►
From YouTube: Node.js Inclusivity WG (2016-03-03)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Hi,
my
name
is
cat,
I
am
I,
got
cat,
my
tan
I
am
vcat
on
github
and
maybe
cats
on
twitter.
I
am
part
of
the
npm
CLI
team,
Oh.
A
E
Is
generalized
thankful,
no
just
esc
for
node
source.
A
Alright,
so
we
have
several
items
on
the
agenda
before
I
guess
I'm,
going
to
recommend
that
we
switch
up
the
order
a
little
bit.
I
know
we
had
like
kinship.
We
have
continuous
translation,
threads
created
history
documents,
inclusive
working
group
of
default
moderation,
team,
TSU,
requests
for
nominations
of
the
tsc
and
identify
the
roles
responsibilities.
As
being
member
of
this
working
group,
I'm
actually
going
to
recommend
that
we
discussed
that
last
point.
First
identify
the
roles
and
responsibilities
because
I
feel
that's
the
most
pressing
if
they
weren't.
Okay
with
that
yep.
F
A
C
So
one
of
the
big
points
of
discussion
in
that
fred
was
what
the
roles
should
be.
Initially,
we
had
members
of
the
clear
role
that
exists,
and
then
we
have
some
discussion
about
what
is
there
should
be
a
special
second
role
or
there
should
be
three
roles
and
I.
Think
we've
clarified
that
we,
basically
as
members
and
not
members
and
not
members,
is
basically
everybody
else
who
hasn't
been
kicked
out
for
some
reason
because
they
violated
something
to
conduct.
C
So
basically
anybody
who
wants
to
and
I
think
we've
got
some
pretty
clear
kind
of
guidelines
around
what
responsibilities
and
permissions
are
for
this
to
group.
The
things
that
are
open-ended
that
I
really
need
feedback
on
I.
C
Think
before
it
can
be
completed,
is
what
are
the
guidelines,
particularly
for
membership
around
what
our
expectations
of
kind
of
commitment
Basin
from
the
discussions
that
we've
had
and
what
we've
seen
in
the
last
few
months,
I
think
it
should
be
potentially
kind
of
loose,
but
I
do
think
we
have
to
have
some
kind
of
minimum
expectations
or
people
so
that
if
people
aren't
doing
anything
that
we
can
have
them
go
back
to
being
a
non-member
and
open
up
space
or
somebody
else,
because
I
think
we
do
want
to
leave
membership
to
some
reasonable
number.
C
So
it's
in
some
way
of
gently
being
like
hey,
you
haven't
done
anything
for
a
while.
Why
don't
you
step
down
so
we
can
make
space
or
somebody
else
you
want
to
participate,
but
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out
kind
of
what
that
minimum
is
and
I
need
feedback
from
other
people
on
that
terno,
so
that
people
have
thought.
So
you
want
to
discuss
now
or
if
it'd
be
easier
on
the
PR
I.
A
Think
if
we
work
well
to
go
and
discuss
now,
while
we
have
everyone
in
the
room,
so
my
initial
thoughts
are
that
you
know
I,
don't
think
that
something
was
just
specified
in
terms
of
like
number
of
hours
or
things
like
that.
I
think
we're
not
saying
about
how
we
want
to
define
this,
but
I
think
it's
something
that
can
be
more
case
by
case
and
also
depending
on
the
role
of
that
person
in
the
group.
You
know
that
some
people
are
more
involved
in
echo.
A
C
Mean
if
somebody
doesn't
participate
for
five
months,
I
would
expect
it
would
not
be
a
member
anymore
like
I
know,
you're
being
hyperbolic
there,
but
like
I,
would
expect
at
least
some
level
of
participation,
maybe
a
monthly
basis.
I,
don't
know
if
we
need
to
codify
it
in
ours
by
it.
I
don't
know
how
do
other
people
feel
is
outside
and
I
think
it's
only
think.
There's
somebody's
like
I'm
going
to
be
on
vacation
this
month,
so
this
month,
I'm
not
going
to
be
here.
C
That's
the
different
things,
but
in
general
I,
don't
know
what
our
people
think.
C
My
only
worry
about
that
one
is
that
meeting
attendance
often
is
hard
for
some
people
who,
maybe
you
can't
do
stuff
during
the
workday
or
in
a
different
time
zone
like
if
we
get
members
who
are
in
time
zones
where
it's
the
middle
of
the
night
right
now,
I,
don't
want
to
say
that
they
can
see
participating
an
important
numbers,
as
you
can
see
at
hard
times
just
time
zones
Souter
knows.
C
A
Would
it
be
worth
while
to
for
now
keep
it
vague,
so
get
the
document
landed?
And
just
you
know,
you
know
we
expecting
you
to
be
enacted.
Participants
in
the
group,
and
you
know,
if
you're
inactive,
for
a
long
enough
period
of
time,
then
you're.
Not
then
you
know
we
may
need
to
consider
removing
membership
and
just
so
that's
something
along
those
lines
so
that
it's
not
explicitly
defined
yet
and
we
get
a
common
issue
to
say
you
know
codify
this
stuff.
Okay,.
C
Ya
know:
well,
there's
some
like
vague
language
in
there
right
now.
That
says,
if
you're
not
meeting
the
obligations
that
you
may
be
asked
to
step
down,
so
I
kind
of
stopped
them
out
a
little
bit
and
remember
like
requirements,
questions
and
then
maybe
create
an
issue
for
discussion
of
it
for
future.
B
C
A
Something
I
think
dovetails
into
this,
is
you
know,
end
up
making
space
or
someone
else?
Do
we
have
a
limit
on
the
number
of
people
like
you
know,
I
guess
one
question
I'm
thinking
is:
can
we
get
in
a
situation
where
having
one
person
in
as
a
member
means,
someone
else
cannot
be
a
member
in
like
was
the
passes
around
that
like
like?
Why
would
that
happen?
Yeah.
C
F
C
It
seems
like
there's
a
sweet
spot
somewhere.
If
we
have
too
few
people,
we
don't
get
stuff
done.
I
think
if
we
had
a
huge
number
of
people,
it
would
also
be
really
hard
to
get
stuff
done.
It's
not
clear
at
what
size.
That
would
be
a
problem,
so
maybe
it
is
a
thing
which
is
table
for
a
while.
You
can
you
have
a
better
sense
of
what
we
think
is
too
many
I
kind.
B
Of
agreed
and
I
think
because
part
of
part
of
what
benefit
is
working
group
is
having
a
direct
of
perspective
and
that
situation.
We
don't
really
have
that
much
breadth
of
perspective
right
now,
yeah
so
I
think
we
have
some
growing
to
do
and
then
we
can
I
think
we
can
manage
it
once
we
start
going.
You
can
even
like
into
some
you
know.
Eventually
we
can
even
get
into
something
like
cycling
through
members
or
whatever,
but
I
don't
think
it's
time
to
find
solutions
to
a
problem.
We
don't
have.
A
And
I
think
yeah
I
think
that's
a
very
good
point.
Cat
I
think
if
the
group
does
get
you
big,
you
know
we'll
know
it.
When
we
see
it,
you
know
that
sighs,
the
supreme
court
or
whatever
on
that,
and
so
you
know
the
other.
When
we
get
there,
you
will
definitely
know
what
it
becomes
a
problem
and
then
that's
the
point
where
we
say:
okay,
we
had
too
many
people.
Let's
look
at
you
is
involved.
I
just
opened
up.
C
I
think
those
are
the
big
ones.
I
probably
won't
have
time
today,
but
sometime
over
the
weekend,
I
will
I'll
clean
it
up,
based
on
what
we
just
talked
about
and
then
I'm
going
to
ping.
The
slack
again
and
I
would
like
to
focus
to
give
it
a
final
weeds
sometime
next
week,
so
that
I
can
get
like
approval
and
then
hopefully
we
can
stuff.
My
goal
would
be
to
land
this
by
the
end
of
next
week,
so
I
might
go
one.
I
will
clean
it
up
over
the
weekend.
F
D
B
D
D
E
A
F
F
A
I
think
there
was
a
few
lgtm
just
need
someone
to
actually
impress
the
merge
button.
I
can
do
it
real,
quick,
ok,
so
that's
technically
a
deliverable
that
will
be
very
grateful
for
cool
alright.
So
those
are
the
two
with
TRS
and
we
have
four
other
issues
that
do
not
have
here
is
associated
with
on
the
other
much
newer.
So
one
that's
been
discussed
a
lot.
This
may
make
sense.
I,
but
later,
is
the
continuous
formulations
threads
for
important
discussions.
A
B
E
E
B
B
F
E
E
B
E
D
B
A
Okay,
alright,
so
moving
on,
we
then
have
inclusivity
working
group
as
default
moderation
team.
So
this
is
also
part
of
them.
A
much
larger
initiative
that
also
came
about
from
the
promises
thread.
I
think
this
is
also
about
equally
as
important
as
these
translations
and
I
think
they're
both
eating
a
very
important
but
also
sort
of
big
problems
that
have
to
be
solved
so
on
this
one
I
did
a
little
bit
of
initial
work
on
it
and
basically
the
idea
is
that
you
know
we
have
a
code
of
conduct
in
place.
A
A
My
feeling
is
that
this
document
is
lacking
a
lot
of
how
and
as
I
think,
there's
more
process
that
can
be
put
in
place,
specifically
around
training
people
in
moderation,
knowing
who
you
as
effective
in
moderation
and
how
we
select
someone
to
actually
perform
that
moderation,
and
so
that's
kind
of
some
things
that
you
know.
We
want
to
really
clarify
with
this
document
as
well.
On
this
input
to
our
working
group,
to
sort
of
kind
of
hammer
out
some
ideas
on
that
and
to
also
start
as
serving
as
the
first
moderation
group.
C
A
Is
it
a
bit
of
an
open
question?
We
definitely
want
to
yeah
yeah.
We
don't.
We
doesn't
want
some
sort
of
group,
we
don't
know
if
that
should
actually
be
a
working
group
per
se
or
some
other
formation
of
people,
but
yeah
that
definitely
will
be
a
group,
some
sort
that
hindi
moderation.
That
will
not
be
this
working
group
and
also
not
be
the
tsc,
but
time
being
to
help
strap
I
think
the
idea
is
that
this
working
group
would
serve
as
those
people.
C
I,
like
the
idea,
was
making
a
recommendation
and
potentially
having
members
of
our
working
through
participating
on
that
and
that's
providing
guidance.
I
want
to
make
sure
this
is
working
groups.
Full-Time
job
doesn't
become
moderation
because
it
can
be,
like
moderation,
can
really
sense
into
me.
Oh
and
also
I,
don't
want
the
screws
to
be
kind
of
the
people
that
people
get
angry
at
because
it's
our
job
to
be
enforcing
that
stuff.
C
There
are
no
inclusivity,
not
necessarily
yelling
at
people
or
getting
these
days,
and
so
I
think
we
should
help,
but
I
don't
think
it
should
be
our
primary
responsibility.
So.
E
As
a
no
I
highly
doubt,
the
CIT
would
nominate
a
specific
working
group
to
like
actually
do
this
I
think
if
we
were
to
do
something
it
would
probably.
We
would
like
make
a
group
of
people
that
would
probably
like
weird
appoint
people
to
do
that,
rather
than
sit
have
like
a
working
group
that
expensive
so
I'm,
not
sure
people
like
that
idea
or
not,
but
I
figure,
that's
probably
what
how
it
happens,
at
least
as
of
discussions
of
the
current
time.
I.
B
A
Agreed,
okay,
so
then
I
think
from
the
succession,
and
we
could
say
if
I
the
first
thing
we
should
do
in
regards
to
this
task
is
to
flush
out
that
structure,
relationship
and
fig
and
sort
of
figure
out
who
this
group
or
making
proposals
on
through
this
group
should
be
to
TFC
sort
of
start
from
that
angle.
And
then,
once
we
have
another
basic
process,
we
can
start
looking
for
people
and
fleshing
out
that
group
later.
B
B
It
sounds
like
what
we
want
is
to
have
a
proposal
of
the
system
itself
with
some
ideas
about
where
to
take
it
and
then
just
present
that
formally
to
the
CSC
with
like
whatever
we
would
actually
need
from
that.
So
if
we
need
a
separate
working
group,
that
is
its
own
thing
and
have
certain
rules
about
how
it
interacts
with
PSC
and
how
it
interacts
with
us,
then
that's
something
we
can
include
an
autonomous.
A
C
A
A
Alright,
so
I'm
just
looking
to
give
me
a
quick
time
check,
we
have
six
minutes
left.
The
next
issue
is
the
TSP
request
for
nomination
to
the
CSC.
We
discussed
that
earlier
and
basically
we
don't
have
a
specific
person
yet,
but
we're
going
to
work
over
the
next
two
weeks
to
process,
so
the
deliverable
for
the
next
time
I'm
going
to
work
moving
to
louisville
as
have
a
nominee.
A
That,
okay,
so
actually
looks
like
all
the
working
group
operations.
There
is
one
more
there's
one
more
that
was
listed
that
defined
to
rich,
but
he
had
to
leave
early,
so
we
are
going
to
able
that
for
next
time,
I
recommend
you
take
the
drastic
posle
rotating
beating
time
and
just
put
that
on
the
agenda
for
the
next
meeting.
They
weren't
okay,
with
that
mm-hmm-hmm.