
if
we
can
get
some
graphical
Artistry.
Potentially
even
you
know
hyperlink
it.
D
D
I
got
some
interest
on
the
mailing
list
of
folks
that
were
interested
in
collaborating,
got
some
opinions
on
some
different
ways
to
present
the
material,
but
just
at
its
most
basic
form,
I
was
trying
to
put
everything
on
one
page,
and
then
we
can
decide
how
we
want
to
what
the
final
form
of
this
might
look
like,
whether
it's
like
a
user
Journey
or
maybe
it's
a
series
of
diagrams
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways.
We
can
share
this
out,
so
I
would
I'm
open
to
questions
I'll
start
with
Sarah.
D
Thank
you.
The
diagram
I
did
share
out
to
the
mailing
list
and
I
will
share
out
again
later
today,
when
I
do
my
doodle
and
if
anyone's
interested,
we'll
try
to
find
a
time.
That's
time
zone
appropriate
for
everybody.
So
we
can
start
collaborating
on
this
and
figure
out
what
it
might
look
like.
A
A
D
It
my
experience
in
working
with
any
Community,
it's
much
easier
to
start
with
a
something
on
the
page
and
then
make
drastic
changes
from
there
as
opposed
to
everyone
getting
together
with
a
blank
sheet
of
paper
and
a
whiteboard
and
starting
fresh.
So
this
will
give
us
something
a
starting
point,
and
you
know
the
final
delivery
might
look
the
same.
D
It
might
look
different
and
keep
an
eye
out
on
the
mailing
lists
for
the
doodle
request
and
please,
if
you're
interested
in
participating,
cast
your
vote
for
a
time,
and
then
you
know
once
that
group
starts
to
get
together.
We'll
have
a
couple
meetings.
I
expect
we'll
come
back
to
the
tact
with
some
examples
of
you
know
what
we're
looking
for
to
formally
kind
of
share.
Bob.
C
C
How
could
we
actually
render
this
on
the
openssf.org
website?
I
think
you
know
describing
the
foundation
of
the
activities.
That's
there
I
think
having
some
visual
representation
that
aligns
back
to
kind
of
the
technical
Vision
that
the
foundation
has
that
we,
as
the
attacker
responsible
for
for
authoring
and
maintaining
I,
think
connecting
both
the
words
that
we
have
in
the
vision
and
even
some
sort
of
a
way
to
you
know,
connect
this
visual
picture,
and
how
do
you
go
through
that
Discovery
process
to
figure
out?
C
Okay,
here's
the
goal:
here's
the
thing
that
we're
trying
to
create
in
the
industry
and
within
the
ecosystem
here
are
the
specific
working
groups
and
sub-projects
that
tie
together.
I
think
tying
this
together
with
a
visualization
I
think
really
helps
to
sell
the
sell.
The
story
so
I
think
looking
not
only
just
to
publish
it
and
say
Here's
a
here's,
a
diagram
off
on
the
web,
for
people
that
want
to
go,
learn
but
really
leaning
into
this
more
and
trying
to
connect.
D
A
Once
we
have
the
the
data
right
like
and
we're
we're
confident
that
you
know
what
we
have
here
is
is
reflective
of
like
what
we
are
and
where
we
want
to
be.
We
can
absolutely
submit
these
beautiful
drafts,
shall
we
call
them
to
a
graphic
artist.
We
have
a
creative
Services
desk
and
a
support
process.
A
They
can
turn
stuff
like
this
around
fairly
quickly,
especially
if
they
have
a
great
basis
like
the
one
probez
to
start
from,
so
it
would
be
maybe
a
week
or
two
to
to
get
something
that
is
visually
pretty
and
postable
on
our
website.
If,
if
and
when
you're
ready
for
that.
C
Great
Abhishek.
A
I
think,
as
we
are
making
this
diagram,
there
might
be
even
opportunity
to
move
things
around
so
think
about.
Let's
say
when
all
star
project
started
right.
We
didn't
know
the
right
working
group,
so
maybe
it
might
be
better
to
have
it
in
another
one
similar
to
that
is
like
Security
reviews
right.
So,
for
example,
you
see
code
audits
in
securing
critical
projects,
whereas
currently
Security
reviews
is
an
identifying
security
threat,
so
there
might
be
as
a
group
we
could
think
about.
E
Brian
yeah,
there
is
also
the
landscape
tool
that
you
know
is
obviously
widely
used
in
cncf
and-
and
we
could
use
more
here,
I
I
think
one
of
the
challenges
with
the
graphic
is
keeping
it
up
to
date,
and
the
nice
thing
about
the
landscape
tool
is
that
updating
it
is
a
simple
update
to
I
believe
a
yaml
file
and
if
I
get
so
I
I,
it
also
addresses
a
little
bit
aesthetic
questions
people
might
have
about.
Why
did
you
put
the
other
project
above
mine
and
things
like
that?
E
It's
kind
of
more
programmatic
and
algorithmic
and
how
it
generates
things.
What
I
don't
know
is
if
it
has
kind
of
two
levels
of
detail-
and
it
certainly
doesn't
put
things
in
kind
of
you
know
grouped
circles
like
this,
but
it
does.
It
does
provide
flexibility
in
other
ways.
To
kind
of
render
things
which
is
the
main
benefit
would
be.
Then
you
don't
have
to
do
a
cycle
back
through
creative
to
add
a
logo
or
add
a
add
a
project
when
something
gets
created
by
a
working
group.
D
A
Yeah
Dan
hi
quick
question,
taking
a
look
at
the
diagram
made
me
think
about.
There
are
a
number
of
things
that
are
in
so-called
incubation
and
I
believe
that
the
new
process
allows
for
incubation
items
within
working
groups,
as
my
read
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
gets
reflected
on
whatever
we
end
up
with
that,
there's
a
that
there's
a
differentiation
of
things
that
are
incubating
unless
I'm
deeply
mistaken
about
the
process.
D
Yeah,
we
have
different
phases
of
a
life
cycle.
Some
of
these
projects
are
in.
That
was
not
my
intention
to
try
to
Showcase
that
I
was
just
purely
doing
a
quick
and
dirty
diagram.
What
existed,
and
then
you
know,
as
the
group,
if
we
thought
saw
value
in
it,
we
can
figure
out.
Maybe
we
color
code,
something
that
yeah.
A
A
Good
benefit
from
from
being
able
to
from
a
positive
perspective
being
able
to
show
these
things
are,
are
growing.
These
things
are
like
more
mature
work
items
to
be
able
to
show
kind
of
the
the
life
cycle
of
things
as
they
as
they
go
through.
D
C
Yeah
so
I
think
that's
that's
a
great
Point,
sorry
I'm
laughing
at
the
the
Hotel
California
and
the
IBM
references.
C
But
no
I
think
to
the
point
that
that
Jay
just
made
is
hey.
This
is
a
great
start.
But
continuing
to
evolve
and
making
sure
that
we
leverage
it
to
its
full
potential
I
think
would
go
a
long
way
to
I
think
as
both
curve
and
I
said
it
in
the
helps
of
framing
our
work
and
ultimately
enabling
people
to
really
understand
the
activity
within
the
foundation
and
how
it
connects
back
to
the
vision
statements
and
is
super
useful.
C
So
I
think
you
know
they'll
still
adage
of
a
Picture
Tells
A
Thousand
hers,
you
know,
I
forget
it
picture
is
worth
a
thousand
words
or
something
like
that.
So
I
think
you're
doing
this
here
would
really
help
to
to
tell
that
story.
So
super
super
excited
to
see
Chrome.
You
put
this
forward
as
well
as
I,
look
forward
to
the
doodle
and
continuing
that
conversation.
D
C
All
right
next
on
the
agenda,
I
wanted
to
give
a
brief
update
from
the
governing
board
meeting,
which
happened
the
8th
of
September.
So
not
quite
two
weeks
ago,
two
things
I
wanted
to
call
out
to
the
tax
attention.
One
is
that
there
was
a
discussion
at
the
governing
board,
both
in
terms
of
as
you
may
have
seen
the
meeting
minutes,
a
redacted
version.
C
The
meeting
minutes
are
going
to
be
made
public
going
forward
in
addition
to
that,
I
made
a
motion
that
was
accepted
by
the
governing
board
to
include
Tech
members
on
the
invites
for
the
governing
board
meetings
going
forward
in
what
I
guess
I
would
characterize
as
the
open
portion
of
the
meeting
being
that
again,
we
want
to
drive
as
much
transparency
and
Alignment
as
possible.
C
Would,
however,
there
are
things
that
are
in
the
governing
boards
Charter
things
like
funding,
requests
or
staffing
issues
or
salary
issues
where
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
necessarily
have
non-governing
board
members
in
attendance,
so
that
motion
was
voted
unapproved
on,
so
you
will
likely
see,
invites
coming
for
the
future
attack
meeting
or
for
the
future
governing
board
meetings
rather
would
certainly
encourage.
C
If
folks
would
like
to
attend,
you
know
feel
free
to
again
we'll
we'll
try
to
make
clear
that
delineation
between
what
topics
on
the
agenda
are
closed
and
therefore
you
would
not
be
welcome
to
attend,
but
again,
I
think
that
would
be
rather,
the
you
know
exception
rather
than
the
norm.
C
Also.
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
call
out
was
a
continued
conversation
around
the
creation
of
what
was
currently
being
termed
as
the
governance
subcommittee.
C
This
is
a
continuation
of
the
same
dialogue
that
I
brought
up
on
a
previous
attack
meeting
around
making
sure
that
we
do
have
effective
communication
between
the
the
three-legged
stool,
a
governing
board,
Tac
and
the
foundation
staff,
and
so
that
that
subcommittee
is
one
of
those
situations
where
we
had
to
create
a
subcommittee
to
form
a
separate
subcommittee
that
the
formation
subcommittee
is
wrapping
up
its
work,
hopefully
within
the
next
few
weeks,
to
make
a
permanent
subcommittee
to
think
of
it.
C
As
you
know,
going
back
to
Perino's
principle
right,
you
know,
80
of
the
work
is
done
by
20
of
the
people.
A
governing
board
is
already
you
know
more
than
you
know,
I
think
40,
plus
members
and
I
may
be
wrong,
but
we're
talking
a
massive
group,
both
largely
senior
Executives.
We
need
to
have
a
smaller
Forum,
not
to
create
a
shadow
organization
or
anything
of
that
matter,
but
just
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
hyphen
Fidelity
high
bandwidth
space
to
try
to
drive
progress
between
these
three
different
groups.
C
So
there
was
some
discussion
at
the
governing
board
around
kind
of
how
the
progress
that
was
made
some
guiding
principles
in
bertuccio,
as
well
as
many
other
folks
in
that
kind
of
committee,
for
the
subcommittee
are
working
to
pull
together
a
document
as
soon
as
that's
in
a
in
a
a
state.
That's
ready
for
review.
We'll
certainly
be
sharing
that
out
with
everybody
here
to
get
that
input
and
feedback,
but
that
that's
I
guess
the
two
points
I
wanted
to
call
out
from
the
governing
board
meeting.
C
B
C
Any
questions
on
that
before
we
go
into
the
next
two
items,
the
last
two
items
on
the
agenda.
C
Okay,
the
I
listed
it
here
is
next
steps
on,
in
my
mind,
I.
Think
of
this
is
what
do
we
do
after
112
is
now
merged,
but
in
essence
I
guess.
C
I
wanted
to
ask
a
question
now
to
to
my
fellow
Tech
members
of
I,
think
of
there
being
two
groups
of
work,
one
being
a
set
of
continued
and
hopefully
finalizing
some
housekeeping
type
work
that
it
kind
of
needs
to
get
done
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
we
have
all
of
the
charters
approved
and
ratified
wherever
we
don't
have
them
ratified.
C
Do
we
have
all
the
links
and
the
tables
up
to
date,
I
think
we've
done
a
fair
bit
of
work,
getting
some
updates
to
start
to
occur
on
a
regular
basis
to
the
attack,
which
has
been
good
but
getting
everything
in
all
of
our
working
groups.
All
of
our
projects,
getting
them
into
a
known
good
state
would
be
I,
guess
a
finishing
out.
That
housekeeping
is
maybe
the
more
succinct
way
to
put.
It
is
something
that
I
would
like
to
see.
C
Some
progress
on
to
that
end,
I,
think
having
now
112
in
in
place,
I
think
we
need
to
classify
projects
based
on
their
current
life
cycle
to
say
who
is
sandbox
who's,
incubating
who's,
graduated
right,
so
I
think
there's
a
a
bit
of
you
know:
evaluation
process
that
needs
to
occur
to
clean
those,
those
things
up.
C
Okay,
these
are
the
thoughts
that
jump
to
my
mind.
Other
I
wanted
to
at
least
leave
a
little
bit
of
space
for
other
Tech
members
or
other
folks
that
have
ideas
in
terms
of
you
know
again
more
of
the
Tactical
Notions
of
how
do
we
want
to
proceed
now?
That
112
is
done.
Are
the
things
that
I'm
missing?
Are
there
things
that
you
disagree
with
and
we'd
be
curious
to
get
other
folks?
Thoughts
and
chrome
I
see
your
hand
up.
D
Yeah
I
absolutely
agree
that
we
need
to
now
that
we
have
a
framework.
We
need
to
go
back
and
Implement
and
execute
on
that
framework.
I
can
say
that
my
current
workload
is
redlined
and
I.
Don't
have
any
additional
capacity
to
go
through
and
do
a
bunch
of
work.
So
I
would
welcome
assistants
from
the
foundation
staff
and
made
a
proposal
might
be.
D
Maybe
we
set
up
a
series
of
interviews
with
the
working
group
leads
reviewing
the
existing
Charter
and
maybe
making
PRS
to
submit
the
desired
changes,
but
I
do
not
have
time
to
do
that
alone,
but
I.
Absolutely
it
needs
to
be
done
and
then
I
like
the
idea
of
going
through
and
reviewing
and
what
stage
the
life
cycle
are
these
different
efforts
in
so
that
we
can,
you
know
color
code
in
the
diagram.
C
Yeah
plus
one
to
the
being
time
constraint,
I
think
we're
all
we
all
find
ourselves
in
that
situation.
F
Arno
yeah
I
mean,
with
regard
to
the
status
and
the
life
cycle
of
each
group
out
there,
probably
the
most
practical
way,
although
it
may
not
be
the
lightest
process,
is
to
get
every
group
to
submit
you
know
an
application.
We
have
a
process
in
place
with
templates
people
need
to
fill
out
and
submit
to
the
attack
and
I
think
that
would
be
the
most
appropriate
and
we
can
allow
because
we
can
grandfather
groups
so
that
groups
that
are
quite
Advanced
may
already.
F
You
know,
go
straight
to
you
know:
let's
say
graduated
the
status
if
they
think
they
qualify
without
forcing
them
to
go
through
every
stage,
because
that
would
be
adding
an
extra
level
of
pain
which
I,
don't
think
is
necessary,
but
I
think
we
can
live
to
each
group.
You
know
the
the
determination
which
level
they
want
to
apply
for,
but
I
think
using
the
process
is
probably
the
best
way,
because
remember
that
you
know
built
into
this
process.
E
Right,
I
I,
you
wouldn't
want
to
just
grandfather
all
the
existing
working
groups
and
projects
into,
or
maybe
that's
an
inappropriate
term
I
apologize
for
that,
but
but
just
default
them
into
graduated.
Are
there
I,
don't
know
if
there's
some
exceptions
for
some
projects
that
are
not
not
considered
graduated
at
this
point,
but
yeah
I
would
assume.
Are
we
asking
really
every
working
group
and
every
project
to
reapply
for
for
essentially
it's
it's
role
and
justification
of
openssf.
C
F
E
No
I
I
thought
you
were
suggesting
that
every
working
group
and
project
reapply
using
the
framework
for
a
certain
status
at
open
ssf,
rather
than
considering
them
all
as
they've
existed
today
as
as
graduated,
and
that
the
process
applies
to
new
stuff.
Coming
in
okay,.
F
C
C
I
do
think
a
judgment
call
may
need
to
be
made
on
certain
projects
around
well.
What
what
stage
are
they
fundamentally
at
I?
Think
we
do
have
a
variety
of
efforts
that
are
at
different
levels
of
maturity,
different
levels
of
Engagement
and
maintainers
from
different
levels
of
of
different
entities?
C
C
That's
a
lot
of
for
potentially
a
fair
bit
of
paperwork
and
bureaucracy
for
very
little
benefit,
and
in
the
flip
side
you
know
just
setting
a
default
of
everything
is
graduated
that
exists
today,
and
everything
new
needs
to
go
through
the
process
doesn't
quite
feel
right
to
me
as
well.
I.
B
C
I'm
looking
for
like
is
it
just?
We
need
to
have
a
proposal
brought
forward
ultimately
by
a
tack
member
who's
responsible,
for
you
know
liaisoning
with
a
particular
working
group
to
say
hey.
These
are
the
projects
within
the
working
group
which
you
know
like
probe,
for
you
know
the
best
and
not
so
best
working
groups
that
you're
engaged
with.
Would
you
come
in
with
a
proposal
of
a
leveling,
that's
appropriate
for
that
and
drive
a
conversation
around
that.
C
So
do
we
want
to
make
it
one-on-one
and
try
to
delegate
the
workout?
Do
we
want,
and
we
want
to
call
for
volunteers
to
go
through
the
entire
list
and
come
up
with
a
subjective
recommendation?
C
I!
Guess
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
you
know
in
my
own
mind,
what
do
we
think
is
the
most
Fair
Equitable
and
time
effective
way
to
go
through.
You
know,
cleaning
up
the
state
of
things
here.
B
Shot
I
guess
with
securing
software
repos
and
with
end
users
working
group
which
I'm
involved
with
I,
think
the
current
sort
of
the
other
worlds
that
we're
incubating
like
we,
we
followed
the
the
guidance
that
existed
at
the
time
to
get
to
the
inky
batting
incubating
status,
I
think
we're
likely
to
to
grandparent.
B
If
that's
the
term,
we're
going
to
accept
the
working
groups
that
were
sort
of
there
in
the
inaugural
working
groups
so
to
speak,
makes
sense
to
me,
but
I
think
it
does
need
to
be
sorted
out
where
possible.
C
Yeah-
and
perhaps
this
is
me
being
listed
with
language-
so
apologies
for
that
I'm.
Only
speaking
about
projects
here,
I
believe
the
working
group
life
cycle
you
know,
did
not
receive
major
structural
changes
in
the
pr
112,
whereas
we
did
not
have
an
actual
structure
for
projects
themselves.
C
So
that
made
me
another
way
to
limit
the
scope
of
this
discussion
to
say:
leave
all
working
groups
at
the
state
they
currently
are,
which
I
believe
they're
all
technically
incubating
at
this
point,
but
going
back
and
doing
that
same
sort
of
evaluation
for
projects
was
what
I
intended
by
that
point
and
that
caused
a
bunch
of
hands
to
go
up.
So
that
clearly
was
a
controversial
Point.
C
So
Brian
looks
like
you
were.
First
all.
E
Right
and
I
see
abbacheck,
just
I
didn't
think
this
was
appropriate,
but
I
think
just
having
each
working
group
send
an
email
to
the
tech
with
it's
proposed
slative,
here's
the
projects
that
are
mature
and
and
graduated
here's,
the
ones
that
are
still
incubating
I
I.
You
know
and
have
that
be
then
accepted
by
the
tech.
If
they
agree
with
it
would
be.
You
know
an
efficient
process
to
to
get
us
to
here's.
Here's,
here's,
the
subset
of
ones
that
are
still
to
be
focused
on
and
incubating.
D
Chrome
Arno
was
first
I.
Yeah
I
took
my
friend
from
France
thank.
F
F
All
right,
I
mean
I
just
wanted
to
remind
people
what
the
the
process
using
the
process
entails.
Right
I
mean
there
is
a
template
for
the
for
the
state.
You
want
to
apply
for
the
and
the
status
right,
and
you
basically
issue
a
pull
request
against
the
attack
repository
with
that
template
filled
up
for
your
project
or
your
working
group,
stating
why
you
think
you
qualify
and
it's
not
a
very
you-
know,
cumbersome
process
and
and
so
I
think
it's
a
very
effective
way
to
get
our
act.
F
You
know
everything
cleaned
up
is
to
allow
every
group
to
decide
which
state
they
want
to
apply
for
filling
out
the
form.
You
know
a
Singapore
requests.
I
think
we
all
know
how
to
do
that
pretty
efficiently
and
and
then
the
attack
can
quickly
go
through
this
offline.
You
know,
approve
them
and
that's
it
once
they're
merged
Prime
is
sold.
B
D
And
I
have
absolutely
no
objection
to
following
the
process
and
filling
out
the
correct
paperwork.
You
know.
Being
a
former
auditor
I
love
having
all
my
T's
crossed
and
eyes
dotted
I
I
need
I
as
a
participant
in
many
efforts.
D
I
would
need
some
assistance
and
some
project
management
to
help
set
up
specific
times
to
walk
through
and
talk
through
the
paperwork
but
I
think
it
would
it's
not
a
big
ask
to
ask
the
working
groups
to
go
through
and
do
something
lightweight,
but
you
know:
I
I
personally
would
need
a
little
help
in
scheduling
and
setting
up
and
carving
off
time
to
walk
through
the
template.
C
Got
it
foreign
looks
like
Jay
may
be
being
volunteered
to
help
with
that
or
while
I'm
told
I'm,
not
quite
sure
what
the
what
the
relationship
is
there,
but
but
the
I
I
would
Echo
both
with
Brian
and
Abhishek
said
right
is:
let's
try
to
be
pragmatic
and
keep
you
know,
I
want
to
have
it
if
we
have
disagreements
or
we
need
to
hold
a
formal,
a
more
formalized
conversation
on
a
particular
situation,
then.
Yes,
we
should
go
do
that
by
by
all
stretch
the
imagination.
C
That
being
said,
though,
if
there
are
clear
obvious
classifications
that
there's
no
dissension
in
the
group
I
don't
know
that
we
necessarily
need
to
go
through
and
fill
out.
The
paperwork,
at
least
in
the
short
term
I
I,
do
think
there
is
some
benefit
for
documentation
purposes
to
show
hey
here's
the
progression
that
things
have
gone
through,
I
just
I
want
to
be
pragmatic
of
hey.
We
have
this
process
and
here's
a
here's,
a
stack
of
paperwork
that
you
need
to
now
follow
versus
go
focus
on
doing
more
good
work.
C
C
For
that
sending
that
back
to
the
attack,
you
know
I
would
say
like
that
we
could
Target,
perhaps
not
the
next
meeting,
but
two
meetings
from
now
to
ultimately
review
that
as
a
group
maybe
drive
some
feedback
asynchronously
on
that
discussion
and
ultimately
try
to
try
to
drive
some
of
those
to
be
ratified
approved
by
the
tax
in
two
meetings
from
now.
This
is
that
sound
reasonable
to
folks.
C
A
C
Also
do
see
your
hand
up
so
I
want
to
make
sure
we
give
you
a
chance
to
speak
here,
since
you
were
volunteered.
G
Yeah,
it's
it's
a
it's
with
it's
with
love,
and
then
you
know
I'm
actually
interested
in
this
twofold
one
to
improve
upon
what
we
do
as
far
as
the
life
cycle
of
projects
in
each
working
group
I
think
that
needs
to
be
done
anyway.
Of
course,
they're
they're
having
having
being
part
of
a
trying
to
bring
a
project
into
the
open,
ssf,
Period,
I,
think
I.
Think
there's
a
I
think
there's
a
beginning
stage.
That
needs
to
happen
here
too,
where
there's
very
clear
and
concise
and
I.
G
G
We
are
trying
to
bring
in
a
framework,
and
we've
approached
three
working
groups,
and
now
this
is
a
Adrian
diglio
and
I
were
trying
to
bring
in
the
the
OSS
SSC
into
the
work
of
Coach,
three
of
them
and
all
three
working
groups.
They
they
love
the
idea.
The
problem
is
now
what
the
steps
are,
whether
they're
saying
hey,
we
vote
to
bring
it
into
our
working
group.
We
incubate
it
here.
We,
it
goes
up
to
the
tax
for
approval
there.
G
There
is
a
toss-up
on
the
step
on
the
the
the
steps
in
the
process,
not
that
not
the
process
steps
just
what
and
what
Cadence
each
one
follows:
I
hope,
I'm
being
understood
when
I
say
that,
but
I
think
that
might
need
to
happen
first
and
then
what
we're
talking
about
after,
if
that
makes
sense,.
C
I
I,
let
me
try
to
Echo
back
what
I
heard
and
and
make
sure
that
I've
got
shared
understanding
before
I
comment.
So
it
sounds
like
you
were
saying
in
your
specific
example:
we're
a
new
a
new
proposal
coming
to
potentially
multiple
homes
within
the
open,
ssf
like
what
is
the
actual
process
for
reconciling
what
the
eventual
landing
spot
would
be
and
that
you're
not
seeing
Clarity
in
that
situation.
Is
that
a
fair
summary
of
it.
G
Well,
yeah,
not
only
am
I,
not
seeing
Clarity
I,
think
each
respective
working
group
and
and
the
the
members
of
the
working
group
themselves
are
are
a
bit
shy
on
the
clarity
as
well.
Now
I'm
now,
forgive
me
if
I,
if
I
over,
if
I
overreach
with
that
I'm,
giving
actually
a
little
bit
of
a
a
little
bit
of
leeway
here,
but
I
think
that
that
does
need
to
be
drilled
down
and
that
level
of
guidance
needs
to
be
more
okay,
good
thanks
Kroger.
G
C
Right
so
I
I
think
I
understand
your
point
now
better.
My
comment
is
this:
in
in
the
short
term,
when
I,
when
I
use
this
from
housekeeping
I'm,
looking
to
classify
all
the
existing
projects,
things
that
already
are
part
of
existing
working
groups,
things
that
already
have
a
home
and
it's
a
matter
of
making
sure
that
we
have
them
appropriately.
Categorized
to
your
point
around
new
things,
I
would
I
would
hope
that
the
process
is
self-evident
and
clear
for
things
that
have
a
soul,
logical
home
within
the
open
ssf.
C
In
a
situation
like
you
described
where
there
may
be
potential
multiple
homes,
I
would
say
that
what
you
know
the
attack
as
kind
of
being
a
the
most
in
its
role
is
providing
some
sort
of
you
know
an
override
or
a
a
mechanism
to
drive
some
consensus
in
a
more
forceful
manner
would
look
to
to
ultimately
say:
hey.
Look
if
we
have
multiple
working
groups
raising
their
hands
saying
we
would
like
to
sponsor
this
particular
project,
or
this
particular
effort
in
some
ways.
C
I
think
that
that's
that's
great,
because
it
shows
a
level
of
interest
and
a
level
of
impact
that
would
be
certainly
worth
our
time
and
worth
our
our
discussion.
C
I
would
say,
though,
that,
like
the
tax
roll
would
ultimately
be
making
that
making
that
decision
and
trying
to
drive
Clarity,
because
what
does
scare
me
about
that
situation?
Is
you
know
if
we,
if
we
have
a
project
that
could
have
end
up
in
multiple
different
places,
it
says
it
does
say
like
okay?
Do
we
have
the
wrong
structure?
C
Is
this
an
exception
that
ultimately,
is
just
frankly
an
exception
and
something
that
doesn't
fit,
or
is
this
frankly
pointing
out
a
weakness
in
the
way
that
we
have
currently
subdivided
the
work
I'm
not
trying
to
get
into
the
details
of
your
specific
example
right
now:
Jay
but
I,
guess
what
I'm?
What
I'm
trying
to
separate
is
the
let's
clean
house
on
the
projects
that
we
already
have
today
versus
to
your
point,
which
I
think
is
totally
fair.
C
We
need
to
get
better
experience
and
and
build
the
muscle
memory
per
se
with
112.
Now
that
it's
ratified
get
that
information
to
be
pushed
down,
so
I
think
you
know,
driving
the
clarity
to
Sarah.
To
your
point,
I
think
is
something
that
will
naturally
occur.
I
just
don't
want
to
date
getting
projects
that
are
already
in
the
open,
ssf
doing
good
work
and
just
cleaning
up
the
house
to
ultimately
be
gated
by
a
broader
discussion
around
things
that
might
overlap
or
or
new
problems.
G
Well,
no
yeah
that
that
makes
sense
and
I'm
actually
more
speaking
towards
on
those
points
when
it
came
to
making
the
making
the
working
group
so
bringing
the
application
processing
right
sort
of
making
the
working
groups
do
this
application
process.
You
know
we
we
talked
about
the
whole,
you
know
the
ones
that
have
the
ones
that
are
in
the
ones
that
have
already
been
graduated.
G
You
know,
saying
you
know,
speeding
them,
pushing
them
ahead
and
saying:
okay,
these
ones
are
already
at
a
point
where
that,
where
they're,
mature
versus
ones
that
are
are
new
or
incubating
into
making
them
go
through
the
application
process,
just
for
the
purposes-
and
there
are
no
point
not
pointed
out
documentation
purposes
documentation
in
the
repo.
So
when
I,
when
I
hear
that
statement
and
I
might
be
misunderstanding,
what
he's
saying
when
I
hear
that
I
say?
G
Okay,
since
we're
doing
that
with
projects
that
are
already
in
the
working
groups
and
we're
saying
make
them
go
through
the
process
for
and
for
no
other
reason
and
stuff
to
make
sure
we
have
them
documented
properly,
then
at
the
same
time,
we
should
be
reviewing
the
process
itself
in
general,
using
something
like
the
project
that
I'm
talking
about
as
a
guinea
pig
to
make
sure
that
what
we're
developing
is
act
as
an
actual
working
process
and
system
against
what
we
already
have
and
then
what's
to
come
later
on
so
I'm
thinking
about
scalability
of
what
we're
talking
about.
G
C
C
Maybe
is
the
best
way
to
smoke
test
112
versus
looking
at
your
your
proposal
that
you're
bringing
forward
as
kind
of
a
you
know
the
first
one
post,
post,
112,
being
merged
I,
think
will
help
to
flush
out.
Maybe
there
are
things
that
we
didn't
think
about
it.
We
need
to
iterate,
you
know
on,
but
I
I
guess
that's.
Why?
C
I'm,
just
fearful
of
over
rotating
on
reopening
discussion
on
is
this
process
even
valid
before
we've
had
a
chance
to
you
know,
level
set
and
provide
some
level
of
consistency,
given
that
it
took
months
to
get
112
to
the
point
where
we
were
comfortable
merging
it.
So
I
I
appreciate
the
the
comment
that
you're,
making
and
I
think
it's
a
good
one,
but
I
guess
smoke
testing
it
with
your.
C
Your
proposal
is
a
different
action
in
my
mind
than
going
through
and
trying
to
just
level
set.
The
things
that
are
already
a
part
of
the
open
ssf
that
aren't
have
already
been
voted
in
theory
approved
by
this
by
the
pack
before
I
I'm,
also
trying
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
making
projects
within
the
open
ssf
feel
like
they
have
to
re-justify
their
existence
within
the
foundation.
I
think
that
sounds
a
very
a
counterproductive
message
to
the
good
work.
C
That's
already
been
doing
going
on
here,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
strike
a
a
balance
between
providing
good
examples
and
good
documentation
for
the
new
projects
that
come
along
while
at
the
same
time
you
know
trying
to
be
as
a
as
expeditious
as
possible
to
to
getting
the
housekeeping
done,
yeah.
C
So
I
guess
what
what
I
would
suggest
in
your
particular
situation
would
be,
as
probe
said,
speak
with
the
working
group
leads.
If
you
end
up
having
a
situation
where
multiple
working
group
leads
do
want
to
to
host
that
project.
I
would
see
the
next
logical
step
to
be
bring
that
to
the
tack
for
discussion,
and,
ultimately,
we
could
help
drive
a
recommendation
in
terms
of
where,
where
that
should
go,
I
would
rather
the
project
drive
that
discussion
independently,
rather
than
the
attack,
get
in
the
middle
of
that.
C
If
you
can
reconcile
it
on
your
own,
that's
great.
If
the
attack
needs
to
get
engaged,
we're
more
than
happy
to
but
yeah
as
probe
points
out
right,
we
don't
want
to
necessarily
to
block
good
work,
that's
already
happening,
so
this
is
more
of
a
making
sure
that
we
put
things
in
a
place
where
they
get
the
right
support
the
right
guidance
and
the
right
oversight
more
so
than
trying
to
be
super
bureaucratic
over
the
whole
thing.
C
Sure
great,
with
with
three
minutes
now
left
and
thanks
John
for
the
time
check
what
I
so
I
was
talking
about
kind
of
what
comes
after
112..
Some
of
this
I
think
is
a
very
tactical
discussion
that
we
just
had.
C
Some
of
I
do
think,
is
more
strategic
in
nature,
and
one
of
the
roles
that
we
do
have
within
the
the
broader
Foundation
Charter
is
setting
the
technical
vision
for
the
open
ssf,
and
so
what
what
just
given
the
time
that
we
have
left
in
this
meeting?
What
I
would
ask
fellow
Tech
members
to
consider
is
I
would
like
to
propose
that
we
start
some
work
to
actually
update,
slash
refresh
the
technical
Vision
document
that
we
have
listed
here.
C
Some
of
it
I
don't
think
that
the
vision
is
necessarily
inaccurate,
but
I
wonder.
Is
it
inclusive
of
all
of
the
work
that
we
have
in
the
foundation
and
also
you
know
it
was
published
at
the
beginning
of
2021?
A
lot
has
changed
in
the
industry
since
then,
and
so
thinking
about
how
how
should
we
evolve?
C
That
Vision
as
a
function
of
time
is
something
that
I
think
is
is
a
a
clear
role
of
the
attack
as
part
of
that
discussion,
I
would
love
to
do
some
Gap
analysis,
work,
I,
think
probe
your
your
reference.
C
Architecture
diagram
probably
serves
as
a
great
way
to
to
start
that
discussion,
but
we
know
what
the
things
hopefully
that
we're
looking
at
in
the
foundation,
but
there
may
be
also
things
that
the
attack
fields
or
gaps
that
we
need
to
inspire
or
fund
new
work
to
go
to
go,
be
executed
on
so
the
same
thing
around
funding.
We
may
have
good
work
that
we
feel
is
underfunded
and
we
may
be
taught
having
conversations
about
how
do
we
accelerate
and
do
more
of
that
work?
C
We
may
look
at
other
efforts
going
on
the
ecosystem
and
say
hey.
We
really
think
it
would
be
great
to
go
fund.
An
additional
effort,
I
think
the
mobilization
plan
work
streams
certainly
should
play
a
part
in
this
as
well
as
work.
That's
already
been
done.
C
There
is
an
upcoming
opportunity
at
the
LF
member
Summit.
We
will
have
I
think,
as
we
mentioned
in
the
last
meeting.
Tech
members
will
be
invited
to
a
joint
session
with
the
governing
board
at
Lake
Tahoe
the
second
week
in
the
second
week
of
November
I,
believe
it's
the
last
Friday
I
think
that
would
be
a
great
time
to
drive
a
joint
conversation
between
the
governing
board
and
the
TAC
around.
C
You
know
use
this
as
an
opportunity
to
drive.
You
know
a
refresh
of
the
vision,
a
concise
way
to
talk
about
the
activity
within
the
foundation
and
use
that,
as
kind
of
as
a
as
a
compelling
event
to
try
to
drive
some
of
this
to
closure.
So
what
I
would
ask
fellow
Tech
members
is
to
to
maybe
start
doing
some
thinking
around
how
best
we
can
structure
that
dialogue
probably
won't
be
best
done
in
this
particular
meeting.
C
But
you
know,
given
that
we're
all
time
constrained,
you
know
it
is
I,
think
it's
going
to
be
a
a
little
bit
tricky
to
try
to
pull
some
of
this
together,
but
I
would
like
to
see
a
refresh
of
that
technical
Vision
doc,
be
something
that
we
could
achieve
for
the
found
the
benefit
of
the
foundation,
the
benefit
of
the
ecosystem
by
the
end
of
the
year.
C
And
I
will
also
just
in
the
benefit
of
for
the
other
tack
members
that
we're
not
able
to
attend
today.
I
will
send
out
an
email
version
of
that
last
comment
maybe
spur
some
discussion
in
an
async
manner,
so
we
can
drive
that
drive
that
dialogue
forward.
C
All
right
thanks,
everybody
for
hanging
in
there
for
the
entire
meeting
good
to
hear
all
the
updates
and
everything
and
we'll
talk
to
you.
Everybody
soon
take
care.