►
From YouTube: Modules Team Meeting - 2019-10-09 - Part 1
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
Sure
I
mean
get
it
open,
so
this
is
just
a
reflection
of
our
what
we
discussed
in
the
last
meeting.
I
was
kind
of
taking
these
notes
as
we
were
going
along.
So
it's
been
two
weeks
remember
what
I
wrote,
but
there
shouldn't
be
any
surprises
in
here,
based
on
what
we
were
discussing
for.
Those
of
you
who
were
in
the
last
meeting
me
share
this.
B
I
mean,
unless
anyone
has
any
objection
to
it,
I
mean
part
of
I
guess.
The
kind
of
fundamental
part
of
this
is
that
you
know
I'm
kind
of
assuming
that
we're
essentially
that
we're
you
know,
as
we've
been
discussing
all
year,
we're
aiming
towards
unflagging
essentially
when
no.12
results,
yes,
I'm,
assuming
that
I
mean
that
hasn't
changed,
so
the
sense
that
that
I'm,
you
know,
assuming
that
that's
our
plan,
then
basically
the
stuff.
B
That's
still
in
progress
in
phase
three
I
just
created
a
new
phase,
four
and
kind
of
moves
it
all
into
it,
because
those
items
like
like
loaders,
for
example,
would
be
the
best
example
we're
obviously
still
working
on
it.
We
still
intend
to
ship
like
loader
support
for
yes
M,
but
as
far
as
I
can
tell
right
now
we're
not
like
viewing
that
as
a
blocker,
that's
gonna
hold
up
on
flagging.
B
Likewise,
the
whatever
this
turns
out
to
be
the
package
route,
whether
it's
a
tilde
or
a
@
sign
or
whatever
you
know
that
can
ship
before
after
unflagging,
you
know
all
the
rest,
all
these
things
I'm
assuming
can
ship
after
unflagging.
So
about
the
only
thing
left
to
do.
Two
unflagged,
as
far
as
I
can
tell,
is
just
that
PR,
where
we
get
all
the
tests
working
I.
A
Quite
as
simple
as
that
and
I
probably
can't
give
an
update
on
the
unflagging
PR
I,
don't
know
if
it's
suitable
to
give
it
under
this
item.
We
don't
actually
have
a
specific
item
on
the
agenda
for
it.
I,
don't
think
so.
Maybe
maybe
it's
worth
discussing
that
now,
while
we're
on
the
topic
yeah,
what
would
would
it
help?
I
can
give
a
quick,
2
3
minute
updates
yeah.
B
A
A
B
A
C
Once
going
twice,
I
mean
as
long
as
it's
not
as
long
as
this
PR
does
not
imply
unflagging
boundaries
like
I,
don't
care
what
phase
things
are
listed
in,
but
if
it
implies
that
phase
three
is
part
of
the
unflagging
and
phase
four
comes
later
then,
like
I,
think
it's
fine
but
I.
Think
if
it's,
if
it's
codifying
a
consensus
that
doesn't
yet
exist,
then
that's
not
something
we
should
land
yet
so
and
it's
it's
a
long
PR.
So,
like
I'll
I'll
defer
to
your
judgment,
about
which
one
of
those
things
it
is.
B
C
So
that
and
that
that's
kind
of
why
I
am
hesitant
right,
is
that,
like
there
isn't
consensus,
exactly
there's
there's
like
and
there
won't
be
until
we
unplug
right,
so
it's
like
or
until
we
agree
when
we're
gonna
on
flag
right.
So
it's
the
your
estimation
of
what
is
likely
is
not
something
that
I
think
belongs
in
the
official
Docs.
C
The
community
that
they
shouldn't
expect
these
things
before
I'm,
flagging
and
I.
Think
that's
not
something
that
is
appropriate
until
we
have
consensus
that,
like
you
know
that
that's
gonna
be
what's
gonna,
be
alright.
Otherwise,
it's
just
your
guess
about.
What's
likely
well,
I
mean
sense,
like
you
might
be
right:
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
I'm.
Just.
B
C
To
read
the
group,
like
you
know,
that's
the
updating
our
messaging
based
on
a
like
fuzzy
read
of
the
group.
I
think
that
we
need,
if
we
decide
to
unflagged
and
or
we
decide
exactly
what
criteria
is
going
to
merit
unflagging,
and
we
all
have
consensus
on
that.
Then,
of
course,
the
documentation
should
match
that
right.
A
Yeah
I
wasn't
actually
gonna
go
into
a
full
debate
of
what
we
can
over
what
we
believe.
We
need
to
get
consensus
on
on
flag,
maybe
maybe
after
we
get
through
some
of
the
other
agenda
agenda
items.
I
just
wanted
to
give
an
update
on
the
unflagging
PR,
specifically
and
and
more
the
technical
blockers,
as
opposed
to
the
consensus
blockers,
because
we
have
important
technical
blockers
there.
A
The
main
thing
is
that
we're
turning
the
nodejs
bootstrap
into
an
asynchronous
bootstrap
from
normally
being
a
synchronous,
bootstrap
and
that
affects
the
way
is
that
errors
are
output,
changes
the
output
first
likely.
So
we
need
to
investigate
how
we
can
make
sure
we
match
it
up
exactly
and
that's
something
that's
not
reflected
in
the
test
videos
right
now.
We
also
need
to
make
sure
that
the
exact
same
task
queue
event
ordering
appliance
and
because
we've
changed
it
to
an
async
bootstrap.
There
are
some
cases
where
promise
queues
are
getting
cleared
slightly
earlier
and
so.