diff --git a/posts/inside-rust/2019-11-18-infra-team-meeting.md b/posts/inside-rust/2019-11-18-infra-team-meeting.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6dc21ff16
--- /dev/null
+++ b/posts/inside-rust/2019-11-18-infra-team-meeting.md
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+layout: post
+title: "2019-11-12 Infrastructure Team Meeting"
+author: Pietro Albini
+team: the infrastructure team <https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/operations#infra>
+---
+
+Meeting run by pietroalbini. Minutes written by pietroalbini.
+Attending: alexcrichton, kennytm, Mark-Simulacrum, pietroalbini, sgrif, shepmaster
+[Start of the conversation](https://discordapp.com/channels/442252698964721669/443148319431065610/643872655312683018)
+
+## Rust 1.14.0 Cargo artifacts on the rust-lang-ci S3 bucket
+
+Following on last meeting’s topics, pietroalbini investigate whether it would
+be possible to redirect requests for Cargo 1.14.0 from the `rust-lang-ci` S3
+bucket to our CDN. The answer is no, as the S3 support for redirects requires a
+different endpoint than the one included in the manifest. The two main courses
+of action were to nothing (keeping the files in the `rust-lang-ci` S3 bucket),
+or to rewrite and resign the manifest of Rust 1.14.0 to point to the CDN.
+
+Mark-Simulacrum was in favor of doing nothing, but pietroalbini pointed out
+keeping releases in two different places will make mirroring and caching
+efforts more complex, as mirror authors will have to special-case a separate
+domain just for a release. We then decided to rewrite and resing the manifest.
+
+shepmaster proposed to add a test somewhere to ensure this doesn’t happen
+again, but nobody on the team had the time to do this. If someone is interested
+please ask in the infra channel.
+
+## Deduplicating CI configuration on GitHub Actions
+
+One issue about GitHub Actions is it doesn’t allow to include shared pieces of
+configuration into workflows, forcing us to duplicate (for example) the steps
+needed to complete a build. pietroalbini investigated a few ways to work around
+the limitation, and the options he presented during the meeting are either
+writing our own configuration format and having a tool generate the GitHub
+Actions configuration from it, or duplicating the configuration manually and
+having a tool to ensure the manually duplicated things don’t diverge.
+
+The rest of the team expressed concerns with generating the configuration, as
+using the generator adds even more complexity to our already complex CI. On the
+other hand pietroalbini didn’t like the tool to ensure the configuration
+doesn’t diverge, as that would make changes to the CI configuration harder for
+the people doing it. The agreement in the meeting is that pietroalbini will try
+to create other proof of concepts, hoping to find a better solution.
+
+## New server for perf
+
+alexcrichton didn’t hear back from Hetzner about the new perf server yet.