►
Description
B
C
F
G
H
Otherwise,
I
think
it's
me
so,
okay,
I
was
it
note
interactive
as
well,
also
trying
to
complete
the
move
of
the
new
ppt
machines
into
the
CI,
adding
linux
1na
arcs,
but
a
nightly
bill
building
benchmarking
workgroup
meeting
this
investigating
some
a
eric
specific
issues,
a
little
bit
of
work
on,
maybe
I,
stable
port
and
then
just
trying
to
catch
up
on
issues
while
I
was
wasted
raised
well
over
the
way.
Next
is
bright.
J
K
Hugh
Stephen
so
you're
just
trying
to
find
them
the
document
here,
but
anyway,
so
yeah,
just
just
issues.
I
also
worked.
I
also
started
on
now.
As
I
see
you
58
is
nearing
released
mid
next
month,
I
updated
some
issues
around
I,
see
58
bump
and
put
out
a
branch
with
thee.
Almost
but
not
quite
final.
I
see
58
merged
in
the
bottom
line
is
there's,
there's,
basically
no
Delta
in
terms
of
binary
size.
L
I
think
that's
going
to
be
me.
So
I
was
also
a
note
in
this
miles,
for
the
record.
I
was
also
at
note,
interactive
EU
and
the
collaboration
summit
starting
work
on
a
new
tap
reporter
for
the
project.
I
was
reviewing
some
work
that
Ellie
was
doing
on
a
v8
guide
and
just
general
LTS
back
boarding
work
next
up
would
be
rich.
A
E
E
So
that
there's
like
I,
don't
know
if
there's
a
little
gear
in
the
bottom
right,
you
might
be
able
to
set
where
your
audio
comes
out
from
and
where
the
microphone
goes
in.
Just
as
a
note,
you
won't
be
able
to
join
the
call
if
you
don't
have
a
microphone
hooked
up
for
some
reason.
This
software
that
we're
using
doesn't
like
that.
A
Ok,
my
stand
up
while
we're,
while
we're
going
here,
pardon
me
I
on-boarded
to
new
collaborators,
both
of
whom
are
Google
employees
on
working
on
v8,
I,
believe
or
via
inspector
or
both
anyway
lxi
and
Eugene,
sorted
test
tools
and
doc.
Pr's
have
a
fixed
in
for
my
god.
I
put
the
link
in
the
doc,
but
there's
just
you
know
there
was
a
bug
that
came
up.
I
did
a
fix
and
then
we
thought
we'd
do
the
fix
differently,
and
then
we
came
back
to
the
fix
that
you
know.
Anyway.
A
He
get
the
idea.
Please
take
a
look
and
I'm
looking
at
the
recent
uptick
in
test
failures
on
CI
and
trying
to
figure
out
ways
to
sort
of
fix
it
from
a
systematic
point
of
view
to
avoid
it
from
recurring,
because
it
seems
to
happen
from
time
to
time,
and
so
you
have
looking
into
that
and
also
working
on
the
CTC
meeting
time
proposal.
Although
it
looks
like
chalk
or
maybe
working
harder
than
me
on
that,
so
that's
exciting
and
it's
more
work
than
you
think.
Trust
me
did
we
miss
anybody.
A
Okay,
right
josh
is
not
here
to
take
minutes
on
his
volunteering.
I
proposed
the
well
okay.
I
was
going
to
prose
that
we
all
take
minutes,
but
that's
kind
of
that
might
be
really
horrible.
Let's
all
just
yeah,
let's
make
sure
some
minutes
get
taken,
okay.
So
the
first
item
is
the
I
mean
I.
Guess
I
took
off
the
async
hooks
thing
because
we
talked
about
it
last
week
at
the
meeting
and
it
was
on
the
agenda
for
for
a
couple
weeks.
A
You
know
it
was
like
it'll
be
the
first
thing
next
week
and
they'll
be
the
first
thing
we
kept
to
that
and
then
was
finally
done,
but
I
guess.
You
know
Jeremiah
raised
the
point
that
we
should
be
making
sure
that
nobody
has
any
concerns
that
need
to
be
talked
about,
and
so
I
wanted
to
take
a
moment
now
to
see.
If
there's
anybody
who
wants
to
express
concerns
or
have
any
questions,
although
I
guess
if
trevor
is
not
here,
we
might
not
get
very
far,
but
let's
try.
A
A
A
But
the
next
item
is
the
updating,
VA
25,
for
the
question
before
the
CTC
is
whether
we
think
it's
okay
to
go
ahead
and
land
the
beta
in
master
and
I
know
that
Jeremiah
has
some
concerned.
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
does
so
perhaps
Ali
can
take
two
or
three
sentences
to
frame
the
issue
and
Jeremiah
can
express
his
concerns
and
and
other
people
can
discuss
from
there.
E
E
Reason
for
why
we
only
landed
stable
is
because
during
I
ojs
we
were
on
beta
streams,
and
then
we
were
told
by
v8
and
or
whoever
was
on
the
Google
team
that
we
shouldn't
be
doing
that,
because
stuff
can
change
by
the
end
and
stuff
has
and
did
change
before
they
became
stable,
like
removing
a
radar
includes
I
mean
that's
what
most
easily
comes
to
mind,
but
I'm
sure
that
was
out
there.
Instances
of
similar
things
I
mean
did
that.
Did
that
these
sort
of
things
like
change
on
the
v8
and
or
like?
J
E
H
G
H
E
J
Is
that
I
mean
you're
you?
This
is
what
you
think
we're
going
to
ship,
so
please
try
it
out
and
it's
an
RC,
so
it
thinks,
might
change
but
you're
trying
to
best
not
be
change,
and
the
intention
with
the
v8
beta
is
that
it
is
not
intended
that
that
a
breaking
change
would
happen
so
so
the
as
far
as
the
intent
is
concerned.
J
There
is
no
epi
changes
that
are
intended
in
v8
bearers,
whether
whether
or
not,
if
there's
a
bug
that
is
found
that
is
actually
found
to
be
breaking
the
web
and
maybe
change
needs
to
happen.
I
mean
it's
a
beta
at
the
end
of
the
day,
so
those
can
happen,
but
that's
not
intentional
I
think
that
lines
up
with
what
an
RC
is
supposed
to
be
at
all.
M
L
I
think
to
speak
to
James's
comment
about
people
being
upset
with
master
being
broken
a
lot
of
the
instances
the
talking
about
to
have
to
do
with,
like
things
landing
on
master
medics
that
are
like
experience
breaking
like
things
just
are
not
working,
and
then
we
take
quite
a
bit
of
time
to
fix
that.
We've
done
quite
a
bit
of
testing
right
now,
with
with
5.4
I.
Think
that,
like
having
the
beta
stream
on
there
is
reasonable
as
long
as
we're
willing
to
revert
quickly.
If
there's
an
experiencing
breaking
problem.
E
I
mean
I
I,
think,
like
a
good
number
of
people,
have
made
good
arguments
for
like
doing
this.
I
just
find
it
so
strange
that,
like
we're
changing
what
we're
doing
about
saying
that
we
previously
took
a
pretty
strong
stance
on
because
we
experienced
issues
with
it.
I
don't
know
if
that
makes
sense,
but
the.
G
But
the
reason
we
had
that
stands
before
or
that's
when
we
had
that
stance
before
was
really
before
we
had
the
they
improved
release
model
too
LTS
right.
So,
if
you
know
the
the
risk
of
introducing
those
breaks
and
those
earlier
versions
was
much
greater,
it
is
now
so
I
think
and
I
Jeremih
I,
a
hundred
or
sink
that,
where
you're
coming
from
I
just
think
that
the
risk
is
the
lower.
Now.
A
A
A
A
B
E
E
A
Okay,
unless
those
objections
I
think
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
the
next
item,
it
sounds
like
we
have
a
resolution
here
that
we're
going
to
do
it,
we're
going
to
keep
a
careful
eye
on
it.
We're
going
to
you
know,
be
prepared
to
revert
quickly
if
we
have
to
and
and
we'll
evaluate
once,
as
you
know
once
once
once
we've
done
this
for
one
release,
cycle
and
and
figure
out.
If
we
want
to
do
it
again
or
if
we
want
to
avoid
this
in
the
future,
what.
G
J
Heads
up
I
can
give
right
now,
so
one
thing
that
I
do
expect
that
might
happen
is
that,
given
that
node
is
going
to
pick
up
5.4
and
given
that
5.8
inspector
has
landed
upstream
in
yet
it
might
get
back
back,
40
25.4,
so
that
no
doesn't
no
longer
has
to
maintain.
So
we
can
directly
use
the
copy
and
in
v8.
So
in
summary,
this
should
be
a
simplification
of
our
build
process
and
the
code
view
maintaining.
A
A
Ok.
The
next
item
is
one
that
I
put
on
the
agenda.
It's
about
scheduling
meeting
times,
if
it's
okay
with
everybody
else,
I
think
I'd
I,
don't
really
want
to
have
a
conversation
about
this
necessarily
today.
I
think
I
think
we're
in
good
shape
right
now
having
the
back
and
forth
in
a
little
bit
an
email
and
a
lot
in
in
the
github
repo.
A
Go
to
it
and
comment,
and
the
other
thing
is
honest
suggested
earlier
that
we
make
sure
that
the
link
that
Chuck
dia
the
google
doc
formed
thing
that
chalker
put
together
that
nakita
put
together
and
sent
to
all
of
us
to
the
CGC
members
privately,
that
we
share
with
the
observers
and
others
so
on
a
posted
it
in
the
chat
earlier,
I'm
posting
it
again.
Please
don't
put
it
in
a
public
place
because
we
don't
want
randos
coming
in
and
entering
data.
E
I
think
I
have
it
relatively
well
documented
now,
like
majority
of
the
problems
we're
looking
at,
that,
we
can
see
so
far
about
interoperability
or
implementation
whatnot.
Some
of
those
are
in
my
poor
request
to
amend
EP
002,
but
they're
more
or
less
also
listed
on
the
CTC
issue.
Tracker
nodejs,
CTC,
/
issues,
15
and
there's
a
bunch
of
things
on
there,
and
so
so
far.
E
A
E
What
what
what
do
we
want
to
push
on
for
like
if
we
want
to
push
the
spec
to
changing,
to
get
better
compatibility
like
what
what
points
to
be
on
it?
Push
because
there's
a
lot
to
push
it
all
pushing
it
all
pretty
much
means
like
rewrite
the
entire
spec
and
I'm,
not
sure
that's
going
to
happen
right.
G
There's
another
aspect
of
this,
too
is
is
having
conversations
if
it's
easy
13
on
multiple
levels,
not
just
the
technical
side,
but
the
process
side
to
try
to
better
get
the
committee
to
care
more
about
the
issues
that
we're
having
with
with
node
with
implementing
this
and
to
try
to
convince
tit,
then
convince
them
that
if
there
are
changes
that
need
to
be
made
that
that's
something
that
we
that
we
need
to
discuss
in
it's
something
that
they
should
care
about.
Also
so.
E
Okay,
so
on
that
note
like,
even
if,
if
there's
things
that
that
could
change,
you
still
come
back
to
roughly
this
list
of
issues
right
which
comes
down
to
what
do
we
care
about
the
most
like?
What
do
we
want
to
tackle
the
most,
because
some
of
the
things
get
into
rewrite
like
a
huge
amount
of
how
at
least
how
things
can
work?
If
not
the
way
they
work.
E
I
mean
it
would
probably
be
I,
know,
I
think
it
might
be
about
like
more
discussion
like
on
call
about
this,
but
if
people
aren't
like
up
to
speed
enough
like
at
least
getting
people,
the
chime
in
on
on
this
would
be
like
really
important.
There
is,
as
I
stated
herein
a
tc39
meeting
next
week,
and
we
have
a
couple
people
going
to
that.
So
I
mean
having
some
context
around.
What
the
CTC
cares
about
would
be
very
useful
for
them
right.
G
I,
for
that
here
am
I
was
going
to
propose
that
we
set
another
special
call
next
week.
The
tc39
meeting
is
227
through
the
29th.
We
can
have
a
call
before
then
with
the
folks
at
the
ctc,
dedicated
specifically
to
your
list
of
issues
and
discussing
this
now
make
sure
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page
before
we
go.
It
would
be
very
helpful.
E
Well,
I
agree
about
that.
We
also
need
I,
think
a
general
consensus
from
the
CDC
on
okay,
even
if,
like
you,
don't
care
about
em
like
modules
very
much
in
specific,
like
if
you
care
about
things
like
how
modules
are
generally
loaded.
If
you
can
have
test
tooling
that,
like
wraps
things
or
if
you
have
other
things,
that
inspect
modules
directly
by
wrapping
anything
or
overload
modules
or
care
about
rebels,
then
like
these
are
still
points.
We
need
to
decide
if
we
care
about
or
not.
A
A
G
E
So
I've
had
discussions
with
people
that,
and
it's
not
most
of
its,
not
directly
breaking
like,
so
we
don't
break
modules,
but
if
people
decide
like,
if
modules
themselves
decide,
let's
use
these
modules,
they
could
be
breaking
down.
Stream
modules
is
pretty
much
what
it
comes
down
to,
except
for
the
fact.
The
core
can't
really
move
to
es
modules
for
like
core
files,
so
named
imports
might
not
work
from
core.
E
G
E
E
Probably,
like
I
think
what
three
things
a
like:
tc39,
showing
some
amount
of
care
for
our
problems,
to
like
communication,
like
of
those
in
like
some
amount
of
cooperation
and
three-
probably
some
amount
of
at
least
looking
at
delaying
shipping
dates,
so
that
we
don't
have
a
like
a
browser
vendor
war.
The
outs
are
problems
like
a
performance
race,
pretty
much
that
leaves
us
behind.
A
So
I
strongly
suspect
that
most
people
currently
on
this
call
are
do
not
feel
sufficiently
informed
to
express
strong
opinions
about
this
stuff
and
I.
Wonder
if
the
thing
to
do
is
to
just
encourage
everybody
to
read
the
issue
carefully.
Ask
a
bunch
of
questions
in
the
issue
tracker-
and
you
know
know
that
you
know
you
know
the
drop-dead
date
of
the
tc39
meeting
next
week
is
coming
and
we
need
to.
G
Yeah
for
the
tc39
meeting
I've
had
a
number
of
conversations
with
some
of
the
members
there
and
what
what
they
have
articulated
you
know
for
in
terms
of
the
meeting
next
week
is
one
not
to
expect
soothing
changes
to
be
made
just
because
we
show
up
and
ask
for
them.
The
main
thing
is:
we
need
to
be
able
to
articulate
why
the
current
spec
is
a
problem,
and
if
there
are
aspects
of
that
current
spec
that
are
either
incorrect
or.
G
Or
can
be
improved,
and
it's
in
it's
on
us
to
make
the
case
for
those
for
those
things
we
cannot
go
there
expecting
them
automatically
to
care
about
about
those
changes.
Now,
ideally,
they
would
a
david
kerr
already
right.
Most
of
these
people
are
our
node
users,
but
we
have
to
be
prepared
with
a
solid
argument,
for
this
is
why
the
module
spec
is
currently
broken.
E
G
It
right
the
broken
in
terms
of
we
can't
implement
it,
and
this
is
why,
in
order
to
do
that,
we
do
need
to
make
sure
that
we
are
all
on
the
same
page.
So,
just
like
saying,
like
Jeremiah,
has
been
saying,
we
really
do
need
everyone
to
go
through
these
issues
and
spend
some
time
and
if
there's
things
that
just
don't
make
sense
there,
we
need
to
pull
those
out
and
focus
just
on
the
things
that
make
the
most.
It
have
the
most
impact.
L
One
thing
that
we
could
work
towards
and
would
be
really
good
is
just
like
if
we
approach
it
with
that
narrative
and
make
it
clear,
I,
just
kind
of
feel
like
if
we
approach
it
with
the
ideology
that
the
tc39
won't
budge
in,
doesn't
care
that
we're
gonna
we're
going
to
not
really
have
a
lot
of
progress,
but
individuals
like
yahoo
de
and
brendan
eich
I
think
Rick
waldron.
There
there's
a
number
of
people
who
want
to
work
with
us
and
see
this.
G
Yeah-
and
I
will
say
that
brendan
eich
actually
reached
out
from
between
two
weeks
ago
and
did
express
that
he
he
and
a
number
of
others
on
the
committee
really
do
want
this
to
work.
I
think
that
there
is
much
more
positive
relationship
that
we
can
build.
We
just
got
to
make
sure
that
we're
approaching
it
the
right
way.
G
A
E
A
In
the
meantime,
I'll
take
a
moment
to
read
off
a
few
of
the
upcoming
meeting
dates.
The
next
CTC
meeting
will
be
in
one
week.
The
tsc
meets
tomorrow,
I
guess
I
wonder
if
we
should
start
putting
UTC
tyla,
not
those
max
anyway.
The
diagnostics
team
meets
on
September
28
and
the
benchmarking
team
met
already
so
that
date
is
herb,
meets
today,
rather
more
met.
Today,
I
have
no
idea.