►
From YouTube: 2020-07-08 Lang Team Design Meeting: Path to membership
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
I
guess
I'll
start
and
just
present
some
context.
I
wanted
to
talk
about
the
path
to
membership,
a
little
bit
about
laying
team,
how
we
run
the
team
and
two
main
things:
the
the
idea
of
path
to
membership,
which
I
think
we've
never
really
wish.
I
think
we
could
do
well
to
articulate
but
part
of
the
reason
I'm
bringing
up
past
the
membership.
A
Is
that
I
think
looking
over
the
basic
I
think
we
need
more
people,
I
think
our
our
bandwidth
is
relatively
constrained
and
we're
for
us
to
be
thinking
about
how
we
can
grow
and
do
selling
it
in
a
good
way
and
I.
Think
it's
a
difficult
thing
for
us
that
we've
got
a
lot
of
our
job
to
be
involved
in
design
discussions
and
combine
my
technical
knowledge,
design,
taste,
but
also
constructively
engaging
listening.
A
And
one
of
the
things
I'm
observing
as
we
go
through
the
major
change
process
trial
run.
Let's
call
it
is
that
you
know
I
had
hoped
that
we
would
do
a
good
job
of
promptly
responding
to
people.
I
think
we've
done
as
good
a
job
as
they
might
have
liked,
but
also
it's
sort
of
exposing
like
as
expected
that
we
there
are
some
ideas.
I
think
are
good,
but
we
just
don't
have
if
we
had
a
bigger
team,
I
think
we
could
easily.
A
A
A
That
we
would,
we
could,
like
originally
I,
had
the
idea
that
project
groups
themselves
were
a
kind
of
path
to
membership,
because,
like
leading
a
group
is
a
good
way
to
kind
of
show
some
of
the
skills
we're
looking
for,
and
it
gives
us
I
think
what
I've
found
is
difficult
and
other
like
with
the
old
shepherding
system
we
had.
Is
that
you
might
add
someone,
but
it
was
her
not
clear
what
they
were
supposed
to
do
and
how
long
was
that,
like
trial
period
and
and
when
should
we?
A
What
should
we
do
at
the
end
of
it?
So
I
prefer
if
we
can
find
things
where
we
give
people.
The
like
me
is
put
people
in
a
position
to
do
some
work
and
then,
when
that
works
done,
that's
sort
of
a
natural
end
point,
and
maybe
we
choose
to
keep
doing
things
or
maybe
we
just
let
it
go
if
it
doesn't
seem
like
it's
working
out
as
well
and
just
don't
take
further
steps.
A
A
I
think
the
way
that
the
lengthy
would
be
operating
is
that
the
members
themselves,
we
are
leading
things
but
they're
also
liaison
team
for
a
larger
set
of
things
where
the
leadership
is
coming
from
people
who
are
motivated
in
the
community
at
large,
who
just
want
to
see
a
particular
feature
through,
and
so
we
know
we're
not
getting
any
like
we're
not
having
way
to
like
trial,
run
that
side
of
it
right
and
that's
also
a
bit
of
bandwidth
I
think
is
most
constrained.
If
we
were
thinking
that
it'd
be
interesting.
A
You
know
it
works
well
for
us,
but
I
would
like
to
find
ways
to
accommodate
people
that,
for
whatever
reason,
can't
participate
in
and
zoom
beings
wanted
me
not
to
be
a
hard
requirement.
But
what
this
then
also
looks
like
is
it
kind
of
looks
like
a
good
list,
start
point
of
a
list
of
what
is
the
expectations
that,
if
you're
a
team
member,
what
does
that
mean
that
you
should
be
doing?
Is
that
something
else
we've
not
been
extremely
clear
on
and
so
I
guess
it
says
to
finish
up,
it's
kind
of
like
yeah.
A
If
we
had
a
kind
of
list
and
we
could
then
identify
candidates
and
say
like
hey,
we
think
we
saw
you
did
this
and
it
was
really
cool
and
you
know
we've
been
enjoying
your
participation
in
the
meetings.
Maybe
you'd
like
to
take
me
on
one
of
these
other
duties
like
if
you're
interested
in
joining
the
link
team
or
even
if
you're
not,
but
if
you
are
in
particular
here's
the
kind
of
things
you
need
to
do,
and
we
would
like
to
see
this
in
this.
Let
me
get
the
full
set
taking
the
decision.
B
It
also
seems
worth
highlighting
here
that
this
is
a
way
to
take
someone
who
has
demonstrated
some
experience
and
good
judgment
on,
say
their
own
project
or
a
project
they
deeply
care
about
and
give
them
an
opportunity
to
serve
as
the
liaison
for
a
project
that
they
still
care
about,
but
isn't
their
own
pet
project,
their
own
passion
to
get
into
the
language
and
compiler,
and
because
of
that
that
helps
us
evaluate.
Okay.
B
A
There
is
this
another
concept:
that's
been
kicking
around
in
my
head
that
I
want
to
bring
up
around
at
some
point,
I'm
trying
to
find
the
blog
post
and
I
can't,
but
my
niece
wrote
a
blog
post
about
I
think
he
called
it
facilitators
and
the
idea
was
that
we
should
have
somebody
who
is
sort
of
moderating
especially
complex.
Like
especially
controversial
topics,
we
should
have
a
designated
facilitator.
A
That
is
not
to
like
it's
not
to
advocate
for
one
position
or
the
other,
just
to
kind
of
facilitate
the
discussion
to
some
reason
and
so
forth
and
moderator
I
think.
To
some
extent
I
mean
you
could
debate
what
exactly
that
means
I
envision
and
they
have
the
power
to
tell
people.
Sorry
that
question
like
we're,
that's
been
resolved.
A
You
can't
bring
that
up
anymore,
but
in
order
to
have
legitimacy
it
helps
if
they
are
not
themselves
advocating
for
one
position
or
another,
and
that
got
me
you're
thinking
that
maybe
the
way
we've
been
thinking
liaison
might
like
I've
been
saying
the
job
of
the
liaison.
It's
kind
of
like
the
lead,
but
distinction
is
like
not
super
clear,
but
maybe
it
would
be
nice
to
that.
Every
group
has
a
lead
and
they
are
a
partisan
in
some
sense,
like
they're
they're,
pushing
the
design
and
they
have
a
stake,
but
also
a
facilitator.
B
Do
think
that
requirement
is
one
we
might
want
to
be
careful
about,
because
it
seems
reasonable
to
have
someone
who
is
helping
to
apply
good
taste
and
design
sense
or
somebody
who's,
helping
to
define
or
remind
people
of
the
requirements
for
a
given
solution.
It's
more
that
I,
don't
think
we
would
want
somebody
who
already
has
a
solution
and
a
specific
solution
in
mind
from
the
outset
and
is
pushing
that
over
other
things
that
might
also
meet
some
of
the
same
requirements
or
all
of
the
same
requirements.
A
I
think
that's
right,
I
go
back
and
forth
on
this
I
think
that's
right!
Maybe
the
facilitators
that
we-
maybe
we
don't
even
have
it
all
the
time.
Maybe
it's
not
necessary
for
all
projects,
a
project
that
I'm,
maybe
it's
risky,
to
bring
our
specific
projects,
but
one
that
I'm
taking
looking
at
our
current
list
of
MCPS
and
I.
Think
one
of
them
is
the
simple
their
Korean
MCP
around.
A
Expending
macros
to
support
like
dollar
cash
flow
or
I
forget
what
they
call
it,
but
some
way
to
get
the
number
of
expansions
right,
repetitions,
yeah,
release,
precise
and
that
doesn't
strike
me
as
like
a
super
controversial
topic.
I
get.
Maybe
people
don't
like
me,
you
need
I,
don't
but
I,
don't
think
it's
gonna
spark
off
into
some
firestorm
and
it
seems
to
me
like
a
good
role
for
a
liaison.
There
might
just
be.
Do
you
know
a
good
choice
would
be
someone
who
has
used
macros.
A
C
But
in
particular
I
I'm,
guessing
that
when
there's
more
controversy
than
there's
more
of
a
need
for
an
unbiased
facilitator
to
actually
properly
summarize
all
points
of
view
right,
that's
at
least
in
my
thinking
why
you'd
need
yeah,
that's
where
the
unbiasness
comes
into
play.
It's
when
there's
controversy
right.
A
So
maybe
it's
not
something
that
we
need
to
do
up
front
like
I
could
see
me
saying:
well,
everything
should
have
everyone
should
have
both
more
leads
liaison
and
maybe
or
end
our
facilitator.
Let's
say
that
just
requires
more
people
to
be
participating,
and
maybe
it's
like
some
things
don't
happen,
because
we
can't
find
a
district
and.
C
My
my
personal
guess
is
that
more
controversy,
usually
as
a
premise
that
requires
there
to
be
more
people
there
in
the
first
place,
so
we
could
just
say
that
the
requisite
is,
if
there
are
more
people
than
there
should
be
a
facilitator
right
like
we
should
have
some
threshold
where
weeks,
but
there'd
be
a
facilitator.
If
there's
this,
many
people
participate
a
discussion,
that's
not
a
matter
of
valuating.
Was
there
controversy
or
not?
It's
just
a
matter
of
there's
a
certain
volume
of
you
know,
content
being
produced.
That
needs
to
be
summarized
by
someone.
A
A
C
A
D
Well,
since
there's
a
bit
of
a
pause,
I
will
say:
I
do
like
the
idea
of
here's
a
list
of
things
you
should
be
doing,
even
just
for
me
to
go.
Hey
I
should
probably
be
doing
more
than
I.
I
often
feel
like
I
should
be
doing
more
than
I
am
and
having
a
list
of
things
like
I
should
find
one
of
those
things
to
go.
Do
it'd
be
kinda.
Nice.
B
B
A
A
Don't
know,
but
maybe
maybe
especially
de-escalate
or
something
like
that,
just
I'm
not
sure
it's
not
I,
think
we
do
expect
people
to
have
opinions
and
make
their
designs
to
not
consensus,
isn't
the
only
important
thing
and
maybe
consent.
Maybe
that's
wrong
because,
like
consensus
of
the
thread
is
not
our
expectation
or
always
achievable
in
any
case,
but
I
feel
like
there's
some
there's.
Certainly
a
notion
of
participating
constructively
would.
B
B
Making
it
more
about
like
making
sure
we
have
a
common
consensus
understanding,
we
don't
all
have
to
agree,
although
when
we
can
drive
it
in
that
direction,
that's
great,
but
this
is
more
about
things
like
making
sure
people
agree.
What
the
points
of
view
are
making
sure
that
the
understanding
of
people's
requirements
and
expectations
and
interests
are
made
clear,
so
that
doesn't
require
forcing
everybody
to
agree.
As
though
you
know
anybody
could
do
that
on
the
internet.
I
more.
B
C
A
A
B
B
A
Drink
like
I
feel
like
it
would
be.
Well,
I,
don't
know,
but
I
could
imagine
it
being
okay,
if
somebody
said
I
don't
do
like
RFC
discussion.
It's
just
not
my
thing
leave
that
to
other
people,
but
what
I
do
is
like
work
on
detailed
issues
or
working
a
project
group
on
something
in
that
environment
that
seems
like
that
seems.
Okay.
Maybe
that's
not
that
doesn't.
A
A
That's
he's
right,
I'm
wondering,
though,
on
the
same
time
everybody
does
have
their
specialties
and
I
wonder.
We've
talked
about
like
exposing
our
news
for
how
busy
we
are
but-
and
we've
also
talked
about
talking
about
what
kind
of
projects
we
ourselves
would
like
to
see
and
would
like
to
work
with
which
we
haven't
really
done
a
great
job
of
advertising.
But
I
guess
on
that
latter
point
like
talking
about.
C
A
Where
we
have
might
be
helpful
to
also
to
help
us
see
what
we're
missing
I
think
we
don't
necessarily
cover
all
the
areas
where
we
might
I
think
an
obvious
thing.
We
don't
have
any
expertise
in
its
name
resolution
or
we
don't
have
anyone
who
is
super
familiar
with
Rusty's
name
resolution.
A
D
I
heard
something
in
what
Josh
said
that
was
interesting
to
me
of
like
what
is
the
thing
that
makes
someone
someone
who
should
be
on
the
Lange
team
and
what
is
the
special
thing
about
lying
team
membership
versus
other
things
like?
Is
there
a
place
for
people
who
want
to
do
project
groups
but
have
no
interest
in
being
on
the
Lange
team?
And
what
would
that
person
look
like
versus?
You
know,
like
you
know,
like
a
board.
C
D
Piece
of
Lange
team
membership
is
checking
SCP
boxes
wouldn't
like
is
that
the
core
piece
is
it?
Something
else
is
it
like?
Is
it
a
distributed?
Tent
spike
is
a
distributed
sense
of
good
taste
in
some
sense
across
enough
people
that
we're
happy
that
Russ
stays
in
some
direction.
That's
the
goal
of
it,
I,
don't.
C
C
So
yeah,
that's
the
big
one
that
I
can
think
of
guys
like
what
defines
the
line
team
is
in
fact,
this
thing
that
can
cause
blockages
for
better
or
for
worse
everything
else.
The
leading
project
groups,
in
liaison
those
are
great
things
that
we
sort
of
enable,
but
there's
no
I,
don't
see
a
reason
for
a
line
team
member
to
be
the
lead
or
project
growth.
It's
just
it
just
makes
sense
for
them
to
do
it
at
times,
and
then
Niko
has
already
brought
up
the
idea
that
liaison
doesn't
have
to
be
a
line.
C
B
I
think
if
that
I
think
it's
the
necessary,
but
not
sufficient
condition
in
that,
you
certainly
need
to
be
doing
that
actively
and
participating
in
order
to
be
you
know,
helping
with
language
team
activities
and
not
being
kind
of
a
roadblock
through
inactivity,
but
I
also
think
that
there's
a
reasonable
expectation
of
participating
in
some
subset
of
the
things
listed
above
it
doesn't
mean
you
have
to
do.
All
of
them
doesn't
mean
be
most
active
on
all
of
them
or
to.
B
A
D
Yeah,
we
might
be
able
to
go
backwards
from
box
checking
to
some
of
the
other
things
like
if
having
it.
The
critical
part
of
box
checking
is
having
concerns
and
the
way
through
have
the
critical
part
of
being
able
to
have
a
concern
is
being
able
to
remove
that
concern.
Even
if
you
still
have
that
concern
to
some
extent
or.
C
Feed
it
back
the
others
in
a
way
that
they
underwear
other
people
understand
Sorna,
can
change
the
design
accordingly.
Communication
is
you
know,
of
course,
the
big
thing
here
and
you
know
it's
it's
sort
of
underlying.
So
much
of
these
bullets
is
that
the
idea
that
we
all
have
to
be
will
communicate
with
each
other
in
a
constructive
fashion.
A
A
A
A
C
Is
their
way
via
concrete
the
idea
you
know,
demonstrating
the
capability
to
build
consensus
or
you
know,
be
part
of
the
consensus
building
processes.
We've
yeah
there's
a
big
difference
between
someone
who
is
able
to
participate
in
a
discussion,
but
it's
still
just
you
know,
I
can
say
roadblock
versus
people
who
are
able
to
I.
Don't
know,
find
the
appropriate
I,
don't
want
to
say
middle
ground.
Sometimes
a
little
burned
isn't
appropriate.
Sometimes
you
need
the
extreme
station
make
sense,
but
it's
right
behind
somebody
communicated,
but
they
just
can't
understand.
I
would.
A
A
D
C
B
A
B
That's
a
great
way
of
putting
it
I
mean
the
same
way
if
you're
the
author
of
an
RFC
yeah
and
with
the
traditional
RFC
process.
You
really
want
to
summarize
opposing
positions,
alternatives,
and
you
want
to
do
so
fairly,
not
as
a
straw
position
and
that's
the
same
expectation
that
we
have
for
a
liaison
or
facilitator.
D
I
think
part
of
that
might
be
that
with
project
groups,
we're
not
going
to
have
most
of
the
Lange
team
on
any
project
group.
So
probably
the
people
who
are
on
that
project
group
and
actively
pushing
a
particular
whatever
are
going
to
be
somewhat
partisan
necessarily,
but
that
we
will
always
have
enough
people
who
aren't
on
that
to
say.
Ok,
I,
understand
that
that's
the
one
that
you're
looking
for,
but.
D
A
D
A
C
A
A
In
any
case,
there
was
one
thing
I
was
wondering
about:
is
there
some
notion
that
might
be
useful
where
we're
saying
okay?
Well,
this
is
our
full
set
of
expectations,
but
for
people
who
are,
you
know
actively
doing
a
relatively
narrow
set
a
lower
level
or
some
way
to
recognize
that
and
say
hey
now
that
you're
here
at
the
lake
at
this
role,
I
think
it
should
come
with
some
expectations,
though,
like
in
the
compiler
team,
you
start
to
do
reviews,
but
then
this
might
be
like
okay.
A
Well,
like
maybe
all
leads
you
could
imagine
like
yeah
added
to
like
a
lead
set,
and
then
those
are
people
that
were
engaging
more
I,
don't
know
exactly,
but
that
might
be
a
good
idea,
and
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
talk
about,
which
is
separate,
is
quality
of
service
guarantees
from
the
lang
team,
by
which
I
mean
how
fast
and
how
should
we
be
responding
to
MCPS
want
one
piece
of
feedback.
I
got
that
stuck
with
me
from
Tyler
man.
Jury.
A
Was
this
idea
of
like
there's
just
still
this
limbo
state,
that's
very
confusing
of
like
it
would
be
great
if
we
could
say
like
we
have
a
meeting
every
two
weeks
and
you
will
get
feedback
of
some
kind
after
that
meeting.
You
know
or
something
like
that,
a
lot
more
clear
for
people
and
I,
don't
know
if
that's
something
we
should
consider
I
think
meetings
are
hard
I
would
sort
of.
Rather
if
we
can
manage
it
more
asynchronously,
but.
C
A
Know
one
thing
I
thought
about
doing
was
saying:
there's
like
a
window.
We
have
talked
about
Auto
closing.
That
was
something
we
talked
about,
but
never,
but
I
was
imagining
like
just
having
a
bot
that,
like
let's
say
the
auto
closed
window,
is
four
weeks.
I,
don't
know,
and
every
week
some
bot
drops
a
comment
that
says
it's
week.
104
there's
been
no
comment
week.
204
there's
been
no
comment.
That
alone
might
help
light
trigger.
Certain
oh
I
mean
to
comment
on
that.
Let
me
do
that
before
it
closes.
A
B
Mean
we
could
also
potentially
at
T
lang
on
zoo
lip,
but
can
I
suggest,
as
a
very
minor
point
of
order,
that
I
think
we
might
be
a
little
off
topic
of
the
notion
of
participation
and
path
towards
membership,
and
we
should
get
back.
We
have
about
eleven
minutes
left.
We
should
talk
about
like
what's
the
next
step
for
the
notion
of
non
lang,
team,
liaisons
and.
B
C
Personally
think
non
lying
team
liaison
seems
like
a
really
great
idea.
I
am
wondering
about
this
this.
This
very
recent
thing
that
Nikko
brought
up
about
some
way
of
collecting
the
other
all
the
either
the
leads
or
I
was
thinking
liaisons
with
some
collection
of
nine
members
who
are
you
know
surfing.
Prime
for
membership.
I
was
wondering
whether
that
like,
where
do
you
get
the
most
benefit
there
in
terms
of
the?
If
you
did
collect
all
the
leaves
into
a
group?
C
Ok,
what's
the
benefit
they
see
of
that
they
each
have
their
own
individual
projects,
their
interests,
then
why
would
they
want
to
get
pinged
all
together
on
something?
Unless,
since
about
to
discuss
like
oh
here's,
how
I
finish
to
trick
the
Lang
team,
it
accepting
my
proposal,
of
course,
but
you
know
that
I'm
not
sure
in
some
ways
liaison
collecting
liaisons
together
I
can
see
potentially
more
value
in
terms
of
them
actually
sharing
knowledge
about
I,
don't
know
how
to
do
the
job
effectively
right.
B
A
C
I
thought
I
just
had
its.
You
know
a
reason
to
have
people
on
illicit,
for
no
other
reason
is
to
have
a
place
to
ping
them.
For
me,
like
these
are
people
who
expected,
like
the
at
least,
notify
the
meetings
going
on?
Maybe
they're
not
officially
required
to,
but
you
know
they
might
like
to
know
and
and
potentially
be
in
the
background
or
foreground.
That's
actually
interesting,
liaisons
again,
possibly.
B
A
A
Let's
ask
this
question:
do
we
people
on
that
note
like?
Is
there
a
problem,
if
there's
some
project
group
that
has
no
team
member
for
active
at
some
point,
we're
gonna
have
some
need
to
like
vote
on
it
on
an
RFC
or
something
which
I
think
it's
probably
okay,
but
just
only
for
I,
wouldn't
projects
of
core
importance,
I,
don't
think
that's
a
great
fit.
A
A
Yes,
probably,
but
I
would
hope
that
that
would
come
like,
but
I
guess
it's
like
if
the
liaisons
doing
a
good
job,
then
hopefully
that
negative
feedback
is
coming
a
bit
earlier
and
that
that
might
be
a
time
to
get
more
involved.
If
it's
like
this
isn't
quite
going
out,
we
thought
it
was
going
right.
B
In
cases
where
we're
being
more
exploratory.
Where
we're
saying
hey,
we're
not
even
sure
what
the
requirements
are
yet
and
we
need
some
research
done
in
order
to
even
get
as
far
as
defining
requirements.
It
may
be
more
important
to
have
fun
or
somebody
with
a
lot
of
language
design,
sense,
actively
participating.
B
A
A
A
B
B
Think
it's
also
worth
in
terms
of
next
steps,
mentioning
it.
If
there
are
specific
people
that
we
think
might
be
good
candidates
for
non-line
team
liaisons,
we
should
have
a
discussion
about
that
in
private
and
go
over
like
demonstrated
experience.
What
we've
seen
etcetera
and
like
maybe
doing
that
on
the
T
Lang
private
Zillah
stream
might
be
a
good
place
to
do
that
and
discuss
potential
potential
liaisons
to
do
a
trial
run
with.
A
Would
think
a
little
bit
of
both
like
I
I
would
think
that
what
might
reach
out
and
say,
I'm
interested
in
this?
How
do
I
do
that?
That
happens
sometimes,
and
maybe
we
can
encourage
people
that
if
they
have
questions
or
think
they
might
like
to
do
this
role
to
reach
out
to
leads
or
something
I
think
I.
Think
though
I
would
expect.
I
would
expect
that
notice.
A
A
A
Okay,
although
you
can't
change
that
so
well,
I
think
if
you
change
the
signal,
history
gets
wiped
and
nothing
anyway.