►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/171
As per https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/commit/97c034275561091236b28d97ea189a6ef93f1b96, this is a slightly transitional meeting, as the TSC and CTC are now just the TSC once more.
Expect topics to be more like that of a CTC meeting.
B
Just
for
those
watching
I
will
note
that
this
is
the
first
meeting
following
a
PR,
which
you
know
we
merged
the
the
core
technical
committee
and
the
TC
back
together.
So
you
know
this
is
officially
we're.
Gonna
we're
gonna
I
think
the
current
plan
is
to
use
the
slot
from
the
CTC
meetings
as
the
ongoing
meetings
for
the
you
know
the
basically
combined
group
of
the
TC
and
C's
the
CTC.
B
So
in
terms
of
the
agenda
I
guess
we
have
a
number
of
issues.
The
first
one
is
and
I'll
start.
Maybe
in
reverse
order
is
issue
165.
You
know,
we've
had
a
report
requesting
that
one
of
our
members
step
down
the
CTC
does
need
to
s.
Ctc
/
TSE,
sorry
needs
to.
You
know,
discuss
that
internally
figure
out
what
we
believe.
B
B
B
B
So
the
comment
that
we
do
have
from
Ben
is
that
you
know
he
couldn't
make
it
and
he
hasn't
had
time
to
work
on
that
source.
Is
it
so
just
taking
off
the
agenda
unless
there's
anything
new
to
discuss
just
got
last
time
and
not
on
tag?
So
maybe
the
right
answer
is
to
just
untag
that
for
now,
as
anybody
have
alternate
suggestions,
ideas.
B
It
and
we'll
take
it
back
to
github
and
if
it
gets
to
the
point,
I
think
you
know,
Ben
is
one
of
the
people
who
is
showing
some
concern,
and
you
know
his
comment
was
he
hasn't
had
enough
time
to
properly
continue
the
conversation.
So
maybe
once
that
happens,
it
can
come
back
to
this
agenda
if
necessary.
B
D
B
B
B
D
B
B
B
B
B
Right
so
going
back
to
the
agenda,
the
next
thing
on
the
agenda
is
no
GS
/vm,
so
this
is
drop,
drop,
nappy
modules
earlier
than
dropping
the
experimental
status.
The
proposal
here
is
to
remove
the
command
line.
Option
that's
required
to
enable
modules,
but
at
the
same
time,
if
you
do
load
a
nappy
module
and
an
API
module,
there
would
be
a
warning
emitted
to
basically
tell
you
you're
using
an
experimental
feature.
The
discussion
is
actually,
you
know
continued
on.
B
B
B
You
know
factored
into
this
into
this
as
a
PR
number
of
1508,
so
I
guess
the
fundamental
question
to
the
to
the
TSC
originally
was
because-
and
the
reason
it
was
brought
here
is
that
there
has
been
differing
opinions
on
whether
you
know
an
experimental
feature.
Absolutely
must
be
guarded
by
a
flag
or
have
you
know
omitting
a
message
is
enough
in
terms
of
the
experimental
feature
so
I
think
that's
the
question
is:
do
we
do
we
agree?
We
can
remove
the
flag,
while
it's
still
experimental
or
or
not,.
A
A
C
A
C
B
Just
to
clarify
a
little
bit,
I
think
there's
like
two
changes
left.
You
know
there's
and
these
changes.
You
know
because
it's
an
experimental,
they're
ones
that
we're
making
they
don't
they
don't
have
to
be
made,
but
they're
ones
were
making
to
make
the
API
better,
and
the
request
was
that
we
only
remove
the
flag
after
we've
completed
that
list.
B
F
Have
this
comment
not
just
for
this
I
for
other
features
that
are
also
experimental.
Also
behind
the
flag.
I
see
the
same
problem
such
as
http/2.
We
cannot
get
enough
exposure
and
feedback
from
the
community
if
we
put
it
behind
a
flag.
So
we
in
the
feedback
before
removing
it
out
of
experimental
right.
F
Yeah,
so
we
seem
to
have
previous
of
stating
something
in
the
experimental
one.
Is
we
say
it's
experimental
its
documented
as
experimental,
then.
The
other
option
we
have
is
that
we
can
print
a
warning
additionally
to
saying
it's
experimental,
and
this
is
a
third
knob
that
we
have.
We
say
in
addition
to
the
warning.
You
will
also
have
this
flag
that
Metheny
Gerdes
it
from
prevents
people
from
using
it.
I,
don't
think
it
helps.
F
A
It's
a
really
there's
like
lots
of
things
to
consider.
We
should
probably
have
like
a
more
and
more
maybe
more
solid
thing,
I'm,
not
really
against
unflagging
I.
Think
once
you
said,
breaking
changes
are
done,
sounds
like
you
know,
and
we'll
get
the
feedback
that
we
need
more
readily,
at
least
for
an
API.
B
Oh
right,
sorry
go
on.
Oh
sorry,
no
I
was
just
gonna,
say
I
think
we
almost
have
two
things
here,
one
which
is
we
might
want
to
pee
or
something
against.
You
know
we
had
something
that
talked
about
what
experimental
was
we
might
want
to
PR
against
that
effect.
There
might
even
be
something.
That's
that's
in
flight
on
that
and
then
separately.
You
know
decide
on
on
this
particular
issue.
One
one
thing
we
could
you
know
one
way
we
could
handle
it
is.
B
You
know
we
have
issue
14
nine
through
two
I,
don't
think
anybody
has
subjected
to
it
landing
other
than
myself.
Just
you
know,
I
put
a
blocking
thing
saying
we
need
to
work
through
the
list
first,
but
you
know
one
thing
we
could
say.
Is
you
know
okay,
it
doesn't
sound
like
anybody's
objecting,
but
if
you
want
to
that's
the
place
to
do
it.
A
B
A
E
A
B
B
An
issue
where
we
can
have
that
discussion
to
pull
it
to
its
conclusion
and
if
we
need
to
bring
it
back
in
terms
of
the
specific
case
of
any
pie,
is
it?
Is
it
reasonable
to
say
that
like
I,
don't
hear
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
I,
don't
hear
anybody
objecting
to
saying
you
know
in
the
case
of
any
pie,
once
that
list
has
burned
down,
we
remove
the
flag.
B
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
The
you
know
in
broad
strokes.
The
TSE
director
is
responsible
for
representing
the
TSE
at
the
board
members
and
basically
interacting
with
the
board.
In
terms
of
you
know,
you
know,
acting
is
the
interface
between
the
board
and
the
TSE
and
everything
that
goes
with
that
the
TSE
chair
is
responsible
for
scheduling.
You
know,
meetings
making
sure
that
agendas
are
available
ahead
of
time
that
we
have
notes
that
are
published,
and
you
know
I
think
those
are
the
the
things
that
are
sort
of
formally
listed
out
and
then
together
you
know
they.
A
B
I
mean
the
very
short
history
is
that
that
there
was
only
the
TSE
at
one
point.
You
know
for
reasons
that
made
sense
at
the
time
the
CTC
was
splitted
in
so
that
we
ended
up
with
a
separate
t,
SC
SC
TC.
Some
of
the
assumptions
on
which
that
split
was
based,
didn't
actually
come
to
fruition.
So
at
this
point
you
know
they've
been
merged
back
together
and
we're
kind
of
back
to
where
we
were
when
the
the
foundation
governments
was
first
stopped
worked.
A
B
That
that
was
the
first
issue
that
we
dealt
with.
You
know
what
we
believe,
as
a
group
is
at
least
a
group.
That's
here
today
we
don't
actually
have
I'd
have
to
count
to
see
if
we
actually
have
quorum,
but
you
know
what
we've
agreed
is
that
we
will
open
up
the
document
where
we
can.
You
know
collaborate
together
on
what
we
think
possible.
Next
steps
and
options
are-
and
you
know,
work
on
that
together
to
come
up
with.
You
know
what
how
we're
going
to
handle
that
particular
request.
B
A
F
D
A
B
Yeah
I'm,
certainly
an
agreement
with
that.
Both
you
know
both
I,
don't
think
we
would
have
a
clear
consensus
on
way
forward
and
I
think
you
know
this
is
an
issue
where
we
need
to
even
if
we
have
quorum.
You
know
our
consensus
seeking
model
is
that
first,
we
need
to
try
and
reach
consensus
before
we
would
call
a
vote
or
anything
like
that.
So,
even
though
we
we
have
form
and
could
vote
I,
don't
think
it's
appropriate
yeah.