►
Description
B
A
C
D
F
G
H
Oh,
my
so
I'm
working
desperately
to
try
and
get
the
out
reaching
effort
onto
the
website
so
that
our
applicants
can
get
a
little
more
information
about
potentially
working
on
node
core
projects
come
December.
So
we'll
talk
about
that
I
think
a
little
bit
more
later,
but
I
think
that's
what's
most
relevant
here.
I
Which
brings
us
to
me
nothing
major
kind
of
taking
it
a
little
easier
all
in
the
coming
few
weeks
and
bringing
in
some
new
Microsoft
interpreters,
hopefully
and
working
on
scheduling
a
diagnostics
meeting
for
next
week.
I
know
sorry,
today,
Michael
no,
you
joined
and
we
didn't
have
it,
but
we're
gonna
schedule
for
next
week
and
hopefully
now
we
will
know
if
people
are
going
to
attend.
J
Ppc
migration
to
the
new
production
environment:
it's
been
a
bunch
of
time
fixing
issues
that
we
discovered
yesterday
during
the
release
that
the
machines
weren't
set
up
to
be
able
to
build
from
no
private
some
work
in
the
a
bi-stable
work
group
on
note,
reporting,
sqlite,
miss
peer
reviews
and
lands
just
trying
to
keep
up
with
issues
and
did
review.
The
post-mortem
no
report
pull
requests.
Next
is
Brian
white.
J
F
Sorry
I
have
been
looking
at
some
integration
bill
failures
in
the
v8
bills
for
LKG
our
bill
versus
mode.
We
seem
like
very
nefarious
timing
related
issues
that
seem
to
precipitate
out
of
some
parser
improvements
that
it
needs
for
the
next
immunity
and
I
was
also
looking
at.
Some
performance
runs
with
the
new
interpreter
that
the
weighting
is
working
on
and
also
working
with,
Matthew
Loring
on
on
prototyping.
A
fast
fi
next
would
be
Jen.
A
K
L
So
let
me
see
what
I
put
in
here
general
issue
in
PR
review.
I
was
helping
with
the
security
released
this
last
week.
Today
it's
been
some
time
back,
porting
inspector
backlog
there's
some
bugs
on
the
inspector
that
are
in
the
six.
So
after
that
lands
we
should
be
able
to,
and
the
next
release
have
that
stuff
working
as
expected
been
going
through
auditing
the
backlog
of
stuff.
That's
not
been
labeled
for
LT
s
and
getting
stuff
onto
the
floor.
L
M
I,
don't
think
that
here,
hey
sorry,
I
just
having
some
mic
issues,
I
had
a
drop
and
rejoin
quick
update
on
our
end,
the
async/await
just
landed
in
v8,
but
we
still
need
to
make
sure
it
stabilizes
out
and
is
correctly
working
with
the
debug
protocol.
But
that's
sort
of
exciting
news
from
the
last
week
also
I
believe
that
a
member
of
the
language
team
is
planning
to
send
out
a
dock
for
with
a
request
for
comments
on
promise
book
API.
So
that
should
help
with
some
of
the
micro
task
queue.
M
G
F
A
F
K
Is
Richard
I
entered
some
first-time
contributors
that
was
fun.
Hopefully,
the
rest
across
will,
and
today
I've
been
doing
a
bunch
of
docking
test
pr's
that
well
a
bunch
of
docking
test
changes
haven't
submitted
to
many
of
those
pr's
yet
working
with
people
smarter
than
me
to
try
to
fix
some
flaky
test.
So
that's
exciting
and
some
whom
are
on
this
call
right
now
and
ramping
up
a
tiny
bit
on
the
build
workgroup
stuff
just
a
tiny
bit.
K
A
A
Please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
CTC
meeting
scheduling
you
know
which
is
back
on
the
agenda
today
and
talking
about
yes
modules
and
what
points
we
care
about
the
most
that's
currently
ongoing
at
TC
39
this
week,
which
is
why
we're
without
James
and
Bradley,
and
hopefully
we'll
get
a
report
back
on
that
soon
so
into
the
meeting.
We
talking
about
scheduling,
meetings
and
rich
has
been
doing
a
lot
of
work
here.
So
where
are
we
at
with
this
rich
yeah?.
K
K
Some
people,
including
you
I,
believe
Rock,
were
on
board
with
that,
but
others
expressed
concern
that
you
know
we'd
be
adding
some
meeting
times
that
were
actually
good
for
nobody.
Makita
set
up
a
Google
Doc
so
that
we
could
collect
data
on
what
times
work
best
for
people
about
half
of
the
CTC
has
filled
in
the
the
Google
Doc.
K
That
would
be
a
mild
improvement
for
I,
believe
Nikita
and
a
big
improvement
for
Ben
and
no
change
for
anybody
else
who
has
filled
in
the
docs
so
far.
Just
an
observation.
The
other
thing
is
that
we
can't
really
know
what
rotating
times
are
going
to
work
without
input
from
three
people.
So
we
have,
we
have
sufficient
input
from
North.
America.
More
would
be
great,
but
you
know
be
great
to
have
a
hundred
percent.
But
whatever
have
you
know
enough
people
from
North
America
to
have
a
good
idea?
K
What
works
for
you
know
a
meeting
that
anyway
and
then
everybody
in
Europe
has
has
weighed
in,
but
we
don't
have
input
from
from
Asia
and
Oceania.
So
we
don't
know
Australia.
We
don't
have
I
I
have
a
little
bit
of
informal
input
from
rod
and
email
and
I
haven't
heard
from
Xie
key
or
sac
Capri
on
so
I
guess,
I'll
just
email
again
and
we
can
do.
K
But
once
we
have
that
information,
we
should
have
a
pretty
good
idea
of
what
might
or
might
not
work
and
Amna
just
posted
the
link
Nikita's
document
in
the
chat.
So
if
you
haven't
filled
it
out
yet
well
click
on
that
open
in
another
tab
and
maybe
do
it
after
this
meeting
or
something
you'll
need
to
come.
You'll
need
to
convert
the
UTC
times
to
your
local
time,
but
other
than
that
whoo-hoo.
Oh
and
observers
are
on
there,
as
she
just
pointed
out,
so
you
know,
go
ahead
and
and
either
fill
out
the
line.
G
K
A
Just
say
that
I
was
really
looking
forward
to
DST
changing
next
week
in
my
meeting
moving
from
6
o'clock
to
7
o'clock,
and
if
we're
getting
back
in
there,
then
we're
getting
back
to
6
o'clock.
But
that's.
Ok,
that's
fine!
So
I
think
that
that
just
requires
more
discussion
outside
of
this
meeting
and
yeah.
We
can
probably
resolve
it
there,
but
for
anyone
listening
and
observing,
please
stay
tuned
for
possible
changes
sometime
over
the
next
few
weeks.
A
We
bump
this
number
and
so
what
we've
been
doing
recently
since
version
4
is
doing
it
with
every
major
version
number.
It
has
been
done
previously
with
every
simpler
miner
since
way
back
so
we're
coming
up
to
version
7
now
we're
on
for
9
we
would
normally
or
for
it
we
would
normally
bump
up
I
think
actually
for
it
you
every
148.
Now
we
would
normally
bump
up
to
49,
but
electron
has
been
using
they've,
been
bumping
it
themselves
because
they
keep
on
pulling
in
new
versions
of
v8
and
breaking
ABI.
A
L
A
So
so,
if
you're
using
master,
then
just
sort
of
it's
sort
of
buyer-
beware
I
would
say,
but
since
we're
going
into
version,
7
I
personally
have
no
problem,
because
we
know
we
know
what
the
I
think.
We
I
think
we're
the
point.
Now
where
we
know
what
the
simpler
majors
are.
So
it
would
seem:
okay,
I
guess
to
do
it.
Yeah.
L
One
problem
that
we're
seeing
happen
right
now
that
I,
don't
know
is
happening
in
0:11
was
issues
with
node
pre
jet,
because
node
pre
Gipp
is
using
the
module
version
and
number
two
decide
whether
or
not
to
build
or
to
grab
the
pre-built,
and
so
we
were
noticing
in
cereal,
in
note
cereal
and
in
note
SAS
and
there's
one
of
our
other.
That's
escaping
me
at
the
moment,
but
essentially
preach.
It
is
going
and
grabbing
the
wrong
binary
and
then
things
are
exploding.
A
A
Well,
presumably,
on
master
we're
gonna
have
to
bump
it
again
anyway,
because
we
can
have
a
vision,
aid
coming
out
and
the
the
the
the
negative
there
would
be
if
people
start
shipping
pre-built
binaries
that
are
targeting
51,
oh
and
they're,
using
them
on
master,
it
doesn't
work
and
we
go
to
52.
And
then
people
start
shipping
previa
binary
to
52,
and
we
don't
have
a
stable
version.
We're
gonna
have
to
keep
on
bumping,
so
we're
just
gonna
have
to
come
up
with
a
policy
that,
if
you're
using
master,
then
you
don't
get
certain
guarantees.
A
B
Wouldn't
do
it
exactly
like
that
because,
like
we
should
probably
see
that
we
get
some
get
some
way
of
watching
the
electron
versions
that
they
use
because
they
usually
pull
in
every
we
eight
version,
various
yeah
yeah.
We
should
just
communicate
that
with
them
in
some
way,
so
that
yeah
allocating
the
numbers
well.
N
Good,
doesn't
that
mean
like
with
what
electrons
doing?
Does
that
mean
that
just
pulling
right,
random
nerve
of
a
45
is
going
to
be
a
newer
version
of
the
8
and
46
percent,
since
electron
is
filling
the
those
integers
with
newer
versions
of
e8?
Suddenly
we
find
ourselves
like
okay.
Well,
we
have
to
skip
ahead
of
all
there's,
oh,
but
we're
using
an
older
version
of
v8.
So
someone.
K
Proposed
that
and
I
forget
who
it
was,
but
the
close
that
you
know
if
the
if
the
a
bi
number
maps
directly
to
v8
versions,
then
be
a
5-4
should
be
a
bi
54
5
5
should
be
55
and
then
and
then
electron
and
node
don't
have
to
pay
attention
to
each
other.
They
can
just
you
know,
agree
on
that
that
practice
and
will
always
be
in
sync
that
doesn't
worry
about.
G
F
A
Think
I
think
all
we
need
to
just
do
is
just
have
better
coordination
with
electrons,
so
we
just
have
a
pool
of
numbers
and
we
both
both
projects,
take
from
that
list
and
we
just
dump
it
jump
ahead.
So
we
did
have
a
situation
with
electron
a
earlier
on
in
version
6,
where
they
jumped
ahead
in
v8,
but
they
didn't
update
node
module
version,
so
people
were
getting
breakage
there,
so
they
skipped
they
did
the
jump,
which
is
why
we're
in
the
situation
now.
A
F
There's
one
thing
we
can
do
that
actually
will
simplify
life
quite
a
bit
and
I
I
think
whenever
sew-on
master
recently
in
the
past
one
year
we've
we
are
very
regular
with
updating
v8.
So
whenever
a
new
stable
comes
out,
we
pick
it
up
on
master
I,
think
that
would
be
a
good
point
for
us
to
bump
as
well,
and
that
that
means
that
we
are
doing
bumps
on
every
significant
ABI
change.
F
A
N
What's
the
okay,
with
the
way
that
sounds
it's
like
electrons
pulling
in
these
updates
and,
like
it's
been
said,
the
ABI
isn't
just
dependent
on
b8.
It
sounds
to
me
like
you,
can't
you
can't
reliably
map
any
version
of
node
to
any
version
of
v8
whatsoever.
So
the
fact
that
they're
pulling
from
the
fact
that
we
were
in
pulling
from
the
same
number
pool
seems
totally
counterproductive
because
I
as
a
developer
would
look
at
that
and
go
okay.
N
B
O
A
There's
already
people
out
there
they're
maintaining
lists
of
what
node
module
version
maps
to
what
so
all
that
is
is
people
have
to
keep
track
of
these
node
module
versions
belong
to
fewer
node,
and
these
ones
belong
to
a
version
of
electron.
That
is
skipped
to
some
way
at
some
state
that
node
isn't
so
it's
just
that
sometimes
will
line
up,
and
sometimes
we
won't.
N
N
A
N
A
L
Yeah,
like
one
of
the
weird
things
that
ended
up
happening-
and
this
is
where,
like
the
numbers
are
important,
is
they
bump
to
5.1,
but
didn't
do
it
in
a
non
API
in
it?
They
did
it
in
an
ABI
braking
way.
So
we
actually
have
like
two
different
versions
of
a
node
with
five
one
out
there
and
they
need
to
be
moving
faster.
You
know
like
stay
tied
to
chromium,
I,
think,
like
whatever
we
can
do
to
keep
the
the
number
itself
simple
and
keep
the
relationship
strong.
A
L
The
only
thing
I
would
say
is
the
poor
request
has
a
whole
bunch
of
looked
good
to
me
is
on
it,
especially
from
the
CTC
I
would
say
that
Grodd
and
Trevor,
if
you
have
any
problems
with
it,
to
voice
the
concerns
in
there
about
bumping
it
to
51.
But
I
would
like
to
see
this
land
either
later
today
or
tomorrow.
Just
so,
we
can
get
some
oke
testing
running
again
and
unbreak
people
on
master.
Ok,
so
so.
F
A
F
A
A
A
This
is
why
we
need
to
discuss
it
because
our
LTS
doc
actually
says
the
first
of
October
and
that
I
don't
think
maps
to
the
expectation
that
any
of
us
have
anything
ahead,
but
we
have
communicated
it
out
there.
Apparently,
there
are
people
out
there
that
are
saying
first
of
October,
because
our
Doc's
say
that
we.
G
A
A
Meanwhile,
for
us
at
a
very
popular
popular
thread,
going
on
first
of
October,
so
that
there
will
be
people
out
there
that
have
the
expectation,
end
of
October
or
more
I,
think
more
in
line
with
what
we've
been
communicating
at
the
same
time
as
version
7
goes
out.
So
there's
there
is
ambiguity
out
there
already
and
if
we
start,
if
we
say
ok
now
it
is
1st
of
October,
then
there
could
be
some
people
that
are
caught
by
surprise
by
that.
But
having
said
that,
it's
been
over
2
years.
A
A
A
A
G
A
A
You
so
aside
from
that
which
we
can
probably
push
it
off
to
the
LTS
working
group
to
resolve
ASAP,
unless
anyone
here
strong
feelings
about
it.
The
other
thing
that
I'm
aware
of
with
zero
is
version.
Seven
is
that
James
is
pushing
to
get
a
another.
A
beta
release
out
of
this
very
soon,
probably
either
later
this
week
or
early
next
week,
he's
just
busy
with
the
tc39
stuff,
and
so
we
should
start
seeing.
Some
I
could
be
the
push
soon
and
then
we
can
start
encouraging
people
to
try
them
out.
A
G
A
G
It's
possible
at
Stillings,
get
updated
or
I'm,
not
sure.
If
James,
that
was
planning
to
I
think
he
was
actually
I,
think
he
was
planning
to
have
cut
the
majors
off
when
it
when
it
was
originally
cut,
and
then
we
can
discuss
if
any
of
those
really
need
to
to
make
it
into
that.
I
think
that
was
sort
of
the
plan.
L
Okay
in
looking
at
it
just
like
taking
a
look
at
the
list
I
only
really
there
are
not
a
ton
of
semver
major
things
sitting
on
master
right
now.
There's
the
v8
upgrades
that
I
guess
need
to
be
there
an
upgrade
to
five
four
or
five
hundred
to
seven
that
needs
to
get
added
and
that
the
only
other
major
I
see
is
like
been
nerd
has,
has
an
FS
move
strings
flag
to
live
internal
that
wasn't
included,
but
I
think
almost
all
of
them?
L
A
L
B
G
Like
a
good
discussion
figure
to
have
anyway,
yeah,
it
doesn't
seem
like
before,
will
be
to
breaking
on
the
NPM
end.
Also,
anything
that
was
deprecated
in
there
will
probably
still
be
deprecated
and
like
were
full
out
removed
and
b5
as
far
as
it
was
communicated.
So
it
might
be
fine
to
just
jump
to
v5.
If
that
happens,
it
doesn't
sound
like
they'll,
be
really
huge
jumps
like
MP
m3
was
again
anytime
soon,.
A
Something
else
to
consider
here
is
that-
and
we've
discussed
this
before,
but
we
don't
really
have
a
strict
need
to
synchronize
all
of
these
dates
into
one.
We
could
be
flexible
if
we
wanted
to
at
the
moment
we're
going
with
the
presumption
that
that's
what
we're
doing,
which
is
everything
happens.
On
the
same
day
we
get
v7
out.
L
One
thing
that
I
think
would
be
worth
bringing
up
also
a
question
I
had
heard
is:
if
we
have
a
date
that
we
have
in
mind
for
v7
other
than
just
kind
of
late
October
and
maybe
alley
if
you
know
what
the
date
for
v4
is
that
we
can
maybe
decide
from
that,
but
it
might
be
a
good
idea.
You
know
sooner
than
later
to
start
broadcasting
a
date.
F
A
F
A
That
does
to
me
I
like
that
I've
got
people
internally
asking
me
as
well
pressuring
me
to
get
a
date
and
I
keep
on
saying,
keep
on
waving
my
fat
hands
and
saying
well
each
okay.
So
let's
do
that
then.
Let's,
let's
say
25th
is
our
tentative
date
and
we
can
start
communicating
that,
but
under
the
proviso
that
it
could
change
given
v8
slippage,
which
is
okay,
that's
allowed
to
happen,
but
we
will
communicate
that
if
it
does
change.
L
Personally,
I
would
I
would
find
it,
maybe
not
a
bad
idea,
and
we
have
an
LTS
working
group
meeting
on
Monday.
So
we
can
follow
this
up
there,
but
I
think
doing
the
release.
Sooner
may
be
good
like
especially
if
there's
any
extra
work
or
anything
that
comes
up
around
then
we
can
have
that
out
of
the
way
before
v7.
So
when
v7
comes,
we
can
focus
on
that
yeah.
A
We
could
do
it
the
Tuesday
before
the
18th,
okay,
well,
okay,
how
about
this
then
discussion
on
this
will
move
to
the
LTS
working
group.
If
anyone
is
here
is
interested
in
this
discussion
there
about
versioning
and
getting
releases
out
and
everything,
then
please
join
the
LTS
working
group
on
Monday
timeslot,
I
just.
L
Like
to
add
on
that
really
quickly,
rod
if
you're
interested
in
getting
more
involved
in
back
porting
and
being
involved
in
the
LTS
process,
I'm
very
interested
in
finding
someone
to
take
a
lead
role
on
version
six,
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
just
to
the
CTC
if
anyone's
listening
and
is
interested
in
that,
like
obviously
there's
responsibilities
and
you
have
to
work
up
to
it.
But
I'd
be
really
interested
in
seeing
myself
not
be
a
single
point
of
failure
here,
I'm.
J
J
E
A
This
is
awkward
because
it's
it's
turned
out
that
having
an
individual
big,
the
lead
has
been
really
good
for
version
four,
so
miles
has
done
a
great
job
of
that,
and
because
it's
been
such
a
lot
of
work
and
keeping
it
stable
and
keeping
keeping
his
head
around,
everything
has
been
really
positive,
but
it's
not
sustainable.
So
we
do
need
to
find
a
model
that
works
in
the
same
way
with
the
same
quality,
but
it's
more
sustainable.
So
this
is
definitely
something
for
the
obvious
working
group
to
discuss.
E
F
G
A
G
K
This
is
the
supported
platforms
thing
that
we
talked
about
a
few
weeks
ago.
The
and
rod
I'm
sure
you
can
fill
in
the
details
on
this,
but
the
build
workgroup
has
come
up
with
a
proposal
that
I
imagine.
The
CTC
is
supposed
to
review
and
probably
endorse
in
some
fashion.
So
the
link
is
in
the
chat
and
the
sidebar.
It's
also
in
the
minutes,
and
we
should
probably
make
this
a
ctc
agenda
item
for
next
week,
but.
A
We
just
need
the
the
the
build
working
group
to
sign
off
on
it.
I
think
that
reason
that's
being
raised
here
is
simply
if,
if
you
have
opinions
about
this
stuff,
you
in
fact-
and
even
if
you
don't
just
cast
your
eye
over
this-
raise
anything
now
that
might
be
a
discussion
item
so
that
when
it
gets
to
the
back
to
the
CTC
for
for
agreement,
we
don't
have
a
long
back-and-forth
process.
A
A
A
Why
one
of
the
one
of
the
potentially
more
contentious
items
here
is
the
tears
support.
So
we
had
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
on
these
tiers
tier
one
two
and
that
we
change
the
third
to
experimental
there.
There's
potentially
some
politics
involved
in
this
as
well,
so
who
gets
to
be
t1
and
how
do
I
get
to
be
tier?
One
kind
of
thing,
particularly
we've
got
vendors
OS
vendors
here
at
the
table
as
well.
So
that's
something
to
look
at
now
and
start
considering,
and
it's
not
just
operating
systems
that
get
lumped
in.
A
A
Okay,
so
that's
a
good
one
to
go
but
to
get
up
to
because
a
Q&A,
if
you
have,
if
you're
listening
to
this
on
the
stream-
and
you
have
questions
for
the
CTC,
then
please
ask
them
either
on
the
youtube
comments
or
in
IRC
and
then
in
one
of
the
channels
where
you
can
find
a
CDC
member
or
in
the
issue
for
this
meeting.
Please
speak
up
and
we'll
give
a
couple
of
couple
of
minutes
to
live
this
stream
catch
up.
L
F
L
Tracy
and
the
education
group
that
nodejs
is
going
to
be
working
with
their
Ricci
project,
offering
mentorship
to
individuals
from
underrepresented
groups
and
training
them,
and
you
know
getting
them
involved
in
the
project
and
hopefully
onboarding
some
new
collaborators.
What
we
do
need
our
projects
for
those
individuals
to
work
on
I
know
that
there
is.
You
know
it's
kind
of
hard
to
think
you
know
if
they're,
not
starting
for
three
months
apart.
L
The
system
that
are
gonna
still
need
eyes
on
it
or
that
aren't
going
to
be
touched
between
now
and
then,
but
if
you
can
think
of
good
project
ideas
or
good
phases
of
the
codebase
to
mentor
individuals
on
I,
myself
am
volunteering
as
one
of
the
mentors
and
I
would
love
to
hear
some
of
your
suggestions
that
people
can
work
on
and
I
see.
No
reason
why
you
know
we
can't
all
be
collaborating
and
mentoring,
even
if
you're,
not
an
official
mentor.
H
A
A
H
Yes,
so
I
have
five
mentors
as
primary
mentors,
so
I
had
a
number
of
people
who
reached
out.
That
would
also
like
to
help
and
be
supplemental
and
that's
you
know
we'll
definitely
be
looking
for
that
as
well
as
once
we
have
the
applicants
in,
but
right
now
we
do
have
five
primary
mentors
committed
and
we
have
four
sponsors,
so
that's
really
exciting.
So
that
means
that
we'll
be
able
to
accept
for
applicants
to
perform.
A
H
L
A
G
A
A
Nope,
okay,
so
CTC
meeting
is
next
week
next
Wednesday
u.s.
time.
Sorry,
third,
sorry,
yes,
CTC
meet
meeting
next
week,
as
usual,
TSC
meeting
is
next
week
the
day
after
build
working
group,
it's
apparently
next
two
weeks
Diagnostics
has
got
next
week.
Lts
is,
as
we
said,
next
Monday
u.s.
time
and
the
others
are
uncertain.
So
there
they
upcoming
meetings
and
that's
it
for
the
public
section
of
our
meeting
thanks
everyone
for
joining
us
on
the
live
stream,
and
thank
you,
everyone
for
participating
in
this
meeting
and
observing
bye
for
now.