►
From YouTube: Public Node.js Board of Director's Meeting
Description
C
A
So
mark
we
are
at
quorum,
we
do
have
at
least
eight
I'm,
just
not
sure
if
Denise
or
Mark
skirt
miss
made
it
back
because
they
may
be
dialed
in
and
there's
no
take
care
of
them.
But
at
this
point
we
have
Ashley
from
individual
membership
William
from
individual
membership,
Todd
from
IBM
Brian
from
Groupon
Sarah
from
Google
Garrow
from
Microsoft
Scott
from
Joyent
and
miles
from
the
TSC
on
the
line.
Andy
Upthegrove
our
outside
counsel.
A
C
C
E
I
would
like
to
normally
we
don't
discuss
what
goes
on
in
private
session
until
meeting
minutes
have
been
put
together
and
the
board
creates
a
formal
statement.
In
this
case,
we
thought
it
was
significant
because
the
board's
taking
action
to
establish
a
new
Leadership
Committee,
thank
you
Sarah
or
for
naming
it,
and
what
the
goal
of
this
group
is
to
work
very
closely
with
calm,
calm,
the
TSC,
the
memberships,
a
user
base
to
better
support
the
needs
of
the
project
of
the
community.
E
We
will
it
through
this.
This
new
committee
have
direct
interaction,
have
the
ability
to
fund
programs
and
be
able
to
carry
them
well-thought-out
reasoned
out
proposals
to
the
board
for
changes
that
we
think
will
be
will
be
possible
as
a
result
of
having
the
direct
interaction.
So
the
committee
is
forming
we'll
start
meeting
in
January
to
get
the
process
rolling
and
to
that
end
we
expect
them
to
take
up
the
topic
of
governance
and
our
processes
and
how
we
go
about
representing
the
membership
and
the
user
base,
as
well
as
the
entire
community.
E
So
we've
also
made
a
decision
at
this
point
to
suspend
elections
of
the
open,
individual
directors,
heat
than
will
be
coming
up
and
over
a
six-month
period
and
we'll
come
out
with
a
formal
statement
on
on
how
this
is
gonna
work
and
how
we
expect
things
to
operate.
So
thank
you
board
for
taking
on
the
topic
and
coming
up
with
some
creative
ways
to
better
support
the
community.
A
D
C
C
E
C
G
G
There
are
vestiges
from
the
original
charter.
One
was
specifying
core
projects
in
the
Charter.
It
originally
stated
that
core
projects
would
be
able
to
elect
people
to
serve
on
the
TSC,
but
core
projects
are
not
defined
anywhere
in
the
Charter,
so
the
first
commit
is
to
remove
the
references
to
core
projects
and
then
the
other
is
removing
references
to
maintainer,
which
was
associated
with
the
rules
that
would
be
elected
by
core
projects.
F
G
Far
as
I
know,
it
will
not
affect
them
at
all.
I
think
this
will
language
was
originally
in
place
when
we
thought
we
would
be
bringing
another
project
that
would
then
have
representation
on
the
TST,
but
since
that's
not
something
that
we
move
forward
with
nor
have
any
intention
of
the
language
is
mostly
to
reflect
the
way
in
which
the
TSE
is
currently
working.
Actually,.
C
And
if
you
noted
that
I
retrieved
the
document
as
of
12:15
and
put
it
as
an
exhibit
in
the
future
models,
we
may
want
to
lock
those
issues
once
we
put
them
up
for
visitor
and
then
what
changes
after
we've
put
them
on
the
agenda.
I
just
didn't
know
a
great
way
to
do.
It,
I
retrieve
it
as
a
moment
in
time,
so
github
is
living
yeah.
G
G
C
D
G
Yes,
so
currently
we
have
the
copyright
date
is
out
of
date.
This
is
an
issue
that
was
originally
filed
by
Williams,
so
you
can.
While
we
would
like
to
get
approval
to
update
the
copyright
date
inside
of
our
source
code
and
maybe
see
whether
or
not
this
needs
to
go
through
a
legal
approval
before
we
do
it,
but
we
want
to
just
update
the
copyright
date
to
the
client
year.
C
G
C
E
E
G
F
Add
with
like
a
tiny
bit
of
extra
context,
it
was
I'm
some
TSE
meetings
discussing
this,
and
this
issue
is
very,
very
old,
so
yeah
lots
of
back
and
forth,
and
this
is
an
example
of
the
the
technical
side
really
showing
like
we
want
to
do
the
right
thing
and
we
need
to.
We
need,
like
a
roadmap
of
what
the
right
thing
is
and
so
I
remember.
There
was
a
conclusion
of
they
really
wanted.
F
E
That
we
had
had
in
the
legal
committee
was
essentially
that
you
can
put
them
in
to
initialize,
but
the
way
the
process
has
changed
in
well
length
of
time.
That's
established
now
for
the
for
the
copyright
is
so
long
that
none
of
our
code
will
be
worth
anything
by
the
time
the
copyright
expires.
So
it's
more
of
a
housekeeping
thing
than
it
is
anything
else
and
that
some
people
would
like
to
have
dates
on
there
to
establish
when
at
least
started
people.
E
The
reference
point,
others
don't
believe
that
you
even
need
to
do
it
any
longer,
and
that's
where
the
debate
came
about
and
and
and
hence
where
we
got
stuck,
the
the
group
should
at
least
feel
comfortable
that
no
matter
what
they're
doing,
because
of
the
way
copyright
changed
its
handling
and
time
frame
that
we're
not
really
in
trouble
with
with
that.
So
give
us
a
little
time.
Maybe
we
can
come
up
with
a
poem.
This
green
men
bring
it
back
to
the
board
for
a
vote,
and
so.
E
C
C
C
F
So
it's
actually
kind
of
a
boring
thing.
It
has
to
do
with
legal
like
writing
and
documents,
and
it
it's
rough.
It's
using
RFC
to
one-one-nine,
which
is
pretty
comment
and
legal
kind
of
documents
that
just
it
refers
to
that
RFC,
for
the
definitions
of
must
must
not
required,
shall
shall
not,
should
it's
not
recommended
me
and
optional,
so
yeah,
a
whole
RFC
was
I
was
created
just
to
solidify
what
those
and
the
flaky
words
mean,
and
we
accepted
me
half
of
them
in
our
community
committee
charter.