►
Description
Agenda is at https://github.com/nodejs/community-committee/issues/70
A
Hey
everyone
welcome
to
the
c-jun
it
meeting
of
the
no
Deus
Foundation
via
a
committee.
My
name
is
Ryan
cute
because
I'm
chairing
this
meeting,
we
also
have
on
this
call
Michael
Dawson,
morons,
Richard
Latura.
Forgive
me
if
I'm
mispronouncing,
your
last
name,
I'm
going
Tenace
Aaron
and
Tracy
Hines,
and
so
alright,
let's
go
and
dive
into
it.
A
We
have
several
things
on
the
agenda:
create
an
official
secretary
position,
I'm,
actually
going
to
recommend
that
we
do
this
later
in
the
meeting,
though,
because
I
remember
quickly,
Jim
Turner
admission
she
might
be
coming
in
late,
if
not
we'll
have
a
discussion
later.
So,
let's
move
on
to
number
63.
B
So
the
lawyer
had
requested
looking
over
that,
but
otherwise
the
board
indicated
that,
as
as
I
believe
you
had
said
Brian
in
the
issue
itself,
that
it's
not
really.
There
scope
it's
ours
as
community
committee.
So
now
it
will
be
their
scope
when
we
go
to
request
allocation
dollars,
but
otherwise
it
sounded
like
next
steps
are
really
on
Rachel
and
the
community
committee,
the
community
committee,
to
approve
it,
but
also
for
you
know,
Rachel
and
the
organizers
are
note
together,
just
to
kind
of
do
their
their
coordination
with
us
to
make
that
happen.
B
That
hasn't
been
turned
into
legal.
Yet
so
it's
not
that
it's
a
blocker,
it's
not
to
say
we
can't
go
ahead.
We
can't
go
forward
with
like
ingesting
them.
It's
that,
like
legal,
just,
has
to
sign
off
on
the
process,
so
they
like
so
no
together
as
a
repo
in
the
node
foundation.
Just
can't
accept
new
students
until
that
process
has
been
signed
off
on.
A
Which
makes
sense
gonna
make
sure
we
do
these
things
yeah
correctly,
so
it
sounds
like
next
steps
than
wrong
I'm
wrong,
but
so
next
steps
is
going
to
be
for
everyone
to
discuss
this
and
we'll
come
to
a
consensus
on
this
and
of
course
we
can't
come
to
consensus,
then
that
will
go
to
a
vote
so
the
right
now.
Does
anyone
have
any
thoughts
on
bringing
it
in?
Does
anyone
have
any
concerns.
D
D
You
know
Traci
would
probably
be
able
to
say
that
better
than
I
can,
but
it
general
is
scoping.
You
know,
there's
a
team
or
a
private
channel
for
each
event,
where
the
members
of
that
event
can
go,
and
you
know
keep
discussing
their
work
after
the
event
and
also
kind
of
providing
a
place
for
the
participants
to
you
know
have
a
kind
of
community
there.
Yeah.
E
B
So
what
what
Tierney's
concerned
I
believe
is
that
that
comes
along
with
node
together,
isn't
work,
so
it
would
likely
be
under
the
right.
Then
it
would
be
under
the
jurisdiction
of
calm
calm,
but
that
would
mean
that,
like
calm,
calm
would
need
access
or
ability
to
moderate,
as
part
of
us
it
being
in
our
community.
And
currently
it
is
closed.
So
yeah
I
mean
if,
if
that's
part
of
it,
then
we
have
to
say
like
as
part
of
node
together
being
ingested.
B
They
have
to
at
least
provide
you
know,
admin
access
for
somebody
else
in
community
committee
in
order
for
there
to
be
moderation,
yeah.
So
previously,
all
of
those
rooms
were
closed.
Specifically,
there
were
there
I
believe
that
there
are
general
spaces
where
you
could
mingle
across
geographies,
but
there
was
a
channel
for
each
town
that
nodes
together
visited,
and
that
was
to
create
like
a
safe
space
for
people
that
you
had
bonded
with
to
be
able
to
ask
questions
about
what
you
had
worked
on,
and
that
was
in
it
yeah
and
it
was
closed
overall.
D
F
D
B
A
A
G
G
A
B
I
think
this
was
so
I,
don't
know
what
happened,
because
I
thought
that
the
issue
issue
I
think
this
is
that
because
we
had
opened
somebody
issues
all
at
once.
The
education
under
a
calm,
calm
issue,
I
couldn't
find
it
under
the
TSC.
So
I
opened
another
issue
today,
because
I
couldn't
find
it
open
or
closed
to
make
sure
that
the
TSE
is
ok,
so
that
has
to
be
on
hold
until
members
of
the
TSE
talk
about
it.
So
this
one's
just
for
next
time.
C
A
A
Ok,
what's
like,
we
don't
actually
have
any
anything
to
online
any
new
developments
there.
So
my
understanding,
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
arose
it.
You
know
we
kind
of
need
to
create
a
contributing
guide.
That's
why
the
big
thing
we're
lacking
right
now
that
sort
of
touches
on
this
topic,
and
we
also
need
to
get
a
number
of
teams
and
working
groups
Moodle
or
which
we're
in
the
process
on
that
we
have
two
teams
under
us
right
now:
selection,
the
other
is
for
discussing
events
and
like
event,
planning
and
things
like
that.
A
B
Are
those
open
as
separate
issues
is
I
feel
like
what
we're
talking
about
here?
Just
adding
focus
members
I
feel
like
we
keep
revisiting
it,
but
I
feel
like
the
tasks
to
accomplish
this,
or
actually
like
different
issues
like
I,
believe
that
we
have
creating
a
contributing
guide
is
a
separate
issue,
or
is
that
that
this
is
blocked
on
these
other
issues?.
D
B
A
Think
that's
what
we
need
is
achieving
again.
I
think
that
there
are
certain
things
and
the
contributing
guide
that
we
have
to
make
sure
they're.
Specifically,
how
do
you
people
actually
become
members
of
comic-con
and
kind
of
pushing
back
on
this
a
little
bit?
You
know
not
wanting
to
solve
it
right
now,
like
that
specific
question
of
how
people
get
added
to
comp,
I
think
there's
a
context
to
it.
A
You
know,
if
you
look
at
the
TSC,
which
is
your
arm
model
for
a
lot
of
things,
that's
actually
a
little
bit
messy
over
there
too.
So
they
forget
that,
let's
look
at
the
CTC,
it's
a
better
example.
So,
in
order
to
get
on
those
TTC
is
a
very
clear
path
to
how
you
join.
You
first
get
out
as
collaborator.
A
If
I
remember
correctly
and
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong
miles
and
Michael
via
you
get
nominated
by
Sonos
the
CTC
than
the
CTC
votes
on
it,
to
gives
you
added
now,
the
criteria
on
that
side
is
pretty
straightforward,
because
you
can
look
at
like
code
contributions.
Yet
you
know
there
are
always
artifacts.
We
don't
necessarily
have
that
so
I
get.
A
You
know
what
is
that
look
like
becoming
a
member,
and
so
my
thoughts
and
opinions
on
this
is
that
it's
going
to
be
getting
involved
in
the
community,
video
or
the
teams
and
working
groups
underneath
the
community
committee
first
showing
activity
there
and
then
I,
don't
know
the
sort
of
a
couple
of
steps
in
the
middle
that
we
need
to
figure
out.
It's
like
you.
Should
people
be
required.
F
B
Yeah
so
I
think
that's
just
somebody
PR
in
the
contributing
guide,
with
those
sorts
of
ideas
and
playing
with
them
and
and
getting
that
push
through,
because
we
can't
so
I
think
that
you
know
just
brings
up
there
like
how
many
issues
we
have
open
that
are
actually
like
things
that
need
to
be
done,
not
like
ideas
to
be
discussed.
They
aren't
decisions.
B
They
are
like
little
work
like
calls
for
work
so
like
once
somebody
PR
is
that
contributing
guide
I
think
we
do
have
like
a
first
pass
at
path
right
as
we've
discussed
in
Prior
meetings.
How
like
the
simple
path,
because
we're
trying
to
lower
the
barrier
compared
to
things
like
C,
it's
C,
T,
C
and
T
se.
Is
that
like
first,
like
you
start
showing
up,
you
know
you
start
showing
up
to
meetings
and
being
repos
and
you
can
you
can
ask
to
become
an
absorber
so
that
you
can
come
and
participate
on
the
calls?
B
And
then
you
start
attending
write
more
and
then
your
once
you're.
Officially
as
an
observer
like
on
the
calls,
your
attending
meetings
you're
being
marked
as
attending
meetings,
I,
don't
even
know.
If
it
needs
to
be
as
an
observer
but
like
you
could
be
attending
the
meetings
and
then
what
we
had
said
before,
which
was
like
meeting
the
minimum
attendance
right.
So
if
you
meet
the
minimum,
you
know
participation
percentage
of
what
the
members
are
already
required
to
do.
Then
you
are
added
as
a
member,
so
I
think
like
that's.
B
A
like
I
can
try
and
drop
this
up,
because
this
is
something
I
need
to
just
go
through
and
look
at
our
old
notes,
because
I
think
we
have
a
lot
of
to
dues
that
may
have
not
been
translated
as
issues
and
and
see.
If
that's
what's
blocking
people
from
being
able
to
get
this
stuff
finished,
because
I
think
that
we've
laid
this
out
in
Prior
notes,
yeah.
G
B
Like
we've
talked
about
this
multiple
times,
it's
that,
like
no
one's
I,
think
it's
that,
like
it's
contained
in
the
notes
of
these
meetings
and
then
not
being
transferred
back
to
the
individual
issues,
for
people
to
be
able
to
move
along
so
I
have
that
as
a
to
do
for
myself.
If
I
can
find
that
time
tomorrow,
I
will
do
that.
B
D
Thing
I
do
want
to
say
is
actually
a
lot
like,
as
we
were
talking
about
this
I
I
just
realized.
A
lot
of
this
was
kind
of
partially
addressed
in
the
evangelism
working
group
back
when
it
was
started.
You
know,
there's
you
know
not
really
a
mention
in
the
governance
or
contributing
documents
of
of
this
and
I
know.
D
I
made
a
pretty
strong
effort,
not
necessarily
in
those
documents,
I'm
looking
and
I'm,
not
quite
sure,
if
those
are
the
right
documents
around
that,
but
you
know
there's
no
mention
of
actual
code
contributions
in
either
of
those
documents.
So
you
know
that
might
be
a
good
place
to
kind
of
start
and
then
also
kind
of
maybe
get
feedback
on.
You
know
the
ups
and
downs
that
evangelism
had
and
you
know,
there's
there's
documentation
there.
We
could
probably
go
base
it
off
that
and
then
kind
of
build
out
from
that.
D
A
Okay,
so
action
I,
don't
specific,
for
this
is
like
go
to
previous
notes,
get
things
together
and
then
for
someone
to
submit
APR
with,
like
a
first
run,
add
a
contributing
guide.
Is
there
anyone
who
wants
to
volunteer
to
take
that
up
and
if
not
the
time
we
can
just
kind
of
take
it
back
to
github
and
find
someone
man
I
can't.
A
G
G
And
but
and
they're
saying,
and
it
doesn't
need
to
be
perfect
like
if
you
know
if
we
choose
something
for
now
and
then
it's
two
months
from
now
or
even
two
weeks,
you
know
I
think
we,
the
rest
of
the
places,
we've
all
been
always
been
very
flexible
and
saying,
let's
not
make
it
perfect
or
fix
problems
that
we
don't
have
now
get
something
and
then
of
all
of
us.
We
move
to.
A
All
right
next
up,
we
have
issue
number
33,
Moderation
shortage,
so
yeah.
There
are
several
I
think
aspects
to
this.
This
is
specific.
The
specific
issue
was
file
to
address
the
lack
of
a
mutters
and
the
nodejs
channel
on
freenode
in
ours.
So
it
was
like
addressing
a
very,
very
specific
issue.
Now
I
do
think
this
is
probably
a
broader
issue
as
well.
You
know.
Do
we
have
enough
are
reason
no
GSS,
dev,
NRC,
there's
a
course
in
ojs
slack
community
and
on
and
on.
E
E
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
Michael's
take
on
this,
but
in
a
number
of
different
environments
and
I
know
that
some
people
at
ESC
hold
the
sentiment.
People
are
not
thrilled
with
the
idea
of
people
showing
up
with
the
intent
to
like
film
moderator
shoes
who
are
not
already
like
an
active
participant
in
the
project
during
the
technical
governance
of
the
project,
and
this
introduces
a
little
bit
of
a
conflict
there,
especially
like
a
distrust
from
like
one
thing.
E
I've
heard
in
particular
is
that
people
distrust
those
who
show
up
explicitly
just
to
moderate,
which
I
mean
I
can
understand
where
it's
coming
from
I.
Also,
don't
necessarily
agree
with
it
and
think
that
you
know
there
are
people
who
are
skilled
and
learn
it
at
this.
Who
can
come
in
and
help.
But
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
be
aware
of
this
kind
of
pushback.
When
trying
to
do
an
initiative
like
this
yeah.
B
So
Michael
and
I
are
actually
talking
about
this
earlier
and
he's
he's
on
the
way
to
another
meeting,
which
is
why
he's
not
on
the
call
right
now.
So
this
is
sort
of
one
of
those
like
meta
conversations
right
that
the
TSC
is
having
and
that
we've
been
having,
because
it's
not
on
the
agenda
for
today,
but
Brian
had
you
know,
started
the
conversation
with
the
TSC
about
moderation.
B
You
can't
be
in
moderation
unless
you're
contributing
to
the
technical
side
or
anything
that
was
currently
scoped
under
the
TSC.
So,
in
order
for
anyone
from
the
community
committee
to
be
like
consider
it
as
part
of
this
moderation
process
right,
then
they
have
to
contribute
technically
and
I.
Don't
think
that
that's
or
they
would
need
to
be
contributing
to
something
like
evangelism,
which
is
currently
under
the
TSE.
So
I
think
we
have
this
weird
catch-22
where
it's
people
who
work
on
the
technical
part
of
the
project
see
this
as
like.
G
You
know
watching.
What's
going
on
in
locking
issues
or
whatever,
and
then
you
know,
if
you
had
that
model,
then,
and
maybe
it
matters
less
who
who
owns
the
higher-level
thing?
Because
it's
more
about
making,
you
know
we
all
agree.
The
model
is
that
the
people
doing
the
work
are
the
ones
who
are
there
and
but
then
the
team
who's
going
to
take
the
leadership
for
making
sure
that
we
think
it's
working
well
over
all
fits
into
Hong
Kong,
vs.,
TSE
or
whatever
is
in
a
slightly
different
discussion.
G
E
One
of
the
things
for
me
that
I
think
is
important
to
focus
on
is
like
I
think
we
need
to
separate
the
things
that
are
working
from
the
things
that
are
not
working
and
be
extremely
explicit
about
what
we're
trying
to
fix
it.
So,
for
example,
and
please
correct
me
if
you
think
that
I'm
wrong
but
I,
genuinely
feel
that
the
technical
project
is
explicitly
core
is
doing
a
fairly
good
job
of
moderating.
It's
not
perfect.
E
There's
still
places
to
improve,
but
explicitly,
and
specifically
collaborators
ma
during
moderating
non
collaborators
is,
you
know,
is
something
that
I'm
actually
really
proud
of
how
much
work
we've
done
towards
creating
a
process
that
doesn't
need
these
kinds
of
hierarchies
now.
What
starts
to
where
this
process
falls?
Apart
is
with
collaborator,
collaborator,
moderation
and
then
further
when
there's
any
sort
of
moderation
request
that
involves
technical
leadership
and
how
we
manage
that
and
how
we
actually
like.
E
Now,
in
theory,
I
mean
we
could
put
everyone
from
the
ctc
as
a
mod
in
there,
and
that
could
be
part
of
it,
and
that
could
help,
and
it
is
a
space
where
the
CPC
is
consistently
active.
So
it
will
just
take
care
of
itself.
But
now,
when
we
just
look
at
like
nodejs
itself,
how
many
of
the
people
who
are
in
there
as
moderators
are
like
actively
participating
in
the
chat
is
another
thing,
but
so
I
guess
like
they
to
some
8.
E
So
it's
people
who
are
in
the
technical
project
but
I
think
it's
more
like.
We
should
be
building
up
people
who
are
already
in
and
active
in
the
spaces
and
if
we
just
call
for
people
who
aren't
active
in
this
phases
to
kind
of
airdrop
in
I,
think
it's
going
to
get
weird.
Also
Jen
I
thought
you
were
a
picture
for
like
two
minutes,
but
then
you
were
moving
freaking
yeah.
B
B
A
C
A
A
G
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
the.
If
you
have
the
model
that
the
people
come
from
the
groups,
then
it's
like
the
value
that
you
know
you
know
a
different
organization
can
provide
is
like
external
experience,
training
whatever
to
help
those
people
or
whatever
other
resources
they
need
to
to
make
it
as
easy
as
possible
on
them
right.
Yeah.
A
B
I
was
just
gonna
say
so
what
I
actually
wrote
down
it
like
I
feel
like
this
is
such
a
big
sigh
remember
even
when
I
was
taking
these
notes,
a
collab
summit
that
it's
like
it
says
it's
a
it's
a
project
in
itself
like
project
managing
all
of
these
moving
pieces,
so
I
feel
like
the
to
do
for
getting
a
grasp
on.
This
is
like
documenting
that
in
an
issue
and
tracking
all
of
these
other
issues
together,
there.
D
A
Wonder
if
it
might
be
prudent,
wait
until
we
get
to
a
resolution
on
you
know
whether
or
not
moderation
will
move
wholesale
over
to
calm
calm
or
we
end
up
doing
a
joint
thing.
I
wonder
if
figuring
that
out,
first
might
be
necessary
because,
like
depending
on
how
this
ends
up
like
landing
and
shaking
out
like
I,
could
see
it
being
in
the
steps
that
need
to
be
taken
being
different,
depending
on
where
plotter
station
sure.
B
But
I
think
that
we
actually
have
some
open
issues
as
part
of
even
that
combo
sation.
That's
why
I
was
saying
this
needs
to
be
tracked,
because
I
think
it
sounds
like
because
it
was
my
understanding
that
even
the
conversation
from
the
last
TSE
meeting
was
missing
context.
So,
like
I,
missed
part
of
the
meeting
that,
when
I
stepped
in
there
were
a
lot
of
questions
that,
like
should
have
already
been,
they
should
have
been
covered
somewhere.
B
So
like
the
fact
that,
like
folks
in
the
TSE
didn't
have
that
context,
it
makes
it
really
incredibly
difficult
for
them
to
have
a
picture
to
be
able
to
decide
on
so
like
I.
Just
think
that,
like
there
needs
to
I,
we
need
to
I
think
we've
got
too
many
moving
parts
and
I
think
that
that
that's
why
we
need
to
do
that.
First,
yeah.
G
I'm
trying
maybe
trying
to
feed
some
of
that
into
like
you
know,
James
wrote
up
a
you
know
fairly.
You
know
good
starting
point
if
it
could
be
all
that
was
fed
into
that
where
it's
like
here's
the
model,
maybe
that's
the
way
to
capture
it,
to
help
people
say:
okay,
well,
with
this
model,
I'm
comfortable
with
it
here
or
there,
or
share
great
yeah.
A
E
So
Tracy,
what?
What
may?
What
may
help
would
be
like
a
centralized
document
that
outlines,
like
the
actual,
like
idea
of
how
moderation
could
like
at
a
high
level,
be
managed
like
what
is
the
goal
that
we're
working
towards
with
all
of
these?
And
if
we
have
one
place
that
we
can
point
people
that
outlines
it
and
maybe
a
lot
clearer
and
easier
to
follow.
Okay,.
A
F
We
set
up
a
node,
calm,
calm,
IRC
Group
at
the
last
meeting
in
Berlin.
It
hasn't
been
used
at
all.
I
had
a
notification
to
review
in
one
of
these
calls
the
activity
of
it
and
keep
going.
This
seems
relevant
to
moderation,
since
it's
also
an
IRC
channel.
It's
not
the
most
pressing
matter.
I
just
wanted
to
race
that.
B
A
E
A
Well,
we
have
a
one
item
left
on
our
agenda.
Actually,
sorry,
we
have
to
still
so
the
next
one
is
in
the
DOJ's
collection,
repo.
This
is
refreshing:
DOJ's
collection,
review
process
and
gathering
technical
enters.
She
number
one
and
to
me
I
you
had
background
on
this.
Did
you
when
I
kind
of
talked
about
this
and
set
this
up
yeah.
D
I
only
had
a
little
bit
of
a
front
today,
I
like
actually
couldn't
go,
find
the
record
and
find
the
repo
easily
for
a
bit,
so
I
had
to
go
digging
for
that.
I
like
I
started
like
three
times,
but
with
that
I
know,
is
eaten
as
requested
that
you
know
I
kind
of
helped
service
this
and
she
wouldn't
be
around
from
the
foundation
to
to
help
discuss
it
today.
So
basically
it
she
they'd
like
to
get
seeing
it.
D
You
know
what
our
next
steps
are,
so
we
can
start
executing
on
that
I'm
happy
to
help
lead
that
I
I
know
I
didn't
know
is
I
was
gonna,
raise
actually
making
it
a
team
today,
but
it
looks
like
it
might
already
be
based
on
a
couple
comments
from
you,
Brian
and
then
so
you
know
that
that
looks
good,
otherwise,
just
kind
of
solidifying
that
and
making
it
final.
That
would
be
kind
of
just
figuring
out
next
steps.
Basically.
A
A
Cool
and
yeah,
if
anyone
else
wants
to
be
added
to
the
team,
let
me
know
I
think
I
gave
you
admin
rights,
so
I
think
you
can
add
people
as
well
on
your
own
I.
Can't.
If
not
let
me
know
I'll
try
to
good
clear
that,
but
nothing
else
I
can
have
people
to
the
team
as
well
and
yeah.
So
at
this
point,
what
I
would
say
from
comm
comms
perspective
is
this.
You
know
this
is
the
team
that
we
oversee.
A
D
A
So
there's
couple
things
on
this:
we
do
need
to
update
a
Comic,
Cons
Rico
to
save
a
document.
All
the
teams
under
us.
This
will
go
I,
think
in
the
contributing
guide,
let's
check
the
TSC
and
because
it
might
also
be
much
harder
in
the
TSV
now
I
think
about
it.
But
that
will
document
say.
Like
you
know,
these
are
the
teams
and
working
groups
that
you
know
are
calm,
calm
with
links
and
yeah
there's
a
lot
of
ways.
We
do
this.
A
Actually
we
might
kind
of
play
with
them
to
see
where
we
like,
like
I,
could
see,
adding
it
to
the
readme.
I
could
see,
adding
it
to
contributing
guide
or
both
I'll
be
able
to
have
that
list.
As
far
as
what
the
team
needs
to
do
so
teams
and
working
groups
are
different
in
the
node.js
foundation.
Working
groups
have
a
lot
of
autonomy
and
that's
like
actual
official
autonomy
of
the
TSC
says
you
know,
or.
A
E
A
That's
kind
of
a
broader
organizational
question
and
it
was
actually
a
really
good
one.
Should
teams
that
don't
have
the
ability
that
to
set
their
own
code
of
conduct
they'll
be
required
to
link
back
to
the
original
or
not.
It
is
just
a
broader
documentation.
The
structure,
good
egg
you're
right,
while
some
teams
do
point
back
to
the
code
of
conduct
and
the
parties
could
be
just
best
as
if
when
they
were
in
groups,
maybe
I
think.
G
G
A
And
as
you
open
to
clean
those
up
as
well,
we
have
a
list
of
all
the
outstanding
ones
we're
going
to
update,
but
as
far
as
teams
go
teams
do
but
currently,
according
to
way
things
are
structured
teams.
Do
not
need
to
have
that
link.
Of
course,
for
you
to
add
it,
but
yeah,
it's
not
important.
Okay,
yeah,
there's
no
chartering
process
or
anything
like
that.
I.
A
D
So
that's
something
I
could
take
on
in
going
and
trying
to
go
to
find
out
a
bit
more
additionally,
just
getting
basically
to
ask
on
it
is
having
people
come
and
do
technical
editing,
and
so,
if
there's
you
know,
if
we're
not
at
the
place
where
there
are
people
doing
a
technical
editing,
that's
the
place
we
need
to
get
to
and
so
having
people
enabling
people
to
come
and
having
those
people.
There
is
the
real
goal
of
that
so
kind
of
that.
That's
that's
the
place.
D
B
I
mean
I
think
the
simple,
like
the
quickest
thing
is
write
the
document
that
zippy
already
had
the
tyranny
you
had
contributed
to
around
the
process.
For
you
know
what
technical
error
code
editors
would
be
following,
so
that
they
know
exactly
what
they're
getting
into
the
simplest.
You
know,
documents
that
are
required
to
exist
under
calm,
calm
and
then
us
sharing
it
old.
You
know
the
world
so
that
we
can
get
those
technical
editors
to
you
as
quick
as
possible
right.
D
D
I'll,
go
do
that
and
make
sure
you
know
that's
a
solid
and
the
solid
structure
has
a
good.
You
know
set
up
all
that,
but
I'll
go
put
that
in
debrief
me
and
kind
of
make
sure
that's
outlined
there
before
going
out
and
kind
of
pushing
on
that
so
other
than
that
enabling
people
and
asking
people
that
you
know
if
you're
interested
comfort
is
to
me
I
think
that's
kind
of
the
key
thing
there.
A
All
right,
so
our
last
issue
is
a
number
64
create
a
fifth
secretary
position,
both
Jen
and
Tierney,
step
up
to
help
out
with
this,
which
definite
grateful
for
this
is
coming
out.
Casey's
been
doing
up
into
this
point,
which
are
also
grateful
for,
but
also
you
know,
I'd
like
to
really
spread
this
load
around.
So
we've
had
some
conversation.
The
reason
I
went
ahead.
Tags
agenda
is
to
figure
out,
like
you
know,
if
we
want
to
go
and
have
both
of
you
share
the
role
and
like
how
that
ends
up
getting
split
up.
A
G
G
It
tends
to
just
be
whoever
will
volunteer
and
if
somebody
volunteers,
everybody's
super
happy
that
they're
doing
it-
and
you
know
there's
that
there
are
certain
people
who
tend
to
volunteer
regularly
like
Josh.
Does
you
know
list
all
the
CTC
ones
when
he's
there
when
he's
not
there
or
somebody
else
will
step
in
you
know.
So
it's
it's
it's
one
of
those
things
where
yeah
it's
it's
I
think
it's
an
important
job
to
get
done
and
to
recognize
the
people
doing
it,
but
there
hasn't
been
a
none
of
the
other.
G
B
Because
I
think
so
something
that
I've
been
doing
for
the
minutes,
but
a
piss-poor
job
of
is
a
the
to
dues
afterwards
right,
like
not
just
publishing
the
minutes,
but
those
to
dues
have
to
be
activated
as
issues
or
added
as
comments
to
issues
that
were
already
in
place
and
so
like
that's
a
lot
of
work,
so
I
really
like
gregor's
recommendation,
which
was
a
team
and
that
way
a
single
person
doesn't
feel
I.
Don't
know
if
that's
like
from
from
Jen
and
Tierney's
perspective.
D
I'm
always
open
to
the
going
into
abling
other
people
to
go,
participate
and
do
contribute
more
I.
Also
think
if
it
is
a
team,
it
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
scoped
to
the
community
committee
proper.
It
could
also
be
part
of
the
teams
as
well.
So
you
know
if
the
Secretary's
team,
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
could
also
be.
You
know,
could
be
requests
enough
to
go
help
with
another
team.
If
you
know
they
need
minutes
or
something.
E
There
was
the
discussion
about
trying
to
use
the
TSE
as
a
means
of
coordinate,
coordinating
technical
committees
like
actually
having
to
do
some
of
these
write-ups
themselves
and
making
it
one
of
the
expectations
of
a
working
group
is
to
like
you
know.
Actually
let
people
know
what
your
working
group
is
working
on.
E
G
A
Yeah
I
think
we
should
start
small
on
this,
just
like
figure
out
how
to
do
it
for
just
the
community.
Not
even
our
teams
and
working
groups
works
and
I
mean
long
term.
That
I
would
like
to
see
this.
You
know
whatever
we
figure
out
that
works
I'll,
adopt
it
elsewhere,
so
we
can
formalize
it
beautifully.
Take
this
in
steps.
H
H
D
D
B
A
A
So
Jen
and
Tina
are
going
to
share
it
just
equally,
we'll
probably
we'll
just
do
like
a
rotating
schedule
at
least
start
keep.
It
simple
and
we'll
see
how
that
works.
We
can
adjust
this.
Maybe
but
they'll
both
be
equal
positions
or
whatever
you
know
we're
gonna
have
any
sort
of
like
structure
or
formality
around
it.
A
F
Like
to
suggest
that
we
have
a
check-in
in
a
month
or
two
on
a
secretary
position
to
see
whether
it
needs
to
be
more
formalized
or
how
it's
been
going,
otherwise,
just
having
an
open,
we're
gonna,
leave
it
open
and
see
what
happens
often
ends
up
with
lack
of
engagement
down
the
road
and
just
having
a
milestone,
saying
that
we
like
to
check
in
with
probably
really
good.
If
that
sounds,
ok
to
you,
cheering
the
engine.
H
F
Yeah
I'm
not
saying
that
I
see
this
I
think
that's
likely
I
just
from
times
I've
noticed
before,
where
we
say
cool.
Let's
just
have
that
happen
and
they'll
work.
It's
often
works
to
just
check
in
like
the
IRS
you
channel,
which
we
checked
it
on
earlier,
so
maybe
just
if
we
could
have
it
to
do
for
like
July
15th
or
something
just
ask.
Are
you
happy.