►
From YouTube: Package Maintenance Team meeting - April 8th 2019
Description
A
A
B
A
A
C
A
So
I'm
just
looking
to
see,
is
there
a
particular
reason
where
we
added
it
to
the
agenda
so
that
was
back
on
March,
so
I
guess
Emily
probably
wanted
some
feedback,
but
I,
don't
don't
really
see
any
discussion.
I
still
see
some
discussion
going
on
in
the
issue
itself,
but
I
don't
know.
Is
there
anything
that
people
want
to
discuss
on
that
particular
topic
today?.
A
Okay,
so
what
I'm
gonna
do
is
I'm
just
gonna,
say
name
so,
basically
adding
a
comment
to
the
issue.
Saying:
hey
we're
gonna
removed
from
the
agenda
for
now.
Discussion
is
progressing
in
the
the
issue.
If
you
know,
if
you
want
it
to
be
discussed
in
the
next
meeting,
just
add
the
package
maintenance
label
back
on
so
with
that
maybe
you'll
move
on
to
the
next
one,
which
is
social
history,
Michael
yeah.
D
A
So
do
we
want
to
delete
the
content
so
do
we
want
to
delete
contents
in
the
house
action
but
leave
some
useful
tool
section
thanks
my
advice.
Ron
tools
like
so
Jim
I
might
wait
to
see
if
we
want
to
pull
it
back
from
definitions
and
recommendations
for
now,
but
be
glad
to
add
remover.
If
we
think
we
need
some
or
both
of
them.
E
D
A
F
F
A
F
A
C
A
Yeah
definitely
definitely
here.
This
makes
sense.
I
think
in
in
the
specific
case
to
the
next
step
we've
got
to
think
about
is
like
oK.
We've
got
a
graph
that
says
here's
what
we
suggest
you
put
in
here's,
what
we
got
a
validator
for
it,
but
what
are
our
next
step?
So
I
think
we
maybe
if
we
have
time
at
the
end,
we
you
know
I,
wanted
to
loop
back
and
spend
some
of
the
time.
A
A
Like
you
know,
we,
since
we
have
it,
but
then
like
yeah,
how
do
we
actually
make
it
so
that
people
know
it
exists,
see
if
people
will
actually
start
adopting
it
and
basically
help
help
get
it
adopted?
You
know,
since
we've
said
we
think
this
is
useful.
How
do
we
move
from
where
nobody
uses
it
to
the
point
where,
hopefully,
lots
of
people
use
it
right,
but
yeah?
Let's,
let's
come
back
and
you
know
in
I
think
we
want
to
go
through
the
project
board.
A
A
G
Fine,
so
I
I'm,
the
one
who
originally
asked
for
the
validator
tool
for
this
import
thing.
Essentially,
what
I
want
is
if
we're
gonna,
try
and
introduce
a
new
de
facto
standard,
package.json
field,
then
it's
something
that
needs
to
be
ideally
proliferated
in
the
ecosystem
prior
to
trying
to
put
any
enforcement
on
it.
C
G
So
I
think
that
if
we
can
get
this
sort
of
in
usage,
if
people
see
the
value
of
it,
even
without
NPM
and
node
support
the
support
of
it,
then
it
becomes
a
much
easier
task
to
get
it
integrated
into
the
NPM
and
or
node
as
we
see
fit
and
to
like
start
using
it
as
a
more
reliable
metric.
So
that's
that
was
my
hope
for
for
such
a
job.
A
Yeah,
well
that
that's
a
long
in
my
thinking
as
well,
I
was
saying
if
we
should,
if
we
have
time
at
the
end
after
Gunn
I,
think
we
want
to
go
through
Deportes.
We
added
that
to
the
agenda
once
we
get
through
that
we
should
then
brainstorm
like,
let's
put
together
a
checklist
of
the
next
steps
of
what
we
want
to
do
on
that
front.
So.
C
It
sounds
like
the
checklist,
as
the
conversation
has
gone
so
far,
would
be
put
in
an
issue
for
a
tool
that
we
think
we
could
use
generate
the
tool
validate
the
tool,
as
a
team
start
getting
PRS,
to
merge
this
into
the
big
names
and
address
whatever
feedback
they
have
and
then,
if
it
begins
to
get
traction,
then
bring
it
into
the
node
GS
ecosystem
or
NPM
ecosystem
wherever
it
ends
up
making
sense.
So
it
sounds
like
we've
got
a
pretty
established
process
just
from
that
conversation,
so
I.
C
A
Yeah
I
still
think
we
should
do
some
like
I
I
think
it
would
be
good
for
us
to
write
down
the
list
for
like,
if
that's
a
generic
that
says,
here's
what
we
do
for
a
tool.
I
still
think
we
want
to
look
at
the
specific
case
for
this
one
like
okay.
How
do
we
start
promoting
not
just
the
tool
but
like
the
concept
of
these
extra
fields
in
the
package?
Jason
yeah.
C
A
F
Yeah,
that's
that's
why
one
of
my
pull
request.
Also
it's
been
going
through
a
few
revisions.
I
think
I'm.
Most
of
the
comments
has
been
addressed.
There's
only
one
that
Sam
tests,
you
that's
not
directly,
it's
the
bigger
question
itself
is
how
to
allow
users
to
kind
of
come
back
to
us
and
say
I
want
to
take
all
I
want
to
to
take
over
this
on
maintain
package.
A
F
F
I
would
like
to
become
a
maintenance,
maintain
us
for
it,
so
that
I
mean
that
situation
itself
was
tore,
like
the
original
problem
that
you
know
we
try
to
solve.
Is
that
how?
How
can
we
save
least
determined
that
someone
is?
We
can
trust
someone
to
take
over
a
package
right
right?
Okay,
so
I
think
that
there's
like
a
that's
a
broader
scope
and
there's
a
separate
discussion,
that's
already
going
on
and
we
will
need
a
document
on
that.
F
Once
we
have
to
add
document,
we
can
put
a
link
to
that
document
inside
this
one
and
also
I
believe
that
NPM
also
had
some
very
active
discussion
going
on
on
how
to
maintain
a
trust
level
of
owner
yeah.
So
sorry
go
ahead,
so
yeah,
it
looks
like
as
well
as
that
wedding,
our
maintainer,
the
establish
trust
level.
That
is
a
much
broader
scope,
discussion
and
a
multiple
discussion
going
on
throughout.
That's
in
this
group
and
then
there's
a
threat.
That's
on
NPM
itself.
A
A
F
A
D
D
H
A
A
B
A
G
A
A
A
H
A
A
H
Only
one
feedback-
and
that
was
about
the
sort
of
illegal
uses
of
object,
object
in
the
package
so
Jason
he
raised
NPM
is
going
to
take
much
notice
of
that,
because
I
had
them
run
the
queries
for
me
right.
You
don't
think
we
should
eyes
up,
but
he
probably
if
people
had
been
praying
a
sub
object.
He
probably
pretty
much
reflects
people
that
don't
create
a
sub
object.
Well,.
G
Prior
to
the
I
was
mentioning
the
licensee
earlier
and
the
SPD
X
compliant
field
prior
to
that
being
a
thing
all
of
NPM
used
the
object
form
so
there's
probably
a
massive
number
of
valid
licenses
displayed
in
that
object
form.
So
it
would
be
helpful,
probably
to
get
those
numbers
and
it
would
probably
shift
the
list
a
bit
I,
don't
know
how
that
it
may
not.
It
may
not
be
possible
to
get
that
data
or
may
not
be
worth
it,
but
like
I,
think
that
I
suspect
the
data
will
change
that
list
of
it.
Well,.
H
A
A
H
Well,
I
think
the
general
thing
was
I
didn't
think
we
should
tell
them
what
to
do,
because
I
think
there
are
at
least
in
some
states
that
is
actually
illegal.
It
is
in
New
York,
as
from
the
lawyer
type
people
I've
talked
to
because
that's
offering
legal
advice,
and
so
this
is
the
best
thing
we
can
do
just
tell
them
what
other
people
are
doing
and
the
popularity
of
them,
and
that
makes
them
let
them
make
their
own
decisions,
just
provide
an
advice,
just
the
data,
and
this
is
what's
on
the
registry.
H
A
H
A
A
You
know
it's
in
it's
under
drops,
so
the
next
step,
in
my
mind,
is
to
say:
okay,
a
PR
that
moves
it
from
drafts
to
just
Docs,
okay,
I.
Don't
do
that
basically
says
yeah.
We
agree
that
this
is.
This
is
something
that
we
as
a
team
can
promote
and
yeah
I
was
just
looking
at
saying:
I,
don't
see
that
there's
too
much
else
to
say
or
or
as
long
as
nobody
has
neat
turns,
it's
probably
ready
to
do
that
and.
A
H
Well,
you
don't
have
to
put
something
in
the
field,
and
that
was
one
of
the
things
and
you
you
must
put
something
in
the
field.
You
must
make
a
decision
because
that
could
put
the
maintainer
zin
situation
right.
So
if
it's
not
been
adopted,
you
should
be
adopted,
but
I
don't
think.
There's
any
package
we're
going
to
be
adopting
I
can
see
in
a
near
future
to
won't
have
a
license.
This
is
right.
Future
yeah.
A
H
H
A
A
Yes,
I
mean
the
only
thing
that
that
I
wonder
is
the
like
we,
these
are
this
one's
kind
of
it
kind
of
starts
out
with
like
we
require
you
to
do
this,
and
I
wonder,
is
it
like?
Is
it?
Is
it
that
these
won't
necessarily
all
be
that,
like
you
have
to
do
this
or
there's
you
know
you
don't
in
order
to
get
help,
it's
more
of
the
here's,
here's
what
we
recommend
you
do
or
guidance
for
what
you
might
want
to
do,
to
make
your
life
easier.
G
Well,
I
feel
like
in
general,
its
it's
for
things
that
are
debates
and
highly
subjective.
I
think
that
it's
reasonable
to
be
what's
the
word
I'm
looking
for
measured
in
our
recommendation
language,
but
for
things
like
following
cember
and
having
a
license,
mm-hmm
I
find
it
hard
to
believe
that
either
of
those
two
things
are
controversial
from
and
so
I
feel
like
it's
best
not
to
even
create
doubt
in
the
mind
of
people
that,
following
these
things
is
a
good
idea
right.
G
A
G
A
F
A
A
I
C
A
A
A
A
A
F
A
C
D
C
No
Manuel
Manuel
had
put
the
tool
together.
We
have
it
in
our
format.
Now
that
was
awaiting
feedback.
If
anybody
had
anything
to
say
about
it,
and
if
we
can
just
get
on
the
actual
issue
ticket
some
feedback
from
people
saying
and
meet
the
yeah,
we
can
then
agree
to
publish
it
to
NPM,
okay
yeah,
but
right
now,
as
far
as.
A
A
D
A
G
G
And
that's
another
thought
I
had
to
is:
if
we
built
a
service
so
like,
like
I,
have
a
crappy
little
website
up
its
virgin
version-
badges,
yes
and
it
just
you,
give
it
like
a
NPM
package
name,
and
it
gives
you
a
little
SVG
with
the
version
number
of
it.
We
could
do
something
like
that,
like
shields
dot,
IO
or
whatever
for
support
levels.
G
G
G
We
can
make
you
when
you
click
on
the
badge.
It
goes
to
a
landing
page
that
explains
the
support
levels
and
specifically
explains
the
ones
for
the
package
you
clicked
on.
You
know
there's
like
a
of
if
we
make
this
a
nice
pleasant
experience
than
people,
people
like
throwing
badges
on
that
reading
and
when.
A
E
D
E
G
H
F
G
G
A
G
Oh,
it's
fine!
It's
fine!
A
package
phobia
ads
it
I
I
just
mean
like
I,
hope
we
don't
encourage
people
to
use
tools
that
make
them
scared
of
disease.
Yes,
whatever
that
amounts
to,
but
that
doesn't
mean
you
can't
like
type
it
into
this
issue
right
now
or
that
we
can't
explore
it
or
that
we
can't
you.
G
A
A
D
A
A
G
A
So
basically
talk
to
package
phobia
to
see
if
they
would
add
information
from
the
new
field,
but
I
think
that's
that
makes
sense
to
me.
If
it
looked
to
me,
I
was
a
little
confused
because
it
looks
like
it's
all
around
space,
but
if
they
actually
have
other
things
as
well,
then
that
would
make
sense.
D
D
D
A
A
A
Right
so
this
is
sort
of
the
starting
point
of
the
of
the
next
steps.
I
think
if
we
can
think
about
it
and
post
any
other
suggestions
that
you
have
in
there
and
then
we
can
start
working
through
that
list.
It
sounds
like
our
concrete
thing
and
and
I'll
certainly
try
and
do
that
this
week,
it's
like
finalized
review
under
the
tools,
so
we
can
say:
okay
yeah,
that
a
good
starting
point,
and
then
we
can
kind
of
order
the
rest
of
the
list
and
sort
of
start
working
through
it
does
that
make
sense.
Mm-Hmm.