►
From YouTube: 2021-03-24 Design meeting: Lang team organization
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).
B
B
Scott,
but
that's
okay,
I'll,
keep
moving
and
maybe
he'll
show
up
so
right.
You
can
kind
of
see
what
I
had
planned
to
do
for
this
meeting
was
to
start
by
doing
a
little
overview
of
the
document
and
at
the
very
end
of
the
document,
is
a
list
of
questions
and
does
everyone
have
the
url
I'll
put
it
in
the
zoom
chat
just
in
case
that's
convenient
for
people.
B
The
idea
was,
you
can,
of
course
you
can
ask
questions
but
better
if
they're
like
complicated
or
something
throw
it
to
the
end,
and
then
we
will
take
a
little
time
to
think
about
questions
and
people
can
put
their
names
on
ones
that
they
think
will
be
interesting
and
we'll
spend
some
time
talking
about
them.
C
C
C
Of
thing,
so
these
are
not
like
big
like
this
is
more
like.
I
didn't
understand
what
was
intended
in
certain
parts
of
the
text.
So
it's
not
like.
Yes,.
B
B
C
B
I'm
opening
it
in
a
separate
window
for
awesome
for
my
purposes.
Okay,
so
let's
go
down
the
motivations.
This
is
stuff
I'll
go
quickly-ish,
but
I
feel
like
we
talked
about
this
the
last
time,
but
basically,
we've
been
talking
on
and
off
about
how
to
grow
the
lane
team
and
and
just
in
general,
how
to
make
it
work
more
efficiently.
B
And
one
of
the
observations
that
came
out
of
that
was
that
we
don't
necessarily
want
to
grow
the
lane
team
per
se.
We
might
want
to
change
its
structure
because
you
know
it's
useful
to
have
a
smallish
core
of
people
who
are
kind
of
the
key
consensus
decision
makers
and
if
we
grow
that
set
too
large,
it
becomes
unwieldy.
B
Maybe
we
lose
some
sense
of
the
overall
like
coherence
and
just
design
taste
or
something
like
that,
because
it's
more
people,
but
also
that
there's
a
whole
lot
of
different
skill
sets
that
people
that
are
useful
to
the
laying
team
right,
so
some
of
them
might
be
like
pursuing
large
projects
is
one
thing,
but
other
people
prefer
to
focus
on
smaller
knits
or
paper
cuts.
I
think
there
are
some
skill
sets
that
we
don't
necessarily
I
weren't
always
aware
of
as
skill
sets
that
we
could
use.
B
I
would
I
include
like
monitoring
the
zeitgeist
so
sort
of
surfing
internals,
knowing
what
people
are
talking
about,
what
issues
people
are
hitting
that
kind
of
thing
and
being
able
to
sort
of
use
that
as
feedback
for
prioritization
or
or
just
look
for
promising
ideas
that
are
surfacing
and
bring
them
to
wider
attention.
B
B
There's
formal
rules,
reference
material,
so
I
think
trying
to
put
all
this
into
one
team.
It
doesn't
make
sense,
it's
a
really
different
sets
of
skills
and
we
should
optimize
for
them.
B
I
already
kind
of
said
this
that
we
want
to
grow,
but
we
can't
so.
These
are
all
reasons
I
think,
having
just
one
team
isn't
a
good
idea.
I
would
add
in
here
that
there's
a
lot
of
like
maintenance
tasks,
but
mostly
I
just
do
them
and
that's
okay,
except
that
it
takes
me
several
hours
a
week
and
they
feel
like
they
should
be
distributable
and
something
we
could
share
out
and
we
haven't
never
been
effective
at
in
making
that
happen.
B
I
would
like
that,
and
some
of
them
just
don't
happen
like
I
would
say,
we
don't
really
have
blog
posts
that
summarize
our
our
meetings,
for
example,
because
it's
too
much
so
coming
down.
B
Oh,
this
is
hard
to
see
in
this
format,
but
oh
well,
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
say
about
that
is
that.
B
Previously
we
had
thought
about
groups
like
shepherds
or
other
kinds
of
groups
as
stepping
stones
on
the
way
to
full
team
membership
and,
what's
different
about
this
proposal,
is
that
they're
not
intended
that
way,
they're
intended
as
teams
in
their
own
right
that
people
might
want
to
be
a
part
of
because
they're
doing
a
style
of
work
that
people
enjoy
and
they're
all
doing
important
work?
B
That
needs
to
get
done,
but
there
would
be
perfectly
valid
to
just
be
a
shepherd
or
just
be
someone
doing
triage
and
just
isn't
really
the
right
word,
but
to
only
do
that,
it
would
also
be
valid
to
be
a
lang
team,
member
and
a
shepherd
and
so
forth.
No,
I
didn't
actually
define
those
terms
yet,
but
that's
the
idea,
so
I
think
that's
an
important
thing
to
convey,
because
it
wasn't
always
in
people
that
I
previewed
this
doc
with.
B
It
wasn't
always
clear,
and
so
part
of
my
thinking
here
was
trying
to
identify,
like
eventually
I'd
like
to
have
sort
of
maybe
job
descriptions
or
something
but
yeah.
What
what
are
the
kind
of
person
we
think
would
be
good
at
some
of
these
different
roles?
Here's
a
set
of
roles
that
I've
identified.
B
So
we
have
the
main
lane
team
and
I
see
felix.
You
had
a
comment.
Oh
well.
Your
first
comment
was
tactical
and
not
requiring.
I
think
what
I
meant
to
say
was
like
extended
engagement
on
a
particular
topic.
I
don't
know
how
to
describe
that,
but.
C
Luckily
it
was
me
it
was
my
own
fault.
I
I
foiled
myself.
The
yeah
I
specifically
was
asking
in
my
question
about
like
yeah,
like
is
this
somebody
who
just
doesn't
need
extended
engagement,
so
somebody
doesn't
have.
This
doesn't
want
decision
making
authority,
for
example,
or
doesn't
want
to
attend
the
meetings.
I.
B
Yes
to
both,
I
think
also
like
who
has
a
couple
hours
a
day
or
like
on
a
day,
but
you
know
it
doesn't
have,
has
time
that
is
sporadic,
maybe
and,
and
it
sometimes
has
to
drop
out
for
a
week
or
two.
C
Us
could
do
that
actually,
but
yeah.
I
know
you
mean.
B
Yeah,
but
it's
easier
in
some
roles
than
others
more
impactful,
I
don't
know,
maybe
that's
not
quite
the
right
description
I
I
would
have
liked
to.
I
should
ping,
I'm
thinking
a
lot
about
the
compiler
team.
Prioritization
group.
I've
been
asking
santiago
about
it
a
little
bit
because
I
would
like
to
get
a
feeling
for
how
that
works
better.
I
think
that's
a
good
model.
B
We
can
talk
about
triage
later,
though,
but
that's
kind
of
what
I
meant
by
that
at
least
maybe
so
right,
the
main
lane
team
I
see
as
kind
of
top
level,
ultimately
deciding
on
like
which
rfcs
rfcs
get
accepted.
So
this
is
ultimately
deciding
the
syntax
and
semantics
of
the
language,
also
guiding
sort
of
which
project
proposals
to
start
and
that
that
kind
of
coordination
activity
and
then.
B
C
B
That's
right,
I
think,
making
making
the
hard
decisions.
C
B
Decisions
that
come
up
or
like
resolving
decisions
that
come
up,
I
guess
there's
more
questions
in
open
prs
or
on
issues
about
the
finer
points
of
language
semantics
deciding
which
lints
to
accept
those
are
traditionally
things.
We've
done,
I
think
in
all
these
cases
as
much
as
possible.
I
would
like
to
see
that
guided
by
like
these
are
the
people
that
are
kind
of
affirming
the
final
decision,
but
not
not
necessarily
the
ones
right
right,
shaping
all
the
arguments.
B
That's
always
what
we
do
anyway,
because
we're
not
experts
in
everything,
but
so
the
other
sub
team
would
does
that
make
sense.
B
B
If
you,
if
you
count
all
the
different
times,
we've
used
the
term,
but
it's
closest
maybe
to
the
original
way
we
used
it,
except
that,
then
I
think
it
was
a
stepping
stone
idea-
and
I
see
this
differently
as
people
who
are
kind
of
more
the
the
front
line,
so
to
speak,
of
interacting
with
the
greater
community
reading
up
on
internals.
B
B
Maybe
people
do
participate
in
a
thread,
but
not
so
much
in
their
role
as
shepard,
unless
it's
like
trying
to
summarize
or
generally
unblock
a
thread
but
more
like
yeah
keeping
an
eye
on
things,
and
I
I
don't
know,
I
think
we
could
formalize
this
a
little
better
exactly
what
kind
of
how
much
procedure
and
formality
we
need
around.
B
Does
that
make
sense
so
triage
subteam?
I
think
what
I
would
like
to
have
right
now.
What
happens
the
triage
process
is
that
we
run
a.
I
run
a
script,
it
scrapes
out
the
nominated
questions
and
then
we
kind
of
in
theory.
I
do
some
pre-triage,
which
sometimes
I
have
time
to
do,
and
sometimes
I
don't
and
we
kind
of
go
through
them
live.
I
think
this
is
using
a
lot
of
time
for
tasks
like
a
lot
of
expensive
time.
Where
all
of
us
are
there
together,
they
could
be
done
asynchronously.
B
What
I
would
like
it
to
be
is
that
in
the
meeting
we
kind
of
have
a
really
tight
list
with
like
here's,
the
question.
Here's
the
background
information,
or
we
know
that
the
background
information
we
need
will
be
available.
We
don't
have
to
like
discover
it
live
and
ideally,
there's
sort
of
the
relevant
actors
have
weighed
in
who
have
opinions,
and
so
the
question
is
how
to
make
that
happen,
and
I
think
that
probably
what
I'm
imagining
is
that
nomination
goes
from
just
being
a
tag
to
being
like.
B
B
I
could
imagine
if
it's
like
hey,
who
would
be
a
good
person
to
ask
about
const
generics,
like
who
kind
of
knows
about
that
and
stuff
like
that,
and
that's
the
idea
yeah,
and
I
think
this
is
basically
what
prioritization
is
doing
for
the
compiler
team,
which
is
why
I
wanted
to
study
a
little
bit
the
scripts
and
procedures
there
like.
I
think,
there's
some
nice
tricks
like
when
a
issue
is
nominated.
Something
gets
opened
on,
a
zoolop
topic
gets
opened
and
so
forth.
Oh.
B
Step
one
of
this,
in
my
view,
like
I
just
described
the
end
state
I
want
to
get
to,
but
I
don't
think
it'd
be
the
the
first
step.
The
first
step
is
probably
just
making
a
template
for
like
how
do
you
nominate
something
it
isn't
just
I
I
type
label
nominate
it's
like.
I
write
at
respect,
nominate
and
I
write
a
little
paragraph
or
something
and
we
have
a.
We
have
a
a
page
that
says,
like
here's,
some
information
to
think
about,
including,
like
even.
F
C
And
potentially
asynchronously
like
double
check
like
either
us
or
somebody
to
somebody,
I
guess
the
trailer
sub
team
would
be
that's
part
of
their
work
right.
Reviewing
those
and
saying
giving
feedback
saying
no,
this
does
this
needs
some
more
yep.
C
B
You
didn't
do
it
and
then,
as
they
get,
I
feel
like
it'll
just
happen
that
people
will
be
like.
Oh,
you
know,
it'd
be
useful.
Maybe
you
can
add
this
before
the
meeting
documentation,
sub
team.
I
don't
have
a
lot
of.
I
didn't
really
dive
too
deep
into
this,
but
we
already
have
this
team
and
they're
doing
awesome
stuff
and
I
talked
to
them
a
little
bit.
B
I
mean,
I
think,
we'll
want
to
do
more
here
at
some
point,
but
it's
not
the
main
focus
of
this
document
and
the
final
thing
is
projects
and
project
groups
all
right.
So
I
think
these
are
ad
hoc
and
not
necessarily
strictly
under
t
lang
but
kind
of
pursuing
specific
ideas
that
we've
authorized.
I.
B
Has
been
working
pretty
well,
this
is
basically
the
existing
structure.
So
this
is
our
existing
meeting
structure.
Nothing
changes
here.
These
are
our
zoolips.
The
only
thing
is,
I
added
some
extra
things
and
I
started
writing
up.
I
want
to
have
a
page
on
the
document.
Like
part
of
this,
I
want
to
be
the
sort
of
user
interface
where
what
are
all
the
things
you
might
want
to
do
that
the
lang
team
can
help
you
do,
and
ideally
this
would
be.
B
You
know
if
we
go
to
langteam.wrestling.org,
it
would
sort
of
be
his
page
here.
I
didn't
get
that
far
in
this,
but
I
would
like
to
know
the
right
questions
and
one
of
the
things
I
was
trying
to
do
was
to
figure
out
things
like.
Why
do
people
nominate
issues
right?
B
We
say
nominate,
but
there's
a
wide
range
of
things
you
might
nominate
for,
and
can
we
group
them
a
little
and
do
they
all
want
to
follow
the
same
process
or
some
of
them
maybe
want
to
be
different,
and
the
last
thing
I
was
hoping
is:
we
could
put
some
kind
of
sla
like
more
for
ourselves,
probably
than
anything,
but
how
fast,
but
also
to
communicate
expectations
right
if
you're
asking
to
stay
an
unstable
feature
like
is
that
something
we
handle
in
a
triage
meeting
and
you
should
expect
within
a
week
or
two
or
is
that
something
that
maybe
we
do
that
only
in
our
planning
meetings
once
a
month,
and
you
should
expect
to
wait
until
then
something
like
that?
B
B
I
think
that
we've
documented
a
little
bit
that
in
the
past
that
the
path
to
membership
was
project
groups,
and
I
think
that's
no
longer
the
case
in
this
proposal.
Like
the
path
to
membership
is
sort
of
get
involved
at
any
of
these
points,
the
only
one
that
isn't
really
available
to
you,
as
a
starting
point,
is
the
main
link
team.
I
think
we
expect
people
to
kind
of
get
involved
in
one
of
the
other
areas
first,
so
that
we
gain
experience
with
them.
B
You
know
whether
that
be
hacking
on
some
specific
ideas,
so
there's
like
room.
This
covers
a
lot
of
different
involvement.
Styles,
I
didn't
write
participating
in
rfcs.
I
don't
quite
know
I
guess
that
fits
into
project
group
in
my
view,
so
there
you
go
that
reaches
the
end
of
our
summary
section.
B
B
C
Source
of
attacking
things
is
interested
right
now:
okay
as
well
right,
that's
the
whole
top
five
thing.
C
B
B
B
So
anyone
have
more
questions
to
add
in.
E
I
have
a
general
feeling
and
I
don't
know
how
to
phrase
it
as
a
question.
One
of
the
primary
things
that
we
hit
in
triage
sometimes
is
that
things
have
just
kind
of
sat
for
months
and
don't
really
have
an
owner
and
aren't
really
nominated.
E
We've
talked
about
ways
to
handle
this
in
the
past,
but
I
don't
I
don't.
I
guess
I'm
saying
I
don't.
I
don't
know
that
I
feel
like
we
have
an
answer
to
that
question
yet
and
I
I
kind
of
feel
bad,
sometimes
going
on
people's
like
two-year-old
rfcs
and
being
like.
Can
you
clarify
this
thing
that
you
said
two
years
ago
for
us
that
we
just
looked
at
it
like
I?
I
don't
know
how
to
what
how
to
phrase
that
as
a
question
but.
C
I
just
think
there's
many
questions
I
think
hidden
there,
like
you
know,
there's
the
backlog
itself
and
then
there's
the
question
of
like
you
know.
Should
we
like,
should
we
be
trying
to
address
everything
within
a
certain
time
frame
because
things
become
not
useful
anymore
after
a
certain
period
of
time,
because
you
can't
expect
people
to
necessarily
still
be
engaged.
E
B
We
haven't
yet
partly
that's
that
was
the
goal
of
the
last
week's
like
backlog.
Bonanza
was
to
kind
of
keep
that
work
moving
along.
You
know,
there's
a
bunch
of
action
items
that
need
to
be
done
a
lot
of
them
by
me.
I
yeah,
I
don't
know,
what's
the
answer
to
that
I
mean
I,
I
think
you're
right
that
that
was
my
thought
was
that
we
would
try.
B
I
was
sort
of
the
motivation
partially
for
the
sla
and
partially
for
the
backlog.
Bonanza
was
to
try
to
first
close
out
more
backlog
in
second,
you
know
have
more
steps
and
queues
along
the
way
so
that
we
don't
get
too
much
backlog
to
begin
with,
but
also
like
think
of
our
procedures
and
try
to
stay
on
top
of
things
like
I've.
F
B
That
if
we,
when
we
first
introduced
the
project
proposals,
they
just
sat
there
for
a
long
time.
So
I
I've
been
making
a
real
point
that
we
should
drive
them
to
some
resolution
and
I
think
it's
been
helpful.
I've
been
happy.
There
haven't
been
too
many,
so
it's
hard
to
say
but
like
I'd,
rather
people
get
an
answer.
Even
if
that
answer
is
come,
ask
us
again
in
two
months,
then
no
answer.
E
Right,
I
kind
of
wonder
if
there's
a
way
that
we
could
divide
up
some
of
that
triage
effort,
because
I
do
think
it's
wasted
time
to
have
all
of
us
like
using
our
time
synchronously
to
go
and
look
at
like
every
single
issue.
That
hasn't
had
a
received
a
new
comment
in
two
weeks,
but
I
I
do
think
like
that's
something
that
if
I
felt
like
there
was
like
a
process
around
it
like.
If
we
each
got,
I
don't
know
five
rfcs
or
whatever,
and
our
job
was
to
go.
B
B
C
I
wonder
if
I'm
you
know
taylor's
suggestion
of
like
just
giving
up
the
rfcs.
You
know
five
interest
minds
made
me
realize
that
that
a
problem
with
that
is,
there
could
be
wildly
different
workloads
associated
with
you
know,
one
rfc
versus
another,
and
I
was
just
amusing
to
myself
about
whether
there's
somebody
to
predict
that
right.
In
terms
of
the
comment,
the
bulk
of
comments
or
the
size
drc
itself.
C
Some
way
of
like
trying
to
statically
predict
the
actual
workload
associated
with
these
things,
to
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
to
balance
the
associated
effort
of
making
sense
of
them
all
right
before
we.
B
Go
too
far,
I
don't
know,
maybe
I'm
looking
at
which
questions
got
the
most
interest.
I
think
there
was
at
least
one
that
a
lot
of
people's
names
on
it.
This
one
which
of
the
maintenance
tasks
were
making
the
most
work.
Are
they
providing
sufficient
value?
B
And
I
can
answer
that?
Should
we
talk
about
that
for
a
little
bit
sure
I'll
put
a
timer
for
10
minutes,
then
we'll
look
at
another
question.
Let
me
just
add
a
section
down
here
discussion,
so
I
haven't
actually
the
first
thing
is
I
don't.
I
don't
of
course
know
exactly.
I
haven't
run
a
timer,
but
what
I
can
say
is,
I
would
say,
after
the
planning
meeting,
I
have
like
a
one
hour
scheduled
to
write
a
blog
post,
so
this
is
monthly.
B
B
I
would
like
it
if
the
blog
post
told
more
of
a
story,
but
part
of
that
is
getting
better
updates
from
project
groups,
and
I
have
that
needs
a
little
bit
of
work.
There's
a
bit
of
so
there's
like
a
there's,
an
item
that
I
haven't
had
time
to
really
do
very
effectively
before
the
monthly
planning
meeting.
B
F
Well,
like
you
have
to
you,
know,
go
through
all
the
issues
on
it
review
some
scroll
back,
maybe
leave
some.
You
know
summaries
and-
and
that
seems
like
a
lot
more
than
15
minutes.
B
Things
like
that,
some
of
that
stuff
can
be
automated,
like.
I
think,
one
of
the
big
tricks
that
we
did
in
the
prioritization
work
group.
That's
pretty
important.
Is
writing
a
lot
of
scripting
right
rather
than
doing
things
manually,
although
often
doing
it
manually
first
and
then
writing
scripts
to
make
it
much
more
maintainable.
So
it
might
be
that
it
always
takes
15
minutes
or
it
eventually
takes
15
minutes
again.
But
that's
because
there's
a
little
bit
of
distributed,
work
being
done
along
the
way
like
when
the
thing
gets
nominated.
B
B
So
that's
the
things
that
are
happening
now.
Do
I
think,
they're
important.
I
do
so
the
videos
I
get
a
lot
of
people
telling
me
that
they
watch
them
and
I
think
they're
important
for
just
general
transparency
plus,
I
don't
know
every
once
in
a
while.
I
go
back
and
watch
when
I
want
to
remember
exactly
what
we
said.
B
C
I
think
that
they
may
provide
value,
but
I
also
think
they
there's
more
effort
just
like
structuring
the
video
itself
to
like
have
bookmarks
of
the
topics,
because
I,
when
I've
tried
to
like
recover
information
even
looking
at
the
agenda
for
that
meeting,
trying
to
find
the
part
in
the
meeting
where
it's
discussed
can
be
painful
like
scrubbing,
back
and
forth.
Yeah.
B
Definitely-
and
we
could
do
they
could
be
a
lot
better,
even
just
recording
in
the
eject
like
we
could
and
probably
should
just
record
the
time
at
which
we
like
in
the
yeah
and
then
we
can.
That
would
make
it
easier
for
you
to
scrub
right
a
lot.
We
could
do
there.
B
That's
another
of
my
thoughts
that,
like
it
may
not
be
that
that's
been
the
observation
with
the
prioritization
group
right
that
having
a
set
of
people
whose
job
is
to
think
about
how
to
expose
information
in
a
better
way
means
that
they
do
an
amazing
job
that
if
it's
one
person
trying
to
juggle
it
with
other
things
that
doesn't
get
done,
and
that
is
the
answer
to
somebody
asked
who
do
I
see
as
doing
this
task?
B
C
B
Yeah,
so
they
shouldn't
have
to
produce
content
right
so,
like
I
think
that
summarizing
a
design
meeting
is
probably
better.
Probably
every
meeting
should
have
an
owner
and
it's
their
job,
but
so
I
guess
it's
not
such
a
simple
answer.
C
B
No,
I
think
I
don't
think
that
the
triage
team
should
have
the
job
of
writing
comments
on
issues,
for
example
like
that
seems
like
the
that's
the
job
of
the
learning
team.
All
I
meant
is
like
my.
I
would
be
happy
to
like
share,
make
a
special
zoom
account,
or
you
know,
and
share
the
password
and
somebody
downloads,
the
image
and
uploads
it
to
youtube,
and
maybe.
F
E
I
have
possibly
totally
misunderstood
the
triage
team,
so
the
goal
of
the
triage
team
is
not
to
do
triage.
It's
to
set
up
triage.
A
E
Decision
so
it
would
be
like
someone
goes
through
prior
to
our
our
playing
team
triage
meetings.
There's
a
triage
team
process
via
which
people
take
all
the
nominated
issues
and
summarize,
like
summarize
them
in
a
format
that
gets
given
to
the
lang
team,
but
don't
actually
leave
a
comment
on
the
issues.
D
Right,
I
would
generally
expect
that
to
be
a
comment
on
the
issue
stating
if
there
isn't
already
a
clear
summary
or
pointing
to
an
existing
one.
If
there
is.
C
I
would
also
expect
that,
if,
like
the
community
discussion
or
potentially
even
like
other
land
team
members
asynchronous
discussing
that
matter,
if
it
comes
to
like
some
sort
of
recommended
course
of
action,
that
would
be
part
of
this
too
right
anything
that
can
make
our
synchronous
time
in
the
meeting
shorter.
Yes,.
B
B
I
do
think
it's
very
possible
that
by
asking
some
questions,
it
turns
out
that
everyone's
on
this,
like
sometimes
they
won't
even
reach
the
meeting
because
or
like
it'll
reach.
The
meeting
with
a
course
of
action
already
decided
because
a
little
a
little
discussion,
they
were
able
to
link
in
the
right
person
who
left
a
comment,
and
we
say:
okay
yeah
we
want
to
do
whatever
you
know.
So-And-So
said,
sounds
good.
A
It
may
not,
I
don't,
it
could
even
not
be
a
comment
depending
on
you
know
how
much
we
want
it
to
have
its
own
flow
somewhere.
Maybe
it's
a
comment.
Maybe
it's
not
a
comment.
B
What
I
literally
imagined
is
that
they
were
sort
of
bleeding
into
like
how
does
the
triage
team
make
the
choice
team
work?
That's
okay,
that
that
it
might
be
that
they
would
leave
a
formatted
comment
which
can
be
extracted
with
a
tool
so
that
the
agenda
is
automatically
generated
every
week.
But
you
know
the
information
is
present
in
the
issue
with
comments
that
say
like
triage
colon
or
I
don't
know
what
I
think,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
how
the
prioritization
team
does
this.
B
C
Some
issues
there,
it
also
generates
sometimes
a
little
bit
too
eagerly,
and
then
things
change
over
time
and
read
the
meeting
time.
Things
have
changed
over
what
the
summary
says.
B
D
It
looks
like
we
have
one
item
that
has
three
and
then
several
that
have
two
people
felix.
You
had
an
item
for
which
sub
team
is
doing
the
maintenance
tasks
right.
C
D
Okay,
can
I
suggest
we
prioritize
the
ones
that
aren't
just
nico
and
myself
since
we've
been
having
a
bunch
of
async
discussions
about
this
anyway,.
B
B
D
D
D
In
terms
of
how
do
we
draw
boundaries
or
similar,
or
how
much
do
we.
E
C
D
Interesting,
I'm
curious,
then,
who
okay,
I
think
it's
probably
less
important
to
observe
like
what
the
exact
division
is
in
terms
of
high
level
low
level.
It's
more.
What
areas
of
interest
and
responsibility
do
people
have
or
expert
interest
and
expertise
rather,
and
do
we
want
that
to
be
just
informal,
hey?
This
is
probably
the
person
to
ask
on
this
area
or
that
person
for
that
area,
or
do
we
want
any
formality
attached
to
hey
this
person
is
the
person
who
should
be
working
on
this
issue
or
that
issue.
B
B
I
think
I
still
think
that's
a
good
idea
of
like
areas
of
the
compiler
where
at
least
some
areas
would
have
groups
and
they
make
the
decisions
about
that
area.
But
what
I
wanted
to
say
is
we
could
also
do
this.
Take
this
question
in
a
less
general
way,
instead
of
saying
high
level
low
level
et
cetera,
just
there
are
some
areas
that
we
don't
really
have
a
lot
of
expertise
in
and
we
tend
to
delegate
I
mean
the
linker
is
the
main
one
I'm
thinking
of,
but
it
does.
E
E
B
E
You
know
people
to
make
decisions
about
specific
linkage,
rules
right
and
that's
a
different
question
than
our
like
overall
strategy
of
how
you
know
how
error
handling
works
in
rest
or
how
async
works
in
rest,
right
and
so
doing.
This
as
like
levels
of
involvement,
is,
is
sort
of
different.
A
different
question
than
the
literal
sense
of
like
are
are
like
linker
and,
like
you
know,
abi
issues
or
something.
E
I
think
it's
compiler
knowledge
is
part
of
it,
but
I
think
it's
also
like
some
things
are
very,
like
I
don't
know
some
things
or
details
that
come
out
more
clearly
during
implementation
and
are
the
kind
of
like
nitty-gritty
things
that
can
take
a
little
while
to
resolve,
but
aren't
necessarily
the
sort
of
high-level
question
of
like
do.
We
want
this
feature.
B
B
B
I
think
I
always
wanted
to
jot
down
what
taylor
just
said,
because
it
was
important.
I
thought
it
was
good.
Some
details
tend
to
come
out
during
implementation.
That
was
sort
of
what
you
were
saying.
E
E
B
Versus
strategy
yeah,
I
think
I
see
that
as
being,
I
do
think
this
is
an
important
distinction
and
it's
sort
of
the
area.
It's
sort
of
the
same
thing
I
was
getting
out
with
areas
in
the
compiler,
and
I
wanted
to
say,
projects
were
part
of
how
I
saw
the
answer
here,
but
I
actually
don't
know
if
I
agree
with
that,
because
projects
seem
like
they're
go
or
they
have
like
an
end
state
they're
like
implement
this
thing
do
that
task,
whereas
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
more
like.
B
Maybe
we
want
a
persistent
team
that
acquires
the
deep
knowledge
to
answer
the
detailed
questions.
The
answer,
the
tactical
questions
around
macros
and
name
resolution-
or
you
know
trait
resolution
like
should
we
add
feature
just
say,
adding
feature
x,
take
us
to
another
kind
of
logic
or
whatever.
That's
it's
an
important
question,
it's
a!
But
if
you're
asking
like
should
we
have
implied
bounds
because
is
december
is
december
implications
of
implied
bonds
more
important
than
the
convenience
they
bring.
E
B
B
F
B
Don't
we
we
have,
we
haven't
integrated
very
well,
but
it
feels
like
nll
and
traits
were
two
examples
where
we
did
spin
up
teams
and
there's
definitely
expertise
emerging
like
matthew,
jasper
came
out
of
the
nll
effort
and
he's
around
it's
sort
of
the
unofficial
like
him,
and
I
are
kind
of
the
unofficial,
checker
team.
At
this
point
from
what
I
can
tell.
D
That's
actually
a
thing
worth
noting
and
calling
attention
to
by
the
way,
there
are
a
set
of
things
for
which
there
are
relatively
small
numbers
of
experts,
but
even
then
it's
still
worth
documenting
who
those
experts
were
because
not
everybody
knows
that
as
an
example.
D
If
somebody
asked
me
who
should
we
talk
to
about
deep
borrow,
checker
knowledge,
I
would
know
to
say
nico
or
the
polonius
working
group,
but
I
wasn't
aware
of
what
matthew
jasper
was
working
on,
because
I'm
not
in
that
area.
So
I
don't
necessarily
know
everyone
who
is
documentation
is
really
useful
to
know
and
to
make
sure
that
there
isn't
an
automatic
bias
of
availability
towards
these
are
the
people.
D
F
Think
that's
true.
I
guess
what
I
would
say
is
that
at
least
my
personal
feeling
has
been
that
those
teams
exist,
but
I
don't
think
they
exist
as
teams,
but
more
so
as
like.
If
I
have
a
question,
yes,
I
would
go
to
nico
or
matthew
perhaps,
but
if
I
have
like,
I
haven't
felt
that
there
has
been
sort
of
like
I
don't.
I
don't
think,
there's
a
monthly
strategy
meeting
about
how
we
want
to
polish
the
borrow
checker.
B
F
I
don't
it's
not
about
the
monthly
meeting
so
much
as
like,
I
I
don't
I
like,
I
would
expect
if
we
had
a
team
that
is
sort
of
in
charge
of,
like
borrow
checker
tactics,
that
there
is
some
level
of
like
potentially
you
know.
Maybe
right
now
we're
not
changing
the
borrow
checker,
oh
and
so
maybe
there's
nothing,
but
it
feels
like
they
would
be.
The
origin,
for
example,
for
a
project
proposal
like
nll.
C
B
F
B
B
B
F
There
exists
work
that
needs
to
be
done
on
sort
of
maintenance
level,
and
it
feels
reasonable
to
say
that
if
we
call
a
group
of
people
a
team,
those
group
of
people
should
be
at
least
in
part
responsible
for
making
that
work
happen,
whether
that's
by
doing
it
themselves
or
potentially
recruiting
you
know,
growing
the
team
and
finding
ways
that
we
can
identify
people
in
the
community
who
are
interested
and
able
to
do
that.
Work.
B
I
think
I
was
with
you
right
up
until
this
should,
because
I
think
it's
an
implied
prioritization,
that
we
have
to
be
doing
all
the
things
and
I'm
not
sure
like,
I
think
those
it's
true.
There
are
issues,
and
it's
true
that,
if
anyone's
going
to
prioritize
them,
it's
going
to
be
these
people
and
maybe
they
should,
or
maybe
they
shouldn't
but
like
we
have
to
there's
a
but
there's.
I
think
the
problem
is
we.
One
of
the
reasons
we
sometimes
fail
at
making
teams
is
that
we
put
too
much
expectations
on
them.
B
F
B
F
I
completely
agree
that
there
is
value
in
having
a
a
partial
amount
of
like
all
of
that,
but
I
think
that
if
we
call
it
a
team,
there
is
an
expectation
that
I
can
go
to
that
team
and
I
can
help
and
right
now,
that's
not
just
not
the
case,
or
at
least
that
that's
that's
my
impression.
I
think,
and
that's.
A
F
D
B
Yeah
I
have
to
go
to
nevermind.
I
want
to
talk
about
next
steps.
This
was
useful.
I
think
the
obvious
next
step
is.
I
will
try
to
evolve
this
a
little
more
based
on
the
things
we
said.
If
folks
want
to
talk
about
these
questions
more,
please
reach
out
to
me
all
right.
I
will
reach
out
to
you.