►
Description
A
B
Still
not
terribly
much
like
I
think
most
of
my
activity
was
on
that
one
issue
that
we
are
going
to
talk
about
and
yeah
that's
about
it.
I,
don't
think
Bradley
is
here,
I.
C
B
Okay,
sure,
sorry
I,
don't.
E
E
F
Yeah
getting
together
the
Diagnostics
working
with
meeting
for
next
week
yet
wednesday
at
three.
Anyone
wants
to
come
participating
in
the
discussion
about
nvm
and
whether
we
want.
F
Management
and
run
time
management
and
then
just
general
reviewing
and
testing
of
a
lot
of
the
diagnostic
stuff.
Next
is
Michael
Dawson,
so.
H
Yeah
I've
mostly
been
away
at
conferences.
I've
had
some
time
to
you,
know,
try
and
keep
on
top
of
the
issues
and
just
a
very
small
amount
of
work
on
pushing
the
code
coverage
job
forward
and
a
little
bit
of
work
talking
with
Jay
deep
in
terms
of
getting
the
V
test.
Job
restored
to
tip
to
a
working
state
next
is
Julian.
J
K
L
No
I
mean
okay,
so
I'm,
just
catching
up
I'm
I'm
sort
of
in
sync
now
with
the
project.
After
some
time.
Often,
some
difficulty
staying
in
think
I
did
a
bit
of
experimentation.
Work
on
liber,
ssl
support,
there's
a
pull
request
with
that
in
there
that's
functional
and
a
few
tests
failing,
but
there's
a
possibility
that
we
could
support
Liberator
cell.
M
Last
week,
I
was
working
on
some
world
peers
and
they
were
making
the
logs
slip
and
if
you
make
fail
improvements
apart
from
that,
wait
ready
to
organize
a
meet-up
last
week,
but
there
was
a
big
festival
here,
so
we
had
to
cancel
it
at
platform
in
one
hour
from
that
period.
Review
when
that's
it
x
is
trevor.
A
I
so
I
fixed
some
flaky
tests,
including
a
mega
fix
for
freebsd
and
CI
and
CI
is
actually
being
green.
Sometimes
now
so
really
excited
about
this,
and
I
am
you
can't
see
it
on
the
auger
conference,
but
I
am
distributing
high-fives
all
the
way
around
and
what
else
been
working
on
just
some
outreach
type
things.
A
A
A
So
we'll
be
talking
about
that
again,
and
we
also
talked
about
the
whole
issue
around
when,
to
name
and
when
not
to
name
functions
and
that
went
back
to
github
and
I
said
that
I
would
document
where
I
thought
we
should
name
things
and
where
I
thought
it
was
a
bad
idea,
and
I
ended
up
retreating
from
that
and
just
merely
documenting
one
case
where
we
should
definitely
definitely
name
functions,
and
that
seems
to
have
allowed
people
to
at
least
move
forward
with
changes
that
will
improve
things.
A
A
Think
we
already
have
sufficient
lgtm
s
and
plus
ones
from
from
ctc
members
that
it's
it's
happening,
but
I
know
that
Josh
will
want
to
an
appropriately
so
document
the
names
of
everyone
and
how
they
voted
so
I
guess
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
do
that
before
we
do.
That
is
there
anybody
who
believes
that
we
need
to
have
some
conversations
or
session
around
this
at
this
time.
A
A
F
A
Gonna
trip:
oh
well,
you
well
here
I'll
just
copy
and
paste
this
ctc
folks
right
into
the
dock
and
then
and
then
everybody
can
fill
in
their
vote
and
and
you
or
I
can
fill
in
the
missing
folks
based
on
the
issue
tracker.
Does
that
work
yeah?
That
sounds
perfect!
Okay,
let
me
just
do
too
sorry.
Everybody
will
get
this
dial
been
better
next
time.
Maybe
I
don't
know
everybody's
already
typing
their
names
in
well.
Here,
I'm
gonna
do.
F
A
big
old
paste
yeah,
that's
by
next
time,
I'll
I'll
get
that
print
beforehand,
just
thought
of
it
now
yeah,
alright,.
A
F
A
Look
pretty
exactly
I,
don't
worry
about
cleaning
it
up,
because
that's
because
otherwise
what
would
Josh
do?
Okay,
so
so
we
have
in
favor
we
have
Anna,
we
have
Jeremiah,
we
have
Michael
Dawson,
we
have
Julian,
we
have
Brian
Ali
rod
me
Trevor,
and
if
we
go
over
to
the
issue
tracker,
we
can
add
Colin
and
Nikita
and
Ben
and
miles
if
anybody's
doing
that
that'd
be
great
awesome.
Heaven
I'll,
add
Colin
to
hear
I
think
fodor
voted,
but
I'm
not
sure
does
anybody
know.
A
A
M
A
L
Yeah,
so
at
this
stage,
unless
anyone's
got
anything
pressing
to
to
say
about
it,
what
I
wanted
to
do
is
because
I
have
been
in
the
last
three
meetings.
I
think
it
is,
has
there
been
discussion
about
it
and
can
I
get
a
general
feel
about
it?
Well,
is
there
are
people
here
leading
seeming
to
lean
towards
a
particular
way
on
this,
or
is
it
contagious?
A
L
Well
hasn't
been
updated
for
that
two
weeks,
so
I
assume
that
it's
going
a
bit
stale
we'll
be
talking
about
it
again.
My
general
reading
is
that
people
are
positive
about
doing
this.
I
know
there's
a
little
bit
of
negative
as
well,
we'll
take
it
back
to
the
tsc
and
I
think
what
the
next
step
is
to
come
up
with
one
or
two
proposals
for
how
this
actually
might
work,
and
then
we
can
consider
concrete
options
and
then
see
if
they're
practical
for
moving
forward.
L
Maybe
once
we
get
those
locked
out
or
outlined,
we
look
at
them
and
say
why
that's
not
really
practical,
it's
not
going
to
work,
or
maybe
we
look
at
and
say:
that's
that's
great,
the
logical!
Let's
just
do
it
so
I
think
that's
the
next
step
here.
So
unless
anyone
has
anything
to
add
here,
I
think
we
can
move
on.
E
I
know
my
opinions
probably
be
able
to
communicate
to
the
tsc,
but
I
still
think
it's
probably
not
a
great
idea
to
do
this,
particularly
soon
after
the
tsc
has
pretty
much
like
figured
out
why
it
exists.
We
have
the
Mossad
the
note
core,
like
sort
of
definition,
thing
kind
of
like
as
it
sensible
or
rather.
E
E
L
Be
yet
there's
a
few
options
here,
but
that
would
one
of
the
one
of
the
goals
would
be
not
to
class
that
this
forum
with
too
much
administrative
work,
because
that's
one
of
the
reasons
we
split
off
in
the
first
place.
We
don't
want
to
force
people
who
want
to
make
technical
decisions
to
have
to
make
administrative
decisions
as
well.
So
if.
L
N
L
A
bit
yeah:
these
are
things
on
the
other
side
of
that
that
some
of
us
want
a
balance
which
is
keeping
the
two
groups
properly
aligned
and
giving
people
here
an
opportunity
to
get
involved
more
easily.
So
there's
a
bunch
of
other
factors
that
we
that
some
of
us
really
want
to
consider.
But,
as
Jeremiah
said,
it's
not
straightforward.
L
It's
not
because
we
need
to
make
sure
we
can
actually
effectively
make
the
administrative
decisions
and
not
have
to
wait
for
people
to
weigh
in
or
put
those
decisions
at
risk
of
people
who
want
to
drop
in
at
the
last
minute
and
not
how
to
haven't
been
involved
in
the
discussion
up
to
that
point.
So
there's
a
couple
of
things
that
we
want
to
be
careful
of
just
to
make
sure
that
we
can
continue
effectively,
but
we
want
to
do.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
the
organization
is
functioning
really
well.
L
A
Okay
and
I
guess
we'll
remove
ctc
agenda
from
that
yeah.
It
exempt
okay,
so
basically
the
next
step.
Okay,
the
item
after
that
is
the
meeting
schedule,
because
we
had
agreed,
though,
to
try
the
rotating
schedule
for
a
month
and
then
revisit,
and
so
it's
been
a
month.
I
think
it's
I.
A
You
know
I'm
going
to
put
this
on
the
agenda,
so
I'm
going
to
frame
it,
which
means
I
also
get
to
state
my
opinion
ever
front,
which
is
that
I
think.
Overall,
it's
been
a
good
thing,
some
folks
who
were
having
trouble
attending,
notably
she
a
key
you
know,
is
able
to
attend
at
the
other
time
that
we've
been
meeting
so
I
would
like
to
continue
rotating
kinds,
but
I
would
like
to
have
anybody
for
whom?
A
A
L
I,
don't
want
to
object
but
outright,
but
I
do
wanna
say
it's
been
difficult
for
me
because
I
can't
make
the
every
second
one,
because
the
three
a.m.
and
then
I
missed
two
weeks
ago-
and
that
means
I've-
missed
three
meetings
in
a
row.
So
it
makes
it
difficult
for
me,
but
it
even
has
a
benefit
to
to
the
rest
of
asia
has
been
great.
So
that
feels
like
a
balancing
factor.
Also,
it
does
feel
like
we've
been
pushing
more
stuff
to
get
hub,
trot
and
riches
like
you're
reading
as
well.
A
What
I'd
really
like
to
do
to
help
you
out
it,
because
you,
you
are
the
one
for
whom
this
is
the
worst,
because
you
know
you,
but
anyway,
what
I
wanted
to
do
that?
What
what
I
would
like
to
be
able
to
do
is
if
we
can
find
three
meeting
times
so
that
it's
not
every
other
meeting,
it's
every
third
meeting,
which
is
hopefully
more
tolerable,
but
you
know
it's
it's
it's
hard,
it's
difficult,
yeah.
That
would,
though,
be
nice.
E
So
it
just
doesn't
know
if
you
live
in
an
area
that
uses
daylight
savings
time
changes
if
those
times
are
going
to
then
differ
when
it
switches
over.
Then
you
originally
put
on
the
sheet.
You
should
consider
updating
the
sheet,
and
that's
also
like
a
note
that
I
need
to
be
do,
but
for
anyone
else.
If
you
might
have
forgot
about
that,
there
might
be
good
idea.
F
A
Well,
that's
actually
a
great
question
is
my
intention
was
I
was
going
to
going
to
review
the
you
know
we
just
added
another
member,
so
I
was
gonna.
I
was
going
to
review
the
the
times
that
work
and
don't
work
for
everyone
again
and
see
if
I
and
see
if
the
schedule
can
be
improved
and
then
propose
a
new
schedule.
A
If,
in
fact,
we
can
find
a
better
one,
so
I
was
hoping
that
everybody
would
update
the
doc
say
by
the
end
of
this
week
and
I
could
send
something
out
to
ctc
this
weekend
and
we
could,
you
know,
hopefully
make
a
decision
Monday
or
Tuesday.
So
that's
probably
too
long-winded
to
put
in
the
minutes,
but
you
I
guess
you
could
say
next
steps
would
be
somebody
maybe
Jeremiah,
maybe
me,
but
somebody
should
mail,
though
the
private
link
to
the
CTC
and
encourage
people
to
update
the
doc
and
then
I'll
propose
a
schedule.
A
A
A
A
Okay,
so
the
next
item
is
mine
and
I.
Think
I
actually
want
to
kick
it
out
at
least
one
more
week.
It
was
to
just
review
how
the
CTC
review
process
is
working
because
you
know
their
work.
It
was
a
you
know,
it
was
approved,
but
there
were
some
concerns,
and
so
so
I
said
that
we
would
review
it
after
four
weeks
to
see
how
was
or
wasn't
working
we
haven't
had
enough.
A
We
it
was
well,
it
was
discussed
in
github,
we
I,
don't
think
we
discussed
it
at
a
meeting.
You
want
to
pull
up
the
issue.
Oh,
like.
A
E
A
Okay,
so
no
real
next
steps
on
that
other
than
will.
You
know
we'll
discuss
it
in
a
week
or
two,
and
we
have
a
one
more
item,
which
is
the
issue
that
Anna
wanted
to
add,
which
I'll
go,
get
the
link
right
now
and
before
we
start
with
that,
are
there
any
other
issues
that
someone
want
to
add
to
the
agenda?
I
was
supposed
to
ask
at
the
beginning
of
the
movie.
A
B
It's
issue:
it's
pull
request:
nine
279,
okay.
So
what
happened
in
that?
What's
that
in
v7,
when
you
call
object
prototype
that
so
spring
on
on
the
global
object,
it
previously
would
return,
object,
global
and
now
it
doesn't
anymore
because
of
changes
in
the
aid
and
my
PR,
for
that
was
changing
it
back
using
the
special
symbol
that
makes
that
possible.
Like
symbol,
d'etat
string,
tech
and
people
have
had
pretty
strong
opinions
on
that.
B
B
E
I,
don't
really
think
like
that
reverting!
This
is
a
good
thing,
but
I
think
like
I
guess.
Maybe
we
should,
because
we
didn't
really
intentionally
change
this.
At
the
same
time,
it's
like
a
little
bit
awkward
because
it's
sort
of
a
v8
dictated
thing
that
caused
the
change.
So
it's
not
like.
It
wasn't
really
like
a
hundred
percent
hours,
anyways
like
in
either
case
I
think
like
we
should
definitely
change
the
new
behavior
in
the
next
major
you.
E
G
E
H
K
Ali's
looks
like
he's
trying
to
say
something:
yes,
so
there
is
two
distinct
distress
discussions
here.
First,
one
is:
what
should
we
do
in
version
7
and
the
other
one
which
is
a
dependent
is
whether
or
not
the
object,
global
or
object.
Object
is
the
right
thing
for
version
ii
and
I
think,
there's
two
different
timelines
on
which
we
need
to
get
a
resolution
on
for
version
7.
K
If
we
didn't
intend
to
break
because
and
it's
not
something
we
signaled
it
beforehand,
I
think
we
should
get
a
fix
out
sooner
and
whether
or
not
it
what
the
longer
term
solution
for
version
it
is,
and
now
we
are
going
to
message
it
is-
is
fairly
independent.
Let
me
get
take
more
time
to
discuss
that.
Hey.
N
K
Actually,
I
haven't
looked
at
the
the
change
in
in
a
lot
of
detail,
but
my
understanding
is
the
reason.
The
behavior
changes,
because
off
spec
required
changes
that
we
need
to
do
things
differently
to
add
because
of
the
spec
yeah.
That's
my
understand,
but
I
can
I,
don't
know
off
the
top.
I
had
the
detail
reason
for
why
the
behavior
change.
A
While
that's
going
on
I
wonder
if
I
we
can
see
if
Brian
can
speak
to
this
because
up
judging
from
the
issue
tracker
back
and
forth,
it
looks
like
you
know:
there
were
a
lot
of
people
who
were
on
the
fence
of
handful
of
people
who
are
for
it.
Brian
is
the
strongest
voice
opposed
to
it
and
I
guess
I
want
to
know
you
know,
is
there
any
you
know
is
basically
are
you
know?
Is
there
any
way
we
can
get
to
consensus
here,
or
is
it
or
not
so
much
Oh.
N
N
We
need
a
drink
because
I
like
change
it
back,
but
are
we
gonna
depending
on
on
the
spec
change?
Are
we
like
painting
ourselves
into
a
corner
where
at
some
point
like
at
some
point,
is
gonna
have
to
break
regardless
and
if
it
is,
then,
what's
the
point
of
trying
to
fix
it
out,
because
there's
no
way
to
like
nice
and
softly
defecate
this
right?
It's
just
a
clean
break.
Yeah.
A
N
A
E
A
G
A
J
E
So
I
guess
when
not
when
I
look
looked
at
it,
my
read
of
it
was
that
the
default
was
changed
like
this
might
not
be
correct,
but
my
understanding
is
like
the
the
bite
by
default.
E
It
returned
that
before
from
v8,
because
there
was
discussion
about
how
browsers
do
it
so
browsers
like
the
global
is
window,
so
you
get
object
window
oftentimes
I
mean
that's
like
actually
like
allowed
by
the
spec,
even
though
it's
kind
of
strange,
so
I
guess
like
VA
did
that
before
but
like
was
moving
to,
is
now
just
moving
to
doing
this
by
default.
That's
my
thoughts,
my
understanding
of
it,
but
it
might
be
incorrect.
Yeah.
B
That
sounds
about
right,
I
come
yeah,
I,
don't
think
this
actually
is
like
from
what
I
fret
I,
don't
think.
There's
anything
in
the
spec
on
this
topic
at
all
like
it
just
doesn't
mention
that
up
the
global
I
object
should
be
some
kind
of
special
case
as
it
is
in
the
browser
and
ask
chromium
is
probably
going
to
keep
it
so.
C
H
L
And
my
reading
of
the
original
change
was
that
it
was.
It
was
not
an
intentional.
Let's
do
this
change,
it
was
more
like
there
are
these
other
things
are
going
to
change
this
behavior,
but
it
is
not
a
problem
for
Chrome
or
chromium
as
a
whole.
So
it's
not
a
big
deal,
so
it
doesn't.
Stanley
doesn't
seem
like
it
was
any
tension,
intentional.
Let's
change
this
type,
it's
just
happened
and
it
wasn't
a
problem,
but.
E
Have
been,
it
wouldn't
affect
chrome
because
chrome
all
ray
overloads
it
to
chef
window.
So.
A
Okay,
so
I
guess.
A
N
It's
not
against
spec
and
it's
not
going
to
punches
in
the
face
down
the
road
sure
why
not,
but
if
we
can
determine
that
it
will
make
life
harder
for
whatever
reason,
then,
let's
just
I
mean
I
can't
imagine.
The
number
of
modules
relies
on.
This
is
great
graydon.
Yet.
E
Like
I
don't,
I
don't
really
like
the
idea
of
a
reverb
because,
like
this
isn't
really
like
our
responsibility
like
we
made
a
breaking
chain
like
we
considered
that
v8
operate
as
a
breaking
change
and
pretty
much
like
whatever,
like
JavaScript
language
stuff.
That
comes
with
that,
and
this
is
kind
of
just
that.
Well.
L
No,
it's
not
that's
not
fair!
So,
let's,
let's
not
just
try
not
to
delegate
all
responsibility
v8
for
everything
that
they
do,
because
our
users
a
impacted
by
this
kind
of
thing,
and
we
do
have
really
our
ability
to
change
it.
Another
similar
one
is
that
int
L
thing
that
we're
talking
about
it's
getting
changed
from
v8
the
the
break.
You
Loretta
that's
going
to
impact
users
that
may
be
using
that
API
and
there
are
users
and
just
because
we
ates
changing
it
throughly
from
the
user
perspective.
It's
still
node
notes.
L
Changing
though
it's
breaking,
so
we
I
don't
think
we
should
just
draw
a
really
clear
line
and
say
it's
v8's
problem.
They
decided
to
change
its
nothing.
We
can
do
about
it.
I
do
think
we
need,
when
we're
discussing
these
things,
sure
that
can
connect
can
count
them
adding
to
the
discussion,
but
we
need
to
look
at
it
from
the
user.
Effective
and
save
will
front
as
far
as
user
concerned.
No,
it
is
breaking
here.
B
Assure
you
just
I
wanted
to
say
like
that
is
what
I've
been
thinking
and
you
put
it
better
into
words.
I.
Could
that
just
like
yeah
from
the
users
perspective?
It's
a
breaking
change
and
they
don't
really
care
about
comes
from,
and
we
have
the
power
to
do
something
about
it
and
yeah
like
this
isn't
a
hugely
important
thing,
but
I
would
like
it
like
set
some
kind
of
precedent
for
I'm.
Seeing
okay,
yeah
users
in
see.
B
Note
and
v8
is
necessarily
very
separate
things,
and
we
do
have
some
kind
of
responsibility
for
making
sure
that.
Then
we
keep
up
to
our
own
stability
expectations.
Just
yeah.
L
I
great
any
if
it
was
a
language
feature,
change
great
like
this,
we
can
just
say
talk
about
the
language
change,
but
this
is
not
so
and
also
like.
Let's
try
and
hold
to
this
principle
of
least
surprise
for
users.
If
we
didn't
communicate
the
change,
then,
let's
be
serious,
think
seriously
about
whether
we
should
change
revert,
something
back
or
not,
and
I'd
so
I
think
on
balance,
I'm,
leaning
towards
did
making
this
change.
We
can
consider
reverting
it
for
version
8
if
we
really
want
to.
J
E
Think
that
comes
down
to
intentionality,
though
like
if
we're
going
to
move
to
vm
neutral.
That
would
be
a
very
intentional
change
like
and
we
could
communicate
that
like
that.
Like
this
sort
of
thing,
you
know
all
the
other
is
some
of
these
little
details
like
mar
necessarily
going
to
work
the
same
in
in
different
BMS.
E
O
E
N
N
G
So
one
thing
that
I
think
is
worth
considering
in
this
is
that
if
you
do
object
a
prototype
to
string
call
on
window
in
both
chrome
and
firefox,
you
get
object
window.
So
you
know-
and
I
think
this
was
mentioned
earlier-
but
you
know
the
chromium
project
is
over.
Writing
this
also,
like
they're,
not
saying
we.
C
C
Window
is
the
proxy
I
can
ask
Dominic
about
what
how
to
get
a
hold
of
the
real
global
object,
because
I
know
there
are
ways
but
I
don't
know.
This
whole
stuff
is
outside
of
the
language
spec.
L
Let's
try
and
resolve
this
on
github
and
then
bring
it
back
the
next
week's
meeting.
If
it
needs
a
vote
so
we'll
see
if
we
can
get
to
consensus
on
github,
if
we
can't
get
giving
away
closer,
we'll
be
back
for
both
how's
that
sound
so
Anna,
it's
it's
on
you!
If
you
can
bring
some
language
next
week
for
a
vote
if
it
needs
to
get
there,
is
that
ok,
yeah.
G
E
H
E
A
A
All
right,
let's
do
it
the
same
way:
I'm
gonna
see
if
I
can
paste
in
the
oh
actually,
yet,
maybe
maybe
we
can
just
copy
and
paste
from
above
yeah
yeah
josh
is
on
it
cool
all
right.
So
please
put
plus
one
if
you're
in
favor
minus
one
if
you're
opposed
and
0.
If
you
wish
to
abstain
because
you
are
either
on
the
fence
or
don't
know
enough
or
whatever
abstentions
are
useful
because
it
helps
us
get
to
quorum.
So
please
mark
your
ballot
and.
A
A
A
A
A
E
A
M
E
A
A
E
A
L
A
You,
okay,
then
great
Josh.
If
you
could
capture
next
step,
that
I
think
we
should
have
that
conversation
I
think
somebody
should
open
that
poor
request.
So
I
think
the
next
steps
are
this:
should
land
on
ax
or
somebody
else,
should
land
it,
and
then
we
should
open
a
pull
request
to
discuss
to
or
an
issue
at
least
22,
preferably
a
pull
request
to
indicate
what
were
you
know
what
our
intention
is
for
version
8.
E
E
Do
you
think
you
could
either
like
a
ahold,
7.1
off
or
whatever,
to
get
this
in
that,
then
that
would
be
great.
E
A
B
I
have
like
tried
to
do
a
a
listing
as
chalk
I.
Usually
does
it
it's
in
the
issue
for
that
yard,
that
I,
like
the
issue
that
is
getting
pics
by
it,
I,
don't
know
how
to
generate
like
the
download
numbers
for
these
things,
but
it
was
like
I,
don't
know
like
three
hundred
recurrences
and,
like
behalf
of
them,
were
copied.
So
it's
not
that
huge.
A
E
So
someone
waves
and
then
someone
else
says
thanks
for
all
your
work,
everyone,
and
then
someone
asked
hello.
When
will
yes,
six
modules
come
to
node,
so
I
I
can
probably
answer
that.
So
at
the
very
least
there
they
can't
come
to
node
until
we
have
a
v8
version
that
fully
supports
them
and
our
current
v8
versions
do
not
so
they
will
not
land,
probably
into
v7
or
maybe
even
version,
eight
I.
E
Working
with
tc39
a
bit
too
to
make
sure
that
our
stuff
can
all
work
correctly,
given
that
out
of
a
browser
context,
so
that
may
take
longer
it's
not
really
knowing
yet
chances
are.
There
will
be
some
sort
of
prototype
in
one
way
or
other
before
then,
but
it
will
not
be
particularly
supported
in
any
way.
C
Yeah,
so
just
I
guess
the
view
from
the
tc39
side
of
things
is
yeah.
We
have
things
in
the
works
where
we're
discussing
modifying
the
ECMO
script
modules
specifications
to
make
them
able
to
integrate
in
a
different
way
than
they
would
have
to
currently,
so
that
we
can
have
something
closer
to
what
people
expect
them
to
be
usable
like
the
way
that
we
can
use.
The
existing
specification
looks
nothing
like
how
Babel
works,
which
is
something
that
we're
trying
to
avoid,
because
that
would
require
everybody
to
rewrite
their
es
modules
almost
entirely.
E
Anything
else
any
other
questions.
Someone
asks
when
will
a
sink
await
land,
so
async
await
is
behind
a
flag
in
node,
7
I
believe
we
have
v8
5.4
in
node,
7
and
async
await,
I
think,
is
available
in
v8
5.5.
E
A
L
K
Wasn't
a
suggestion:
it
was
a
personal
opinion
on
on
a
think
of
it,
given
that
promise
hooks
aren't
available
in
5.5
for
node.
This
means
that
the
case
decreasing
and
I
think
books
won't
work
well
with
you
think
of
it,
which
are
necessarily
die
to
native
promises,
so
so
I
purse.
Do
you
think
that
shipping
you
think
of
it
without
promise
hooks
I
mean?
Would
not
be
that
great,
but
it's
just
an
opinion.
K
L
L
K
E
A
A
A
Probably
should
have
mentioned
upcoming
meetings,
while
we
were
waiting
for
QA,
but
there's
the
next
CTC
meeting
will
be
in
one
week,
not
sure.
Yet,
on
the
time
watch
this
space,
a
probably
9am
as
Josh,
was
typing,
but
yeah
we'll
make
a
determination
by
monday
or
tuesday
for
sure
tsc
meeting
tomorrow
at
this
time
at
one
p.m.
pacific
time,
which
I
guess
is
8
p.m.
UTC
and
the
diagnostics
group
will
be
meeting
on
november
9th
at
3pm
a
pacific
time
which,
if
I'm
doing
the
math
right,
is
10
p.m.
UTC.
E
A
Very
quick,
simple
text
orient
messaging
protocol
stomp
github,
do
so
yeah
very,
very
unlikely
as
my
guest,
but
I
don't
know
enough
about
it
to
be
sure.
I
don't
know.
E
A
Userland
modules,
definitely
if,
if
that's
where
it
can
be
implemented,
okay,
well,
let's,
let's
sign
up
quickly
before
we
get
more
questions
about
protocols,
we
don't
know
anything
about.