►
From YouTube: 2022-01-04-Package Maintenance Team meeting
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
So
welcome
to
the
node.js
package
maintenance
team
meeting
for
january
4th
2022
welcome
to
the
new
year
we'll
follow
the
agenda
that
we
had
tagged
in
the
issue.
It
was
issue
number
502
before
we
get
started.
Does
anybody
have
any
announcements
they'd
like
to
share.
A
Okay,
so
let's
go
to
the
first
issue,
which
is
number
373
doc,
promote
all
current
drafts
to
top
level.
I
don't
know
owen
if
that
was
one
that
I
think
probably
came
out
of
one
of
your
issues.
Do
you
want
to
take
that
one.
B
A
B
Sure,
so
let
me
just
pull
it
up
here.
B
Yes,
I
think
that
was
that's
just
the
top
level
tracking
item.
I
think
yeah,
so
the
linked
number
500
next
to
it
is,
I
believe,
the
one
to
close
it
out.
I
think
there's
still
one
left.
Let
me
see
so.
A
Yeah
there
was
right,
500
is
the
one
I
I
commented
that
earlier
there
was
a
couple
just
empty
place
holders
which
I
think.
A
Leave
but
otherwise,
if
we
promote
the
other
two
we're
probably.
B
Done
there
maybe
glenn
might
want
to
hop
in
on
this
one.
So
the
pr
number
500
just
moves
the
drafts
as
they
are,
but
I
believe
glenn
you
were
working
on
ci
cd,
so.
D
B
Okay,
oh
yeah,
I'm
sure
I
just
didn't
want
a
just
a
heads
up
to
you
that
this
is
going
in
now,
as
you
were
working
on
it
in
parallel,
so
but
yeah,
I
think,
yeah
we're
gonna
probably
be
able
to
close
this
one
out.
Whenever
we
can
merge
500,
then
we
can
always
iterate
like
len
is
doing.
You
know
on
an
ad
hoc
basis.
B
A
So
dominicus,
I
think
you
opened
that
one
and
we
then
opened
a
issue
499
during.
I
think
the
last
meeting
12
days
ago,
we
cc'd
everybody
and
we
said
like
please
respond
within
30
days,
so
I
think
jordan
you'd
commented
that
you
know
wasn't
a
great
time,
which
is
why
we
said:
let's
do
it
for
30
days,
so
that
it's
it's
still
got
a
number
of
weeks
after
the
new
year
starts.
A
C
Yeah,
that
sounds
good,
and
I
mean
my
my
hope
is
that,
because
the
list
of
members
is
absurdly
long-
and
my
hope
is
that
that
this
audit
will
prune
it
down
and
anyone
who's
feels
upset
that
they
were
removed
can
just
be
re-added.
But
then
at
some
point,
when
the
number
is
manageable,
then
we
can
decide
if
we
separately,
if
we
want
to
apply
some
sort
of
activity,
standard,
yeah
and
and
and
tr,
and
at
that
point
we
don't
have
to
ask
anyone
because
either
they
meet
the
standard
or
they
don't.
A
Yeah,
I
know,
given
how
many
people
actually
participate,
agreed
so
yeah
and
same
same
mindset
of
like
if
people
say,
hey
wait,
a
sec.
We
just
can
leave
them
on
and
there
is
discussion
in
other
places
just
across
the
org
about
like
activity.
You
know
measures
and
stuff
like
that.
So
if
we
can
just
leverage
that
that
would
actually
be
pretty
good.
D
I
don't
I
can
start
on
that
now.
I've
got
some
work
done
on
whippy
after
making
a
comment
one
year
ago
that
the
documents
required
reading
the
code
before
you
could
use
them,
we've
been
getting
somewhere
on
that
I
I'll
start
turning
my
eyes
and
I'll
start
talking
to
people
on
on.
On
that
front,
I
haven't
really
looked
at
it,
but
that'll
be
the
next
thing
for
me
to
do.
A
Sounds
good
and
I
think
john,
who
who
commented
on
it
at
one
point
as
well.
I
saw
a
post
or
some
I
saw
somewhere.
Maybe
it
was
in
our
membership
review,
saying
hey
that
his
new
job
will
give
him
some
more
time
to
work
on
it
too.
So
we'll
leave
that
on
the
agenda
because
it
would
be
would
be
good
to
make
progress
on
that.
A
A
Annie
that
takes
us
to
the
end
of
the
agenda.
I
have
one
thing
I
might
suggest
we
could
talk
about.
Is
there
anything
else
that
people
want
to
talk
about
before
we
dive
into
that.
D
I'm
going
to
do
just
for
that,
I'm
going
to
do
my
best
to
try
and
encourage
people
to
join
in,
as
this
is
a
good
way,
starting
off
in
open
source.
If
anything,
just
to
make
contacts
find
out
other
things
to
do
in
open
source,
I
should
be
able
to
attract
some
more
people
like
all
of
us.
It's
been
a
particularly
busy
end
of
year,
the
beginning
of
the
new
year.
D
A
Any
other
things
before
I
just
bring
up
the
one
I
was
thinking.
We
might
talk
about.
A
If
not
that
the
one
thing
I've
been
wondering
about
is
like,
does
it
make
any
sense
for
us
to
adjust
some
of
our
governance
in
terms
of
landing,
prs
and
stuff
like
that,
I'd
be
thinking
that
we
might
be
able
to
shorten
that
cycle
a
little
bit,
because
currently
it's
like
currently,
we
say
we
need
four
approvals.
A
A
So
if
there's
the
event,
there's
four
approvals,
but
existing
pending
reviews
still
exist.
The
countdown
of
21
days
will
start.
A
D
A
A
B
B
A
B
C
C
The
other
thing
is
I
I:
what
I've
usually
done
elsewhere
is
that
the
total
there's
a
total
number
of
reviews
from
collaborators
needed
on
a
pr,
and
if
the
author
is
one
that
can
count
as
one
so
like.
If
that
total
number
is
two,
then
that
means
two
collaborators
review.
A
third
party.
You
know
a
random
person's
pr,
but
one
collaborator
needs
to
review
a
collaborator's
pr
and
you
know,
do
the
math,
for
whatever
other
number
you
want.
What
what's
nice
about?
A
C
B
I've
always
heard
that
karma
too
well,
certainly
to
merge
your
own
pr
sure
proving
it's
dancing
on
the
line.
B
C
B
A
A
A
So,
if
not
okay,
we'll
talk
to
everybody
later
all
right,
thanks.