►
From YouTube: Core Team Meeting 2020-06-25
Description
Core Team Meeting 2020-06-25
A
Okay,
this
is
the
june
25th
core
team
meeting
and
our
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
legal
issues.
Florian's
not
here
to
talk
about
the
licensing,
copyright
clarity.
Does
anyone
else
know
anything
about
that?
Have
any
updates.
B
Good,
I
think
so
I
talked
to
I
think
we
have
general
agreement
to
just
re-license
after
a
certain
date,
everything
under
mit
apache
2.
Just
like
rfcs,
that's
fine!
There's
like
a
simple
flat
structure,
no,
nothing
complicated!
I
sketched
out
something
and
sent
it
to
the
legal
team
to
get
the
okay
on
the
actual
language.
They
didn't
get
back
to
me
with
the
draft,
but
that
could
be
because
I
only
sent
it
to
them
about
30
minutes.
C
B
A
B
No,
no
major
updates
we're.
I
forget
to
talk
about
risky
and
lmos
and
so
on
we're
adding
some
new
targets
tier
two,
but
that's
kind
of
going
forward
and
I'll
try
to
circle
back
with
josh
about
the
rfc
again,
but.
D
Also,
like
I
had
a
call
with
and
microsoft
about,
windows
are
m64
and
like
they
were
wondering
about
their
in
on
their
c
about
separating
tier
one
for
cross,
compiling
and
tier
one
for
the
audios
compiler.
So
like
that's
something
that
could
be
expanded
on.
B
Okay,
yeah:
let's
talk
about
that,
maybe
afterwards
I
kind
of
would
like
to
restructure
into
like
not
so
much
tears
as
like
call
it
things
things
that
we
do
for
different
targets,
yeah
these
like
that,
don't
always
fit
neatly
into
one
box
or
another
yeah.
B
I
just
realized,
I
don't
have
my
headphones
actually
on
yeah,
exactly
something
like
that
or
like
you
know,
a
tier
2
thing
is
one
that
has
all
of
these
things,
but
we'll
still
show
the
checks,
because
a
lot
of
things
are
like
almost
here
too.
D
C
I
think
I
think
the
current
tier
distinction
of
where
tier
one
is
something
that
we
basically
are
guaranteeing
or
like
doing
a
very
strong
guarantee
and
removing
tier
one
will
be
a
very
hard
decision
for
us.
C
I
think
that
is
a
commitment
that
we're
making
and
I
think
that
commitment
is
useful
to
people
that
not
only
is
this
supported
right
now,
but
this
will
be
supported
in
the
in
the
pretty
far
future
unless
something
drastically
changes
and
like
drastically
changes
could
be
something
like
microsoft,
deciding
to
basically
stop
supporting
windows
xp,
which
they
did
and
stuff
like
that.
E
I
mean
really.
The
whole
tier
system
was
cargo
culted
from
mozilla
and
firefox
anyway,
right
like
we
never
even
really
evaluated.
If
that's
like,
actually
how
we
would
want
to
talk
about
supporting
platforms
in
the
first
place.
I
definitely
don't
want
to
derail
all
of
this
into
like,
let's
totally
rethink
all
of
the
situation,
but,
like
you
know,
it
sort
of
wasn't
really
like
built
for
our
needs
specifically
in
mind
in
general,.
B
I
think
probably
the
next
step
is
to
get
like,
maybe
get
josh
pietro
and
whoever
else
wants
to
and
try
to
talk,
high
bandwidth
and
just
hammer
it
out.
I
think
we
got
enough
when
we
had
like
compiler
team
discussion
and
we
got
some
general
guidelines,
but
we
need
to
just
try
to
write
out
the
actual
thing.
A
Okay,
anything
on
rethinking
working
groups.
B
All
right,
we
had
a
meeting
today
and
we
we
talked
about
a
proposal
to
basically
have
just
two
concepts:
teams
and
project
groups
and
to
take
a
lot
of
the
thing.
Teams
would
be
basically
things
that
have
that
are
targeting
an
area,
but
don't
have
a
defined
scope
and
have
a
kind
of
indefinite
duration
until
they
begin
and
project
groups
would
be
like
we're
doing
this
green
x.
B
You
know,
and
it
has
something
that
can
be
completed,
sort
of
implementing
a
feature
or
bootstrapping,
maybe
a
process
or
something,
and
that
would
imply
that
we
take
the
domain
working
groups
and
we
either
use
them
from
these
or
they
move
outside
of
the
restaurant,
because
they're
kind
of
more
in
this
indefinite-
and
I
think
it
would
be
okay
to
have
an
embedded
team,
for
example
like
who's.
We
said
previously
that
they
didn't
have
decision
making
power,
but
that
doesn't
really
make
sense.
They
have
their
own
rfcs
and
stuff.
It's
just.
B
They
have
decision-making
power
about
the
things
that
happen
in
their
projects.
That's
like
a
perfectly
good
scope
for
decision
making,
and
I
don't
know
what
so
the
next
step
we
had
planned
to
do.
I
wrote
up
a
kind
of
description
that
I
can
throw
out
somewhere.
B
D
D
Like
there
was
the
advantage
of
being
inside
org
for
the
leadership
sync
meeting
in
which
they
could
ask,
for,
they
could
interact
with
their
solid
teams,
but
like
that
meeting
is
not
happening
anymore
and
the
philippe
channel
is
pretty
much
dead
so,
like
that
actual
advances
that
being
in
the
organization
was
present
is
not
there
anymore,
like.
I
guess.
Maybe
if
we
do
all
answers
again
like
if
god
it
actually
stops
like
that,
could
be
a
distinction
for
official
things.
F
I
think
another
thing
that's
interesting
about
it
and
I'm
not
sure
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
the
type
of
guarantee
we
want
to
make
with
a
team.
But
I
know
at
least
when
we
were
talking
about
like
working
groups
and
teams.
There
was
a
sense
of
like
some
exist
over
a
long
period
of
time
and
others
kind
of
like
spin
up
and
spin
down
when
I
think
about
adding
teams
that
have
decision
making
power
over
other
things,
as
opposed
to
like
what
we've
already
deemed
official
rushed
core
things.
F
It
makes
me
think
of
like,
for
example,
with
rust,
wasm
right.
The
tools
that
rust
and
resin
like
owns
are
not
like
official
rust
things,
but
if
we
were
to
say,
create
a
rust
and
wasm
team,
I
think
there
would
be
an
implication
of
maintenance
for
russ
wasm's
properties
over
a
long
period
of
time.
Now,
obviously,
I'm
a
fan
of
that,
but
I
think
that
it's
interesting
to
think
about
it.
Like,
for
example,
with
like
the
network
working
group.
F
We
found
that,
like
the
ecosystem
versus
official,
like
became
an
issue,
and
I
think
that
this
transition
from
working
group
to
team
might
play
into
that
like
even
harder,
and
it
is,
I
think,
taking
on
like
the
like,
taking
on
the
responsibility
of
like
maintaining
certain
properties
over
a
long
period
of
time
and
given
the
working
groups
that
I
think
we
might
be
thinking
about.
The
status
of
the
maintenance
of
some
of
those
properties
might
be
very
poor
at
the
moment,
and
I
say
that
like
implicating
myself,
not
anybody
else
like
directly.
B
Anyway,
some
of
the
questions
I
mean,
I
think,
another,
another
structure
that
I've
seen
play
out
or
that
we've
talked
about.
At
least
you
know,
we've
seen
it
we've
done
it
like
it's
on
the
smaller
scale
in
the
compiler
team,
but
that
you
have
a
sort
of
project
group
that
has
the
goal
of
bootstrapping
something
and
then
maybe
like.
If
it
works,
you
make
a
team
to
support
it,
and
so
you
could
view
the
existing
domain
working
groups
as
like.
Well,
their
scope
was
temporary.
B
F
Yeah,
I
think
that
there's
a
really
interesting
thing
between
usage
patterns
and
maintenance
patterns,
also
because
I
they're
not
always
the
same,
like
I
could
also
say,
like
a
working
group
school
was
like
to
create
something
to
like
get
people
building
these
things
in
an
easier
way,
not
necessarily
to
build
the
maintenance
culture,
and
I
do
think
a
lot
of
teams
ended
up
achieving
that.
But,
like
struggled
with
the
long-term
maintenance
part.
C
So
a
thing
that
occurred
to
me
is
that,
like
when
it
comes
to
long-term
maintenance,
we
already
have
a
pretty
wide
range
of
teams
that
cover
most
long-term
maintenance.
Things
so,
for
example,
embedded
would
kind
of
make
sense,
parented
by
the
libs
team,
for
long-term
maintenance,
like
now
that
they're
no
longer
doing
the
project
group
like
nature
of
lit.
Actually,
they
still
kind
of
are
of
like
let's
explore
the
space
and
try
to
make
things,
they
are
now
basically
maintaining
libraries
and
continuing
to
make
more
but
still
kind
of
doing
maintenance.
C
C
Yeah
so,
like,
I
think,
I
think,
like
there's
a
we
do,
instead
of
having
a
bunch
of
tiny
teams
at
the
top
level,
it
might
be
worth
like
figuring
out
looking
at
these
as
these
started
off
as
project
groups
and
kind
of
now.
That
they're
at
least
wasm
to
me
seems
to
be
done
with
the
project
part
it's
like
maintenance
and
as
its
maintenance,
you
move
it
into
the
appropriate
team
that
does
that
kind
of
maintenance.
I'm
not
sure
if
embedded
is
still
done
with
the
project
part
yet,
but
yeah.
F
I
think
that
having
them
be
adopted
by
larger
teams,
I
think
that
will
also
really
help
them,
because
if
we
have
too
many
top-level
teams,
we're
not
going
to
have
enough
people
right
and
at
least
just
what
I've
seen
at
this
generation
of
rust,
we
tend
to
have
like
a
core
set
of
people
that
are
on,
like
all
the
teams,
and
so
if
we
just
like
make
more
teams,
we're
not
like
necessarily
making
more
people,
which
is
right,
can
be
really
hard
for
people
to
like
balance
workloads
and
actually
build
sustainable
maintenance.
B
A
Yeah,
okay,
I
think
we
should
move
on.
The
last
item
on
the
public
agenda
is
alumni
on
the
team's
pages.
Has
anyone
had
any
new
thoughts
or
anything?
I
know
we
were
just
kind
of
taking
time
to
think
about
this
from
last
week,.
B
C
E
There's
just
a
general
like
what
happens
when
people
like,
should
we
even
have
this
as
a
concept,
because
there's
like
people
stuff
change
over
time
for
a
number
of
different
like
reasons
and
ways
and
things
it's
like
we're
talking
about.
C
A
A
a
change
to
the
teams
that
the
pr
that
wasn't
working
or
something.
F
I
think
it
was
there
were
some
working
groups
and
did
we
want
to
track
working
group
alumni
and
I
think
what
we
get
decided
was.
It
depends
on
the
type
of
working
group,
because
working
group
was
like
a
leaky
abstraction,
and
I
believe
that
mark
and
peter
just
kind
of
decided
that
until
the
term
working
group
got
a
little
bit
more
settled
that
they
would
just
do
it
using
their
discretion
as
they
come
in.
F
Just
very
briefly,
and
it's
kind
of
related
to
the
target
tier,
but
with
the
new
mac
target
triple
coming
at,
I
feel
like
some
sort
of
official
like
louder
communication
about
plans
around
doing
that
whenever
we
have
them,
which
we
may
already
have
would
be.
I
think
something
people
would
really
be
excited
about
so
like
on
the
blog
or
something
we
should
just
be
loud
about
it.
D
D
Not
yet
like,
like
I
thought,
came
off
but
like
we
haven't,
got
any
news,
at
least
from
whatever,
where
we
don't
know.
When
that
album
support
is
going
upstream.
We
don't
know
when,
if
we
are
going
to
get
out
of
here
so
like
there
are
way
more.
F
The
thing
that
I
think
that
we
might
do
is
just
start
a
tracking
issue
and
potentially
like
tweet
or
post
on
internals.
Like
hey.
We
don't
really
know
that
much
right
now,
but
don't
worry
we're
on
it
and
here's
the
issue
and
when
we
know
we
will
post
here,
because
otherwise
I
think
we
might
get
like
100
community
members
filing
100
issues
going
like
wtf,
where
we
screwed
and
so
maybe
just
being
a
little
ahead
of
it,
will
take
care
of
stuff.
E
D
Think
we
need
to
like
coordinate
more
between
infra
and
compile
and
compiler
because,
like
at
least
from
like,
we
are
not
going
to
get
to
tier
one
immediately.
Also
because
like
seeing
the
expecting
what
happened
when
we
try
to
improve
windows
and
linux
for
armor
like
they
were-
and
there
are
still
some
issues
like
windows-
doesn't
still
have
fully
working
and
winding
or
ma
on
macos
and
so
like.
Even
if
we
get
the
tier
2
support,
we're
not
going
to
get
the
tier
1
from
the
start,
unless
a
miracle
happens,
and
so.