►
Description
A
B
C
E
F
F
A
F
I
G
A
Okay
right,
so
next
we
will
move
on
to
a
review
of
lost
the
previous
meeting
issues
right,
snow,
ctt
membership
numbers
nomination
for
the
fourth
I
I.
Think
that
just
passed.
If
I
remember
correctly,
I'm
going
to
open
that
up
and
confirm,
but
we
can
just
think
through
that
case,
there's
nothing
more
to
talk
about.
A
The
next
issue
was
nineteen
seventy-nine.
The
discussion
of
make
string
global
equal
equals
object
global.
We
actually
had
a
vote
on
that
and
close
up
so
not
as
well.
That's
done
is
level,
then
the
consider
folding
tsc
into
ctc,
146
I,
think
you
know.
Rod
gave
us
a
little
bit.
You
know
or
review
what
he
was
looking
for
in
terms
of
feedback,
but
not
too
much
discussion.
A
So
the
fact
to
github
meeting
schedule
so
issue,
22
I,
don't
think
there
was
anything
I
think
we
closed
on
that
one
in
the
meeting,
although
there
is
a
new
proposal
out
there
for
going
forward.
So
if
you
haven't
seen
that
go,
take
a
look
and
then
I
think
the
review
has
CTC
review
processes.
Working
I
think
we
just
agreed
to
tail
push
that
give
it
more
time,
push
it
forward
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
look
at
that.
That
was
the
previous
meeting
review.
Anybody
else
have
any
comments
on
that
front.
A
Okay,
I'll
take
that
there's.
No,
so
let's
move
the
agenda
for
this
week.
We
only
have
two
issues
on
the
agenda.
The
first
one
is
roadmap,
WG
status,
which
is
issue
number
16
generally.
The
discussion
there
is
that
you
know
the
roadmap
working
group
is
just
like
you
know,
is
eternity
working
group,
but
isn't
really
a
working
group.
In
terms
of
you
know,
people
actively
working
as
a
working
group.
The
suggestion
was
that
it
actually
should
just
be
collapsed
down
into
a
team.
So
you
know
we'd
have
a
team.
A
You
know
people
can
be
notified
if
they're
interested,
in
particular
issues
that
relate
to
that
but
2d
charter,
the
actual
work
group
itself,
I
think
in
the
issue
we
have
thick
CTC
members
were
already
in
favor
and
none
that
are
opposed.
So
we
need
for
more
nodejs
CTC
folk
to
approve
to
approve
it
or
people
to
object
to
sort
of
derail
that
process.
So
looking
at
the
people
who
have
already
approved
in
terms
of
who's
here
include
James
myself,
fish
rock
chocolate,
I'm
lucas
and
trot.
A
F
Does
anyone
actually
understand
like
how
this
works
because
might
like
I
guess
we
can
like
revoke
the
Charter
on
what
its
responsible
for,
but
we
can't
really
dissolve
the
group.
So
that's
like
a
different
thing,
so
the
people
that
are
in
the
group
need
to
dissolve
it
essentially
and
then
I
don't
know
like
do
we
like
it
didn't
necessary
for
us
to
room
to
revoke
it?
I,
don't
really
understand
how
this
is
actually
done.
I
think.
A
I
think
you
know
my
understanding
would
be.
It
could
go
one
of
two
ways.
You
know
the
group
could
decide
to
this
all
themselves,
although
not
being
an
active
group
that
might
be
a
bit
tougher,
the
other.
The
other
way
is
yeah
I,
believe
the
CTC
could
revoked
the
charter,
in
which
case
you
know
it's
no
longer
an
official
working
group.
You
know
any
group
of
people
is
free
to
meet
and
discuss
and
do
things,
but
in
terms
of
having
delegated
responsibility,
it
would
remove
that
particular
aspect.
A
A
A
I
think
I
mean
yeah,
no
I
think
if
we
just
have
enough
people,
we
should
vote
on
it
and
come
to
come
to
conclusions.
We
have
already
1234
yes,
so
we
need
for
new.
We
only
need
three
more
people
to
actually
say.
Yes,
that's
the
right
way
to
go.
I
think
we've
already
had
well.
Actually
no
we've
already
got
two
more
people,
so
I
think
it's
one
more
person
to
more
people.
Do
we
do
have
two
anybody
here
who
hasn't
commented
I'm
just
going
to
go
through
the
list.
C
A
And
then
that's
the
yeah,
so
I
think
we
have
enough.
Okay,
as
you
call
it
an
ass
okay.
So
I
think
we've
we've
got
the
four
new
people,
so
I
think
we'll
declare
that
we
don't
need
an
official
vote.
Well,
I!
Guess
you
actually
that
one
I'm
not
as
you're
on
I,
think
we've
got
enough.
We've
done
enough
consensus
here.
That
says
we
need
to
do.
A
We
don't
have
enough
people
in
the
actual
meeting
to
you
know,
formerly
vote
so
I
think
I
think
we'll
leave
it
to
the
people
who
the
TTC
members
have
effectively
voted
in
the
issue
and
if
we
can
close
it
based
on
that,
that's
good.
Otherwise
we
need
a
formal
vote
will
have
to
move
back
when
we
have
more
people
in
the
actual
meeting.
A
Okay,
the
next
one
was
a
discussion
of
issue
8169,
which
is
hard
deprecated
calling
buffer
without
knew
the
issues
actually
closed.
I
think
the
discussion
item
rich
added
this
and
you
know
the
idea
was:
should
we
actually
remove
these?
The
deprecation
warning
in
seven-
and
you
know
maybe
try
later
on,
but
at
this
point
basically
agree
we're
not
going
to
do
it
anytime
in
the
near
future,
so
remove
the
deprecation
think
there
are
a
few
people
called
out,
as
you
know,
being
generally
in
favor.
I,
don't
know
James.
G
C
D
I'm
not
sure
about
the
Buffaloes
out
meal
interpretation,
but
the
Prophet
constructor
itself,
as
for
doing
duplication
above
construct
with
itself.
It's
another
issue
that
but
also
some
discussion
and
some
unhappier
voices
letter
I,
actually
think
that
we
issue
duplicated
in
the
next
version
completely,
because
this
the
only
way
to
fix
the
security
issues
in
the
micro
system,
I'm
still
collecting
data
on
that
high
hopes
to
finish
it
by
this
meeting,
but
not
done
yet
so
I
suggest
way.
J
B
C
A
A
Right,
that's
about
that's
into
master
I.
Think
the
discussion
that
rich
wanted
to
have
was
in
seven
should
be
reversed.
The
awarding
you
know,
because
we
don't
think
it's
going
to
happen
in
an
upcoming
one
or
and
if
we're
going
to
do
that,
we
should
do
that
sooner
than
later,
because
you
don't
want
to
have
that.
You
know
stretch
out
and
then
revert
it
late
late
in
the
seven
cycle.
G
The
basic
argument
is
that
there's
existing
modules
in
the
ecosystem
that
are
using
buffer
with
without
new
those
developers
do
not
want
to
change
their
code
to
go
back
in
and
go
through
the
work
of
updating
their
modules
and
dependencies
to
add
the
new
keyword.
They
just
want
two
leaves
modules
alone
and
they
don't
want
core
to
touch
the
buffer.
Constructor
API
is
in
any
way
that
if
we
want
to
change
buffer
later
on
to
make
make
it
you
know,
base
it
on
es6
classes
or
change
the
implementation
and
API
requirements.
G
A
F
B
G
Are
some
cases
where
printing
the
warning
is
broken
test
because
those
tests
are
looking
at
the
SPD
air
out
to
determine
success
and
because
there's
something
new
there
fails,
there
are
module
owners
who
are
getting
bug
reports
because
some
dependency,
deep
in
their
chain
is
printing
these
deprecation
warnings
and
so
they're
getting
bug
report
to
them.
They
don't
want
to
deal
with
them.
They
basically
don't
see
any
reason
for
them
to
be
for
it
to
be
deprecated
at
all.
So
I
just
don't
want
to
see
it.
They
don't
have
to
deal
with
it.
G
F
F
A
B
Yeah
there
has
been
a
lot
of
like
a
bit
line,
note
strapless
to
remain
stable.
That
is
basically
what
is
this
supposed
to
do
like
keep
running
that
has
been
written
already
and
I
would
say.
That's
a
great
question.
I
wouldn't
say
I
feel
strongly
enough
to
say
yeah.
We
should
definitely
definitely
listen
to
these
people,
who
obviously
use
far
just
know
it
in
a
very
different
way
than
we
are
maintainer
stood.
I.
J
E
G
G
A
Yeah
and
then
I
think
we
should
value
stability.
The
question
is,
you
know
in
this
case
I
guess
it
would
come
down
to
like
it's
always
a
trade-off
of
you
know.
You
don't
want
to
never
change
anything
because
then
you're
near
going
to
stagnate,
but
you
know
tend
to
try
not
to
change
things
unless
there's
a
really
good
reason
is.
This,
you
know,
is
about
a
matter
of
messaging
that
we
haven't
done
that
or
is
it
that
you
know
that
really
the
there
is
another
way
to
do
it
that
wouldn't
could
achieve
the
same
goals.
A
D
D
So
the
only
thing
the
only
way
how
we
could
notify
the
user
to
touch
some
packages,
use
an
unsecured
piece,
duplication,
runnin
and
there
are
a
really
large
amount
of
packages
that
have
issues
that
could
become
security
issues
when
used
in
some
other
way.
For
example,
a
lot
of
packages
do
base64
encoding
when
you
buffer
and
if
a
number
gets
passed
to
the
to
that
base64
encode
encounter
function,
then
everything
goes
up.
D
Yeah
o
lettin
that
your
I
was
cut
earlier
than
I
thought.
I
am
saying
not
about
the
new
keyword
and
have
no
specific
opinion
on
whether
we
should
dip
lacage
there.
You
can
use
sooner
than
the
whole
thing
I
said
has
been
already
done,
but
I
think
that
she
should
duplicate
both
of
them
in
the
next
major
version
and
and
strong
in
favor.
Of
that
I
mean
duplication,
new
bother,
constructed
in.
J
D
D
Make
actually
I
would
propose
to
do
that
at
the
same
moment
when
we
are
hard
replicated,
I
would
propose
to
zero
field
by
default,
the
exact
same
Russian
that
we
chose
it
to
be
hard
to
placate
the
cause
of
the
same
arguments
against
the
zero-field
zero
human
by
default.
Each
already
mentioned.
If
you
start
0
human
by
default
and
people
start
using
their
IP,
they
will
rely
on
the
0
film
by
default,
and
that
would
be
not
valid
for
the
old
direction
so
commonly
uses
the
new
buffer
constructed
it.
D
D
E
Guess
but
my
biggest
issue
with
it
is
that
what
does
it
matter
if
new
this
past,
if
we're
trying
to
get
people
to
my
grown
away
from
the
buffer
API,
the
current
API
that
we've
had,
then
we
should
do
that
like
in
a
horror
break,
instead
of
it
being
like
a
step-by-step
process
of
requiring
new.
All
these
people
were
just
changing
it
to
add
new
now
and
then
they're
gonna
have
to
go
back
and
change
it
when
we
actually
deprecated
the
that
method
totally
and
you
have
to
use
Alec
and
Alec
unsafe.
D
G
G
So
the
idea
was
to
simplify
it
and
to
take
an
incremental
step
by
ok,
we're
going
to
you
know
phase-out
use
of
buffer
without
new,
so
we
can
make
those
changes
and
then
take
a
little
bit
more
fine
to
deprecate
the
buffer
constructor
in
general,
in
push
to
push
people
towards
Alec
and
Isabelle.
Exactly.
E
G
F
C
G
E
D
Okay,
we'll
just
keep
it
for
the
complexity
early.
If
someone
was
writing
a
number
into
the
stadium
it
to
don't,
enjoy
and
and
neutralized
memory
and
enjoys
memory
shot
chunk
of
such
size.
That
happened
to
concuss,
leading
veteran
spiotto.
One
point
five
point:
two:
I
sent
them
a
priority
report
about
that.
They
disclosed
it
publicly
on
the
same
day
and
by
state
two
weeks
later
and
they
fixed
wrongly.
D
D
Even
the
0
film,
no,
the
problem
is
not
solved
because
there
are
actually
two
security
issues.
0
few
fixes,
only
one
of
those
and
start
in
20
field
causes
another
issue
for
all
directions
that
are
already
mentioned.
The
one
issue
is
the
memory
leak
and
in
the
sensitive
information
leak
and
the
second
she
sure
is
a
denial
of
service
that
is
not
fixed
by
zero.
Fluent.
D
So
our
for
the
users,
the
car
duplication,
is
actually
not
a
bad
I
choice
because
in
most
cases
they
would
just
turn
on
the
flag.
If
the
review
HD
the
message
so
today
would
no
longer
see
they're
harder,
plication
message:
each
put
some
button
on
the
maintenance,
but
maintenance
should
fix
the
security
issues
and
there
is,
there
seems
to
be
no
other
way
to
a
completely
without
those
security
issues,
except
for
the
harder
plication
I.
F
D
Also,
I
estimate
the
actual
time
spent,
I'm
in
the
total
integral
time
spent
by
everyone
be
less.
If
we
have
duplicate
things,
then
you
feel
the
start.
Oh,
if
several
people
start
to
review
every
package
to
find
the
various
security
issues
and
get
that
somehow
send
private
area
pass
through
there,
all
the
maintainer
get
them
to
fix
old
versions.
I
get
all
chains
of
events
to
update.
You
see
this
just
to
watch
amount
of
work
and
ratification.
Video.
F
D
D
H
So
one
thing
that
I
think
would
be
very
useful
on
this
is
I,
think
that
we
should
reach
out
to
the
individuals
were
who
are
going
to
be
affected
by
this,
and
maybe
have
them
come
in
for
the
next
CTC
meeting
or
a
future
one
in
which
they
can
join
to
discuss
their
thought
process
on
this,
especially
you
know
in
response
to
what
rocker
has
brought
up,
because
it
seems
like
this
direction
is
somewhat.
You
know
in
the
opposite
direction.
You
know
people
are
already.
You
know,
upset
enough
about
a
warning.
F
The
plan
was
always
to
take
it,
for
the
questioners
is
when
I'm
not
really
sure
that,
like
eight,
is
necessarily
the
best
target
for
that.
Although
I
have
seen
some
people
saying
those
threads
that
like,
if
it
was
about
security
that
well,
they
didn't
really
think
that
the
new
thing
was
about
security.
F
H
H
You
know
like
what
heavily
dependent
modules
there
are
like
I
think
what
may
make
a
lot
of
sense
is
if
we
get
the
handful
of
people
who
have
an
opinion
and
who
really
care
about
this
to
legitimately
outline
what
their
concern
is.
As
far
as
time
is
concerned
and
ability
to
do
things,
we
can
maybe
do
some.
You
know,
like
real
research,
find
out
exactly
what
is
possible
and
what
is
impossible,
what
can
be
upgraded?
H
What
can't
be
upgraded
exactly
how
much
time
this
is
going
to
take
and
come
to
an
agreement
if
this
is
going
to
be
possible
or
not
I'm
still
not
entirely
convinced
that
not
simply
just
making
buffer
a
new
buffer
0
fill
and
back
porting.
That
two,
four
and
six
is
not
sufficient.
I
understand
that
we
have
other
releases
that
would
potentially
make
less
secure,
but
I
am
I,
am
less
convinced
of
that
academic
need
than
the
real
problem
of
breaking
the
ecosystem.
D
D
Do
not
an
intense
input,
for
example,
foreplay
64
encoding
everything
that
does
a
lot
of
elaborate
is
that
base64
encoding
just
cuz
the
new
input
and
out
wherever
it
is
export
their
base64
encoded
function
and
the
users
of
those
libraries
do
not
expect
that
they
should
sanitize
the
input
before
a
person
that
input
to
the
basics,
to
14
carbon
function
and
so
Odin
blows
up.
So
to
clarify.
I
estimate
the
current
situation,
the
ecosystem
about
the
innovation
to
all
day
you
both
will
consider
after
as
near
catastrophic
wrench.
A
E
A
A
K
H
A
A
K
B
K
K
D
You
why
people
unhappy
is
that
the
car
duplicated
the
above,
for
example,
you
gives
out
to
explain
that
is
it
is
a
security
issue
and
that
we
split
the
buffer
duplication,
intro,
two
parts,
the
buffalo
without
unification,
and
then
the
Buffalo
use
new
duplication.
Similar
version
and
two
changes
are
just
now,
since
that
two
changes
are
just
too
many
and
we
should
have
the
advantage
at
one
time,
but
Athena
is,
would
it
cause
more
destruction,
you've
be
duplicated
and
an
unduplicated
and
then
duplicate
it
again
in
the
next
version.
C
C
G
G
F
Weird
happened
to
my
connection
and
I
think
I'd
dropped
some
audio
to
the
stream
I'm,
not
really
sure.
So
there
was
like
some
comments
in
chat.
Someone
says
hi,
please
make
no
J's
faster,
like
C++.
So
javascript
is
like
not
like
a
compiled
language
in
that
wedding,
so
it
probably
will
never
be
as
fast,
but
jits
are
quite
fast.
These
days
come
off.
Anyone
else
has
comments.
A
lot.
A
F
A
C
A
A
A
Benchmarking
is
TBD,
but
there
is
an
issue
to
schedule.
The
next
meeting,
if
you're
interested
and
LTS
post-mortem
an
API
there
are
takes
formerly
scheduled
meetings,
although
if
you
are
interested
in
the
a
bi-stable
work
going
on
in
the
API
workgroup,
if
you
look
in
the
a
bi-stable
node
repo,
there
is
a
weekly
meeting
where
things
are
discussed
for
your
interest,
you
can
attend
that
otherwise,
I
think
that's
it
for
our
meeting
this
week,
thanks
for
everybody
attending
and
then
listening
in.