►
From YouTube: Working Group: September 20th, 2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Okay,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
get
started.
I
I,
don't
know
that
it
makes
a
ton
of
sense
for
us
to
go
through
outstanding
rfc's,
because
I
don't
know
that
we're
going
to
be
really
be
able
to
update
much
I
did
have
like
a
question
for
I.
A
Guess
the
people
here
broadly
around
a
topic
that
we
discussed
last
week
that
I'm
trying
to
sort
of
solidify
and
put
together-
and
that
is
a
topic
of
like
setting
up
new
maintainer
groups,
specifically
like
the
sort
of
scenarios
in
which
we
would
want
to
set
up
new
maintainer
groups
and
like
how
to
go
about
nominating
maintainers
for
that
role.
A
So,
like
I,
guess
like
as
a
quick
sketch
like
nominally
I,
think
like
the
easiest
path
to
a
new
maintain
group,
is
you
come
to
the
project
offering
us
a
build
pack
that
we
would
like
to
add
to
the
larger
petto
ecosystem
that
is
outside
the
rest
of
the
petto
ecosystem
and
as
part
of
your
proposal,
to
add
it
to
petto?
You
just
say:
hey.
A
We
should
have
a
new
maintainer
group
and
it
should
be
in
charge
of
these
repositories
that
we
sort
of
we
donating,
and
here
are
the
maintainers
that
we
feel
should
be
part
of
that
maintainer
group,
at
which
point
I,
think
I'm,
saying
like
it'll
that'll,
be
reviewed
by
the
that'll,
be
reviewed
by
the
steering
committee,
because
that's
like
the
only
committee
that
can
actually
sort
of
look
at
that
and
then
those
maintainers
can
be
sort
of
like
approved
in
some
way.
A
I
think
that
another
thing
that
I'm
positing
to
suggest
is
like,
like.
Oh,
you
can
ask
for
like
a
call
to
maintainership,
like
as
part
of
your
proposal.
You're,
like
I,
think
that
this
should
be
donated
and
I
would
like
to
open
up
a
call
for
maintainership.
A
So
that's
I
think
that's
the
most
straightforward
one
and
I.
Don't
know
that
anyone
have
problems
with
that.
The
ones
that
I
would
like
to
get
more
feedback
on
are
like
adding
a
maintainer
group
as
like
a
sub
group
to
a
set
of
like
repositories
that
are
already
part
of
an
existing
group.
So,
like
maybe
a
good
example
of
this
would
be
like
if
a
series
of
python
build
packs
for
machine
learning
were
contributed.
A
I
think
that
those
would
sort
of
automatically
go
underneath
the
python
heading,
but
it
might
also
make
sense
that
if
there's
a
couple
of
people
who
are
really
dedicated
to
having
machine
learning
stuff
to
say,
hey,
we
would
also
like
to
have
a
maintainer
group.
That's
more
focused
on
just
like
the
machine
learning
aspect
of
this,
because
we're
going
to
be
able
to
contribute
more
accurately
to
this.
A
A
A
So
just
removing
the
steering
committee
from
that
process
entirely
and
then
the
last
one
is
like
a
sort
of
cross
cutting
maintainership,
which
is
something
similar
to
the
above,
except
it
would
be
like
the
the
case
that
came
up
is,
is
the
very
concretely
the
case
that
aie
and
Michael
are
in
where
they
want
to
be
able
to
have
maintainership
over
Ubi
components
and
those
components
cut
across
a
large
number
of
different
maintainers
ships,
and
so
yeah.
A
That's
like
what
I'm
looking
into
I
would
be
curious
if
there
is
like
any
other
scenarios
that
you
would
like
outline
in
this
or
if
there's
any
like
considerations
that
I've
maybe.
B
Missed
I
wasn't
here
last
week,
but
that
sounds
there's
some
really
interesting
points.
There
love
to
see
these
maybe
written
up
in
a
discussion
post
just
so
people
can
vote
for
different
things
like
more
easily.
A
A
Yeah
but
yeah
I
wanted
to
just
bring
that
and
like
because
I've
just
kind
of
been
sitting
and
staring
at
it
and
trying
to
think
think
these
things
through
so
I
wanted
to
present
at
least
something.
C
So
I
I
don't
know
if
there's
already
a
defined
process,
but
when
we
contributed
to
the
Liberty
Bill
pack.
After
some
time,
Daniel
went
in
and
created
a
a
sub
maintainer
team
under
Java
for
for
specifically
the
Liberty
people
but
and
I
I.
But
but
I
don't
know
if
that
was
an
ad
hoc
thing
he
did
or
if
there
is
already
defined
process.
A
Yeah
I
I,
remember
that
happening
and
I
think
that
we've
I
think
that
we
didn't
have
to
vote
on
an
RFC
because,
obviously
that's
like
an
entirely
Java
maintainer
specific
thing.
I
go
look
at
the
government
documents
and
just
double
check
that.
That's
like
it's
not
the
case
that
that's
laid
out
somewhere,
but
I.
Think
that
there's
there's
some
that,
like
there's
some
stickiness
when
it
comes
to
like
not
necessarily
creating
like
like
we,
we
don't
talk
about
like
how
a
maintainer
gets
added
in
like
a
democratic
way.
A
We
just
kind
of
ad
hoc,
add
maintainers,
which
I
think
is
like
effectively
what
we'll
still
be
doing,
but
like
at
least
there's
like
a
chance
to
like
vet
in
in
a
different
way
and
I
also
want
to
like
codify
like
trying
to
like
that,
like
like
trying
to
keep
the
process
like
I
I.
A
Think
a
lot
of
what
we've
done
over
the
last
little
while
is
like
trying
to
set
up
the
government
as
much
as
possible
to
like
make
it
so
that
steering
committee
members
don't
have
to
like
come
in
and
like
use
like
big
voting
tokens
to
like
get
stuff
done.
I
guess
I,
don't
know
if
that
was
quite
what
I
wanted
to
say
but
like
like,
we
would
prefer
to
be
able
to
like
keep
it
within,
like
the
larger
maintainer
group
to
be
able
to
vote
things
in
especially
those
that
are
affected.
A
So
that's,
like
the
other
thing,
I'm
trying
to
do.
I
I.
Think
that
there's
like
nothing
stopping
us
from
doing
this,
but
like
having
an
actual
process
to
like
point
out
and
say
like
yeah,
just
like
fill
out
out
this
form
or
like
fill
out
this
RFC
in
this
form
and
then,
like
you
know,
we
at
least
have
like
the
documentation
to
point
at
like
this
is
why
we
did.
C
A
A
Idea,
that's
the
only
thing
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up
and
I
guess
like
I.
Think
it's
your
your
feedback
of
yeah
I'll,
just
wait
for
the
RFC
is
fair,
so
I'll
I'll
try
and
put
that.