►
From YouTube: Core Team Meeting 2020-07-23
Description
Core Team Meeting 2020-07-23
A
A
A
So
this
is
kind
of
a
it's
wrestling.
Core
hyphen
team
is
the
repo
and
there's
issues
in
there.
I
have
a
question
that
I
added
as
an
urgent
problem
on
the
public
agenda.
I
see
that
you
have
put
them
all
into
one
board,
so
there's
one
board
for
the
with
columns
for
public
and
pub
for
private,
and
now
no
one
can
see
our
board
for
the
public
part.
Is
it
possible
to
make
two
boards.
B
I
was
looking
at
it
and
like
I
think
we
can
actually
make
it
the
actual
board,
the
public
like
one.
Second,
let
me
at
my
bottom
count.
D
A
B
A
F
B
Like
I
think,
our
single
board
is
easier
during
meetings,
because
we
have
to
only
open
one
table.
B
F
B
A
Okay,
well,
let's,
let's
give
it
a
try
and
we'll
see
how
it
goes
and
see
if
we
like
it
okay,
so
there
are
no
more
public
urgent
problems.
A
I
moved
the
white
papers
that
they
were
under
initiatives
and
I
moved
them
to
periodic
check-ins,
because
I
think
our
plan
was
to
not
check
in
on
those
as
often
only
when
we
have
time
to
work
on
them
or
assign
them
to
someone
else
to
work
on
and
things
like
that.
So
in
the
initiatives
column,
we
have
the
well
I'm
gonna
reorder
this
so
florian's,
not
here,
so
we're
going
to
skip
the
licensing
status.
C
C
You
can
assign
that
to
me,
probably
because
I
think
one
thing
we'll
try
to
do
is
work
with
the
contractor
again
like
we
did
last
time
to
do
a
lot
of
the
sort
of
detailed
number
crunching
I'll
have
to
get
on
that
and
figure
that
out.
C
If
I
can
pull
that
off,
it's
a
little
tricky
now
because
a
little
bit
hope
it's
making
everything
that
involves
money
very
annoying,
but
but
anyway,
we
also
should
get
people
organized
on
the
other
side
of
it
and
there's
a
lot
of
work
to
be
done.
That's
not
dated
on
that.
A
Okay,
how
about
target
tier
policy
rfc
anything
there.
C
A
Okay,
governance
working
group
check-in.
C
We
had
a
meeting
today.
I
think
there
were
some
takeaways.
One
of
the
things
we
were
talking
about
is
well.
We
talked
some
about
or
this
question
of
the
org
structure
and
stuff,
but
I
don't
want
to
go
into
the
details
of
that.
But
one
thing
we
did
say
that
I
thought
was
interesting
was
that
we
might
try
to.
C
The
policy
to
be
then,
do
the
kind
of
grunt
work
of
like
trying
to
draft
it
and
make
it
make
sense
and
then
come
back
with
it
and
get
feedback
and
sort
of
do
that
cycle,
and
one
of
the
things
we
thought
about
doing
is
a
very
simple
step
is
just
writing
down
sort
of
what
are
all
the
things
that
teams
actually
do.
I
don't
really
know
how
much
is
written
down
right
now.
C
In
some
teams
it
is,
and
sometimes
it's
it's
not,
and
we
were
going
to
start
by
looking
at
the
libs
and
compiler
teams,
because
their
roles
have
actually
been
changing
lately
and
it's
gotten
a
little
interesting,
so
sort
of
working
towards
like
a
charter
for
every
team
that
the
team
agrees
to
and
that
that's
kind
of
a
preliminary
sort
of
step,
along
the
way
of
when
we
have
some
taxonomy
structures,
then
trying
to
fit
them.
Now
that
we
know
what's
happening,
fit
it
to
the
structure
that
it
best
fits.
A
It
okay:
I
saw
some
discussion
on
the
user's
forum
about
the
licensing
of
the
forums.
Do
we
need
to
put
that
back
on
here.
C
Can
give
an
update
so
the
users
forum
on
the
internals
forum,
nobody
was
upset
about
the
new
license,
but
there
were
some
people
who
objected
to
the
license
terms
on
the
users
forum
and
I
I
wrote
a
kind
of
summary
comment,
but
I
think
the
the
key
point
of
the
objection-
at
least
the
part
I
found
most
compelling-
was
that
essentially
these
in
order
to
post
code.
C
Under
these
terms,
you
have
to
be
able
to
license
it
under
mit
apache
2,
and
maybe
people
are
coming
to
the
user's
forum
with
like
some
snippet
of
code.
That
has
some
other
origin,
like
maybe
they
copy
and
paste
data
from
a
gpl
project,
so
they
didn't
think
about
it
or
they
just
aren't
thinking
about
that
at
all,
and
so
they
might
accidentally
sort
of
be
mislicensing
and
beyond
what
they
have
the
power
or
intention
to
do,
and
that
seems
true,
I'm
not
sure
how
I
don't
know.
C
C
C
D
D
And
one
comment
that
I'd
have
that
I
can
follow
up
with
you
later,
maybe
on
nico's
that-
and
I
only
realized
when
you're
expressing
then,
is
that
the
concerns
are
symmetric
so
just
as
someone
may
not
realize
that
they
have
the
right
to
post
that
code
because
they
might
not
spread
the
terms
and
conditions
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
D
C
G
This
kind
of
gets
to
like
the
second
part,
I
think
it's
sort
of
what
aiden
was
saying
is
like
the
purpose
of
these
terms
is
so
that
we,
as
a
project,
are
able
to
like
assume
something
by
default
and
like
if
we
make
it
so
that
people
post
in
code,
you
have
to
like
check
and
look
at
all
the
licenses
like
it's
moving
their
responsibility
around
and
like
they're.
If
somebody
is
already
posting
in
code,
that's
like
not
licensed
appropriately,
like
that's
their
problem,
but
then
also
like
becomes
our
problem.
G
If
we
don't
blanket
say
that
this
is
like
the
case,
I
think
it
also
gets
to
the
root
of
some
of
the
complaints
on
users.
Is
some
people
are
like
you
know?
I
don't
want
to
have
to
be
responsible
either,
and
I
don't
think
that,
like
you
can't
not
be
responsible,
but
just
right
now.
C
C
G
I
think
in
general
this
is
probably
almost
entirely
academic.
Is
the
wrong
word,
but
like
the
chance
that
someone
is
going
to
post
code,
that
is
lengthy
enough
to
be
considered
copyrightable
and
also
something
that
is
not
shareable
but
like
would
be
socially
acceptably
shareable,
but
not
like
literally
legally
shareable,
as
like,
very
small,
which
the
purpose
of
the
law
is
to
like
cover
edge
corner
cases
and
stuff.
Obviously,
but
like
yeah,
I
don't
know.