►
Description
Details can be found at https://github.com/nodejs/community-committee/issues/48.
A
A
C
D
G
A
All
right,
so
that's
everyone
we
have
in
attendance
for
this
meeting
before
we
get
onto
the
agenda.
Let's
do
a
quick
recap
of
the
last
meeting
see
what's
on
the
agenda.
I'm
actually
pulling
this
up
right
now,
Oh,
apparently
I
haven't
had
the
agenda.
Okay,
actually
we're
going
to
skip
that
since
I
am
apparently
not
prepared
properly
for
this.
That
is
my
mistake.
A
F
A
And
I'm,
actually,
can
you
take
care
of
this
in
sits
on
the
board
repo?
It
awesome
to
have
permission,
oh
sure,
as
it
turns
out
all
right,
so
the
next
one
is
in
the
community
community
repo
issue.
This
is
a
pull
request.
Number
49
I
wanted
to
go
on
just
super
quick
mention
in
this
meeting.
I
filed
this.
It's
a
very
tiny
word
change
and
we
say
we
have
a
list
of
the
community
committee.
Collaborators
is
what
it
says
right
now
and
I
think
what
we
mean
is
community
committee
member.
A
E
F
I
found
off
anything
I
think
it
should
be
members
it.
We
are
a
committee,
that's
created
by
the
board,
whereas
something
like
the
CTC
has
is
a
subcommittee
or
something
of
that
nature
and
they
can
have
collaborators
for
their
the
code
base
they
work
on,
but
the
TSE
has
members
the
bylaws
designate.
The
word
meant
members
of
the
committee
so
what's
being
listed
out,
there
are
the
members
of
the
committee,
in
my
opinion,
yeah.
H
I
think
that
I,
like
the
idea
of
changing
it
to
members
I,
think
the
only
thing
then
that
we
need
to
watch
out
for
or
figure
out
is
that
right
there
is
an
actual
collaborator
definition,
not
in
not
necessarily
in
the
governance
per
se,
but
that
like
who
do
we
have?
Who
do
we
grant
access
to
to
oversee
the
repo
so
that.
A
G
H
H
I
think
that's
what
we
need
a
hash
out,
because
currently,
that
isn't
defined
so
as
we
get
more
teams
right
like,
for
instance,
the
evangelism
group
I
would
purport
that
we
would
do
something
like
you
know.
Whoever
is
like
representing
if
there
is
like
a
solid
representative,
that's
coming
from
the
evangelism
working
group
to
attend
the
calm,
calm
meetings
in
particular
then
like
we
would
want
them
to
have
that
work.
You
know
it
doesn't
need
to
be
everybody
who's.
A
member
of
the
calm
calm
to
have
that
you
certainly
don't
want
that.
F
B
Something
that
I
was
just
going
to
bring
up
I,
don't
know
the
words,
don't
super
matter
to
me.
The
thing
that
I
think
is
critical
is
that
we
are
consistent
and
that
we
make
the
definitions
very
specific,
so
there's
prior
art
here,
people
are
going
to
assume
that
our
structure
is
going
to
be
the
same
with
the
TSE.
A
Yep
I
think
totally
makes
sense
to
agree
on
there
any
other
comments
before
we
move
on
to
the
next.
No,
so
we
do
have
a
by
the
way,
just
a
fair
number
of
issues
to
go
through
so
I'm,
going
to
try
and
tie
box
a
lot
of
these
pretty
short
well,
alright.
So
moving
on
to
number
47,
this
documentation
surrounding
movement
to
from
the
TSE
and
the
community
committee,
and
so
this
was
opened
by
it's
a
lid
here.
H
H
Yeah
and
tyranny
and
I
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
and
I
think
I,
said
William
or
Brian
who
Brian
I
believe
you
had
brought
up
in
that
issue
that
there's
a
little
bit
of
prior
art,
but
I.
Don't
think
this
is
a
fairly
complicated
thing.
It's
just
it
sounds.
It
sounds
big
because
you
have
to
request
2d
tartar
right,
so
what
I
had
recommended
and
I
had
to
I
had
to
kind
of
thrown
this
at
William
to
ask
what
his
his
opinion
on
that
was.
G
A
F
I
guess
I'm
in
my
head,
I'm
kind
of
pondering
a
concept
where
a
group
wants
to
move,
but
its
parent
doesn't
want
to
allow
it
it's
just.
It
would
be
a
weird
scenario
I
I
would
I
would
think
knowing
our
community
that
they
would
say.
Oh
the
entire
group,
doing
all
the
work
wants
this.
We
should
probably
do
this,
but
that
possibilities
out
there
and
I
don't
know
what
we
would
ever
do
about
it.
But
I.
G
Think
also,
along
the
same
lines,
Traci
was
saying
the
TSC
were
like
you
know,
the
TSE
has
to
kind
of
do
that:
approval
of
letting
the
group
go,
but
the
CC
and
vice
versa.
If,
as
a
group
is
going
from
the
CC
to
the
TSC,
they
would
also
have
to
be
willing
to
take
on
that
group
as
part
of
the
committee,
and
so
that
that's
another
kind
of
aspect
that
has
to
be
considered
in
that.
H
No,
this
is
a,
but
this
isn't
interesting,
I,
don't
know.
We
can
certainly
think
around
this
and
try
and
write
language
to
help
assist
with
this.
But
yeah
I
mean
there's.
Definitely
a
scenario
at
some
point.
I
can
see
there
being
sort
of
some
friction
where
a
working
group
wants
to
move
over.
What,
if
both
words,
don't
really
think
that
it's
you
know
you
don't
want
a
working
group
who,
like
really
feels
like
they
don't
belong
where
they
belong
feeling
very
other
because
their
parent
org
don't
agree
with
it.
B
Another
suggestion:
can
you
hear
me
this
time,
yeah
yeah
yeah,
all
right
awesome,
my
audio
wasn't
working
so
so
one
of
the
issues
here
is
that
we're
kind
of
talking
about
the
idea
of
a
working
group
as
some
sort
of
like
like
thing
that
has
to
be
moved,
whereas
we
lose
a
lot
of
the
issue.
If,
if
we
say
we're
going
to
dissolve
this
group
under
the
TSC
and
reform
it
under
the
other
thing,
in
that
way,
the
TSE
doesn't
have
to
approve
a
group
leaving
and.
H
B
F
B
I
I
guess
what
this
comes
down
to
is
the
idea
that
we're
both
we're
really
talking
about
is
repo
control
and
not
actually
these
groups
in
any
way,
because,
what's
to
say
that,
there's
a
documentation
say
working
group
under
the
TSC
and
there's
a
bunch
of
people
who
think
that
it
should
be
under
the
seat,
the
calm
calm.
Do
we
tell
them?
No,
because
the
one
already
exists,
like
that's
weird,
I,.
H
B
H
I
agree:
I
think
that
it's
just
something
it
this
is
something
to
highlight,
as
people
are
trying
to
move
forward
with
this,
because
you're
right,
but
I,
think
it's
also
like
it's
definitely.
What
I
perceive
is
a
uncommon
case
that
we
would
have
to
worry
about,
but
knowing
that
repo
control
is,
this
can
be
a
sensitive
topic
or
it
was
in
the
past.
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
maybe
like
a
little
bit
of
that's
me,
conjecturing
sorry,
yeah
I
didn't.
B
Totally
yeah
totally
I
guess
I
just
want
to
be
like,
like
let's
talk
about
what
we're
really
talking
about
here,
because
as
people
were
saying
like
if
I'm
a
group
of
people
and
I
don't
want
to
be
under
this
thing,
I
want
to
be
somewhere
else.
I'm
just
gonna
go
right
and
we
have
to
talk
about
those
assets
of
the
things
that
can't
be
as
easily
moved.
Yeah.
A
H
Yeah
so
once
we
have
more
than
one
repo
with
Kham
Kham
like
for
the
other
issues
that
come
up
like
education,
for
instance,
which
is
the
index
item
down
or
evangelism
for
that
matter,
I
know
that
there
is
just
like
burbage
that
we
can
attach
to
the
readme
saying
like
it's.
You
know
under
the
organization
of
the
calm,
calm
but
I,
don't
know,
I
think
that
still
is
something
that
we
have
to
broach
with
the
TSC,
because
this
ownership
hasn't
that
that
actually
hasn't
taken
place.
H
B
And
this
this
obviously
opens
up
a
huge
can
of
worms
regarding
what
does
it
mean
to
known
a
repo
which
also
means
like
what
could
of
conduct
is
it
under
who
moderates
it,
etc.
We
should
definitely
open
an
issue
about
this,
but
probably
a
maybe
a
special
sink
comm
communication
like
another
call
about
this
issues,
probably
warranted
to
write
down
what
we
think
we
actually
want.
Okay,.
H
Yeah
and
I
even
see
like
this
again
brings
up
the
moderation
complication
that
TSE
currently
owns
moderation,
I'm
not
going
to,
but
we're
not
going
to
discuss
this
further
sorry.
But
but
that
is
to
say
that
if
we
don't
have
anybody
from
kaam
kaam,
who
is
one
of
the
few
people
who
has
owner
access,
then
that
can
be
a
problem
when
it
comes
to.
You
know
us
even
say:
like
opening
repo,
you
know
adding
new
repos
without
people
getting
upset
so.
A
So
I
think
this
is
a
good
segue
to
go
into
the
the
next
item,
which
is
number
of
46,
requested
ojs
slash
education
under
calm
calm,
so
this
is
kind
of
our
first
real
example
of
figuring
this
out
and
now
attention
about
education,
that
was
the
education
repos,
not
actually
a
chartered
working
group.
That's
my
understanding.
It
was
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
so.
F
A
H
H
A
I
think
in
practice,
all
we
need
to
do
in
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
I
think
we
need
to
do
is
I
would
just
submit
the
PR
that
just
removes
it
from
the
TSE
scope
at
the
same
time,
of
a
PR
that
adds
it
to
calm,
comes
and
so
I
think
we
need
any
kind
of
formal
policy
or
process.
We
have
to
follow
yeah.
H
F
H
A
So
technically
so
this
would
be
a
team
I
just
for
context
for
those
who
are
kind
of
new
to
the
foundation.
There's
a
couple
of
key
groups:
there's
the
Foundation
Board
that
delegates,
like
everything
in
the
technical
side
to
the
TSC
and
everything.
That's
like
non-technical
to
calm,
calm
and
each
of
those
are
technical
committees
which
has
all
kinds
of
formal
stuff.
To
find
that
you
can
go
look
up
if
you
really
want
it,
it's
kind
of
boring
and
then
under
that
we
can
have
either
working
groups
or
teams.
A
Those
are
the
two
groups
that
we
can
have
and
then
there's
a
CDC,
which
is
a
whole
weird
thing
we'll
just
like
going
out.
So
a
working
group
is
the
thing
that
is
chart
and
there's
like
a
whole
chartering
process.
That's
documented
in
the
GSEs
repo
working
groups
are
autonomous.
They
have
a
whole
bunch
of
rights
as
well
as
a
few
responsibilities
or
as
a
team
is
literally
just
it's
a
repo
that
was
fun
up
by
the
TSE.
Historically
I
mean
we
can
spend
some
up
too,
but
that's
actually.
A
There
is
no
governing
structure
to
it.
It's
technically
considered
a
part
of
the
TSE
from
an
organizational
perspective,
but
in
practice
most
of
the
project
is
actually
highly
self-organizing
and
most
things
we
want
to
do.
We
don't
have
to
go
through
process,
we
just
kind
of
go,
do
it,
and
so
these
teams
are
they
I
want
to
do
something
and
I'm
just
going
to
go.
Do
it
yeah.
F
And
the
kind
of
one
of
the
major
things
is
that
a
team
doesn't
have
autonomy,
but
in
practice
that
has
never
translated
to
anything
like
meaningful
because
nobody's
ever
really
declared
they
needed
autonomy.
I
mean,
except
for
like
inclusivity,
had
had
some
areas
that
they
were
interested
in.
There.
F
C
F
A
A
G
Is
this
stemmed
from
the
DOJ's
foundation?
Marketing
committee
call
basically
there's
zippy
Keeton
from
the
Linux
Foundation
from
the
no
Diaz
foundation.
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
sure
what
her
official
position
is
employer,
but
she
requested
that
you
know
pause
the
possibility
of
maybe
having
more
people
from
the
community
contorting
to
the
noches
collection
and
by
that
I
mean
editing
and
so
that
that
that
responsibility
is
fallen
on
the
evangelism
working
group.
G
So
far
and
I
brought
up
the
possibility
of
the
community
committee
contributing
to
that
so
I
I
kind
of
wanted
to
tease
out
if
we
could
do
more
collaboration
on
that
and
maybe
either
have
a
zippy
cross
post.
Her
weekly
updates
on
basically
what
this
has
been
submitted
and
then
time
for
review,
because
there's
a
limited
window
in
which
we
try
to
review
these
posts
that
people
submit
to
the
collection
and
there's
far
more
than
we
expected
initially.
G
H
There
needed
to
be
some
moderation
involved
with
the
pieces
going
up
so
that
they
wouldn't
be
like
you
know,
plaguing
our
attempts
to
be,
like
you
know,
really
derogatory
towards
node
sort
of
thing
like,
which
is
a
rare
thing,
but
we
still
wanted
to
be
able
to
make
sure
that
that
wouldn't
happen,
and
unfortunately
it's
a
there
have
unfortunate.
Unfortunately,
it's
been
a
huge
success.
There's
a
lot
of
people
submitting
writings,
but
there
aren't
a
lot
of
people
reviewing.
G
F
F
So
I
agree
with
what
you're
saying
like
if
evangelism
moves
over,
it's
probably
the
perfect
team
group
working
group
whichever
to
keep
it
under
and
and
so
they
have
focus
because,
like
when
the
community
community
starts
like
growing
out,
we
we
have
maybe
like
note
school
people
that
participate
there
just
from
outside,
like
they'd,
be
really
disconnected
from
some
of
these
initiatives.
So
that's
why
we
want
to
break
it
off
and
just
be
an
oversight
committee.
G
A
So
here's
what
I
would
recommend
it,
as
some
steps
to
take
to
you
know,
make
sure
that
this
can
happen.
I
think
the
first
thing
is:
if
the
evangelism
working
group
wants
to
do
this,
we
should
look
at
bringing
them
under
us,
moving
from
the
TSC
to
calm,
calm
and
then
once
we
have
that
the
evangelism
working
group
can
look
at,
does
it
make
sense
for
that
group?
Can
you
see
me
doing
this?
A
Should
we
spend
up,
spend
up
the
new
team
and
also,
if
there's
any
resources,
that
you
need
from
the
foundation
itself,
because
the
comic-con
is
also
a
conduit
to
the
board,
and
so
we
can
look
at
you
know
what
sort
of
research
do
we
need?
What's
the
best
way
to
gain
those
resources
and
so
on
it
was
I.
What
does
everyone
else
think.
F
A
Yeah
and
I'll
just
talk
process
I'm,
especially
when
it
comes
to
working
groups,
because
working
groups
are
chartered
there's
a
process.
You
know
they
need
to
be
D
chartered
by
the
TSE
and
we
chartered
by
us
and
once
again
we'll
talk
about
that
yeah,
the
exact
way
we
do
the
how
to
make
sure
they
end
up
done
end
up
without
a
you
know,
a
governing
body.
But
in
that
process
you
know
the
Charter
is
something
that
would
be
reviewed
by
calm,
calm
and
actually,
but
it
don't
like.
There
is
a
lot
of
process
around
that.
A
H
F
Yeah,
so
if
the
Tyrian,
if
you
want
to
put
your
feelers
out
to
evangelism
and
see
their
opinion
on
it,
I
yeah,
please
do
I
think
the
the
real
benefit
is
like.
As
far
as
what
does
it
really
matter?
What
your
who
your
parent
is?
It
really
comes
down
to
focus,
and
so
right
now
evangelism
is
next.
You
know
in
the
same
pool
with
people
that
are
like
concerned
with
build
resources.
G
Now,
with
that
I
do
have
one
question:
the
evangelism
working
group
could
be
the
contributors,
there's
I'm
looking
at
the
list
now
why
one
two
three
four,
maybe
five
people
who
are
active
or
would
be,
would
come
back
to
be
active
and
there's
probably
I,
think
twelve,
so
they're
they're,
you
know
consensus
seeking
process.
That
would
be
several
votes,
but
it
would
be
nowhere
near
the
majority.
H
H
Part
about
having
this
process
in
place
is,
if
you
haven't
been
able
to
coal
and
active
people.
That
can
be
a
huge
problem
which
we've
clearly
seen
recently
in
other
parts
of
New
York,
so
yeah
tyranny,
just
let
us
know,
like
I,
think
we
could
certainly
like
in
the
meantime
cross
post
to
the
calm,
calm,
I,
guess
an
issue
because,
as
we're
getting
more
people
paying
attention,
it's
they're
like
if
this
you
know
it's
just
to
say,
like
hey,
we're
looking
for
reviewers,
it's
totally
something
that
you
know
people
might
be
into
right.
H
G
G
A
Yeah
and
that's
something
you
can
even
duke
well
actually
my
super
set
up
right
now,
but
we
were
something
you
should
be
able
to
do,
or
you
know
if
our
team
was
so
pleased.
You
could
actually
just
add.
You
know
nodejs
slash
committee
and
that
ideally
would
notify
all
the
members
of
the
committee
a
but
like
we're
talking,
I'm,
not
sure
for
actually
set
up
for
that
properly.
Not
yet
it's
usually
held
yeah.
F
So
tyranny,
if
you,
if
you
pursue
it,
if
you
pursue
it
and
you
have
too
many
inactive
people,
people
that
are
just
not
answering
at
all-
and
you
can't
actually
make
enough
for
a
vote.
Then
that's
what
you
would
need
to
appeal
to
the
TSE
roc-a-fella
and
then
they
would
just
take
on
the
D
chartering,
which
you
know
then
would
you
know
eliminate
all
the
people
on
the
team,
so
okay,
but
I
certainly
wouldn't
suggest
trying
that
first
like
cost
and
go
very
exhaustive
with
trying
to
get
a
hold
of
everyone.
Okay,.
G
A
Yeah,
but
that's
just
an
issue
around
the
whole,
you
know
org,
but
yeah
that
the
TSE
does
have
the
authority
to
revoke
the
charter
of
the
working
group.
You
know
the
working
groups
have
bought
on.
We
can't
tell
them
how
to
run,
but
the
one
thing
we
can
do
is
revoke
their
charter
and
which
is
actually
what
you're
willing
to
do
so
that,
actually,
is
you
know
kind
of
fortuitous,
alright,
so
for
times
sake,
I'm
gonna
say:
let's
go
and
go
onto
the
next
one.
A
This
is
I,
think
a
pretty
pressing
one
actually
is
number
38
adding
talks
his
members
so
right
now
we
don't
have
a
process
for
adding
people.
It's
just
it's.
You
have
been
asking
a
person.
Some
people
have
filed
requests,
there's
no
formal
way
in
it
and
it's
not
at
all
obvious
how
you
join
so
yeah.
That's
something
we
need
to
define
basically
does
do
people
have
any
thoughts
on
how
we
should
do
this,
and
what
would
you
do
in
the
interim
I.
F
Can
reiterate
my
thoughts
again?
This
is
so
I
I
think
we
should
be
liberal
with
allowing
people
to
raise
their
hand
and
then
I
think
just
having
them
be.
Observers
in
having
them
participate
in
a
in
a
fashion
that
will
allows
them
to
like
act
as
if
they're
part
of
it
and
as
they
as
they
continue
to
do
that.
If
they
a
you
know,
go
long
enough
to
meet
the
participation
rules
we
have
set
out
if
they've
met
the
minimum
of
that
over
times,
and
we
make
them
a
member.
F
H
Yeah
we
do
have
attendance
yeah.
So
what
so?
Well
then,
at
that
point,
if
your
trial
Ike
the
idea
of
meeting
like
the
minimum
participation
rules,
and
for
that
that
would
be
I
mean
that's
attendance
right,
it's
showing
up,
but
then
we
would
need
to
set
a
time
frame
right
and
I
like
that,
because
it
doesn't
it's
not
much
of
a
proving
ground
right.
It's
a
sort
of
long,
the
lines
of
you're
liberal.
H
C
H
A
Do
we
do
have
it?
I
was
actually
just
looking
at
this.
Well,
we
have
an
earlier
draft
of
what
the
TSE
had
come
up
and
that
actually
interesting
a
lot
made
it
into
our
Charter
or
the
comm
comms
charter,
and
it's
not
in
the
TSE
Sharia.
That
said,
the
TSE
did
update
the
Charter
and
came
to
a
consensus
on
what
the
final
version
should
look
like.
A
H
G
A
So
what
this
pool
request
does
I
mean
it
just
gets
it
in
line
with
what
the
TSE
has.
It
actually
doesn't
add
or
remove
anything
new.
It
basically
tweaks
the
numbers.
So
what
it
does?
The
old
version
said
you
had
to
attend
a
certain
percentage
of
meetings
within
a
six
month
period.
We
actually
in
the
TS.
You
change
that
to
a
three-month
period
instead
right,
so
that's
basically,
what's
in
there
and
there's
like
a
couple
of
definitions
to
sort
of
support
that
clause,
it's
mostly
just
like
legalese
stuff,
oh
cool.
H
And
then
the
member
shall
be
automatically
removed.
Oh,
we
may
be
removed
by
volunteerism
okay,
cool
yeah,
so
we've
got
that
in
there.
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
so
we'll
figure
out
that
PR
finish,
but
we've
definitely
got
the
rules
in
there.
So
I
think
here.
The
question
is,
then:
how
long
would
we
want
someone
to
show
up
and
meet
the
participation
guidelines
before
they're
added
as
a
member.
B
A
H
A
It's
actually
not
even
just
meetings,
so
meetings
is
one
way,
but
it's
like
this
or
this
or
this
it's
actually
really
easy
to
meet
those
requirements.
That's
basically
just
make
sure
it's
really
just
for
people
who've
coasted
I,
in
my
opinion,
just
for
what's
worth
like
for
adding
people,
you
know
I'm
all
for
like
I.
Think
a
good
idea
create
some
guidelines
around
this,
but
I
don't
think
it
should
be
in
the
Charter,
because
when
it's
in
the
Charter
it's
binding-
and
you
know
we
can
always
see
the
situation
where
it's
like.
A
E
D
F
Well,
they
could
state
their
opinion
if
they
want,
but
it
couldn't
count
right.
Nobody
actually,
but
one
thing
I
might
want
to
maybe
be
specific
about,
is
if
we
have
private
sessions,
whether
they
attend
or
not,
and
a
private
session
would
be
where
we
talk
about
the
maybe
misconduct
of
a
member
if
it
were
to
ever
happen,
so
maybe
somebody
that
is
observing
has
become
disruptive
or
something
like
that
isn't
quite
a
good
fit.
We
want
to
learn
to
talk
about
that,
so
just
a
thought.
E
F
H
F
A
And
yeah
just
yeah
a
suitcase
bitter
sweet,
an
observer
and
a
member
is
floating
in
the
fact
that
members
always
have
a
right
to
be
in
discussions
I.
They
could
be
asked
to
recuse
themselves,
but
you
know
they
can't
necessarily
be
forced
to
wear
as
an
observer
is
basically
there
at
the
discretion
of
the
TSC.
So
sometimes
we
invited
in
the
private
session.
Sometimes
we
download
just
you
know
it
depends
on
context.
F
Yeah,
but
you
do
bring
up
a
good
point.
There
is
a
difference,
though,
because
like
the
TSE
has
observers,
especially
from
the
Linux
Foundation,
but
additionally,
sometimes
outside
people
are
brought
in
to
kind
of
consult
on
an
issue
like
I
think
Bradley
came
in
once
to
talk
about
modules.
Things
like
that
so
you're
right
there
is
a
distinction
between
that
term.
F
A
A
We
don't
have
to
create
a
process
to
do
it
first
and
in
fact,
creating
processes
to
do
all
this
stuff
is
I
think
a
lot
of
times
not
the
right
approach,
because
it
takes
a
lot
of
time
to
create
process
and
those
other
things
we
can
be
doing,
and
sometimes
we
end
up
like
getting
ourselves
into
a
bind,
something
we
didn't
think
about,
and
sometimes
it's
easier
just
to
do.
Stuff,
yeah.
H
Like
I
think
a
good
example
is
like
someone
who
like,
if
we're
having
a
meeting,
and
you
know
or
say,
like
what
we
were
just
talking
about
with
the
you
know,
potential
observer
being
a
person
that
we
need
to
discuss
in
a
private
session.
We
can
just
ask
them
to
recuse
themselves.
You
know,
like
that's,
that's
I,
don't
think.
That's
a
terrible
thing
to
request.
I
think
you
know
it's
just
being
you
know,
sort
of
honoring.
You
know
a
conflict
of
interest
there.
It's
pretty
that
you
don't
have
to
codify
I.
F
A
Yeah,
so
all
that
no
we're
definitely
not
going
to
get
through
our
entire
agenda
also
waiting.
Some
of
them
are
fairly
old,
though
so
after
this
I'm
seeing
a
list
what
we
have
left
real,
quick,
there's
moderation,
shortage,
number,
33,
electric
chair
person,
number
30
governance,
who
is
voting
rights,
number
21
I,
had
some
scope
stake,
your
claim,
number
13
and
central
communication
medium
for
chatting
and
nodejs
number
11
I
think
we
probably
have
time
to
discuss
one
more
of
these.
F
A
A
F
F
H
F
A
G
H
H
F
H
F
G
A
A
H
A
Meeting
is
sorry
one
last
thing
I
do
need
to
mention
is
the
next
meeting
is
going
to
be
two
weeks
from
today
at
1:30
p.m.
that's
scheduled,
we
define
if
this
doesn't
work
for
anyone.
Let's
definitely
open
an
issue.
Oh
I'm,
we're
always
up
for
discussing
it.
What's
the
best
time,
but
currently
what
our
schedule
says
is.
It
will
be
two
weeks
from
today
at
1:30
p.m.
Pacific,
which
is
what
2030,
UTC
I
believe
and.